Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.

  • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    You’d also increase the cost of responsible ownership considerably, while irresponsible owners would be largely unaffected…

      • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The person you’re responding to is right, though: adding insurance costs takes a constitutional right and turns it into a privilege only for those who could afford it. We’ve seen what the insurance industry does with medical insurance, homeowners insurance, and every other type of insurance: they fuck the little guy over every chance they get. So you’re just telling gun owners to throw money at a company that is just going to keep it, rather than tell them to take that money and attend biannual (twice a year) firearm safety training to remain in compliance with their license.

        Not a single person in this thread has talked about subsidizing firearms training and making it mandatory, you all just want less guns in the hands of fewer people. So just say that, instead of hiding behind this false-altruist “Well, it’ll only affect the bad eggs,” yep, that’s why good people are never denied medical treatment from their insurance, because it only effects the bad eggs.

        • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Owning a gun is a privilege. If it wasn’t, they would be distributed gratis. The expense should fall on the individual. Can’t afford it? Get another job. Bootstraps.