So if someone suggests say, requiring insurance for firearms as a partial solution for gun violence it goes not follow that the same solution will work for alcohol abuse. You're not catching anyone in a trap by raising the question. You're simply trying to conjoin two unrelated things. It makes no sense. There is no logic at all to your arguments. What solution will it provide? You are on record saying it will change behavior. You have not said what behavior change will come about from requiring insurance. What it is is a smoke screen for gun control. You will note that the thread title is 47 guns. What the suggestion really is trying to do is make it so expensive for a person will multiple guns to own them due to the cost of insurance. The insurance solution is a regressive form of a tax against poor people. It won't affect people with higher income. Also the insurance solution is a backdoor way of requiring every gun by law-abiding owners to register their guns. Currently, the government does not have this information. You can see why gun owners do not want this type of solution. It does nothing to reduce gun violence. All it does is give the government a database of guns in this country that they can use in future gun control actions.PSU
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M