If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   SC Gov "Nikki" Haley: let people carry guns without any training or permits, even in bars? Sure, why not? I mean really, what's the worst that could happen?   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 232
    More: Dumbass, South Carolina, Nikki Haley, business license, Beretta  
•       •       •

1456 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 12:54 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 11:50:33 PM
The Name:

Would that be a logical consequence of the insurance thing, or is this a "you owe me something for implementing sensible policy" thing?  If it's the latter, then fark off.  You gun nuts are the only people who think they deserve special compensation every time a law causes the slightest inconvenience to them.


Because gun owners have a history of receiving concessions for every stupid gun bill passed in this country.  It's been nothing but how can we take your rights away since 1934.  Enough is enough.  This is why we've reached a tipping point with gun laws in this country.  Decades of pushing stupid laws with zero impact on those willing to break them, but huge impacts on the law abiding has resulted in an environment where even kids killed in their classroom isn't enough justification for further gun laws.
 
2014-02-12 11:55:42 PM

The Name: Would that be a logical consequence of the insurance thing


That would be an argument in favor of it, but not necessarily a logical consequence. If we're going by the car analogy, you can still be told where you can and can't drive or park, such as down a bike path, on the sidewalk, etc. and would/should apply to guns in the same way for certain things that such-and-such jurisdiction deems appropriate.
And CC being recognized in all jurisdiction would get more traction without insanity like Haley is pushing. Using cars, again, it would be like the state handing out a driver's license to anyone who wanted one regardless of ability. What state would want to deal with SC drivers if the only requirements for a license were a pulse, a felony check, and a brief instruction on which button on the floor is stop and which is go.
 
2014-02-13 12:00:09 AM

HK-MP5-SD: You see, This is why no progress will ever be made in gun control.  I am a gun owner. I state that under current law people may be able to legally carry a firearm when intoxicated and I don't think that is good.  I propose that we should pass a law making that illegal.  But, even though I am fairly sure that you don't support drunk people carrying guns legally, Your response isn't "yeah, I agree, that isn't good, we should make it illegal".   Your response is "All guns are evil, they have no place outside of soldiers in combat"


Bullshiat.

HK-MP5-SD: In answer to your questions....
1) None of them require licenses or insurance as long as they stay on private policy.  Only the 1911 requires a background investigation before you purchase it to ensure that you are legally allowed to use it before purchase.


Use in public: What you do out of maximum range is your bidness as long as you're not harming anybody.
And what does it take to buy a car, even with cash? Buying an M 1911 does not require regular registration, insurance, and a license to operate.

 

HK-MP5-SD: 2) Only the 1911 was specifically designed to kill, of course the other 3 do a pretty good job of killing people on occasion, even though that wasn't what they were designed to do.  Being designed to kill is not a bad thing. There exist in this world a small but not inconsiderable number of people who are in need of killing.  If you encounter one of them it is useful to have a tool designed to kill.


I'm fairly certain that it's illegal to appoint yourself judge, jury, and executioner outside Florida.

HK-MP5-SD: 3) I don't think any of them are asinine to have outside a combat zone, but even if you do, you have to admit that non-combat zones can become combat zones with no warning whatsoever.  In the last month, a shopping mall close to my home, the parking lot across the street from my job, a small business close to my home, and a number of homes and street in the area all became combat zones with no warning to anyone involved.


Only your first three words are correct. No, your street did not become a combat zone, and you did not magically become a trained soldier operating under clearly-defined RoE. More idiots walking around with loaded firearms will not make your neighborhood magically safer from other idiots walking around with loaded firearms.

HK-MP5-SD: I don't think "job requirement" is a good reason to carry a gun.  "Job requirement" just means because your employer says so.   My employer is an idiot.  If he were to tell me that I needed to carry a gun at work, I would tell him that I fix computers and I don't think a gun would be very useful to me and besides our building has its own armed and sworn police force with full police powers.


What would lead you to believe that I would propose  "job requirements" as something ridiculously arbitrary? Are you just looking to pound on Scarecrow from Oz?

HK-MP5-SD: As far as direct, specific threats..... despite what you see on Lifetime movies, they basically don't happen.  Very few people are dumb enough to threaten to kill a person before they do it.  Doing so often causes inconvenient interviews with police officers before you can accomplish your goal or a swift trip to prison after.


