Some Facts on Guns

[CowboyTed]

Actually many countries have imposed bans on guns retrospectively and had great success...

I proposed a simple law making the owner of a gun responsible for that guns use until it gets reported stolen or lost.

Owners could get gun insurance to cover accidents or guns getting in wrong hands before they are reported. This is more akin with personal responsibility. Let market forces of gun insurance drive the safety in much the way insurance drove safety in many other places.

If mandatory it could allow law enforcement to easily see legal and non legal guns quickly. But the main driver will it would take unnecessary guns out of the system, so if you need a gun for self defense you get far lower insurance by acting responsible.

Yes the $229 billion cost a year in gun violence(taxpayer) is in large part not due to legal owned guns but to illegal guns. But the source of illegal guns are coming from legally owned sources.

Actually the NRA sells gun insurance and this further encourages safe gun ownership .

what you propose is unnecessary. Each individual is already responsible for his or her acts, whether those acts involve a gun, car, knife, baseball bat, hammer, or nail file.

Guns are a far more lethal than the other devices and have an intention to kill... But look at your examples, Car, you need to have car insurance for unintended consequences... Car insurance is a matter of personal responsibility... Unless you have the money available to pay for unintended consequences of your actions the personal responsibility would dictate you have insurance....

Knives are used on a daily basis by far more people and relative accidents are very rarely fatal.



Why are you against personal reponsibility?

I am 100% in favor of personal responsibility. How does buying mandatory insurance increase your personal responsibility? Actually your proposal decreases personal responsibility because people would rely on the insurance to bail them out.

Cause like everything in that space the Market will decide. If insurance companies find lower claims among people who gone on training courses they will offer lower premiums to people who have done courses...

This is actually a Republican type solution, it using the market to decide what brings down gun related injuries and deaths...

Do people crash cars because they have insurance, actually if they even have a small tip one of the first thing they think of is the insurance premium. There is a direct consequence.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most homeowner's insurance companies view guns no differently than other personal property. They're covered in the event of theft or damage and, assuming no criminal negligence is found, most homeowners also are covered for liability claims related to gun accidents.Aug 9, 2012
Homeowner's insurance covers gun owners for theft, liability
www.insurancequotes.com/home/home-insurance-guns


as a collector all of my guns are covered. My gun safe reduces my cost. I have two life insurance policies that cover everything else. One is underwritten by Smith Wesson.

That isnt what is being discussed. Your homeowners covers the value of guns lost or stolen. Some policies might cover accidents that occur. No policy will cover intentional acts, e.g. shooting an intruder.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually many countries have imposed bans on guns retrospectively and had great success...

I proposed a simple law making the owner of a gun responsible for that guns use until it gets reported stolen or lost.

Owners could get gun insurance to cover accidents or guns getting in wrong hands before they are reported. This is more akin with personal responsibility. Let market forces of gun insurance drive the safety in much the way insurance drove safety in many other places.

If mandatory it could allow law enforcement to easily see legal and non legal guns quickly. But the main driver will it would take unnecessary guns out of the system, so if you need a gun for self defense you get far lower insurance by acting responsible.

Yes the $229 billion cost a year in gun violence(taxpayer) is in large part not due to legal owned guns but to illegal guns. But the source of illegal guns are coming from legally owned sources.

Actually the NRA sells gun insurance and this further encourages safe gun ownership .

what you propose is unnecessary. Each individual is already responsible for his or her acts, whether those acts involve a gun, car, knife, baseball bat, hammer, or nail file.

Guns are a far more lethal than the other devices and have an intention to kill... But look at your examples, Car, you need to have car insurance for unintended consequences... Car insurance is a matter of personal responsibility... Unless you have the money available to pay for unintended consequences of your actions the personal responsibility would dictate you have insurance....

Knives are used on a daily basis by far more people and relative accidents are very rarely fatal.



Why are you against personal reponsibility?

I am 100% in favor of personal responsibility. How does buying mandatory insurance increase your personal responsibility? Actually your proposal decreases personal responsibility because people would rely on the insurance to bail them out.

