View Single Post
Old 02-09-2009, 08:28 AM   #44 (permalink)
dksuddeth
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid View Post
Despite the actuarially indisputable fact that gun owners are vastly more likely than non-gun-owners to be involved in gun-related injury?
That is about as relevant as claiming that car owners are vastly more likely to be involved in an auto accident than non car owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid View Post
I'm not personally pro- or anti-gun, but the fact is, if I'm an insurance company and I want to know what level of risk I'm taking on your policy, I want to know your likelihood of getting your head blown off and one way of getting at that is to determine your gun ownership. It's not politics or some tin-hat "societal manipulation": it's BUSINESS. You know, that thing you think is GOOD and will SAVE US?
and as long as the insurance market stays free and open, gun owners will be free to find insurance companies that suit them by NOT asking those questions. Not so with a closed market under single payer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid View Post
I'm talking about insurance companies here. I don't know anything about the "doctors basing their diagnosis" part of your post. That sounds like a response to some anecdote I haven't heard.
since you're neither pro or anti gun and most likely do not follow that issue, I'm not surprised that you've not heard of it happening. It's simply not on your radar.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76