And Ted Nugent is in prison. Direct, personal threat, as opposed to afraid of non melanin-disadvantaged people.
 
2014-02-13 12:03:12 AM

SCUBA_Archer: What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.


Let me guess: You have having to buy car insurance that meets state minimum standards, too. Onerous is a great loaded term.
 
2014-02-13 12:04:14 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Because gun owners have a history of receiving concessions for every stupid gun bill passed in this country.


Just out of curiosity, is there any gun restriction you would favor, either for safety or convenience? Imagine if there were no gun laws whatsoever, what would, if any, limits would you consider to be in the best interests of the gun-owning and non-gun-owning public?
 
2014-02-13 01:05:54 AM

The Name: Luse: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

Maybe not all but we can talk. But surely that would mean reciprocity for my CC would be implemented in all jurisdictions, with CC in virtually all establishments?

Would that be a logical consequence of the insurance thing, or is this a "you owe me something for implementing sensible policy" thing?  If it's the latter, then fark off.  You gun nuts are the only people who think they deserve special compensation every time a law causes the slightest inconvenience to them.


See, this is why nobody wants to talk to you. As soon as we even try to reason and give an inch you go full derp, refuse to concede anything and go for the throat. The log I dropped in the toilet earlier today had more of a concept of negotiation than you do. I will take your words with appropriate gravity.

Good Day Sir!
 
2014-02-13 01:14:09 AM

redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.


You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.
 
2014-02-13 01:25:08 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Because gun owners have a history of receiving concessions for every stupid gun bill passed in this country.

Just out of curiosity, is there any gun restriction you would favor, either for safety or convenience? Imagine if there were no gun laws whatsoever, what would, if any, limits would you consider to be in the best interests of the gun-owning and non-gun-owning public?


Felons shouldn't be allowed to own guns, however gun rights may be petitioned to be restored after sufficient rehabilitation period (repeal Lautenberg Amendment).  Law abiding citizens should be able to purchase any handgun, rifle or shotgun they want in whatever state they want.  I'm OK with a waiting period for your first firearm purchase, but not subsequent ones.  CCW should be national (like a driver's license).  I'm ok with a training or proof of competency test to get one.  Silencers shouldn't be Class III items.  Pistol grips, flash hiders, forward grips, and folding stocks should be permitted on all rifles (no bans on cosmetic features).  No magazine size restrictions.

How does that sound?  Can we compromise on this?
 
2014-02-13 01:32:20 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.

Let me guess: You have having to buy car insurance that meets state minimum standards, too. Onerous is a great loaded term.


Don't be daft.  You know what I'm talking about.  Forcing requirements that make it unprofitable for any company to issue policies, basically causing people to either self-insure or do without.

And, unlike car insurance, if forced, I would absolutely buy the bare minimum insurance for carrying a weapon because I don't consider my gun behavior to be risky enough to warrant an insurance policy.  If a situation arises where I need to use my weapon in self defense, the last thing I would worry about is what my deductible might be or whether my latest premium was paid up.
 
2014-02-13 01:52:01 AM

SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.

Let me guess: You have having to buy car insurance that meets state minimum standards, too. Onerous is a great loaded term.

Don't be daft.  You know what I'm talking about.


Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine

SCUBA_Archer: And, unlike car insurance, if forced, I would absolutely buy the bare minimum insurance for carrying a weapon because I don't consider my gun behavior to be risky enough to warrant an insurance policy.  If a situation arises where I need to use my weapon in self defense, the last thing I would worry about is what my deductible might be or whether my latest premium was paid up.


Carrying a deadly weapon in public is a risk, both to the carrier and to the public.
1. Self-assessment of skills is one huge part of the problem - since the person doing the assessment is, well, a bit prejudiced in his own favor: It's those other guys who are the problem.
2. Insurers offer discounts for behaviors that lower risks.
3. Walking around armed in public is risky behavior, so rates for that should be higher than for my huntin' rifle.
4. Walking around in public is safer than it's been since the early sixties, let alone in the late sixties when Ronald Reagan said"There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."
 
2014-02-13 02:12:22 AM

SCUBA_Archer: How does that sound? Can we compromise on this?


