Should gun owners be required to buy insurance?[W:324]

flogger said:

Your personal insults are only being made because you cannot address the issues and are backpedalling on statements you have already made

You are simply playing to the gallery now because you cannot make a coherent case for your nations continued bloodletting via firearms

Click to expand...

nothing you have ever proposed would make this country safer and most likely would cause a civil war

TurtleDude said:

nothing you have ever proposed would make this country safer and most likely would cause a civil war

Click to expand...

Of course it would just like it has everywhere else.

The only people likely to cause civil war are firearms extremists who see no problem with collecting huge arsenals of unrestricted lethal weaponry despite the almost daily evidence to the contrary

flogger said:

Of course it would just like it has everywhere else.

The only people likely to cause civil war are firearms extremists who see no problem with collecting huge arsenals of unrestricted lethal weaponry despite the almost daily evidence to the contrary

Click to expand...

Evidence?

flogger said:

Of course it would just like it has everywhere else.

The only people likely to cause civil war are firearms extremists who see no problem with collecting huge arsenals of unrestricted lethal weaponry despite the almost daily evidence to the contrary

Click to expand...

What weaponry isn't lethal?

What daily evidence of civil war? If there is going to be a civil war, who will win?

Rucker61 said:

What weaponry isn't lethal?

What daily evidence of civil war? If there is going to be a civil war, who will win?

Click to expand...

You like the idea of of having the facility to kill each other easily whereas the rest of the civilised world knows that thats a bad thing so where do we go from here ?

flogger said:

You like the idea of of having the facility to kill each other easily whereas the rest of the civilised world knows that thats a bad thing so where do we go from here ?

Click to expand...

has any poster come out and said "yes we like having the facility to kill each other easily"? can you find one post where anyone has said that?

TurtleDude said:

has any poster come out and said "yes we like having the facility to kill each other easily"? can you find one post where anyone has said that?

Click to expand...

Are you kidding ? You endlessly fantasise about the lethality of your respective armouries with one another so you can hardly play that card with a straight face r

flogger said:

Are you kidding ? You endlessly fantasise about the lethality of your respective armouries with one another so you can hardly play that card with a straight face r

Click to expand...

you are not being honest in what I have said and you have continued to fail to back up your claims about pro gun posters.

TurtleDude said:

you are not being honest in what I have said and you have continued to fail to back up your claims about pro gun posters.

Click to expand...

Isn't it annoying when another poster lies about your stance on something? That's what it's like when you constantly tell people that they are lying and they really just want to snatch up all the guns.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

TurtleDude said:

you are not being honest in what I have said and you have continued to fail to back up your claims about pro gun posters.

Click to expand...

You have no idea how full the ignore file has gotten lately. I can't suffer fools or rude behavior any longer.

Cars and guns are equally susceptible to misuse. Why is it okay for the one and not for the other?

Silky said:

Cars and guns are equally susceptible to misuse. Why is it okay for the one and not for the other?

Click to expand...

Alcohol kills more people than guns, and is just behind automobiles for fatalities.

Should people take out a policy for a bottle of Jack Daniels in your world?

Silky said:

Cars and guns are equally susceptible to misuse. Why is it okay for the one and not for the other?

Click to expand...

The insurance industry will not pay out for damages caused by deliberate acts of violence. They won't even issue policies for this.

Rucker61 said:

The insurance industry will not pay out for damages caused by deliberate acts of violence. They won't even issue policies for this.

Click to expand...

What? If a driver intentionally runs over people the insurance company will not pay damages?

vegas giants said:

What? If a driver intentionally runs over people the insurance company will not pay damages?

Click to expand...

"Wherever these proposals surface, insurers have been telling lawmakers that such approaches would not only violate basic insurance principles but also be unworkable.

“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.

According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.

“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”


https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/10/287849.htm