Comment: First of all

(See in situ)

First of all

requiring insurance is nonsense as they do not have the authority (will I have to insure my fists as well, your much more likely to hurt someone with them), but what would be the true cost of carrying liability insurance against your legal gun injuring someone? Well like any other cost, it should be set by the market and the price would reflect the risk. The risk of someone being hurt by a legal gun owner (the only ones who would buy insurance) are so remote as to be negligible, surely a policy for this would have to be fractions of a penny or less if priced on the market.

From a post on the web (I didn't check the stats and they are for democrat labeled assault rifles):
"Do you mean, a) "what are the per-capita odds" of being shot with something a Democrat claims is an "assault rifle" over an average year, or do you mean, b) "what are the odds an 'assault rifle' discharge will involve someone being shot?"

Ballpark odds:
a) 0.000001% (estimated per-capita "gun death" per year - including murders, suicides, self-defense, cops killing felons, accidents etc. divided by the estimated portion of firearms use that involves a gun that looks like a military weapon)
b) 0.0000026% (BATFE's estimated number of rounds Americans fire vs numbers of people reportedly shot - again, including including murders, suicides, self-defense, cops killing felons, accidents etc.)

Pulling the trigger of an American's gun is 99.99973% SAFE"

I also see many people on here demonizing insurance here which is easy to do when our markets are so fouled up, but I expect better from dailypaulers. There is nothing "socialist" about market based insurance, recognize that when insurance companies are bailed out,etc...the system breaks just as capitalism in general....."breaks".

Some reading:

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero,