Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders’ View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit

[branford]

176. Again, what you are actually proposing is definitely not "insurance."

It doesn't matter what you think it is or what you want to call it, it is not insurance by any standard or definition.

There are 80-100+ million legal firearm owners in the USA, representing about 1 out of every 3 American adults, and about half of all households, with 300+ million legal guns. Only a tiny, infinitesimally small percentage of these people will be in any way responsible for a crime or accident related to their firearms (particularly since most gun crime is by repeat offenders already ineligible to own guns).

You claim "It is unjust to impose the cost of those injuries and deaths ON THE VERY VICTIMS of the guns that cause them." It would be similarly unjust (and largely unconstitutional) to impose these same costs of tens of millions Americans for who have not nor statistically will ever do anything wrong.

I suggest you focus your attention on the very small and decreasing population of violent offenders and/or propose we ALL contribute to the assisting crime victims generally. Most importantly, stop stereotyping and ascribing motives to many millions of your fellow citizens (and read up on the nature and public policy underlying insurance for your own edification).