(May 26, 2022 at 9:29 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It would price most people ( but not most mass shooters)out of ownership…..in much the same way that many people ( who would never pull a teenage dui)are priced out of a car.
Another way to put that, is that it places the onus on poor people to do the governments job by leveraging a little class war. I can see how people (and the industry) would object, and on compelling grounds. I know that most farms that have working rifles would be unprofitable if they had to carry liability, too.
Broken record, but…I think we might really want to at least -try- to enforce our gun laws before we decide to go nuclear…. If only so that we have a better picture of exactly where to drop the bomb for greatest effect.
Give the surprisingly low incidence of gun violence in the US, I can’t see carrying liability insurance on firearms constituting an undue financial burden for anyone. I’m sure you could secure a low insurance rate if you took out a volcano policy on a house in Kansas. The US has about 17 000 car accidents per day, but the overwhelming majority of people seem able to insure their automobiles.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