Cause like everything in that space the Market will decide. If insurance companies find lower claims among people who gone on training courses they will offer lower premiums to people who have done courses...

This is actually a Republican type solution, it using the market to decide what brings down gun related injuries and deaths...

Do people crash cars because they have insurance, actually if they even have a small tip one of the first thing they think of is the insurance premium. There is a direct consequence.

How many repeat drunk drivers have car insurance? Or even driver's licenses? Again the people affected are not the people you need to worry about.

 

[Steven_R]

So you want to put another burden on the poor. Self-defense becomes a privilege of the rich. Can't afford the insurance, then good luck.

Wonderful proposal.

So your reason for not doing it is because it would affect the poor. If they go to gun training and secure their weapon the insurance cost would be quite low. This can be said the same about car insurance.
Again this is from the right, it is about personal responsibility. Why should the tax payer pay for individuals who are involved in high risk behaviour like not securing there guns and being untrained?

Lots of poor people dont have car insurance either.
Again, criminals and irresponsible people will not do those things.

Now, now. If we pass just a few more laws criminals will stop being criminals.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you want to put another burden on the poor. Self-defense becomes a privilege of the rich. Can't afford the insurance, then good luck.

Wonderful proposal.

So your reason for not doing it is because it would affect the poor. If they go to gun training and secure their weapon the insurance cost would be quite low. This can be said the same about car insurance.
Again this is from the right, it is about personal responsibility. Why should the tax payer pay for individuals who are involved in high risk behaviour like not securing there guns and being untrained?

Lots of poor people dont have car insurance either.
Again, criminals and irresponsible people will not do those things.

Now, now. If we pass just a few more laws criminals will stop being criminals.

Yeah that seems to be the drift here. Al the "solutions" would only affect people interested in following the law.

 

[CowboyTed]

So you want to put another burden on the poor. Self-defense becomes a privilege of the rich. Can't afford the insurance, then good luck.

Wonderful proposal.

So your reason for not doing it is because it would affect the poor. If they go to gun training and secure their weapon the insurance cost would be quite low. This can be said the same about car insurance.
Again this is from the right, it is about personal responsibility. Why should the tax payer pay for individuals who are involved in high risk behaviour like not securing there guns and being untrained?

Uhhh, how many gang bangers are going to take gun safety classes and buy insurance?

Did I say this is a fix all solution?

But I did point out that gang bangers get there guns from originally legal sources by stealing guns or straw buys. I am asking that legal gun owners take proper precautions from making this happen. Is it perfect? No, but it is least an effort.
Do you want police officers in every home to insure that guns are properly taken care for.

Can you explain why so many criminals in US have guns compared to Europe? Gun crime in Europe is considerably lower and the type of guns are of a far lower technology generally.

 

[CowboyTed]

Actually many countries have imposed bans on guns retrospectively and had great success...

I proposed a simple law making the owner of a gun responsible for that guns use until it gets reported stolen or lost.

Owners could get gun insurance to cover accidents or guns getting in wrong hands before they are reported. This is more akin with personal responsibility. Let market forces of gun insurance drive the safety in much the way insurance drove safety in many other places.

If mandatory it could allow law enforcement to easily see legal and non legal guns quickly. But the main driver will it would take unnecessary guns out of the system, so if you need a gun for self defense you get far lower insurance by acting responsible.

Yes the $229 billion cost a year in gun violence(taxpayer) is in large part not due to legal owned guns but to illegal guns. But the source of illegal guns are coming from legally owned sources.

Actually the NRA sells gun insurance and this further encourages safe gun ownership .

what you propose is unnecessary. Each individual is already responsible for his or her acts, whether those acts involve a gun, car, knife, baseball bat, hammer, or nail file.

Guns are a far more lethal than the other devices and have an intention to kill... But look at your examples, Car, you need to have car insurance for unintended consequences... Car insurance is a matter of personal responsibility... Unless you have the money available to pay for unintended consequences of your actions the personal responsibility would dictate you have insurance....

