If we forced gun owners to insure their weapons for liability, the insurance industry would explain - in dollars and cents - how dangerous having a gun in your house is versus NOT having a gun.
If every gun purchaser had to also purchase liability insurance for their death machine (that's what guns literally are), far fewer of them would purchase guns - because they couldn't afford the insurance bite.
I wonder if that's why we've never forced the owners of a device designed to KILL people to take FINANCIAL responsibility for their possession. Cars kill people BY ACCIDENT yet we're all forced - by law - to insure ourselves in case something UNEXPECTED happens.
The gun industry has bamboozled America to literal death.
@Alan it's painting with an overly broad brush to claim that guns are designed to kill people.
That's just not factually solid ground.
Yes, some are, but not all.
@volkris If you go back to the gun's origin - to China between the 10th and 12th centuries - the problem they're trying to solve is how to kill more enemy soldiers while in battle. They'd invented gunpowder during the 9th century. From the first fire lances to later hand cannons, 100% of the new weapon's design was to cause a projectile of some kind to fly forward from the "pointed end" toward an enemy, the point being to ill them dead.
Yes, some "guns" fire flares into the sky. Not every single gun was manufactured with death in mind.
But, even a bb gun can cause serious harm. They can kill.
When you send a small metal pellet flying - at great speed - toward another living thing, though you may not want to kill it, death is still very much a possibility.
You can absolutely argue the semantics. I'm sure there's a better argument in you.
@Alan right, but it's silly to go back to the gun's origin centuries ago to figure out the origin of this modern gun.
It's like saying this nuclear icebreaker ship wasn't designed to break ice seeing as the first boat ever devised, back in ancient history, was designed as a ferry.
The argument is just daft.
@volkris Your argument is that "not all guns are designed to kill people", correct? You object to my "broad brush" generalization that "all guns are designed to kill people" - do I have that right? If so, your objection is duly noted.
