Gun crime liability makes as much sense as auto accident liability. Yes, it is a bit of a bias against guns to required it only for crimes with guns, and not to require insurance re crimes more generally.https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/san-jose-mayor-proposes-first-of-its-kind-ordinance-mandating-liability-insurance-for-gun-owners/ …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @DeanBradleySFF
Everything is different in some ways. Question is how relevant is the difference.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @DeanBradleySFF
I don't see the relevance of "dim views". If the insurance is required, it will in fact be provided.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson @DeanBradleySFF
Yeah using private insurance companies as the instrument of policy has worked great for American healthcare
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bitemyapp @DeanBradleySFF
Do you advocate repealing the requirement for auto liability insurance?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
jumping in uninvited, I'd like to see polycentric law, where some road networks require insurance and some do not ...and, likewise, privately owned "commons" where some require gun-carry insurance to carry, some allow carry without it, and some forbid carry
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Sure, I'd like to see such things as well. But it is a someone separate issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
concur; a self-admitted tangent
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.