Oh, bullshit. Indeed, your dishonesty is why I cannot respect you - ascribing to me motivations you've conjured up out of thin air is textbook bad faith.
You're simply lying when you accuse me of wanting to "grab guns". I want no such thing. I propose a regime of registration and insurance for exactly the purpose I stated - to allocate and mitigate risk. The Constitution does not give anyone the right to expose others to deadly risk without compensation.
I would suggest that those who want to avoid deadly risk not f*ck with the right to keep and bear arms.
See how simple that is?
You never answered how I would compensate someone for "risk", a possibility of loss or injury : peril; someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard.
You cannot compensate for risk, only damage. In the absence of damage, the real risk was zero. How would your insurance company pay for
almost hitting another car?
OMG! You were only ten feet away! If your engine is running the whole planet is at risk!
Mighta, coulda, almost, purt'near, phooey!
Let's look at some real risks. According to this data
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8, for instance, in 2011 323 people were killed with rifles in the US. Note, too, that 728 people were killed with hands and feet in the same year in the US.
This means that people walking around with hands and feet are more than twice as dangerous as people who have rifles.
Which means that hand and foot insurance should be at least twice as much as rifle insurance.
Because everyone with hands and feet places the population at twice the risk of a rifle owner.
See how bloody silly that is?