It's a good starting point, yes. I have my reservations about certain things, but overall very minor.
But what is the tradeoff?
I'd ask for a national registry and insurance purchased on each weapon.
As demaL says, guns carry an inherent risk, and even the most responsible owner can have accidents, unintended consequences, or lapses in judgement and can't objectively determine of their own risk. That and a nationally recognized CCW will almost certainly require a national registry to be effective.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:01 AM
CSB: About a year ago, I was in a bar for a special occasion (it was Friday). There I was, enjoying a Taters and Tonic around closing time, when two chicks, very very inebriated, were talking. I wasn't paying attention to their talk, but the exchanges got louder and louder, until I heard a crashing sound and a piece of broken glass splashed into my drink. During a run of the mill drunken exchange, like I'm sure we all had, this on-any-other-occasion sorority chick-type girl smashed a shot glass over her friend's head, and the two were on the floor fighting. It took both bartenders and a 300+ pound bouncer to finally separate them. And this was in one of the more "classy" establishments in my town.

I can pretty much guess what would have happened if one of them would have had a pistol in their handbag.

Unlike Vermont, Wyoming, or Alaska, South Carolina actually has people in it. Plus, Myrtle Beach is a spring break destination for East Coast college students that don't want to go to Florida. Do you really want 5,000 drunken frat boys packing heat when they're 15 beers in?
 
2014-02-13 09:01:10 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: What exactly would the insurance cover?  Don't most insurances exclude coverage for damage caused by criminal activity?  Or is this some back-door gun grabber justification to further restrain gun ownership when no sane insurance company is willing to offer policies to cover the onerous requirements laid down by the legislators.

Let me guess: You have having to buy car insurance that meets state minimum standards, too. Onerous is a great loaded term.

Don't be daft.  You know what I'm talking about.

Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine.


Which state-mandated coverages do these insurances cover?   These are what you call, "nice to have", but will probably be insufficient once the "think about the childreners: get done deciding how much risk the insurance companies need to cover.
 
2014-02-13 09:06:28 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH:4. Walking around in public is safer than it's been since the early sixties, let alone in the late sixties when Ronald Reagan said,  "There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."

Ronald Reagan also supported James Brady's anti-gun crusade and announced that in his opinion, "No one needs an AK-47".  His opinion isn't worth much amongst the firearm fan crowd.

I expect that the data would show a sharp uptick in accidental shootings by CCW holders since the early '90s when states started reversing trends regarding issuance of licenses.  Let's see your evidence.
 
2014-02-13 09:54:23 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH:

Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine.


Did you even read these websites before you posted?

 F&CCW insurance is strictly for covering the cost and process of your legal defense


NRA Self-defense Insurance Covers:
Up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs
It's not always that simple. Any court case could result in you spending tens of thousands of dollars to protect your freedom and clear your name. Even once you're cleared of all criminal charges, the family of the deceased might take further action to sue you in civil court for wrongful death. Once a civil trial determines you are not liable for damages, you could still face a pile of legal bills in the process.
The cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage
Criminal defense reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of charges



These policies cover LEGAL FEES to defend yourself against overzealous district attorneys who aren't willing to buy your claim of "self-defense".  Nothing in these policies would be useful in the case of a negligent discharge or some other crime.    Basically you're requiring CCW holders to have an ambulance chaser on retainer to bail their azzes out of trouble when the need arises.  Is that your goal here?
 
2014-02-13 11:50:23 AM

SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH:

Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine.

Did you even read these websites before you posted?

 F&CCW insurance is strictly for covering the cost and process of your legal defense


NRA Self-defense Insurance Covers:
Up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs
It's not always that simple. Any court case could result in you spending tens of thousands of dollars to protect your freedom and clear your name. Even once you're cleared of all criminal charges, the family of the deceased might take further action to sue you in civil court for wrongful death. Once a civil trial determines you are not liable for damages, you could still face a pile of legal bills in the process.
The cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage
Criminal defense reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of charges


These policies cover LEGAL FEES to defend yourself against overzealous district attorneys who aren't willing to buy your claim of "self-defense".  Nothing in these policies would be useful in the case of a negligent discharge or some other crime.    Basically you're requiring CCW holders to have an ambulance chaser on retainer to bail their azzes out of trouble when the need arises.  Is that your goal here?


