• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

If you can afford a gun, you can afford the $5-100 insurance.

MDMH, should poor people not have to pay car insurance?

Shifting the focus of gun reform to the FINANCIAL cost of gun related harm is stupifying. I realize that Delaney is a goddamned lizard brain, but I have higher moral expectations for literally every other person here.
 
Shifting the focus of gun reform to the FINANCIAL cost of gun related harm is stupifying. I realize that Delaney is a goddamned lizard brain, but I have higher moral expectations for literally every other person here.

It's not either or. It's about comprehensive changes.

It makes ZERO sense not to require insurance for a product that is meant to kill. To think people shouldn't have insurance on a gun or rifle is stupifying.
 
It's not either or. It's about comprehensive changes.

It makes ZERO sense not to require insurance for a product that is meant to kill. To think people shouldn't have insurance on a gun or rifle is stupifying.

What makes zero sense is having products that are meant to kill humans for sale without limitation on the open market.
 
It's not either or. It's about comprehensive changes.

It makes ZERO sense not to require insurance for a product that is meant to kill. To think people shouldn't have insurance on a gun or rifle is stupifying.

Insurance for what? Criminal negligence? Attempted murder? What gun crimes are going to be covered by small fee liability insurance? In the midst of this paragraph can you not see how ridiculous and off kilter this topic is? It's not gun reform, it's the lunatic ravings from brain poisoning.
 
Hope to see similar messaging coming from the Bennet, Hickenlooper, Bullock, Ryan, Delaney, de Blasio, Gillibrand, Moulton, and Sestak campaigns soon...

Fun fact, Gravel had more donors than anyone on your list save Gillibrand.

I hope he let the teens running his campaign pay themselves a salary.
 
What makes zero sense is having products that are meant to kill humans for sale without limitation on the open market.

I don't disagree, but banning all guns will not happen this century in America.

There is no place in any society for general citizens to have military style weapons. It should also be illegal to produce guns that be modified to shoot more or handle bigger bullet delivery systems.
 
Last edited:
That horrible yo mama joke makes Milhouse’s point.
 
Using that logic, having auto insurance doesn't stop drunk driving. So, no more car insurance.
 
Using that logic, having auto insurance doesn't stop drunk driving. So, no more car insurance.

That’s ridiculous and you completely miss the point. i’m not against requiring insurance for gun ownership. I think it’s a great idea. But expecting gun insurance to be a deterrent to mass murder is also ridiculous.
 
Gun insurance isn’t a liberal idea. The point is to privatize determination of risk. I’m a big believer in legislating by incentivizing the outcome you want. Insurance companies will issue affordable policies to people who they deem responsible based on criteria they will select as professional risk managers. Those who are not responsible will either have to pay a lot more for insurance or won’t get a gun. Sorry.

Attacking lawyers who represent injured people as part of the argument against involving the insurance industry is an ad hominem attack and makes you look stupid.
 
I forgot to add. I don’t believe gun insurance will prevent these mass murder/terrorist acts. I think it will help to prevent the much more common and equally tragic accidental gun deaths, as well as suicides.
 
I forgot to add. I don’t believe gun insurance will prevent these mass murder/terrorist acts. I think it will help to prevent the much more common and equally tragic accidental gun deaths, as well as suicides.

This. It’s fair to debate the merits of it especially that it may be a handout to big insurance. But it’s not fair to dismiss it because it won’t single handedly stop mass shootings.
 
This. It’s fair to debate the merits of it especially that it may be a handout to big insurance. But it’s not fair to dismiss it because it won’t single handedly stop mass shootings.

It might encourage mass shootings if there is a deductible per incident...murderers might save up there murders and go on a spree, only having to pay a single deductible/copay rather than 10 separate incidents.
 
That’s ridiculous and you completely miss the point. i’m not against requiring insurance for gun ownership. I think it’s a great idea. But expecting gun insurance to be a deterrent to mass murder is also ridiculous.

There are only a couple of ways it can be a deterrent. The first is to be able to hold the gun manufacturers responsible for building their weapons in a way they can repurposed into more dangerous arms. The other way is for parents to keep all their weapons locked up to avoid their kids getting a hold of them and shooting up schools or playgrounds.

It will never be a deterrent to the wackos in El Paso or Dayton. but if they make manufacturers re-design their products or keep a family's guns and rifles locked up, then it's worth it.
 
There are only a couple of ways it can be a deterrent. The first is to be able to hold the gun manufacturers responsible for building their weapons in a way they can repurposed into more dangerous arms. The other way is for parents to keep all their weapons locked up to avoid their kids getting a hold of them and shooting up schools or playgrounds.

It will never be a deterrent to the wackos in El Paso or Dayton. but if they make manufacturers re-design their products or keep a family's guns and rifles locked up, then it's worth it.

I don’t think that’s an insurance issue, that is liability... allowing manufacturers, merchants and gun owners to be sued if a gun they made or owned was used in a way that caused injury or death to another person. The republicans passed a law a few years back preventing manufacture liability lawsuits. Manufacturer and distributer liability could be a major deterrent to the production and sale of weapons like the AR15 if they were held responsible every time one was used to kill some one, let alone 34 people.
 
The way you all are describing gun insurance is just the federal government contracting out risk assessment background checks to private insurance companies and then means testing gun ownership instead of just regulating it. Liberals adopting shitty market solutions instead of governing - as predictable as the tide

Yeah the liberals are the ones trying to privatize all those traditional government functions.
 
Back
Top