Knives are used on a daily basis by far more people and relative accidents are very rarely fatal.



Why are you against personal reponsibility?

GUns have no intentions. Guns are inanimate objects. People have intentions.
Requiring insurance merely discriminates against poor people, who probably need guns more than anyone else. And if someone cant afford insurance or cant get it do you think that means he wont get a gun anyway?
Again, it turns law abiding people into criminals.

Answered the question on Insurance and I didn't see you use the same argument for Health Insurance. The insurance would be low for people who acted like reasonable gun owners.

If a poor person has a gun accident who do you think picks up the bill...

This is the same for cars....

 

[CowboyTed]

So you want to put another burden on the poor. Self-defense becomes a privilege of the rich. Can't afford the insurance, then good luck.

Wonderful proposal.

So your reason for not doing it is because it would affect the poor. If they go to gun training and secure their weapon the insurance cost would be quite low. This can be said the same about car insurance.
Again this is from the right, it is about personal responsibility. Why should the tax payer pay for individuals who are involved in high risk behaviour like not securing there guns and being untrained?

Lots of poor people dont have car insurance either.
Again, criminals and irresponsible people will not do those things.

But a vast majority do and not having car insurance is against the law.

Are you proposing of getting rid of car insurance? Could you please not say you believe in any personal responsibilty in future as you seem to want tax payers to pay for everything.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you want to put another burden on the poor. Self-defense becomes a privilege of the rich. Can't afford the insurance, then good luck.

Wonderful proposal.

So your reason for not doing it is because it would affect the poor. If they go to gun training and secure their weapon the insurance cost would be quite low. This can be said the same about car insurance.
Again this is from the right, it is about personal responsibility. Why should the tax payer pay for individuals who are involved in high risk behaviour like not securing there guns and being untrained?

Uhhh, how many gang bangers are going to take gun safety classes and buy insurance?

Did I say this is a fix all solution?

But I did point out that gang bangers get there guns from originally legal sources by stealing guns or straw buys. I am asking that legal gun owners take proper precautions from making this happen. Is it perfect? No, but it is least an effort.
Do you want police officers in every home to insure that guns are properly taken care for.

Can you explain why so many criminals in US have guns compared to Europe? Gun crime in Europe is considerably lower and the type of guns are of a far lower technology generally.

Its a fix none solution. It wouldnt prevent anyone from stealing someone's gun.
All crime is lower in Europe than the US. Because we're not Europe.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually many countries have imposed bans on guns retrospectively and had great success...

I proposed a simple law making the owner of a gun responsible for that guns use until it gets reported stolen or lost.

Owners could get gun insurance to cover accidents or guns getting in wrong hands before they are reported. This is more akin with personal responsibility. Let market forces of gun insurance drive the safety in much the way insurance drove safety in many other places.

If mandatory it could allow law enforcement to easily see legal and non legal guns quickly. But the main driver will it would take unnecessary guns out of the system, so if you need a gun for self defense you get far lower insurance by acting responsible.

Yes the $229 billion cost a year in gun violence(taxpayer) is in large part not due to legal owned guns but to illegal guns. But the source of illegal guns are coming from legally owned sources.

Actually the NRA sells gun insurance and this further encourages safe gun ownership .

what you propose is unnecessary. Each individual is already responsible for his or her acts, whether those acts involve a gun, car, knife, baseball bat, hammer, or nail file.

Guns are a far more lethal than the other devices and have an intention to kill... But look at your examples, Car, you need to have car insurance for unintended consequences... Car insurance is a matter of personal responsibility... Unless you have the money available to pay for unintended consequences of your actions the personal responsibility would dictate you have insurance....

Knives are used on a daily basis by far more people and relative accidents are very rarely fatal.



Why are you against personal reponsibility?

GUns have no intentions. Guns are inanimate objects. People have intentions.
Requiring insurance merely discriminates against poor people, who probably need guns more than anyone else. And if someone cant afford insurance or cant get it do you think that means he wont get a gun anyway?
Again, it turns law abiding people into criminals.

