Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years. Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.

It could happen to any responsible gun owner.

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake. Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.

Again i think your mistaken about what liability insurance covers. Your auto libability policy isn't going to fork over any money if you intentionally decide to run someone over. Why should they? They shouldn't have to pay for your malicious actions any more than the victims.

She's advocating a system where to offer liability insurance, you'd have to meet government regulations, ala Obamacare, not free market regulations where of course you are right. Which means of course that would drive up the cost of the insurance for honest gun owners, so they are paying for actually intentional misdeeds. It's another indirect tax on guns. And of course criminals wouldn't get a gun and not buy insurance and shoot someone, that would just be wrong and criminals don't do things that are wrong.

Basically with leftists like Candy you have to think of what they are saying as, if everyone followed this law, would it work? If the answer is yes and it meets a leftist objective, then that's what they want. When it doesn't work, that's because of the Republicans.

 

[Bern80]

I agree, though I don't think you grasp the implication of the insurance part of that.


Of course you're wrong, you almost always are.



Yes. But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability. I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.

Why shouldn't the State of Connecticut be held liable for these shootings?

Isn't it their duty to protect their Citizens?

Why isn't the Town Sheriff or Chief of Police being held in Jail until he can be brought to answer for his incompetence and stupdity?

Why is it always that dimocrap scum want to punish people who had NOTHING TO DO with the shootings in Newtown or anywhere else?

And you are taking one helluva chance promising to explain something to a dimocrap if they tell you they'll listen.

dimocraps lie. About everything.

Everything.

They want confiscation. Just that simple

Yes, it is that simple. As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them. Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind. Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals. The shooter is liable. Not the government or insurance companies. And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too. But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer. This is all completely above her head.

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happen, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

 

[candycorn]

Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation? Yes or No

Yes. But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability. I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.

Please explain where the compensation should come from. Mom is dead. Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case. The perp is dead too.

Your move.

 

[candycorn]

Why shouldn't the State of Connecticut be held liable for these shootings?

Isn't it their duty to protect their Citizens?

Why isn't the Town Sheriff or Chief of Police being held in Jail until he can be brought to answer for his incompetence and stupdity?

Why is it always that dimocrap scum want to punish people who had NOTHING TO DO with the shootings in Newtown or anywhere else?

And you are taking one helluva chance promising to explain something to a dimocrap if they tell you they'll listen.

dimocraps lie. About everything.

Everything.

They want confiscation. Just that simple

Yes, it is that simple. As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them. Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind. Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals. The shooter is liable. Not the government or insurance companies. And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too. But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer. This is all completely above her head.

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Guns are different exactly how?

 

[Steven_R]

Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation? Yes or No

Yes. But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability. I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.

Please explain where the compensation should come from. Mom is dead. Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case. The perp is dead too.

Your move.

Why does there need to be compensation in the first place? It's unfortunate, but just because shit happens doesn't mean someone need to open a checkbook.

If someone steals a car and kills 30 kindergarteners with a Buick, why does anyone need to cough up money?

 

[Steven_R]

Yes, it is that simple. As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them. Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind. Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals. The shooter is liable. Not the government or insurance companies. And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too. But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer. This is all completely above her head.

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Guns are different exactly how?

Auto insurance is only required on government owned roads, not to just own a car.

 

[JoeNormal]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Considering the number of guns in this country, I think the genie is already out of the bottle. Instead of trying to control them, why don't we go with the flow. Let's encourage would be shooters to go to Wall Street or K Street instead of the local theater or schoolyard.

Bump

 

[kaz]

Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation? Yes or No

Yes. But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability. I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.

Please explain where the compensation should come from. Mom is dead. Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case. The perp is dead too.

Your move.

Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.

But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up? What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke? Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?

Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?

 

[kaz]

Yes, it is that simple. As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them. Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind. Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals. The shooter is liable. Not the government or insurance companies. And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too. But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer. This is all completely above her head.

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Guns are different exactly how?

Let's require liability insurance for cinder blocks. They can hurt someone too.

But the answer to your question is that the difference is that you hate guns and don't hate cars.

 

[kaz]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Considering the number of guns in this country, I think the genie is already out of the bottle. Instead of trying to control them, why don't we go with the flow. Let's encourage would be shooters to go to Wall Street or K Street instead of the local theater or schoolyard.

Bump

Nobody addressed it because it had nothing to do with anything, it was just an obnoxious comment.

 

[JoeNormal]

Considering the number of guns in this country, I think the genie is already out of the bottle. Instead of trying to control them, why don't we go with the flow. Let's encourage would be shooters to go to Wall Street or K Street instead of the local theater or schoolyard.

