Cruentus
Grandmaster
I was listening to talk radio as I often do while driving, and a caller had made the claim that "Gun owners should be required to have manditory insurance, in case of an acccidental shooting and someone gets hurt." The logic she presented was that because we are required to have car insurance and homeowners/property insurance due to the risk of someone getting hurt in an accident or on the property.
I of course think this is absurd, and is a slippery slope. We might as well have to have insurance for lawn mowers and every thing else that could hurt someone.
Anyone else think this is a nutty proposition (or a sane one)? If so, how would you argue one point or the other?
Just curious...
I of course think this is absurd, and is a slippery slope. We might as well have to have insurance for lawn mowers and every thing else that could hurt someone.
Anyone else think this is a nutty proposition (or a sane one)? If so, how would you argue one point or the other?
Just curious...