UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (85) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: MissEdithKeeler Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 63268  
Subject: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/16/2012 12:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
http://news.msn.com/us/ind-man-with-47-guns-arrested-after-s...

I still say there should be a limit on the number of guns that can be legally owned. Let's start there. Let's start somewhere.

Cedar Lake police were called to the home of 60-year-old Von I. Meyer early Friday after he allegedly threatened to set his wife on fire. A police statement says Meyer also said he would enter Jane Ball Elementary School and "kill as many people as he could."

Authorities found 47 guns and ammunition worth over $100,000.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46834 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/16/2012 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"Authorities found 47 guns and ammunition worth over $100,000."


ANd we probably should start on jewelry, too! After all, why should someone own $100,000 or $200,000 of jewelry? Lots of people have none!

And same for art work! All those expensive paintings should be in museums for people to view!..not in private homes.

HOw many guns can you use at once? really? How many can you carry?

You really only need one and a bunch of ammo......

MissEdith and her gun fright leads her to stupidity. Really.....is he going to carry 47 guns, probably most of them rifles, anywhere at the same time?

But I'd bet she has more of something....than other folks have.....whether it be cookie jar collections or things hanging on the wall..or maybe even cats...and I really don't like Pit Bulls....no one should own one of them or Rotweiler..t.hey attack at least 100 kids a year, sometimes killing them!.....no more 'dangerous dogs' of any kind!......

Silly silly.......

My dad had over 30 guns at one time in his collection - mostly military stuff from WW2. We'd go shoot 3 or 4 of them at the rifle range. The collection has been pared down over the years after his death. Hand guns...shotguns of several types.... (bird shooting, deer hunting, rabbit hunting)......half a dozen pistols...... 4 target rifles....... a couple deer hunting rifles.... and a good bunch of WW1 and WW2 military stuff.

We could start on cars - cars kill people. No one should own more than one. Certainly folks like Leno with 50 or 60 or 100 of them - well, they have lots of 'killer cars' - ones that can go 200 mph!......or only go in straight lines on a race track! and they pollute the atmosphere! why should anyone have more than 47 of them!


Ninny Edith will tell us all 'what we may or may not have'. Typical lib. Control and micromanage your life.

Would it have made any difference it the perps mother only had TWO guns in the house? not really.


t.





t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46835 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/16/2012 3:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
I like the idea of an annual registration/licensing fee for every weapon. And lets make sure the fees pay for the infrastructure cost of setting up a nationwide database that law enforcement can tap into as easily as they can trace a car's owner . . . plus cover the costs to society for events like that in CT.

Someone who wants to own 47 guns would have to pay the annual fees on all of them or give some of them up.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PolymerMom Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46836 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/16/2012 4:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I like the idea of an annual registration/licensing fee for every weapon.

Agreed.

I'd also like a gun owner's permit to be federally-issued to gun buyers/owners, ensuring uniformity of background checks,etc. This would have an added advantage, in that sellers at all the gun shows be required to check the currency of the permit before selling a person a gun. Proof of the check could be a simple thing, such as recording the permit number and the gun registration number at the time of sale. This info would feed into the licensing fee process.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46838 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/16/2012 5:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
I also think weapon owners should be required to purchase gun liability insurance on every gun they own that takes care of victims - intentional or accidental. We require auto owners to purchase insurance. It seems natural to do the same thing for guns.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46840 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/16/2012 5:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"I like the idea of an annual registration/licensing fee for every weapon. And lets make sure the fees pay for the infrastructure cost of setting up a nationwide database that law enforcement can tap into as easily as they can trace a car's owner . . . plus cover the costs to society for events like that in CT.

Someone who wants to own 47 guns would have to pay the annual fees on all of them or give some of them up. "


Heh heh..

all that would do is make 'unregistered guns' that much more valuable.

What, next, we have gun squads invading every house on every block in every city and suburb. Checking every nook and cranny looking for an illegal gun? Heck, that doesn't even work in Afghanistan where 100,000 troops searched town after town and found very little, yet the next day the terrorists had all the weapons they needed. And I'm sure you wouldn't mind the 'gun police' tearing YOUR house apart? After the neighbor reported you? And leaving everything a mess after they tore out walls, tore up the attic insulation, ripped out basement walls and ceilings?

YEah, of course, you libs first want registration of every gun...which, in the case of the CT killings, would have done nothing, right? The guns were legally owned. YOur just as dead with one gun as with 3 in this case..and it turns out he used mainly the one gun.

Then, you jack up the price of the annual fee to 'unaffordable'

You accomplished your gun confiscation.

Not over a lot of dead bodies, my friend.

Every gun sold is in a database and can be traced back to the original owner. BUt that's all. If it stolen, obviously the criminal isn't going to register it. Criminals never register anything, silly, so your idea is quite stupid in controlling crime.


And we KNOW exactly where these guns came from.

Same from the ones used in VA Tech.


There is no need for a national database other than gun confiscation. Either now or later.

First they came for the guns in Germany. Then they came for the Jews...the Poles....the Gypsies.....the muslims......and they were all defenseless against the government....

So your silly scheme is nothing but a very obvious gun confiscation plan, right?

of course it is.