Qwicheryer whinin' and buy your ridiculously whiny, overconfident self an umbrella policy.
Man up and take full responsibility for walking around armed in public, or stick that firearm in a safe where it belongs.
 
2014-02-13 12:28:07 PM

DrBenway: redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.

You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.


You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. Obviously regulation and exercise of rights is subjective, but suffice it to say it sets a bad precedent. It would also likely be overly expensive, especially if it's per gun (instead of per owner/user) like a car is insured. That would probably fail a constitutional challenge in court.

What are the insurance policies going to cover, negligence and criminal acts? IANAL, an actuary, or a licensed insurance broker but every applicable insurance form I've signed has a disclaimer against intentional or negligent misuse of property (auto, renter's). You also can't force insurers to issue policies, so that could end up being a defacto ban in places that pass the law. At that point the government would likely have to step in and offer coverage, in an ham-fisted attempted to solve a problem they created in the first place. A ban on guns or concealed carry would not stand up to any legal scrutiny.
 
2014-02-13 12:39:12 PM

redmid17: DrBenway: redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.

You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.

You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. Obviously regulation and exercise of rights is subjective, but suffice it to say it sets a bad precedent. It would also likely be overly expensive, especially if it's per gun (instead of per owner/user) like a car is insured. That would probably fail a constitutional challenge in court.

What are the insurance policies going to cover, negligence and criminal acts? IANAL, an actuary, or a licensed insurance broker but every applicable insurance form I've signed has a disclaimer against intentional or negligent misuse of property (auto, renter's). You also can't force insurers to issue policies, so that could end up being a defacto ban in places that pass the law. At that point the government would likely ...


I'd also like to point out I'm unaware of country in the world that requires firearm insurance (though it was a brief survey). Additionally one would think that this kind of push would have come up at least once or twice in the 100+ years that states have been issuing public hunting licenses and the 30+ years states have been issuing concealed carry permits. That's not conclusive by any means but it makes one think about the veracity of the issue at the very least. Hunters expend ammunition legally at a far higher rate than conceal carried holders and people using guns to defend themselves*.

*Remember insurance wont' cover people who commit criminal acts or take their own life, which are by far the two biggest causes of firearm death and injury
 
2014-02-13 12:42:54 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH:

Nonsense.
Ridiculous.
aaaaaaaaaand
Asinine.

Did you even read these websites before you posted?

 F&CCW insurance is strictly for covering the cost and process of your legal defense


NRA Self-defense Insurance Covers:
Up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs
It's not always that simple. Any court case could result in you spending tens of thousands of dollars to protect your freedom and clear your name. Even once you're cleared of all criminal charges, the family of the deceased might take further action to sue you in civil court for wrongful death. Once a civil trial determines you are not liable for damages, you could still face a pile of legal bills in the process.
The cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage
Criminal defense reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of charges


These policies cover LEGAL FEES to defend yourself against overzealous district attorneys who aren't willing to buy your claim of "self-defense".  Nothing in these policies would be useful in the case of a negligent discharge or some other crime.    Basically you're requiring CCW holders to have an ambulance chaser on retainer to bail their azzes out of trouble when the need arises.  Is that your goal here?

Qwicheryer whinin' and buy your ridiculously whiny, overconfident self an umbrella policy.
Man up and take full responsibility for walking around armed in public, or stick that firearm in a safe where it belongs.


So you got nuthin.  Just another backdoor scheme to remove guns from society.  If that's your endgame, how about removing them from the criminals first and then worrying about the law abiding citizens?
 
2014-02-13 01:24:40 PM

redmid17: DrBenway: redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.

You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.

You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. Obviously regulation and exercise of rights is subjective, but suffice it to say it sets a bad precedent. It would also likely be overly expensive, especially if it's per gun (instead of per owner/user) like a car is insured. That would probably fail a constitutional challenge in court.


Really? Try starting a newspaper or TV station without a license and insurance.
 
2014-02-13 01:29:15 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: DrBenway: redmid17: DrBenway: Luse: DrBenway: redmid17: Tell you what. You respond to my explanation of why gun insurance is a bad idea and I will answer your question more in depth.

