Saved 2500 bucks a year just moving to Virginia back in 2006.

On my homeowner's policy.

How about you, SecularMotion?

That said, I feel that everyone who isn't bedridden should have liability insurance. Not mandated by law; it just makes financial sense.

Homeowners have a lot to lose, and renter's insurance is dirt cheap.

if they had to, it would cost nearly nothing because legal public carry does not represent a threat to public safety.

If you did legislate such a requirement, the insurance would be pitifully cheap.

My insurance company didn't even ask if I owned firearms for any of the policies I own, including my million dollar umbrella policy.

If it was an actuarial risk of any consequence, I'm sure they'd ask.

But they probably figured out that people who buy insurance policies probably don't get involved in much firearm crime.

. . . yell controversial political statements around a heated election probably carry a greater risk of getting their asses kicked while in public. Or waving signs, wearing shirts, handing out pamphlets etc with certain messages on them.

That would require greater expenses on our part to cover the cost of police enforcement, a trial for the people who attack him, and so on.

Ergo anyone who holds controversial views should first be required to pay a small fee to the government to cover these unlikely but possible expenses before they are allowed to publicly express an opinion.


Charging people an undefined amount to prior to allowing them their freedoms isn't fascism because we won't allow anyone to call it that (without paying an exorbitant fee).

Oh, sorry- I forgot- you don't have any, and neither does any other American, because deliberately trying to impede exercise of a Constitutionally protected activity is a no-no.

Fortunately for us freedom lovers, you lot have been rather loose-lipped about wanting an insurance requirement for precisely such a reason. For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021012742#post127

Strangely enough, when such insurance is offered, you complain about that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002803907

I haven't seen such self-contradiction on the subject of guns outside Mitt Romney's collected press releases..

Traffic deaths are DOWN, but you are still FAR more likely to be killed in a car crash than in a violent attack by someone misusing a firearm.

Nationally, there were 31,672 firearm deaths reported in 2010. That same year there were 35,498 motor vehicle deaths nationwide.

Very few of the motor vehicle deaths were suicides, whereas about half of the firearm deaths were.

I won't say it's impossible per se but it is far less likely than using a gun for self-defense.

Really they ought to only count unjustified murders/homicides (and exclude self-defense and suicide).

Of course that would greatly reduce the number of firearm deaths, hurting their argument.

....when you suicide with a gun it's the gun's fault....so if you jump off a bridge or tall building who's fault is it?

Accidental car deaths US 2010: 32,885
Accidental firearm deaths US 2010: 650

There is no provision in the Constitution allowing for the construction of a structure over five stories -- how many floors does anyone REALLY need?

And one of the worlds largest buildings, the pentagon, has virtually no civilian usage?

Josh, why don't we treat it as a mental health issue and advocate for better health care?

just look at Japan.