XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns, alt.politics.republicans
XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 6/6/22 2:05 PM, Hogwash Sales & Service wrote:
> From: super70s
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-
> limbaugh,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.g
> uns,alt.politics.usa.republican
> Subject: America's Gun Problem: Require Proof of Liability Insurance?
> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2022 12:05:30 -0500
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 91
> Message-ID: september.org>
> Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-
> host="152.97.152.125"; logging-data="394669"; mail-complaints-
> to="abuse@eternal-september.org"
> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (PPC Mac OS X)
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> On 06 Jun 2022, super70s posted some
> news:super70s-6EC206.12053006062022@reader01.eternal-september.org:
>
>> America's Gun Problem
>> If common sense won't stop us from selling a semiautomatic rifles to
>> dangerous people, then maybe requiring proof of insurance will
>> Betsy Phillips
>> Nashville Scene
>> May 31, 2022
>>
>> Well, we're back here again, in the shadow of another horrific gun
>> crime. It's never the time to talk about guns. Too soon and all. If it
>> bugs you that I'm talking about America's gun problem so soon after the
>> Uvalde massacre, just console yourself that I waited a polite amount of
>> time after the Buffalo massacre.
>>
>> But here are some things we need to look square at. First, we are beyond
>> the point at which the government can provide any meaningful gun
>> control. Even if the conservative fantasy came true and the government
>> made guns illegal and went door to door to take them, even if everyone
>> cooperated (unlikely) and all law enforcement officers were willing to
>> do it (also unlikely), the physical task of confiscating the guns, when
>> we have an estimated 120 guns for every 100 Americans, is pretty close
>> to impossible. Gun laws, as they stand now, tend to be stupid because
>> they are written by people who don't understand guns. You can see this
>> even now when people are calling for a ban on assault weapons or
>> military-style weapons. If we're just banning guns based on looks, well,
>> a gun can look like whatever the manufacturer decides to make it look
>> like.
>>
>> Second, there is no "good guy with a gun." That is a myth. If police
>> officers standing around letting a gunman have more than an hour
>> unchecked in an elementary school while they kept distraught parents
>> away doesn't prove that to you, then you have your head up your ass.
>>
>> Third, gun regulations do work. The Uvalde shooter waited until he was
>> 18 to buy the guns he used in the massacre because he had to. That was
>> the law, and no one around him would buy him a gun before then. The
>> thing so many of these massacres have in common is that they're
>> committed by young men with guns they've had a short time. There is an
>> opportunity for intervention here.
>>
>> Fourth, the gun rights people seem willing to concede that, even if guns
>> can't be regulated, the people who buy guns can be. That's why they keep
>> saying that this isn't a gun problem; it's a mental health problem. Or
>> it's the video games or the violent music or whatever. Guns don't kill
>> people. People kill people. OK, fine, let's then regulate the people.
>>
>> Because there is a thing we could do about guns right now that wouldn't
>> require any confiscation or regulation of weapons: Pass a law requiring
>> gun owners to carry liability insurance (as one California city has
>> already done). If your gun harms anyone, your fellow citizens want to
>> know that we taxpayers aren't going to be on the hook for the costs
>> associated with the injuries or deaths caused by that weapon. Your
>> insurance will cover it.
>>
>> Make it so a gun buyer has to show proof of insurance before the
>> transaction can be completed, and all sellers are responsible for
>> getting proof of insurance. And then let the actuarial tables sort this
>> all out.
>>
>> You're a 50-year-old rancher in Montana with a couple of handguns for
>> self-protection and rifles and shotguns for hunting? You've been married
>> almost 30 years and all your kids are out of the house and you don't
>> have grandkids yet? Your insurance premiums for those guns would be
>> quite low. You're a demographic with very little risk of gun injury.
>>
>> But if you're an 18-year-old guy with no previous gun ownership who has
>> his heart set on an AR-15? Well, those insurance premiums are going to
>> be through the roof. Maybe settle on something a little less intense.
>>
>> If you sell a gun to a person who turns around and shoots up a
>> supermarket, you better have proof he showed you his insurance, or all
>> those families are coming after you. If your idea of a fun afternoon is
>> letting your friends shoot your Barrett .50 cal in your back field,
>> you'd better be damn sure you've checked behind what you're shooting at
>> and that your insurance policy covers other users who have your
>> permission.
>>
>> Basically, my idea is to use insurance companies and actual monetary
>> pressure to get gun owners to exhibit the kind of thinking and care for
>> others that ought to just come with being a person in a society. If
>> common sense won't stop you from selling a semiautomatic rifle to a
>> young man who lives in the suburbs, then maybe needing proof of
>> insurance will. And if common sense won't stop you from buying a
>> semiautomatic weapon the second you turn 18, maybe the insurance
>> premiums will.
>>
>> It is literally insurance companies' job to assess risk. We don't need
>> to reinvent the wheel here -- just give them gun owners to assess. Take
>> it out of the realm of politics and maybe we'll see some meaningful
>> cultural changes.
>
> One of the STUPIDEST DEMOCRAT ideas YET.
>
> Again, the Democrats fail to address the primary problem - BEHAVIOR.
>
> Insurance penalizes the law abiding citizen because of the actions of
> MISBEHAVING criminals.
>
> CRIMINALS don't give a damn about LAWS.
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