YOu know, we kill over 10,000 a people a year in drunk driving cases. Why aren't you confiscating the cars of drunk drivers? Killers on the road? huh?

and why should folks own cars that will do 100 mph? killer cars!......tax them out of existence! just think, you're more likely to be killed and your kids killed by a speed junkie driving a hot car at 'excessive speed'......

where does it end? It never ends with libs who want to micro manage their lives because they have none themselves.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46841 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/16/2012 5:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
polymer mom:"I'd also like a gun owner's permit to be federally-issued to gun buyers/owners, ensuring uniformity of background checks,etc. This would have an added advantage, in that sellers at all the gun shows be required to check the currency of the permit before selling a person a gun. Proof of the check could be a simple thing, such as recording the permit number and the gun registration number at the time of sale. This info would feed into the licensing fee process."


with nearly every kid in college having a phony ID to be able to drink under the age of 21....

you really think your silly scheme would accomplish anything?


You realize that half the sales of guns in inner cities are done by 'straw buyers'.....?


Say the wife or girlfriend of a criminal? Whose gun magically gets 'stolen' a few days later.......or just winds up in her boyfriends hands 3 days later....and if the police ever ask - it was taken without permission or stolen from her.

Yeah...we had that silliness during prohibition......the only alcohol produced was for 'industrial uses'......hah.....and Fat Jerry Falwell of Lynchburg VA and his family got rich growing corn and , ahem, converting it.....

YOu'd have one heck of a black market in illegal guns.....

and there are already 100 million unregistered guns in the country that would become a lot more valuable.


And since the guns used in CT...and in VA Tech...and CO....were legally owned and registered, you would have succeeded in stopping NONE of these killings, right?


t
t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46842 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/16/2012 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
" I also think weapon owners should be required to purchase gun liability insurance on every gun they own that takes care of victims - intentional or accidental. We require auto owners to purchase insurance. It seems natural to do the same thing for guns. "

Wrong....your insurance does not cover 'intentional damage'.

OK....so your car gets stolen, the perp wipes out a family of 8, they sue for 90 million dollars.....and you are on the hook for the entire amount since the perp died? in your car? really? unless you handed, voluntarily, the keys to the perp.....you aren't going to wind up paying.

Half the cars on the road in TX don't have even liability insurance. )illegals and poor folks who can't afford it). That's why we have uninsured motorist insurance = and it is high in TX....

Silly plan.

the insurance probably would not pay for 'intentional acts' any more than your insurance would pay if you used your car intentionally to run over someone. or ten kids at the school bus corner.

You are only insured against accidents and negligence.

If you died in the event...and had no assets, the insurance company wouldn't pay a dime.



t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46848 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/17/2012 3:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I also think weapon owners should be required to purchase gun liability insurance on every gun they own that takes care of victims - intentional or accidental. We require auto owners to purchase insurance. It seems natural to do the same thing for guns.

While we're at it, owners should also be required to purchase knife, baseball bat and hammer insurance.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46852 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/17/2012 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I also think weapon owners should be required to purchase gun liability insurance on every gun they own that takes care of victims - intentional or accidental. We require auto owners to purchase insurance. It seems natural to do the same thing for guns."

Good luck on that.

NO sane insurance company in the world would issue such policies.


THey only issue policies for ACCIDENTAL occurances.

You burn down your house...don't try to collect on your homewners. Same if you blow it up. Or take out your car and intentionally mow down a row of kids.....


Silly idea from someone who doesn't understand basic insurance.


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46853 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/17/2012 6:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 55
While we're at it, owners should also be required to purchase knife, baseball bat and hammer insurance.

I'm pretty much stayed out of these gun control threads because I've seen the arguments before but this one is just so...amazingly dumb I'm embarrassed for people who even bring them up. If they were the same, then you don't need a gun for self-defense, you can just use a hammer right?

There are lots and lots of things in our society that require special insurance or have special regulations because somebody besides the owner might abuse them. For example, the attractive nuisance doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

The law requires you be pro-active in regards to potential hazards, even if the person (usually applied to children, but not always) was trespassing.

Things like cars require a competency test and insurance. One would hope that car owners would be responsible enough know all the laws and be insured before they get on the road, but that's not the case in the real world. So we require a test and insurance.

Food handling is another one. I'm pretty sure anyone reading this could pass a food handlers test on the first try without studying because everything on the test is basic common sense. However, enough people who handle food don't have common sense and the result people get poisoned. So we have to at least have minimum level of competency if you are going to have the responsibility of handling food for the public. Shouldn't have to be that way, but it is.

Hazardous chemicals are another. One would hope that people would be smart enough not to dump that stuff in the creek but enough people do such things that we need laws and penalties to prevent it. These laws and penalties that don't apply to non-hazardous materials.

Radioactive materials are another. Nuclear densitometers are used in all kinds of construction applications, but because there is a hazard there is a high burden of recording keeping and training associated with them. I mention this, because leaving a nuclear densiometer in the back of your pickup is considered an "attractive nuisance" by the courts. As the owner and operator of a nuclear densiometer you are accepting a higher level of responsibility than if there was say, a table or a chair in the back of your truck. It is a bummer, because the only place you can transport one of those things is the back of your truck but you can't leave it and grab burger at McDonald's because if it gets stolen it is your *ss on the line.

See where I'm going with this? Basically anything that has a potential risk to society--from a swimming pool to a toaster--has a commensurately higher civil and sometimes criminal liability associated it. Even if the owner and operating is using the device properly.

...except guns. You don't have to demonstrate competency. You don't have to demonstrate that you accept liability for misuse. That is unique as far as I know when it comes to consumer products.

So let's do a thought experiment. Let's say Nancy Lanza's AR-15 was insured, and now all 28 victims come back against the insurance company. Just like they would if it was Nancy Lanza's roller coaster or swimming pool. Next time, the insurance company would want to see the the weapon is securely stored and see proof that there is no access by authorized persons before they issue a policy. And every once in a while they would probably check to see if that was still the case. They might even require some competency testing before they issued the policy.

