"Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope,
as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify
for lower rates. "

ROFL

Yeah, because folks who are hell bent on killing as many people as
possible give two sh*ts about purchasing insurance :D

Awwww man, I can't shoot up the bus full of Nuns because my
insurance premiums would go up ! :D

IMO, insurance is nothing more than a tax in disguise.


It's interesting to note that anytime anti-gun types use
cars to compare with guns, they use the insurance and license
requirements as an argument. If we do it for cars why not
guns ?

Yet, when the pro-gun types point out how many people die
from cars every year, we get a non-stop ration of sh*t from
the same folks stating it's an apples vs oranges argument.

So which is it ?

Last edited by Daye; 02/21/13 11:59 AM.