Answered the question on Insurance and I didn't see you use the same argument for Health Insurance. The insurance would be low for people who acted like reasonable gun owners.

If a poor person has a gun accident who do you think picks up the bill...

This is the same for cars....

Theyre not the same, at all.
If a poor person has a car accident who picks up the bill?
Again it is merely discriminating against poor people without any benefit or chance of reducing gun crimes.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you want to put another burden on the poor. Self-defense becomes a privilege of the rich. Can't afford the insurance, then good luck.

Wonderful proposal.

So your reason for not doing it is because it would affect the poor. If they go to gun training and secure their weapon the insurance cost would be quite low. This can be said the same about car insurance.
Again this is from the right, it is about personal responsibility. Why should the tax payer pay for individuals who are involved in high risk behaviour like not securing there guns and being untrained?

Lots of poor people dont have car insurance either.
Again, criminals and irresponsible people will not do those things.

But a vast majority do and not having car insurance is against the law.

Are you proposing of getting rid of car insurance? Could you please not say you believe in any personal responsibilty in future as you seem to want tax payers to pay for everything.

Actually I am against mandatory car insurance.
The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding people. Punishing them because of a few criminals is counter productive.

Criminals are not going to sign up for "gun insurance."

 

[Rustic]

Gun violence in this country is a relatively small issue, we have much bigger fish to fry.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Most homeowner's insurance companies view guns no differently than other personal property. They're covered in the event of theft or damage and, assuming no criminal negligence is found, most homeowners also are covered for liability claims related to gun accidents.Aug 9, 2012
Homeowner's insurance covers gun owners for theft, liability
www.insurancequotes.com/home/home-insurance-guns


as a collector all of my guns are covered. My gun safe reduces my cost. I have two life insurance policies that cover everything else. One is underwritten by Smith Wesson.

Mine are covered also but the key aspect is that the govt has no right to force you or I to buy gun insurance just as it has no right to tell you what religion, if any, to follow, just as it has no right to regulate any of your speech.

 

[Siete]

Most homeowner's insurance companies view guns no differently than other personal property. They're covered in the event of theft or damage and, assuming no criminal negligence is found, most homeowners also are covered for liability claims related to gun accidents.Aug 9, 2012
Homeowner's insurance covers gun owners for theft, liability
www.insurancequotes.com/home/home-insurance-guns


as a collector all of my guns are covered. My gun safe reduces my cost. I have two life insurance policies that cover everything else. One is underwritten by Smith Wesson.

That isnt what is being discussed. Your homeowners covers the value of guns lost or stolen. Some policies might cover accidents that occur. No policy will cover intentional acts, e.g. shooting an intruder.

seriously? why would I think a thief would be covered on any of my insurance policies?

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[boedicca]

If they banned guns what would they do about law enforcement? And it isnt like LE doesnt lose guns out of inventory every day.

If guns were banned, only criminals and the government would have guns. Does the third reich come to mind?

Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?

 

[boedicca]

Most homeowner's insurance companies view guns no differently than other personal property. They're covered in the event of theft or damage and, assuming no criminal negligence is found, most homeowners also are covered for liability claims related to gun accidents.Aug 9, 2012
Homeowner's insurance covers gun owners for theft, liability
www.insurancequotes.com/home/home-insurance-guns


as a collector all of my guns are covered. My gun safe reduces my cost. I have two life insurance policies that cover everything else. One is underwritten by Smith Wesson.

That isnt what is being discussed. Your homeowners covers the value of guns lost or stolen. Some policies might cover accidents that occur. No policy will cover intentional acts, e.g. shooting an intruder.

seriously? why would I think a thief would be covered on any of my insurance policies?