Would that prevent the next Sandy Hook? Dunno, but it might. Most of these mass public killings are committed with legal weapons. Again as a thought experiment, Dylan and Klebold got their weapons from a friend who bought them at the gun show. What if the friend had to register and buy insurance first? Makes the whole scenario less likely. Doesn't eliminate it, but less likely.

And sure, there will still be illegal weapons but again, most of these killings were done with legal weapons. It is a partial solution. There's nothing wrong with partial solutions.

I'll even throw a bone to the home defense crowd. One, plugged shotgun is exempt from the rule. But bottom line is that guns aren't the same as baseball bats. Claiming they are the same is a pretty sorry argument.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46854 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/17/2012 6:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
While we're at it, owners should also be required to purchase knife, baseball bat and hammer insurance.

The type and severity of damage done by those is typically covered by other types of insurance. At any rate, insurance companies would determine the price of such policies. How much do you think for profit insurance companies would demand to insure someone with 47 guns vs how much they would ask to insure someone with 47 baseball bats?

Gun nuts like to pretend that guns have nothing to do with gun violence. They act like allowing knives and baseball bats to be freely available is just as big a risk as allowing semi-automatic weapons with 30 round clips.

Of course that is absurd. When they make these arguments they reveal themselves to be mindless puppets of the NRA. If they really believe that bats and knives are as likely weapons, why don't they content themselves to own knives and baseball bats. They are, after all, considerably cheaper. No. Even gun nuts know that guns are different than baseball bats. They are simply willing to lie in order to rationalize how desperately they cling to their precious guns.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46856 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/17/2012 8:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
skye notes:"The law requires you be pro-active in regards to potential hazards, even if the person (usually applied to children, but not always) was trespassing."

Yes, and most people who drown in the pool are kids who live or are visiting the house. The fence does nothing. Of course, any teenager with a brain will figure a way to get over a six foot high fence.....duh! if they really want to.

But if you live in the country and you have a pond, do you need a 'special barrier'? of course not, silly. Or if you live on a lake, do you need to put up a special barrier? of course not.

and once again, those are ACCIDENTAL drownings. YOur insurance wouldn't cover you if you took one of the kids and held his head under water for 8 minutes, would it? of course not!

----------



skye:"Things like cars require a competency test and insurance."

Only when driven on public roads, and believe it or not, the fed gov't has nothing to do with it!.....those tests and insurance are all state by state!

and if you live on a farm, you can drive farm vehicles with no license and no insurance.

If you own your own lake, you can have your kid drive a boat with no insurance.....

so once again, your argument is toast. When it comes to your property, you do not need a license or insurance. Only on 'public roads'.

-------



skye:""Food handling is another one. I'm pretty sure anyone reading this could pass a food handlers test on the first try without studying because everything on the test is basic common sense."

Yeah, 360 million AMericans go to bed each night without food poisoning....

--------




skye:" However, enough people who handle food don't have common sense and the result people get poisoned. So we have to at least have minimum level of competency if you are going to have the responsibility of handling food for the public. Shouldn't have to be that way, but it is."

Yeah..mainly because of illegal immigrants, under the table workers, etc.

YOu think McD wants to make its customers sick?


----



skye:"Hazardous chemicals are another. One would hope that people would be smart enough not to dump that stuff in the creek but enough people do such things that we need laws and penalties to prevent it. These laws and penalties that don't apply to non-hazardous materials."

You do know now that regular rain water is a pollutant and regulated by the government? No? you've been sleeping while BIG NANNY State is at work!

------



skye:"Radioactive materials are another. Nuclear densitometers are used in all kinds of construction applications, but because there is a hazard there is a high burden of recording keeping and training associated with them. I mention this, because leaving a nuclear densiometer in the back of your pickup is considered an "attractive nuisance" by the courts. As the owner and operator of a nuclear densiometer you are accepting a higher level of responsibility than if there was say, a table or a chair in the back of your truck. It is a bummer, because the only place you can transport one of those things is the back of your truck but you can't leave it and grab burger at McDonald's because if it gets stolen it is your *ss on the line."


So would a briefcase with $20,000 in cash. What do those dosimeters cost? Ten thousand each?

duh

_--------




skye:"See where I'm going with this? Basically anything that has a potential risk to society--from a swimming pool to a toaster--has a commensurately higher civil and sometimes criminal liability associated it. Even if the owner and operating is using the device properly."

Yeah, but if you throw the toaster into the bathtub with your wife in it, and she gets electrocuted...neither the manufacturer or the homeowners insurance is going to pay off...

Insurance never never covers INTENTIONAL damaging acts.

--------



skye:"...except guns. You don't have to demonstrate competency. You don't have to demonstrate that you accept liability for misuse. That is unique as far as I know when it comes to consumer products."

Except, you've been sleeping !...in CT, to buy a hand gun, you have to pass a gun test. Duh!......

-------



skye:"So let's do a thought experiment. Let's say Nancy Lanza's AR-15 was insured, "


a) It wasn't an AR-15 fully automatic rifle. It was a Bushmaster semi auto. You are wrong once again

--------


skye:"and now all 28 victims come back against the insurance company."

Again, no insurance policy, including yours, covers malicious INTENTIONAL acts. None. And none ever will. You intentionally mow down 28 kids on the sidewalk by the school bus - you are criminally liable but NO insurance policy anywhere will cover you - no or in the future.


------------



skye:" Just like they would if it was Nancy Lanza's roller coaster or swimming pool. "

Hell, if the kid invited 28 kids over and drowned them one by one, the homeowners policy wouldn't cover it either.