Is that where you said you don't need insurance to get a driver's license? True perhaps, but a bit disingenuous, isn't it, considering you can't actually operate a vehicle legally without proof of insurance whether you have a license or not?

On public roads. Some people use vehicles on large plots of privately owned land. Did you know that you don't need a license to operate virtually any vehicle on a privately owned plot of land? Did you know that Jeeno?

/ The perils of using your own experience as a syntax to create blanket rules for all.

Oh... so then you're okay with insurance being required for gun owners for some uses but not all? Well, that's a start. Say, with comparable percentages as with drivers on public roads versus drivers on private property? Works for me.

I'm not.

You're not what? Not going to explain why your comment about car insurance and license requirements wasn't disingenuous? Because not that long ago, you seemed anxious to have your thoughts on the matter of insurance addressed by someone.

You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right. Obviously regulation and exercise of rights is subjective, but suffice it to say it sets a bad precedent. It would also likely be overly expensive, especially if it's per gun (instead of per owner/user) like a car is insured. That would probably fail a constitutional challenge in court.

Really? Try starting a newspaper or TV station without a license and insurance.


You can print your own newspaper without license and insurance. TV stations require an operating permit because broadcast signals can overlap and cancel out. Also I wasn't advocating against licenses. I was talking about insurance. You can tell that from the sentence where I said "You don't need insurance to exercise any other constitutional right."
 
2014-02-13 02:01:01 PM

SCUBA_Archer: how about removing them from the criminals first


Do you not equate the availability of guns to criminals and the availability of guns to law-abiding citizens?
It may be illegal for a criminal to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun, but as the gun nuts are so fond of saying, the law is not going to stop him from getting a gun. Guns being widely available to everyone else is only going to facilitate this.
A good gun insurance policy takes this into account, if and when something does occur, there's an actual policy that covers the damage paid for by the very same people who insist on having all these guns around.
 
2014-02-13 02:24:54 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: how about removing them from the criminals first

Do you not equate the availability of guns to criminals and the availability of guns to law-abiding citizens?
It may be illegal for a criminal to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun, but as the gun nuts are so fond of saying, the law is not going to stop him from getting a gun. Guns being widely available to everyone else is only going to facilitate this.
A good gun insurance policy takes this into account, if and when something does occur, there's an actual policy that covers the damage paid for by the very same people who insist on having all these guns around.


Since when do criminals worry about making sure their guns are covered by an insurance policy?
 
2014-02-13 02:53:12 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Since when do criminals worry about making sure their guns are covered by an insurance policy?


Where did they get the gun they're not paying insurance on?
 
2014-02-13 02:58:02 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Since when do criminals worry about making sure their guns are covered by an insurance policy?

Where did they get the gun they're not paying insurance on?


Any number of places. There are probably 300 million guns or more in the US. Most guns criminals used are stolen or straw purchased.
 
2014-02-13 03:23:58 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Since when do criminals worry about making sure their guns are covered by an insurance policy?

Where did they get the gun they're not paying insurance on?


I'll play along with your silly argument since I think I see where you're going.

OK, Law-abiding citizen (L-A-C) buys a gun.  L-A-C dutifully buys insurance for gun.  Gun gets lost or stolen by L-A-C.  Criminal gets gun and uses it in a violent crime.

Are you saying that the insurance should be responsible for paying out whatever coverage they offered because a stolen gun was used in the commission of a crime? What insurance policy in the world would offer this kind of coverage?  Auto insurance policies don't cover cars until the end of forever.  And why wouldn't L-A-C cancel his insurance coverage after they paid out for the loss of the gun and open a new policy on his replacement gun?


Here's a thought.  Instead of gun owners buying insurance, why not have average citizens who are afraid of gun violence buy insurance to protect them?  This is how it works in the automotive world.  Your insurance policy covers YOU, you don't buy it to cover everyone else's mishaps.
 
2014-02-13 04:21:32 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Are you saying that the insurance should be responsible for paying out whatever coverage they offered because a stolen gun was used in the commission of a crime?


That's the general idea, yes. That's the risk we're trying to insure against, after all. The cost of insurance to the gun owner is to make them responsible enough to ensure this, among other things, does not happen, and rates would be incentivized towards lowered risk, like gun safes.

