The one about how insurance would help fix the problem? I'm not sure it would, now that we've sortof bounced the concept around. I was approaching it as adding a market-driven cost of ownership with financial repercussions and rewards solely dependant the owner's proven level of responsibility. Easiest analog seemed to be automotive insurance -- make good decisions and your cost goes down, make bad decisions and you cost goes up. At the end of the day it is the responsibility of the CITIZENS (in this case, firearms owners/dealers), not the government, to ensure that firearms don't end up in the hands of criminals. Pressing accountability on that side seems to be a more direct solution than after-the-fact punishment of people who use guns to commit crimes. That's not a preventative measure, it's punitive.AppleBonker wrote:Chad, you never answered my question above...
I'm open to any other suggestions, seriously. The problem is that one side wants almost limitless and unregulated access to firearms and the other extreme wants none. As usual for this era, what's missing from the discussion is the moderate, IMPLEMENTABLE, solutions to the problem.
I gave you the solution to your worm issue like DAYS ago...AppleBonker wrote:Tell that to my worms...93coupe wrote:Prescription drugs aren't needed. Just saying.