-------



skye:"Next time, the insurance company would want to see the the weapon is securely stored and see proof that there is no access by authorized persons before they issue a policy."

a) No sane insurance company would write such a policy

b) In all 3 cases (VA tech, CO, and CT) the shooter either legally owned the guns himself or his parents did....and likely a kid is going to have access to the 'family' gun cabinet or know how to get it - like where the key is kept....or in the case of the CT guy...he killed his mother first..almost killed her 3 weeks ago with a knife. Once she is dead, he's got the guns.

Your stupid law would not have stopped any of these horrendous CRIMES

-------




skye:" And every once in a while they would probably check to see if that was still the case. They might even require some competency testing before they issued the policy."

And the mother in CT passed a rigorous CT gun background check, had them legally, and it would not have made a dime's difference, right?

Once again, lib stupidity at work with laws that won't work.

-------


skye:" It is a partial solution. There's nothing wrong with partial solutions."


Really? YOu'd subject 100 million legal gun owners to JACKBOOT home intrusions. You'd probably have the federal gun police invading homes any hour of the day or night searching for illegal guns and unregistered or 'uninsured' guns. right? And come up with a cockamamie scheme of insurance no company will issue.... to stop, what? one or two nut cases a year.

you'd be a lot better off wondering why ALL THREE of the last killers where on mental condition drugs! druggies!...suicide drugs.....dispensed by the tens of thousands to 'calm down' kids so parents don't have to parent them. Half of school kids are on some kind of drug these days, and most of them have major long term effects on the brain!.....

But you forgot that part right? THis kid had been on major major big time mental condition drugs....ones that change brain chemistry.

Maybe that is where you should put your effort.

LEt's see...


Scorecare ----- would having 'insurance' stop any of the last 3 big sprees? no would more 'gun control' laws have stopped it? nope. the guns were legally owned by registered owners - and in CT, one who had passed a rigorous state test.

Would having the folks who were on high power mental brain altering drugs who went beserk - be monitored more closely.....yep.....all 3 perps were high on super brain altering drugs......bingo.!


Solution found.

t.



I'll even throw a bone to the home defense crowd. One, plugged shotgun is exempt from the rule. But bottom line is that guns aren't the same as baseball bats. Claiming they are the same is a pretty sorry argument.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46857 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/17/2012 8:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"The type and severity of damage done by those is typically covered by other types of insurance. At any rate, insurance companies would determine the price of such policies. How much do you think for profit insurance companies would demand to insure someone with 47 guns vs how much they would ask to insure someone with 47 baseball bats?
"


No insurance company in the world will ever pay off on a policy where you INTENTIONALLY commit a crime.

If you sink your ship, your shipping insurance won't pay.

If you drive your car intentionally off a cliff...it won't pay.

If you burn down your house, it won't pay. Even if a kid wanders into it and dies.

No insurance policy will EVER cover intentionally damage.

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46858 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/17/2012 8:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I wrote:

skye:"So let's do a thought experiment. Let's say Nancy Lanza's AR-15 was insured, "

Tele wrote:

a) It wasn't an AR-15 fully automatic rifle. It was a Bushmaster semi auto. You are wrong once again

It was an AR-15 manufactured by Bushmaster. "AR-15" is a generic term for semi-automatic variants of the M-16 regardless of manufacturer. AR-15 aren't fully automatic unless they have been illegally modified. Here's a link to clear up your confusion:

http://www.cabelas.com/semiautomatic-bushmaster-firearms-15-...

Your ignorance of guns kind of scares me at times. If it were up to me, people like you would have to pass a basic competency test before handling, much less owning, any type of firearm. From your postings here, there is no way you would pass. I would require Homeland Security search your entire house twice a year and confiscate any guns they found.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46865 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 12:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Your ignorance of guns kind of scares me at times.

It's his ignorance only of guns that scares you???

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46866 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 10:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I'm pretty much stayed out of these gun control threads because I've seen the arguments before but this one is just so...amazingly dumb I'm embarrassed for people who even bring them up. If they were the same, then you don't need a gun for self-defense, you can just use a hammer right?

Thanks for the ringing endorsement.

There are lots and lots of things in our society that require special insurance or have special regulations because somebody besides the owner might abuse them. For example, the attractive nuisance doctrine:

The topic I responded to was mandatory liability insurance for guns. It was not about special regulations.

Things like cars require a competency test and insurance. One would hope that car owners would be responsible enough know all the laws and be insured before they get on the road, but that's not the case in the real world. So we require a test and insurance.

There were 851 accidental discharges of guns in 2011. There were 33,554 accidental poisonings in 2011. There is not a competency test and insurance for poisons in the household.

Food handling is another one. I'm pretty sure anyone reading this could pass a food handlers test on the first try without studying because everything on the test is basic common sense. However, enough people who handle food don't have common sense and the result people get poisoned. So we have to at least have minimum level of competency if you are going to have the responsibility of handling food for the public. Shouldn't have to be that way, but it is.

Hazardous chemicals are another. One would hope that people would be smart enough not to dump that stuff in the creek but enough people do such things that we need laws and penalties to prevent it. These laws and penalties that don't apply to non-hazardous materials.

Radioactive materials are another. Nuclear densitometers are used in all kinds of construction applications, but because there is a hazard there is a high burden of recording keeping and training associated with them. I mention this, because leaving a nuclear densiometer in the back of your pickup is considered an "attractive nuisance" by the courts. As the owner and operator of a nuclear densiometer you are accepting a higher level of responsibility than if there was say, a table or a chair in the back of your truck. It is a bummer, because the only place you can transport one of those things is the back of your truck but you can't leave it and grab burger at McDonald's because if it gets stolen it is your *ss on the line.


