Because drugs and guns are really different! Mostly it's that it's really hard to make a lot of guns in your basement.
Apart from methamphetamines, I was always under the impression that the vast majority of drugs were imported from outside the country. Certainly for heroin, cocaine, and probably weed. The majority of the Mexican cartel's income is from Marijuana importation into the US. Your argument does not seem to hold up at face value.
I just mean the two aren't equivalent, ease of production is just one thing, didnt mean anything about domestic production vs. smuggling. Its a lot easier to regulate something that requires big ass factories + raw materials and skilled labor. Afghanistan can be the worlds leading heroin supplier, but they don't have the resources to be a significant gun supplier. The trafficking, production, and sale markets just aren't similar enough for a comparison like that.
For example, Portugal made all drugs legal some years back, and since then, addiction and usage has gone dramatically down. If you say drug usage and addiction have some sort of equivalency to gun ownership and violent crime, then loosening gun laws would decrease gun crime. But both the UK and Australia had dramatic decreases to their gun crime rates after imposing really strict country-wide gun laws. One solution does not work for both things. Ban guns, legalize drugs imo!
Don't use my country as an example. It doesn't help your case - because we didn't. Gun crime stayed relatively steady - only an extremely tiny fraction of our gun crime was committed with legal firearms even before the NFA came into effect. As I've previously discussed, we can't even come to a conclusion on if our firearms laws really helped very much at all.
The best thing I read recently on gun control was this essay about the differing views on guns and safety between those who live in cities and those in the county. I understood this already, mostly, but it's good to have someone who has lived in both the city and country explain it clearly.
Don't use my country as an example. It doesn't help your case - because we didn't. Gun crime stayed relatively steady - only an extremely tiny fraction of our gun crime was committed with legal firearms even before the NFA came into effect. As I've previously discussed, we can't even come to a conclusion on if our firearms laws really helped very much at all.
My country says I can use other countries however I want!!
With the state of the US insurance industry, I'm not so sure that this is a good idea, but not for any fault within the idea itself.
Are you just basing that on the state of health insurance, or am I oblivious of some flaw in the American Automotive/Home insurance industry that the rest of the world laughs at?
Are you just basing that on the state of health insurance, or am I oblivious of some flaw in the American Automotive/Home insurance industry that the rest of the world laughs at?
Basing it mostly on what I hear of the industry from Americans, along with a bit from Comsumerist - generally, american insurance companies are total assholes, or so it appears.
Are you just basing that on the state of health insurance, or am I oblivious of some flaw in the American Automotive/Home insurance industry that the rest of the world laughs at?
Basing it mostly on what I hear of the industry from Americans, along with a bit from Comsumerist - generally, american insurance companies are total assholes, or so it appears.
The vast majority of them pretty much suck. There are a few that are great, but they aren't necessarily available to everyone. For example, USAA is really, really good, but it's only available to military families and their dependents. I only have it because my father-in-law is retired Air Force. My wife got access to it through him, and I got access to it through her. Every insurance company I had before that was, well, okay. I never had any real problems with them, but I never needed them much either.
Are you just basing that on the state of health insurance, or am I oblivious of some flaw in the American Automotive/Home insurance industry that the rest of the world laughs at?
Basing it mostly on what I hear of the industry from Americans, along with a bit from Comsumerist - generally, american insurance companies are total assholes, or so it appears.
The vast majority of them pretty much suck. There are a few that are great, but they aren't necessarily available to everyone. For example, USAA is really, really good, but it's only available to military families and their dependents. I only have it because my father-in-law is retired Air Force. My wife got access to it through him, and I got access to it through her. Every insurance company I had before that was, well, okay. I never had any real problems with them, but I never needed them much either.
My father has USAA being retired US Army, he likes them, but for financial reasons I had to get my own insurance. I like Geico so far, being the cheapest coverage I could find, but I haven't had to make a claim yet so I dunno how that will end.
Actually, if your father has USAA, then he can sponsor you for it. That's how my wife and I got it. Our policy is in our name alone. My father-in-law only came into the picture when we needed to prove a relation who served. You may want to look into it.
Gun insurance is stupid. We only require liability insurance on cars and one in seven drivers do not carry it.
Also, only legal gun owners will be impacted. Gun insurance is complete fail of an idea.
How about gun liability reform then? Right now there is no liability for gun owners and manufacturers. They are protected against liability suits by law.
What are we going to hold them liable for? You're already liable for any bullet you fire, why is this insufficient?
Hold them liable for not properly securing a firearm in the event that it is stolen and used in a crime.
This is what we do with cars, by the way: unless a car is reported stolen or has obviously been stolen when it causes damages, the owner is always liable for everything the car does.
Also, leave it to the insurance industry to assess premiums and risks of certain gun owners more accurately than the overly PC government. I'm sure they could easily make incentives to promote training, safety, and knowledge among owners ("Sign up for our plan and get this free locker!").
"I'm all for stronger gun regulations, but it's going to be hard giving up the double pistols on the dance floor. How will I nonchalantly shoot away dance enemies?" - a friend on Facebook.
The best thing I read recently on gun control was this essay about the differing views on guns and safety between those who live in cities and those in the county. I understood this already, mostly, but it's good to have someone who has lived in both the city and country explain it clearly.
This guy summed up a perspective I've been trying to figure out how to express for a while. Gun culture is a totally different ballgame in the countryside.
The best thing I read recently on gun control was this essay about the differing views on guns and safety between those who live in cities and those in the county. I understood this already, mostly, but it's good to have someone who has lived in both the city and country explain it clearly.
This guy summed up a perspective I've been trying to figure out how to express for a while. Gun culture is a totally different ballgame in the countryside.
Comments
For example, Portugal made all drugs legal some years back, and since then, addiction and usage has gone dramatically down. If you say drug usage and addiction have some sort of equivalency to gun ownership and violent crime, then loosening gun laws would decrease gun crime. But both the UK and Australia had dramatic decreases to their gun crime rates after imposing really strict country-wide gun laws. One solution does not work for both things. Ban guns, legalize drugs imo!
Also, only legal gun owners will be impacted. Gun insurance is complete fail of an idea.
Bugs bunny is violent. So is Super Mario Brothers.