SCUBA_Archer: What insurance policy in the world would offer this kind of coverage? Auto insurance policies don't cover cars until the end of forever.


Gun insurance. Guns aren't cars, however useful the analogy.

SCUBA_Archer: And why wouldn't L-A-C cancel his insurance coverage after they paid out for the loss of the gun and open a new policy on his replacement gun?


And that's fine. And L-A-C's new rate will be higher because he lost his last gun. But the money paid out initially would/should still be there in the event the gun turns up again in the wrong hands and causes harm, or just added to a general fund used to help victims of gun violence.

SCUBA_Archer: Instead of gun owners buying insurance, why not have average citizens who are afraid of gun violence buy insurance to protect them? This is how it works in the automotive world. Your insurance policy covers YOU, you don't buy it to cover everyone else's mishaps.


Last I checked, the minimum liability insurance pays out to people whom my car has caused damage. I cut across the parkway and t-bone a station wagon, my policy pays to have their car fixed, not mine. I have to pay extra for that.
I don't see what's so different about applying it to guns. Your gun causes damage, your insurance pays out to the damaged party.
This is why you'll find so many people who don't buy into the "responsible gun owner" story. You're basically saying people should be taking out insurance policies to protect themselves from you and your toys. Doesn't sound very responsible to me. Perhaps those gun grabbers don't dislike the guns so much as the owners.
 
2014-02-13 10:23:30 PM
Your idea is bad and you should feel bad

What you're proposing isn't "insurance" per se, but a contribution to a general crime fund to be paid out in the event a victim suffers injuries as a result of a gun crime.  So let me expand further.  Would the US government (who has lost and misplaced many weapons) and state governments/police departments/sheriff's offices be the biggest contributors to said fund?  Their guns are used in the commission of many crimes.  And what about guns that were never owned by anybody?  Should Smith & Wesson / Glock / Sig / etc be forced to contribute to this fund?  And if so, wouldn't that be double dipping to then expect a gun owner to contribute to the same fund?  Finally, you want concealed carriers to solely fund this effort.  What about the millions of gun owners who don't carry concealed, but still lose their share of guns to criminals?  Are they off scot-free?  Why should concealed carriers (who are probably MORE responsible for their weapons than the average gun owner) be forced to shoulder this effort alone?
 
2014-02-13 11:41:13 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad


I can tell I'm not going to get any reasoned discourse out of you after that little gem.
Off with you, gun nut. I'm done dealing with your refusal to take responsibility for the damage your toys cause.
 
2014-02-13 11:48:51 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad

I can tell I'm not going to get any reasoned discourse out of you after that little gem.
Off with you, gun nut. I'm done dealing with your refusal to take responsibility for the damage your toys cause.


My toys only damage pieces of paper.  I know that seems awfully scary to a pants wetter like you, but it really isn't that big a deal.  The paper probably enjoys it.  Anyway, good night, may the boogeyman not threaten you in your sleep.
 
2014-02-14 12:06:11 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Sergeant Grumbles: SCUBA_Archer: Your idea is bad and you should feel bad

I can tell I'm not going to get any reasoned discourse out of you after that little gem.
Off with you, gun nut. I'm done dealing with your refusal to take responsibility for the damage your toys cause.

My toys only damage pieces of paper.  I know that seems awfully scary to a pants wetter like you, but it really isn't that big a deal.  The paper probably enjoys it.  Anyway, good night, may the boogeyman not threaten you in your sleep.


*sigh*
You want to walk around armed in public in order to "damage pieces of paper".
And you call firearms "toys".

Do you want to add anything more to help us assess your maturity, safety, mental state, and skill level?
 
2014-02-14 12:09:41 AM

SCUBA_Archer: My toys only damage pieces of paper.


If it stayed that way, no one would have a problem. But it's that nasty little tendency for those guns to hurt people, in both the right and wrong hands, coupled with the gun lobby's insistence that there be little to no strings attached to gun ownership, that maybe, just maybe, we don't trust you with the guns.
I like gun insurance on all privately owned guns because working correctly it would pay for any damages caused and act as financial incentive for safe behavior. It's what responsible gun owners would do.
 
Displayed 32 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report