This has nothing to due with mandatory liability insurance for homeowners. Please stay on subject.

See where I'm going with this? Basically anything that has a potential risk to society--from a swimming pool to a toaster--has a commensurately higher civil and sometimes criminal liability associated it. Even if the owner and operating is using the device properly.

Homeowners are not required to pass a competency and have additional liability insurance for pools and toasters. There were 3555 drownings in 2011, higher than accidental discharges of firearms.

...except guns. You don't have to demonstrate competency. You don't have to demonstrate that you accept liability for misuse. That is unique as far as I know when it comes to consumer products.

I already mentioned poisons. Can you really not think of another consumer product? There's a big one you missed that causes numerous deaths through misuse. It is alcohol. You are not required to show competency to use it. There is no mandatory liability insurance required to buy and/or drink alcohol. There were 26,256 alcohol-induced deaths in 2011.

So let's do a thought experiment. Let's say Nancy Lanza's AR-15 was insured, and now all 28 victims come back against the insurance company. Just like they would if it was Nancy Lanza's roller coaster or swimming pool. Next time, the insurance company would want to see the the weapon is securely stored and see proof that there is no access by authorized persons before they issue a policy. And every once in a while they would probably check to see if that was still the case. They might even require some competency testing before they issued the policy.

I have no problem with an insurance company denying coverage if firearms were stored improperly. I would have no problem with an insurance company denying insurance if a person has a pool that the insurance company does not know about. I also wouldn't be opposed to insurance companies denying coverage for alcohol-related injuries. What I was opposing was mandatory liability insurance for firearms. As I also have shown, accidental discharges and accidental deaths due to guns are lower than poisoning and drownings yet there isn't a call for mandatory liability insurance for chemicals in the household or swimming pools.

As for competency tests, I have made no posts on this thread before this post on that topic. You introduced it and then tried to make it look like I'm opposed to it. I have stated before on these boards that I have no issue with required safety training before a firearm is purchases. With concealed carry permits, you are getting that training. Hunters are required to pass a hunter safety course in this state before you can hunt. Part of that training is firearm safety. People wanting to use our local shooting range must pass a mandatory range safety class before they are allowed to use the range. Part of that training is firearm safety. So for future reference, don't try to imply in your responses to me that I am against any competency test.

PSU

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46867 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 11:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"What I was opposing was mandatory liability insurance for firearms."

No insurance company is going to issue liability insurance that covers INTENTIONAL misuse.

No more than they cover you for when you take your car and mow down 20 kids standing on the school bus corner intentionally.

or when you drown 3 kids in your back yard swimming pool.


The insurance is for ACCIDENTAL occurrences. Not intentional.

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46868 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 11:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The insurance is for ACCIDENTAL occurrences. Not intentional.

Many life insurance policies will pay the benefit for suicides after a specified time period has passed since purchase of the life insurance. A common time period is two years.

Life insurance will also cost more for certain added risks. One is being overweight and another is tobacco use. Both of these risks add to the costs of the life insurance. I don't have a problem with insurance companies charging more for homeowner's policies if there is a firearm in the house. That is a voluntary add-on to the policy. People are free to shop various insurance companies for homeowner's policies. Some insurance companies may choose not to charge extra for firearms. It is a market-based voluntary program.

People are not required to have homeowner's insurance. It is usually required by mortgage holder. Once the house is paid off, you can drop it and take your changes. It would be the same with firearms.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46869 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 11:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PSU:"Many life insurance policies will pay the benefit for suicides after a specified time period has passed since purchase of the life insurance. A common time period is two years.

Life insurance will also cost more for certain added risks. One is being overweight and another is tobacco use. Both of these risks add to the costs of the life insurance. I don't have a problem with insurance companies charging more for homeowner's policies if there is a firearm in the house. That is a voluntary add-on to the policy. People are free to shop various insurance companies for homeowner's policies. Some insurance companies may choose not to charge extra for firearms. It is a market-based voluntary program."


Try getting a life insurance policy if you are a court found legal homicidal maniac......and taking major brain altering drugs.....

Plus the risks of you taking your own life are 'known'..and can be factored in.

Sorry....your 'liability' for 'guns' used in a crime spree aren't going to hack it.



t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46870 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 11:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sorry....your 'liability' for 'guns' used in a crime spree aren't going to hack it.

I assume that is a generic "your". I made no such claim.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46871 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 11:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This has nothing to due with mandatory liability insurance for homeowners. Please stay on subject.


The subject was knife, baseball bat and hammer insurance, remember?

But the power of you logic convinced me. If we don't require insurance for hammers, then we shoudln't require insurance anything.

Because first they came for the hammers, and I didn't have a hammer so I didn't say anything...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46872 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
People are not required to have homeowner's insurance. It is usually required by mortgage holder. Once the house is paid off, you can drop it and take your changes. It would be the same with firearms.

Unless maintaining insurance was a requirement for ownership...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46873 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 12:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Unless maintaining insurance was a requirement for ownership...

You are correct. As I already said, I don't think it should be a requirement of ownership of firearms. As I already posted, there are more deaths from accidental drownings than from accidental firearm deaths. There isn't a requirement for insurance for ownership of pools. Also there isn't an insurance requirement for ownership of alcohol or poisons. As much as I hate to agree with telegraph, the vast majority of firearm death is due to intentional use, not accidental. The largest portion of the deaths from firearms is due to suicide. I don't have a problem with voluntary requirement of insurance for ownership of guns.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46874 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Unless maintaining insurance was a requirement for ownership... "

Yeah, right..as if criminals are going to follow that law....and of course, the 'poor' would be deprived of their second amendment rights. You'd have to issue 'gun stamps'....to help them pay for insurance. Oh..better yet, ObamaGunInsurnace for the poor.


