Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Walt, I shit you not. And it makes a certain bizarre sense: someone's got to pay for the quadripligic's care. He can't work.
|
I live in a country with publicly funded healthcare and that still doesn't make sense. Shouldn't his own insurance pay? Or barring that, his family? I mean, offloading the cost of care to the victim just because the victim had the bigger vehicle is just...bizarre.
On topic, in a perfect world if you could prove that killing or maiming another person in self defence is actually justified then the implement used to do the killing or maiming shouldn't be relevant. Guns
are for killing, but that doesn't mean that a croquet mallet or oversized spork can't be used to kill a man, or that death by spork is somehow more humane or less bloodthirsty. The bottom line is whether or not the killing itself is justifiable, and everything else is a distraction.
That is in a perfect world. Sadly, our world is not it.
Is there some sort of liability insurance that one can carry for this sort of thing? It seems like it'd be a good investment for those who wish to carry around weapons for self defence.