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

If you have assets you want to protect, an umbrella liability policy is a good idea. Criminals have been known to sue homeowners who wound them in the act of protecting themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most homeowner's insurance companies view guns no differently than other personal property. They're covered in the event of theft or damage and, assuming no criminal negligence is found, most homeowners also are covered for liability claims related to gun accidents.Aug 9, 2012
Homeowner's insurance covers gun owners for theft, liability
www.insurancequotes.com/home/home-insurance-guns


as a collector all of my guns are covered. My gun safe reduces my cost. I have two life insurance policies that cover everything else. One is underwritten by Smith Wesson.

That isnt what is being discussed. Your homeowners covers the value of guns lost or stolen. Some policies might cover accidents that occur. No policy will cover intentional acts, e.g. shooting an intruder.

seriously? why would I think a thief would be covered on any of my insurance policies?

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Why do you think any of the stupid shit you do?

 

[Siete]

Most homeowner's insurance companies view guns no differently than other personal property. They're covered in the event of theft or damage and, assuming no criminal negligence is found, most homeowners also are covered for liability claims related to gun accidents.Aug 9, 2012
Homeowner's insurance covers gun owners for theft, liability
www.insurancequotes.com/home/home-insurance-guns


as a collector all of my guns are covered. My gun safe reduces my cost. I have two life insurance policies that cover everything else. One is underwritten by Smith Wesson.

That isnt what is being discussed. Your homeowners covers the value of guns lost or stolen. Some policies might cover accidents that occur. No policy will cover intentional acts, e.g. shooting an intruder.

seriously? why would I think a thief would be covered on any of my insurance policies?

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

If you have assets you want to protect, an umbrella liability policy is a good idea. Criminals have been known to sue homeowners who wound them in the act of protecting themselves.

dead intruders cant sue anyone. If they do I'll hire a lawyer.

responsible gun owners protect their property and themselves. Not all gun owners are responsible, and not all people own guns. Yammering about either is pointless. Shit happens. I don't deal with it until it does.

but that's just me.

 

[CowboyTed]

Most homeowner's insurance companies view guns no differently than other personal property. They're covered in the event of theft or damage and, assuming no criminal negligence is found, most homeowners also are covered for liability claims related to gun accidents.Aug 9, 2012
Homeowner's insurance covers gun owners for theft, liability
www.insurancequotes.com/home/home-insurance-guns


as a collector all of my guns are covered. My gun safe reduces my cost. I have two life insurance policies that cover everything else. One is underwritten by Smith Wesson.

While home insurance covers some parts the limits are quite low and $100k will not cover much of a wrongful death sue. IT also has Intentional injury exclusions as well...

I am not saying home insurance is a no no... As long as it properly covers the gun owner for a reasonable amount (100k is not enough) and exclusions are vastly reduced...

But generally you idea is sound as a home insurance add on...

 

[CowboyTed]

Most homeowner's insurance companies view guns no differently than other personal property. They're covered in the event of theft or damage and, assuming no criminal negligence is found, most homeowners also are covered for liability claims related to gun accidents.Aug 9, 2012
Homeowner's insurance covers gun owners for theft, liability
www.insurancequotes.com/home/home-insurance-guns


as a collector all of my guns are covered. My gun safe reduces my cost. I have two life insurance policies that cover everything else. One is underwritten by Smith Wesson.

That isnt what is being discussed. Your homeowners covers the value of guns lost or stolen. Some policies might cover accidents that occur. No policy will cover intentional acts, e.g. shooting an intruder.

seriously? why would I think a thief would be covered on any of my insurance policies?

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

If you have assets you want to protect, an umbrella liability policy is a good idea. Criminals have been known to sue homeowners who wound them in the act of protecting themselves.

dead intruders cant sue anyone. If they do I'll hire a lawyer.

responsible gun owners protect their property and themselves. Not all gun owners are responsible, and not all people own guns. Yammering about either is pointless. Shit happens. I don't deal with it until it does.

but that's just me.

I think we are fair on this... Do all intruders deserve the death penalty? I don't think either of us think that... If the neighbor's kid is killed because he intruder to get his ball that is wrong... It shouldn't happen but it does.. Accidents happen and responsible people prepare themselves for such.