deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I feel like you really gave away the punchline at the start there 😂
“I wanna” Trump
“Undue” is a word with a huge range of meaning though. You’re buying a device whose sole purpose is to kill or injure, and it’s exceptionally good at doing those things accidentally. If you want to own a device like that, accident insurance is not all undue.
In fact it’s kinda surprising that people can get guns without it. I feel like in an alternate universe where gun insurance was the norm, people would think it’s insane to remove that requirement. It’s a requirement for cars which are now less deadly than guns and arguably way more important to people’s survival, but people think gun ownership is such a marker of liberty that they’re willing to put the rest of society at risk for it.
It isn’t if they want to own a tool that can accidentally and immediately end a life. The guy below you made a joke about a car and insurance, but that’s actually a great point. Just because you can find a $300 car doesn’t mean you’re absolved from getting insurance in case you crash or kill someone. And that’s a car, something that’s crucial to a lot of people’s survival. Even better argument for a gun.
I appreciate the info because frankly I didn’t know they were that cheap. I still don’t think that absolves someone of being able to pay for an accidental injury/death caused by a tool that’s designed to do specifically that.
Why are “the poors” buying expensive guns? If you’re buying a tool that can accidentally and instantly murder someone very easily, and you have no way to pay for that mistake, then gun ownership is too expensive for you.
Your case is for reasonable vs unreasonable expenses though. When someone can afford thousands for a gun and many other recurring expenses, a $50-100/month policy is completely reasonable. At the very least, it doesn’t separate gun ownership into different wealth classes.
Lemme ruin ‘testicles’ for ya too.
Seriously, we need to return to pre-internet console mentality. You put out an N64 game, it better be goddamn finished. Companies rely way too much on “ehh can just patch it”.
a month
More like 75 years but who’s counting?
Well I Iive in Canada but point taken. I’m still not sure I agree that it’s on the voter to let the worse party win just to support a burgeoning better one. I’d say the responsibility is on that better party to secure their base and show a reasonable chance to win before asking voters to risk the worse party winning.
Voting for any person means you approve of their actions and you are complicit and responsible for them.
I don’t think it means that necessarily. It’s just as valid to vote strategically against an even worse party if they have a chance of winning. It’s not morally contentious to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I don’t think it’s begging when people already want to give it out for free.
Swap Muslim with Jewish and Israel with Palestine and it’s the same problem… to be clear I think both are true but it’s kinda weird to single one out.
I think the comment above is saying what the government would say… which is honestly fairly realistic.
If they’re gonna be forced to be part of the UK, they can also enjoy the privilege of shitting on it like the rest do.
You’re completely missing the point of an analogy. No one is comparing humans to animals. What’s similar is the thought process behind arriving at both conclusions. We could be talking about humans, animals, cars… the subject doesn’t matter, it’s the thought process that’s the same.
Not to say I agree with him but he didn’t compare those two things at all. He said it’s the same mentality that underlies racism and ‘breedism’ for lack of a better word.
Yes, in that it’s a motive for locos