guns and the social economics of mandatory liability insurance and taxation

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

8. are you being humorous?

I don't want mandatory liability insurance or taxation on hands, fit, feet; although I understand some martial artists could be regarded in that sense. A boxer who hits someone is treated in law a bit differently than joe Q public.

However the lethality is so significantly different, as is the quality and quantity of damage -- can you find anything that approaches the dollar value of destruction in hands, fists, feet? Again knive don't quite figure into costs the way firearms do. When was the last time you saw a mass killing with bare hands, or even knives? I think the injuries to the children in China show how much less lethal they tend to be.

If there were a specific type of bladed weapon that an actuary found to be used in violent crime on a par with what was used in Aurora, Newton, and most recently the shooting of firemen then you would have a point - but you don't. Additionally, where there is a marked difference is that a ranged weapon allows the user to fire without being in proximity to any reciprocal harm; fists, feet, or guns do not.

Although I've know a few people who had unusually stinky feet that might qualify as a weapon, although that was not their intent.

Try again jody; this doesn't pass the stinky feet and hands/fists smell test.