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46875 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 12:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
" I don't have a problem with voluntary requirement of insurance for ownership of guns."

In which case, you'd find out your silly 'requirement for insurance' is nothing but a back door way to regulate guns out of existence. Before you know it the libs would try to make it 'mandatory'....and no sane insurer is going to issue such a policy.


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46876 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The subject was knife, baseball bat and hammer insurance, remember?

Right. And you decided to introduce competency requirement and requirements on businesses such as food safety, hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. I was limiting my discussion to insurance on the household. I'm not a gun range owner but I wouldn't be surprised if they are required to carry liability for their customers that use the range. That would be a business requirement.

But the power of you logic convinced me. If we don't require insurance for hammers, then we shoudln't require insurance anything.

Because first they came for the hammers, and I didn't have a hammer so I didn't say anything...


I just listed two items that could be misused intentionally. You were not requiring insurance from accidental cuts and injuries from knives and baseball bat. Yet you want to require insurance of firearm owners when the accidental death and/or injury is higher from pools, hazardous household chemicals and alcohol. What you are trying to do is push mandatory insurance on all gun owners for the intentional misuse by a minority of gun owners. You are not pushing for alcohol insurance even though there is a lot of intentional misuse by the product. And to anticipate a future response, the intentional misuse of alcohol injures and kills a lot of innocent bystanders just like firearms do. I have not mentioned drugs since much of the drug deaths are due to use of an illegal product.

I can't help you on your reading ability.

PSU

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46877 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 12:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yeah, right..as if criminals are going to follow that law....and of course, the 'poor' would be deprived of their second amendment rights. You'd have to issue 'gun stamps'....to help them pay for insurance. Oh..better yet, ObamaGunInsurnace for the poor.

As I hate to agree with you on many topics, an insurance requirement on a gun could be considered a form of tax on ownership and would be a regressive tax as applied. Since this is the liberal edition board, I found the proposal interesting.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46878 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 12:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The subject was knife, baseball bat and hammer insurance, remember?

As an additional response, the subject was insurance. I just used three off-the-wall examples. I will note that you have decided to just post sarcastic comments about my logic and failed to even address my other later points about pools, alcohol and poisons. The silence is deafening.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46879 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 12:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You are correct. As I already said, I don't think it should be a requirement of ownership of firearms. There isn't a requirement for insurance for ownership of pools. As I already posted, there are more deaths from accidental drownings than from accidental firearm deaths.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but in salaryguru's original post--the one you responded to--he suggested that insurance cover victims regardless if it was accidental or intentional.

I don't know if insurance companies require extra insurance on swimming pools or not. However, I do know that swimming pools are considered an attractive nuisance. Which is to say, the owner can be held civilly responsible for injury or death that occurs in the pool, even if the injured party was using the pool without the owner's knowledge or permission, unless the owner has taken certain steps to secure the area.

That extra liability is the reason why people go to the extra effort of building fences around swimming pools. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that you can't get a homeowner's policy unless the pool secured.

Salaryguru's point and my point is that if there is extra liability or penalties involved then people will change their behavior, including taking steps to prevent misuse by people besides the owner.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46880 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In which case, you'd find out your silly 'requirement for insurance' is nothing but a back door way to regulate guns out of existence. Before you know it the libs would try to make it 'mandatory'....and no sane insurer is going to issue such a policy.

My silly requirement for insurance? You will note that I'm talking about private liability policies. A private company can require all kinds of things for me to have their insurance. Life insurance can require me to be below a certain weight for my height and not use tobacco to get preferable rates. Disability insurance rate can be influenced by my occupation. My homeowner's policy makes me pay for a rider covering jewelry. The insurance company could also charge extra for a pool liability if it wanted to. As a pool owner, my insurance company does not charge extra for the liability coverage. Under a voluntary system, I could choose to find a different company if my insurance company did start to charge extra for my pool.

If a homeowners policy wanted to charge extra for firearms due to increased risk, I don't have a problem with that. I could choose to stay and pay the extra or look for a different insurance company that doesn't charge it. I don't see voluntary insurance premiums as a form of gun control.

Alcohol misuse is a huge problem in this country. I am not seeing calls for mandatory liability insurance for storage or consumption of alcohol in the home.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46881 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Right. And you decided to introduce competency requirement and requirements on businesses such as food safety, hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. I was limiting my discussion to insurance on the household.

Not quite. The discussion was about insurance for weapon owners carrying liability insurance for for their guns, regardless if the situation was accidental or intentional.

You decided to limit your discussion homeowner's insurance that would cover accidental discharge. That not at all what salaryguru originally said. You're the one who changed the subject.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46882 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I don't know if insurance companies require extra insurance on swimming pools or not."

Usually, a swimming pool is 'extra cost' because, well, it is more money. Just like an addition on your house will up your insurance. Nothing special there. But you don't get charged extra if you have a pond in your back yard, a river, or anything else, right?

And it is usually the TOWN that requires a fence to get a building permit to put in a pool.

-----------



" However, I do know that swimming pools are considered an attractive nuisance."

which is why you picked on it, but failed to take effective action against poisons, medicine cabinets, alcohol, right? Which kill or injure far more, right?

So as a gun ninny, you 'go after the guns'....which in the last three cases , were either owned by the perp or the family of the gun owner.

Your insurance doesn't cover you if you drown 3 kids intentionally in your pool...or if your neighbor breaks in and does the same. Right?

