Skip to main content

View Diary: The Gun Responsibility Act of 2013 (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  because cars are are economic necessary (0+ / 0-)

    Making the liability insurance higher would put people out of work since they wouldn't have transportation.  Which would add more cost to society than would be collected from the insurance payouts if the minimum was higher.

    No such argument can be made for guns -- they are entirely discretionary.

    If you don't want the liability, DON'T BUY ONE.  You'll be out absolutely nothing.  Sheesh.

    •  If I live in a high-crime neighboorhood but take (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros

      the subway to work, perhaps the firearm is the economic necessity, seeing as how if I'm dead or disabled the transportation element is irrelevant economically, but my inability to work isn't.

      •  nonsensical (0+ / 0-)

        I don't believe for a moment that ANYONE is safer in any normal location by carrying a gun.

        There are exceptions, but you don't live in Somalia or Afghanistan.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site