Insurance companies and law-abiding gun owners
March 1st, 2009 | by Rick |kateysfirearmsfacts asked:
Insurance companies don’t consider law-abiding gun owners to be dangerous, so why does our government?
BRIAN
25 Responses to “Insurance companies and law-abiding gun owners”
By ELISEO on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
ALLEN
Hey dumb *** 30 hunting accidents are caused by accident. how many “murders” involving guns do you hear about a year that were accidents? hummm NONE! do you intend on getting into an automobile accident? NO! chill bro she is right. your point is null and void.
By JERRY on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
RILEY
Who r u talking to. If it is the girl in the video then you r the idiot. (If not then this doesn’t apply to u) But this is exactly the point she is making. Guns are not dangerous, even ‘capitalist swine’ insurance companies that want to raise the rates for any little teeny tiny risk don’t consider guns a big risk. So why does the government?
By JEFFRY on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
CLINT
Thank you for stating that. I wish the best to Bruce and his family.
C-68 should be shot down.
By NUMBERS on Mar 4, 2009 | Reply
KERRY
Because on average, there are only about 30 hunting/target shooting accidents a year. GTFO OFF THE INTERNET, AND BEFORE YOU COME BACK, DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH YOU DUMB BIMBO *****.
By SCOTTY on Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
TERRY
Cause Insurance Companies only care about making money.
By LEOPOLDO on Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
DICK
Good point!
By JAMAR on Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
GARTH
Wrong. Search JFPO. Check out this user: jpfo1776 or watch?v=6GMkvm66ZwU or watch?v=H2ZF_mjEGP4
By RICKY on Mar 8, 2009 | Reply
RUBEN
you obviously know nothing of Bruce or his daughter..he was totally against her doing this she took this project on with the help of family friends..get your facts straight before you start spouting B.S.
By SIDNEY on Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
BILLY
Jews consider non Jews slaves, thus they want them disarmed.
By CRAIG on Mar 13, 2009 | Reply
JARVIS
does somebody want to explain to me why, as soon as my home insurance provider found out I had a valid restricted PAL and firearms on the premesis, my rate went from $326 to $1914 a year?
By CARMINE on Mar 15, 2009 | Reply
SANFORD
By far, read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime,” or his other book “The Bias Against Guns.” Here is a very short list of other things that kill more children every year:
Swiming pools
Cars
Cigarette Lighters (children start fires with them)
Less than 1 inch of water (babies in the bathtub)
5 gallon buckets (same principal as above)
Pastic bags
and one other: abortion clinics (I’m pro-choice, but most anti-gun people are as well, and they comment about kids killed by guns)
By BRIAN on Mar 16, 2009 | Reply
BENJAMIN
As usual, you resort to insults.
Grow up, son.
By HUGO on Mar 17, 2009 | Reply
ARTURO
Here’s your problem.
You are obvious, which keeps the reasoning behind my claim from becoming specious.
By MITCH on Mar 19, 2009 | Reply
ROB
How is taking your comments and extrapolating that you are an immature know it all different from your taking a few short videos by Katey and assuming she’s been brainwashed (especially when you can’t argue with facts, only with ad hominem)?
By HERIBERTO on Mar 19, 2009 | Reply
PHILLIP
The difference is you’re saying there isn’t any reason SAVE that her father has evilly brainwashed her. Yet this video gives reasons. But instead of dealing with her reasons, you have instead maintained that Katey is not capable of rational thought, though she has given reason and you have given a logical fallacy.
What you SHOULD do is rebut her facts–like show how insurance is different in Vermont (where many don’t even need a permit for a gun) to show why she’s wrong, if you can.
By FELIPE on Mar 23, 2009 | Reply
STEVIE
Thanks for outlining my own arguement, I didn’t know there was proper name for it but if I looked it up I could quite easily find it. I don’t see why that makes any difference to the facts she’s presenting, but why would he do this; recruit his daughter into his campaign? Playing on the safety of an innocent girl, maybe? Making a parent feel paranoid that there are infinitely many people out there to get her (from the **** videos)? I’m not trying to make her look bad, or myself look better.
By JEFFERY on Mar 25, 2009 | Reply
BRYAN
The reason why I think this is essentially because it says at the end of the video that it is brought to you by her father’s website. Is he paying for the videos (since when does it cost anything), writing them? I don’t know, but to me refering to Katey in the third person in the description reveals a rather obvious answer.
By RODRICK on Mar 27, 2009 | Reply
GUILLERMO
I don’t need suggestions to grow up from you, who is debating a bored-from-studying 1st year uni kid on the youtube comments section of a video about gun control in a country you don’t even live in. Oh, and aren’t you assuming that I assume too much about others and that I have all the answers? Or sorry, you “know” this from a few sentences. You see my name, you see my age, opinions, and from that I am condemned to immaturity.
By SEAN on Mar 28, 2009 | Reply
MATTHEW
uskidsknow16, you’re using an *ad hominem* argument. Such is considered a logical fallacy. If you don’t like what she says, then come up with a rebuttal with your own facts instead of trying to change the subject by attacking Katey.
Right now, Katey looks so much better because she has facts, and as you say yourself, intelligence on her side, while all you have is personal attacks.
By DARRELL on Mar 29, 2009 | Reply
COLLIN
Your contention is extremely presumptuous.
“She is a spokesperson for her father or whomever decided to take on this issue.”
How would you know enough about her to make such an assertion?
Without any basis to prove your claim, your remark is nothing more than a libelous insult and it will be treated as such.
As for your thought process, you let out enough in your responses to render a rather clear picture of that.
It’s rather obvious that you talk first before you think.
By MARIO on Mar 31, 2009 | Reply
JERMAINE
I wasn’t talking about HER, nor was I talking about Canada.
I was talking about YOU.
You assume too much about others and think that you have all the answers.
Well, again, things are never as simple as you suggest.
My suggestion to you: grow up!
By MOISES on Apr 1, 2009 | Reply
RICH
Do you live in Canada? Do you realize that she is speaking against gun control HERE and not in the states? I could literally care less about gun control there (except for the fact that so many illegal firearms end up across the boarder). Perhaps weak gun laws in the states might be better suited to the mentality of the american population. Its people like the maker(s) of this video that I see as a threat to the Canadian way of life, and fortunately, they are the MINORITY.
By ROY on Apr 4, 2009 | Reply
RANDOLPH
I was not implying that all “progun” people are that way from propoganda; but that the girl appearing in this video is just a “spokesperson” for her father or whomever has decided to take on this issue. Its not that hard to figure that out, and it appears to be working….Your other statement would be valid if you knew my thought process, which, I’m sure, you do not. Just because I have chosen a side in an arguement does not mean that I have completely disregarded other opinions.
By IRVING on Apr 4, 2009 | Reply
DAMIEN
You’re 18.
Personal experience in your case is limited and, the problem with opinion is that it may not be representative of reality without conclusive, verifiable data to back it up. Your assertion is rather arrogant and selfish in itself.
As for guns not being a part of your life, that’s fine. But, don’t assume that’s the way for everyone else.
I’m not out to make a utopian view but to say that everyone has different needs and wants.
Things are never as simple as you suggest.
By RONALD on Apr 5, 2009 | Reply
DEWEY
Under the same argument, I could claim YOU couldn’t arrive at your conclusions unless someone forced you to.
Allow me to elaborate: since you can’t agree with her contention and can’t fathom that anyone, according to YOUR standards, can have an opinion that differs with yours without some kind of coercion reveals a warped sensibility.
In other words, you think you know what’s best for everyone.
As for this video, if the contention were what you agree with, you’d be saying the exact opposite.