Destiny Reacts To INSANE Trump Sympathizer And More

[@Biomechanic2010]

How bad is your attention span? The insurance doesnt stop gun deaths directly- it would make insurance companies lobby for gun regulation to decrease their payout frequency. The argument was that it would take that magnitude of lobbying funding to be effective in producing gun reform

[@rwtaka18]

Vg just likes to hear himself talk holy shit

[@shang0h]

Hmm, where do illegal guns come from? They're mostly stolen from people. If there's an additional financial incentive to keep your stuff properly secured for insurance reasons, just one less way for guns to get stolen. Needs more analysis but sounds like potentially not the worst idea. And I'm speaking as someone who would have a pretty big policy.

[@radicalleftovers1016]

Also, it would prevent straw buyers. They would have to leave the gun shop with an insurance policy for every firearm they just purchased. If they were to just cancel the policy immediately after, that would raise red flags. Even if they cancelled the policy later on that would necessitate a legitimate sale to someone and that would create a paper trail. Let's say the insurance companies had a policy that was effectively close to zero, for long term storage or something where the gun is going unused for years on end, when that gun shows up in a crime it's going to be bad news for the policy holder. Of course, tampered or destroyed serial numbers would pose a problem but that can be fixed by having a duplicate serial number etched where the gun owner can't access it without destroying the weapon on disassembly. Insurance is actually a good policy proposal

[@dinglemccringleberryjr.8632]

how would having insurance on a gun incentivize someone to make sure it stays safe

[@RotGodKing]

Not to mention you're more likely to report it as well. Yeah, you should already be reporting a stolen gun to the police in case it's used in a crime but there would now be a huge financial incentive to reporting it as well.

[@faketheo3432]

I'm in favor of legalizing post-natal abortions up to 960 months

[@coachmanedontplay]

@32:39 the fact that Dan thinks these 30 minutes clips aren’t being received well by the audience yet is completely oblivious to the fact that he’s the worst most annoying cohost to ever exist on the show he’s currently on with destiny is insane. Blood boiling.

[@Loengrinn]

I understand they're friends, but Dan being on the AE podcast actually keeps me from subbing for it. And I hate when he joins the stream on the regular channel. He's unironically the left version of the people Destiny complains about: low information high conviction opinions. And he can't be bothered to look things up to even confirm his preconceptions. It typically takes a lot for me to dislike someone, and Dan well exceeds that threshold, I think he'd get much better views with a different co-host.

[@xkarasu9705]

110% Dan is spineless and boring af

[@og666]

redbull and soylent ❤

[@erikjohnson1684]

VG is literally Canadian. Idk why he thinks Americans haven’t seen guns, I know at least half a dozen people who have been robbed at gunpoint that aren’t involved in crime or a gang. I heard gunshots while clocking out of work yesterday 😂

[@ashergaines593]

Bro get out of the ghetto 😭. That is not the typical American experience.

[@carterrichardson5367]

I’ll go the other direction from VG and say that if you don’t care about firearms deaths you’ve probably never been shot at or known someone whose died from them. I’ve seen kids as young as 8 shoot themselves when I was an EMT, and I’m sorry but it’s super easy to lackadaisically whine about white girl not liking loud noises, but when you have a dead 8 year old in your ambulance you’d probably want to stop something like that from ever happening again

[@nathantripathy]

Love how VG hand waves 500+ deaths. More feels bs that he takes he thinks is intelligent and well reasoned.

[@Biomechanic2010]

His argument involving cars had me stunned. The culture of cars allows us to exercise freedom, absent the risk, which we're effective in decreasing year-to-year. We can go where we want when we want to. Guns exclusively deny people their freedoms- justly when used correctly and unjustly when not. He was arguing for increased gun regulation despite his efforts.