-------



"
Which is to say, the owner can be held civilly responsible for injury or death that occurs in the pool, even if the injured party was using the pool without the owner's knowledge or permission, unless the owner has taken certain steps to secure the area."

NOt true. You kill 3 people intentionally, you can only be held criminally liable. or if your neighbor breaks in...or a family member...and kills 3 kids by drowning them.

-------



"That extra liability is the reason why people go to the extra effort of building fences around swimming pools."


Usually the town requires it for a construction permit. If you live 30 miles out in the country, a lot of pools out there don't have fences around them. Don't need them. The farm pond, the river, the lake....do they have 'fences around them'?

-----




"I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that you can't get a homeowner's policy unless the pool secured."

That is a relative term. Any teenager can jump the 8 foot fences here. They just use your big plastic garbage can, put it by the fence, and over they go. He could then drown your 3 year old kid. or unlock the gate and let 20 in to use the pool.

--------



"Salaryguru's point and my point is that if there is extra liability or penalties involved then people will change their behavior, including taking steps to prevent misuse by people besides the owner."

In the last 3 mass killings, the perps either OWNED the guns or lived in the house where the guns where. the extra 'liability' would not have covered them as it was intentional CRIMINAL use of the guns that is in question.

No insurance policy will cover it. Period.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46883 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PSUE: As I already posted, there are more deaths from accidental drownings than from accidental firearm deaths. There isn't a requirement for insurance for ownership of pools.

Apples and oranges. But a pool owner would have to be crazy not to have liability insurance.

What is you objection to insurance for firearms, other than the silly hammers argument?

Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46884 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"My silly requirement for insurance? You will note that I'm talking about private liability policies."

Actually, you were talking about policies that don't exist and which you dreamed up.

---------

" A private company can require all kinds of things for me to have their insurance. Life insurance can require me to be below a certain weight for my height and not use tobacco to get preferable rates."

and if you go off and kill 20 people and get sentenced to death, I'd bet your life insurance policy doesn't pay a dime when the state fries you in the electric chair, right? so much for that.

--------


" My homeowner's policy makes me pay for a rider covering jewelry."

Yeah, you must have quite a stash. Now all the folks on the MF know about it. What, more than $10,000 to require a rider?

------



" The insurance company could also charge extra for a pool liability if it wanted to. As a pool owner, my insurance company does not charge extra for the liability coverage."

Oh, I"m sure they do. IT's buried in the homeowners insurance......then again, your pool seldom burns down or is taken out in a tornado...so the rate is pretty low.....

------




"Under a voluntary system, I could choose to find a different company if my insurance company did start to charge extra for my pool."

It's probably buried in there somewhere. But, as you note, coverage for the pool is very low since likely you have no coming over your fence....which, of course, the insurance company knows is there by your zip code. Here, my town requires a six foot fence, but most homes have an 8 foot fence. A teenager has no problems going over the 8 foot fences. Same for burglars. Either use a garbage can to climb over (we got those big gigantic 100 gallon type plastic ones five feet high.....or they bring a van up along side the fence in the back yard alleyways, climb up on the roof, peer over the fence and jump over it. Or use a ladder to get down the other side. No sweat. They do keep out the dogs and the little kids but there isn't a little kid within 500 feet of my house these days.

So, for your mythical insurance that wouldn't cover criminal use of any gun, poison, bomb, knife, sledgehammer...... you'd just try to pass unless legislation that accomplished nothing?





t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46885 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"The discussion was about insurance for weapon owners carrying liability insurance for for their guns, regardless if the situation was accidental or intentional. "

No insurance EVER will cover intentional damage....car, airplane, whatever.


You think that the survivors of 9-11 got to sue the plane manufacturers and the airlines for damages?

gimme a break...

or if someone steals your car-jacks your car and mows down 20 kids at the school bus stop...that your insurance is going to pay? no way.



t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46886 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PSUE: If a homeowners policy wanted to charge extra for firearms due to increased risk, I don't have a problem with that. I could choose to stay and pay the extra or look for a different insurance company that doesn't charge it. I don't see voluntary insurance premiums as a form of gun control.

States have requirements for mandatory liability insurance for cars.

Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46887 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"But a pool owner would have to be crazy not to have liability insurance."


Why?

With an 8 foot fence around the pool, maintained, you have done everything that the law requires for 'due diligence'.


The only reason they would have liability insurance is if an invited guest slipped and fell on the 'wet deck'.....and got talked into suing by some slip and fall lawyer...., and sued them for whatever reason for medical bills.....and a lot more.

Your insurance won't pay off if you go beserk and drown 3 people in your pool.

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46888 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"States have requirements for mandatory liability insurance for cars. "

And there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees you the 'right' to own a car.

Different subject.

And no, if you have a farm vehicle or only drive on your own ranch you don't need liability insurance even if you have a car or truck....

only if you go on the PUBLIC roads.


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46889 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
As an additional response, the subject was insurance. I just used three off-the-wall examples. I will note that you have decided to just post sarcastic comments about my logic and failed to even address my other later points about pools, alcohol and poisons. The silence is deafening.

The subject was gun owner's insurance. You just made a sarcastic comment and changed the topic, neatly ducking all of his points.

I did address your comment about pools, probably while you were typing. However, since you asked, I gave some examples of things that are potentially dangerous that have "commensurately higher civil and sometimes criminal liability associated it. Even if the owner and operating is using the device properly." And you rebutted by bringing up alcohol and poisons.

So let's talk about alcohol and poisons, and see if they invalidate that statement. Drinking is legal. Driving is legal. Drinking and driving is illegal. Having an open container in your house is legal. Having an open container in your car is illegal. Producers, distributors, and retailers of alcohol are subject to special regulation, and there is even special branch of the federal government devoted to regulation of alcohol.