Bump

Nobody addressed it because it had nothing to do with anything, it was just an obnoxious comment.

More like it hit a little too close to home.

 

[kaz]

Bump

Nobody addressed it because it had nothing to do with anything, it was just an obnoxious comment.

More like it hit a little too close to home.

That's true, I spent the majority of my life in the New York and DC areas. How'd you know that?

 

[JoeNormal]

Nobody addressed it because it had nothing to do with anything, it was just an obnoxious comment.

More like it hit a little too close to home.

That's true, I spent the majority of my life in the New York and DC areas. How'd you know that?

Lucky guess I suppose. Not that many people sympathize with Wall Street or K Street.

 

[Bern80]

Yes, it is that simple. As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them. Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind. Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals. The shooter is liable. Not the government or insurance companies. And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too. But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer. This is all completely above her head.

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Most guns aren't involved in accidents either. Most aren't even used in violent crimes.

Guns are different exactly how?

They're not. It's the circumstances that are different. A few pages back I responded to you explaining this, but you may have missed it. You're saying people should carry liability insureance for guns like cars. I believe you said you wanted this in case the insured went and shot a bunch of people up with their gun, the victims could get money from the gun owner's insurance, right? That's a different scenario than the circumstances under which liability insurance kicks in on your car. There is a difference between being at fault for an act and intentionally commiting an act. Your liability insurance on your car kicked in because you were at fault in your accident, but just because you were at fault doesn't mean you intended to cause the accident. Taking a life has the same legal distinction where we have murder vs. manslaughter. Murder requires intent where manslaughter is usually about accidental negligence. Had you had intent to hurt someone with your vehicle like the person with the gun in your hypothetical, your liability insurance would have nothing to do with that. The only thing that would probably happen would be you getting dropped from your plan. Your auto liability doesn't pay out to the victim or victim's family if you intentionally run someone over. Compensation in that instance would be handled by the courts. This is why your liability insurance idea won't work, again, because that's not what liability insurance covers.

 

[Edgetho]

Yes, it is that simple. As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them. Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind. Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals. The shooter is liable. Not the government or insurance companies. And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too. But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer. This is all completely above her head.

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Guns are different exactly how?

They're not a lot different.

But you're confusing Civil Liability with criminal liability.

In a Car Crash, you are negligent if you are deemed to be more than 50% at fault. It's called comparative negligence.

In a gun shooting, odds are pretty good that someone broke the law.

If it's in a "Castle Doctrine" case and the Homeowner didn't break the law but negligently shot someone, he can be sued and damages collected.

If he broke the law and illegally shot someone....

He can be successfully sued, but his Insurance Company usually won't defend him and usually won't pay damages. Not in my State. He can spend a LONG time in Jail, but that's about it.

There are ALWAYS exceptions to these guidelines, but generally speaking, I'm right. Such as if it's a Joint Policy and the Husband shoots somebody and the victim plans on taking everything they own, the Insurance Company may decide to defend the Wife's interests in the Policy Coverages and try to reach a financial settlement

But that's above my pay grade.

I am a retired, 25 year, Property and Casualty Agent. I have schooled Attorneys on Legal Liability on a couple of occasions (though I wouldn't pretend to know more than ANY Attorney on the General Subject).

I know what I'm talking about.

Frankly, you don't

Listen, pay attention, learn. It's the best thing you can do for yourself right now.

 

[JoeB131]

Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."

No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.

Like we have a choice.

Sure we do.

To get a gun, you have to go through a THOROUGH background check. You have to buy VERY expensive insurance to keep one. And if the gun seller took a shortcut, we sue his ass into oblivion when his gun is used in a crime.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face.

Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.

Guess again, Joe. From where I sit, the kid has humiliated you. I suppose you could start a poll and ask your peers....

Yeah, but you're like a crazy person, so your opinions don't count.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.

Like we have a choice.

Sure we do.

To get a gun, you have to go through a THOROUGH background check. You have to buy VERY expensive insurance to keep one. And if the gun seller took a shortcut, we sue his ass into oblivion when his gun is used in a crime.

We already do go through background checks. What next? TSA style pat downs?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face.

Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.

No. I'm too scary for you. You make a habit of ignoring reality, you spew your version of it constantly without fail. I take you down each and every time.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes, it is that simple. As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them. Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind. Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals. The shooter is liable. Not the government or insurance companies. And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too. But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer. This is all completely above her head.

The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Guns are different exactly how?

Damned if I can find "The right of the People to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed." in my copy of the Constitution. Would you be so kind as to point out where I could locate it? I will highlight it in yellow marker for future reference.