SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (867900)6/25/2015 4:42:21 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578302
 
By forcing insurance to cover the damages caused by those intentionally doing harm, you are making all the law-abiding gun owners subsidize the damages caused by the criminals.

Be real. Since when do criminals care about such niceties as insurance? That is yet another attempt by you to distract here.

Now one case where it could come up is like when there is a domestic disturbance that gets solved with a weapon. This is a close analogy to the road rage scenario. But if you want to defend people, usually but not exclusively men, who kill their significant others, that is your call.

The point is that there should be some sort of risk assessment done before someone can get a firearm. Insurance companies are in that business. Any risk can be quantified. In the above case, a historic of domestic abuse would mean pretty high rates. In addition, the risk is very different depending on the firearm, how much ammo it can hold, etc. A single shot .22 is a totally different risk from an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine. And that would be different from a PS90 with 50 rounds. You could try to control the risk via legislation, but that is a difficult and inflexible process. Why not let someone with a stake in the matter, like an insurance company, do it?

As to a loose interpretation of truth and honesty, that is between you and your God. You are the one who has been trying to twist things and put words in my mouth. If that isn't playing fast and loose with the truth, I don't know what is...



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (867900)6/25/2015 4:46:57 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1578302
 
>>By forcing insurance to cover the damages caused by those intentionally doing harm, you are making all the law-abiding gun owners subsidize the damages caused by the criminals.<<

Isn't that exactly what 'no fault' auto insurance does for the criminally uninsured?