Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: i-node who wrote (883872)	8/31/2015 7:19:41 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577025

I did address that. Where am I confused? Sure, some people won't buy insurance. Like some people drive without car insurance. Are you claiming that car insurance only makes it more difficult for people to drive? The people who kill other people with their guns are not going to be buying gun insurance Just stating something doesn't make it true. And this is not a truthful statement. Most homicides, like 71%, are likely committed with a legally acquired weapon. We don't really know because whether or not the weapon was legally acquired isn't tracked. We do know what the circumstances of most homicides, and a large majority are because of arguments over various issues. There is no reason to assume that the gun owner had acquired the gun illegally in those cases. Yeah, in the case of gang violence, the weapon might be illegal, but that isn't necessarily the case. Most of the guns that the Banditos used in Waco were legally acquired. Likewise, homicides during robberies or burglaries are not necessarily carried out with illegally acquired weapons either. Unless you have a felony conviction, guns are very easy to acquire legally. If you make the penalty stiffer if a crime is committed with an uninsured weapon, then compliance is going to be higher.