Take it a step further; insurance should be for things that may happen. That's what the entire business model is supposed to be based on.

But everyone gets sick/injured at some point. There's no "may" about it.

Not being snarky. Should legit be proud of putting yourself out there.

Good for you my man.

I did work there. And still work in politics.

But in reality it's a fulltime job and then some, if you're doing it right.

They should be stripped of the privilege of owning and renting residential property.

Setting aside the obvious issues, how exactly is one multiplicatively more law abiding than someone else?

You've passed "willful ignorance" and are rounding the corner into "suspected learning disability."

Yes, armed home invasions do happen. They are exceedingly rare. One could be happening in my home, right now, as I type this, and it would have no bearing on how often they do or do not occur. Do you understand that?

That you're fixated on a single instance indicates an emotional response, not one rooted in reality. I prefer my public policy based on facts.

Burglaries in 2021 happened a rate of 154 incidents per population of 100,000. And that's all burglaries, of all property types, of all occupancies, armed assailants and otherwise.

BuT iT hApPeNeD tOdAy is not a cogent response to the point I was making. Again, your emotions don't justify bad policy.

Guns ain't drugs. People enmeshed in the criminal element will likely still be able to find them, but the mentally ill who become mass shooters only get their hands on these weapons because society allows them to. And for criminals, why make it easy for them?

Home invasions are exceedingly rare. Your insecurities aren't justification for public policy that costs lives.

And anyways, if you're using a rifle to defend your house you're doing it wrong.

Will make it a hell of a lot less efficient, though.

CT is publicly financed. You'll find a few max $290 donations, but most are $5 or $10 in state rep/state Senate campaigns.

George was going to run for state Senate as a Democrat before Crisco decided to run again.

Nice dude. Zero principles. 0/10 would not recommend for Congress.

No, they were bred for the ability to be violent, which I don't think anyone can dispute they have. It's a very different thing than being violent.

They were also bred to be docile with humans because yeah, when you're breeding for physicality, you probably don't want that creature turning on you.

Behavior is also an extremely complex thing and can't be reduced to an either/or attribution, too.

Pit bulls were bred specifically not to be aggressive with humans. They were originally baiting dogs for large game routinely handled by people.

"Snapping" is not characteristic of the breed, nor is any behavior a result of just genetics.