[@Scardor]

2:14 But why would someone who earns 9 times more spend 10 times more? 😊

[@hrolfthestrange]

Vegan gains always has the worst takes. There are SEVERAL ways that insurance would help and that requires understanding insurance at all: 1. It's just another point of contact and cost for obtaining a gun if insurance is required at the point of purchase, this would lessen guns obtained by straw purchasers and make it possible to regulate informal transactions more. Most 'illegally obtained' guns aren't stolen they are purchased via legal mechanisms and then given to someone else. 2. It would likely lessen accidental gun deaths and injuries as insurance companies are now financially incentivized to make sure(or out right require) owners are storing their guns safely, have adequate training and have good practices AS WELL AS incentivizing purchasing guns with superior safety features. People don't realize this, but A TON of safety/security features in cars originate with insurance incentives. 3. While the government is legally not allowed to create a registry of guns and owners for tracking purposes insurance companies would be able to. While it wouldn't directly be in the governments hands, if the gov had enough info about a specific gun used in a crime, then they would be able to subpoena the exact owner data, whether it be the actual perpetrator or a straw purchaser or someone whose gun was stolen(and if it was stolen gun insurance would incentivize prompt reporting, so lack of reporting stolen until asked would seem even more obviously BS). 4. It would create a financial structure to compensate victims of some gun crimes, people always forget that even when you can take someone to civil court for a legit tort like wrongful death or assault, unless it's something that's insured or a company, there's usually no point because you won't see any of the money you win in the end anyway. 5. Somewhat more controversially it would likely economically cap the number of guns you can keep legally, like there is an increasingly absurd number of people hoarding MASSIVE amounts of guns personally. Besides these people sometimes being militia nutjobs, in my experience people like this(and I've known at least 5 old guys) improperly store guns hidden all around their house leading to a higher likelihood of accidents + higher potential for guns to be stolen without the owner even realizing it.

[@prohealer3398]

How the hell is Pisco letting Rob get away with referring to "an article" that backed up his point... "wait actually its someone's summary I don't have acess to" ... "wait actually it's an ai summary" ... "wait actually I'm abusing the ai to give me an answer that works better for me." Like wtf lol

[@GreedySpeculator]

@4:02 🥂

[@rwtaka18]

Please no more VG....

[@ashleygraham1011]

No, in America you dont have to register your firearm and you dont claim it on your home insurance policy. The vegan guy needs to learn some shit or keep his Canada disclaimer handy.

[@Ctopper420]

If only there was some way to fact check this... Like a network of information with some sort of engine for searching things like "do Americans have to register their firearms"...

[@ashleygraham1011]

Requiring insurance companies to insure guns means that the guns would have to be registered and therefore register to the owner. You dont have to register your firearm now. Insurance companies would also require whoever they insured to maintain certain safety protocol or storage requirements be in place to utilize the insurance if there were ever an accident. Failing to do those things would then mean that if you didn't you would not be insured therefore you would not be allowed to have a firearm per the law. Also with these measures in place theft would likely drastically go down since you couldn't do things like leave it unsecured in your car or other places were where firearms are traditionally stolen. That would mean that the thugs in the gangs that have stolen firearms would fine them to be much less accessible.

[@C.B.B..]

It would also make it much harder for lower-class citizens to afford a gun to defend themselves. Their rates would also likely be much more expensive given actuarial analysis, since they live in the ghetto and are more likely to commit crimes/be victims of crime.

[@ashleygraham1011]

@@C.B.B.. yes, just like for cars. That group of people often are a higher risk, hence the actuarial tables. If you are a higher risk, then you pay more. They are also less likely to be able to legally own a gun. Also, plenty of those people are also considered a low risk in those areas. Your point isn't particularly compelling.

[@C.B.B..]

@@ashleygraham1011 I can afford a gun just fine, and don’t live in a high-crime area thankfully. However, I would be worried about this serving as a hurdle that prevents lower income, law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves, from criminals or a tyrannical government. Weren’t Democrats/liberals claiming that forcing people to pay for an up to date driver’s license/voter ID was wrong since it was too expensive and would prevent people from voting? I’m sure gun insurance would cost a lot more than that. If you lived in the south side of Chicago, your gun insurance would likely be thousands of dollars per year based on actuarial calculations, which would inhibit legal gun ownership and essentially victimize good people.

[@tarqinquentinsson-obviousl957]

The rational position is to roll back term limits for non-medically necessary abortions to like 13 weeks. Almost zero people would be impacted by such a change, and it'd put to bed the majority of pro-life talking points

[@phettywappharmaceuticalsll8842]

Im based