Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-16-2022, 09:42 PM
 
13,961 posts, read 5,625,642 times
Reputation: 8617

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
So, what you are saying is that if you choose to drive the wrong way down a road, I should bear the cost of insuring myself and my vehicle from your actions. You don't live in reality, do you? I would be OK if you were sentenced to life in prison without parole for having an accident without insurance. I should not have to protect myself against your stupidity at my own cost.
Yes, you should bear the cost of insuring yourself.

But examining your absurd appeal to ridicule above...uhm, what good does it do you exactly, if that same scenario occurs and I am insured? Do the physics of a head-on collision change? Is my action any less an initiation of force (which I am genetically incapable of, but I digress) because I carried the financial mitigation tool instead of you? And if you are insured, and the head-on collision was not your fault, your insurance will mitigate your losses, as they should.

Nothing changes for you whether or not I am insured, minus the size of the pockets a lawyer would go after in a civil lawsuit. Is that what bothers you? The lack of a potential dark lottery winning ticket?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2022, 10:24 PM
 
18,562 posts, read 7,372,997 times
Reputation: 11376
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
That's ridiculous on a number of levels chiefly career criminals and other associated scumbags aren't going to buy gun insurance as you noted.

Also insurance roles would be a store of data that LEOs and the feds would not be able to leave alone.
Also it's like requiring people to have insurance to practice their religion or engage in speech. Flagrantly unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2022, 10:25 PM
 
18,562 posts, read 7,372,997 times
Reputation: 11376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Illegal acts are uninsurable.
Negligence is illegal, and it's insurable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2022, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Honolulu, HI
24,630 posts, read 9,458,962 times
Reputation: 22971
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueMom View Post
Lol, most of the people causing the real havoc with guns don't even bother to get driver's licenses to drive....
Or car insurance to drive, or health insurance, or any other insurance.

Only the left would think gun insurance would stop inner city violence
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2022, 11:49 PM
 
19,792 posts, read 18,085,519 times
Reputation: 17279
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9 View Post
Also it's like requiring people to have insurance to practice their religion or engage in speech. Flagrantly unconstitutional.
Right on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2022, 12:15 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,739 posts, read 7,610,204 times
Reputation: 15007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20 View Post
Only the left would think gun insurance would stop inner city violence
They don't care about inner city violence, or any form of crime.

They care about normal people having the means to rise up and drive them out of government. Since the Democrats so constantly legislate against the will of the people, and are always dancing on the edge of getting voted (or worse) out of office. The idea of normal people having guns not controlled by liberals, scares them like nothing else.

Last edited by Roboteer; 01-17-2022 at 12:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2022, 05:30 AM
 
15,437 posts, read 7,491,963 times
Reputation: 19365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Yes, you should bear the cost of insuring yourself.

But examining your absurd appeal to ridicule above...uhm, what good does it do you exactly, if that same scenario occurs and I am insured? Do the physics of a head-on collision change? Is my action any less an initiation of force (which I am genetically incapable of, but I digress) because I carried the financial mitigation tool instead of you? And if you are insured, and the head-on collision was not your fault, your insurance will mitigate your losses, as they should.

Nothing changes for you whether or not I am insured, minus the size of the pockets a lawyer would go after in a civil lawsuit. Is that what bothers you? The lack of a potential dark lottery winning ticket?
Fine. I will move next to you and practice with my rifles and handguns in my backyard. I hope you have armor plate on your house, because it's up to you to protect yourself.

The advantage to me of you having insurance is that my insurance costs less. I will still insure against uninsured motorists, but that's a much lower cost than having to cover all of the costs of insurance against the acts of others. You having insurance means you bear the cost, and if you have multiple accidents, your costs go up with each incident, discouraging you from continuing to drive like an idiot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2022, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Cali
14,229 posts, read 4,593,980 times
Reputation: 8321
I'm sure Tyrone from the Crip gang will be more than glad to buy insurance for his 9mm Hi-Point
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2022, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Cali
14,229 posts, read 4,593,980 times
Reputation: 8321
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Car insurance laws are tyranny? It seems to me that the arguments for requiring owner to insure motor vehicles would apply also to a firearm, or indeed any product that becomes deadly if aimed improperly.
which amendment in the US Constitutions protects you from the government for owning a car?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2022, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Cali
14,229 posts, read 4,593,980 times
Reputation: 8321
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Actually there are...the right to travel, driving is a method of travel.


There is a legal difference between 'driving' and 'traveling'...legally speaking, driving refers to commercial type driving....Traveling is when you or I get into the car to go to work, to the grocery store, etc.
what about "crossing teh state line"?

like if you are an American crossing between states from Illinois to Wisconsin?

asking for a friend
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:39 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top