So it is my claim that alcohol is one of those things that has correspondingly higher civil or criminal penalties associated with its misuse. Feel free to disagree.

Next come poisons. Some poisons are legal to buy and use, but some aren't aren't. Typical household poisons have special packing and handling requirements that other products don't have and it is illegal to handle poisons except in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Poisons have special disposal requirements, and it is illegal to dispose of them improperly. There is an entire set of federal laws devoted specifically to common poisons, known as FIFRA.

So it is my claim that poisons are one of those things that has correspondingly higher civil or criminal penalties associated with its misuse. Feel free to disagree.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46890 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 1:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
And just to bring the whole full circle, I gave some examples of things that have "commensurately higher civil and sometimes criminal liability associated" with them because their misuse poses some danger to society. These special penalties and regulations are designed to decrease misuse. PSUEngineer helpfully added alcohol and poisons to that list.

Like alcohol, misuse of guns poses some danger to society and therefore it is reasonable to discuss ways to reduce that danger including higher civil or even criminal penalties for misuse. We do that all the time, in all kinds of situations.

Simply dismissing that whole argument because we don't require insurance for baseball bats is nonsense.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46891 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not to put too fine a point on it, but in salaryguru's original post--the one you responded to--he suggested that insurance cover victims regardless if it was accidental or intentional.

Yes, and I'm saying you need to separate the two - accidental and intentional.

For accidental firearm victims, I have shown that the accidental discharges and accidental deaths occur at a much lower rate than other activities in the household. I did not see the suggestion by salaryguru or you to require insurance for their other types of accidents.

I don't know if insurance companies require extra insurance on swimming pools or not. However, I do know that swimming pools are considered an attractive nuisance. Which is to say, the owner can be held civilly responsible for injury or death that occurs in the pool, even if the injured party was using the pool without the owner's knowledge or permission, unless the owner has taken certain steps to secure the area.

That extra liability is the reason why people go to the extra effort of building fences around swimming pools. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that you can't get a homeowner's policy unless the pool secured.


As I mentioned to telegraph, I'm a pool owner. I am not required to pay extra liability insurance for my pool. I don't know about other insurance companies since I have been with my company for 20 years. There was not additional liability insurance charged when I added a pool six years ago. The insurance company does know about it in case someone asks here. As to your points about securing a pool, there are requirement by both the town and my insurance company to do that. I have a fenced in backyard. For an analogy, I would say having a requirement for trigger locks and a safe for firearms would be equivalent to a fence for a pool. It doesn't have anything to do with insurance other than my insurance company could limit liability coverage if I didn't take those steps. That is different from mandatory liability coverage. It is a voluntary action to maintain insurance. I could choose to remain uninsured.

Salaryguru's point and my point is that if there is extra liability or penalties involved then people will change their behavior, including taking steps to prevent misuse by people besides the owner.

As shown, accidental firearm use is not a large problem. So your next point is to require extra liability to change behavior. Now you are talking about intentional misuse of firearms which is a much larger problem than accidental use. You are suggesting that homeowner pay for the intentional misuse of firearms by people other than the owner. So do we separate intentional misuse by the owner from non-owner? Of the 32,163 deaths by firearms, 19,766 are self-inflicted suicide. It would be interesting to require firearm owners pay insurance for damages due to suicide by at the same time life insurance pay the beneficiary if the policy is more than two years old. I'm not seeing where mandatory firearm insurance will stop a suicidal person from committing their act.

There is are 11,101 homicides from the discharge of firearms. The data is not broken down into intentional use by owners and intentional use by non-owners. To address the non-owner issue, I don't see where charging for liability insurance is going to change the behavior of a non-owner. The non-owner would be not be paying the premium for intentional misuse. A criminal is not going to stop in the act and change his mind because it may increase his nonexistent liability insurance.

So now where are left with intentional misuse by a gun owner. Will liability insurance change the behavior of a firearm owner? For intentional use of a firearm by the owner, I don't see insurance changing the firearm owners actions during its intentional misuse. Would a firearm owner change his/her mind when they go to shoot a family member or pubic, use the weapon in a driveby shooting or robbery or any other kind of homicide because they have to pay liability insurance? At that point, I don't think they care if their guns are insured or not.

The only behavior modification that I see from mandatory liability insurance is that firearm owners may secure their guns better. But then behavior is not changed if there is not a discount for taking such actions. If the cost is the same by securing or not securing a firearm, where is the incentive to secure it?

I don't think the intention for recommending mandatory liability insurance is to change behavior since there would be very little behavior change due to insurance. I think it is to pay for the damage to society due to use of firearms. That is what you really want. That is not much different than the liability lawsuits by cities and individuals that have been filed against gun manufacturers for the misuse of their products. Make firearm owners responsible for the damage even though only a small fraction of all firearms are used improperly.

This gets back to my other point. We're not requiring buyers of alcohol to pay an additional liability fee (insurance) at the cash register for damage caused by alcohol to society. We are also not requiring prescription drug buyers to pay an additional liability fee at the cash register for damage to society from prescription drug use. Why should firearms be singled out for damage to society by misuse but other significant products are not?

To put it into perspective, my brother is in final stage of liver cirrhosis from alcohol. He is also an abuser of prescription drugs. Others are being affected by his misuse of these products. There are thousands of innocent drivers and passengers killed each year from drunk drivers. Maybe you should propose the fee I mentioned above on alcohol purchases.

As for the stats I used in my various posts, I was not drawing them from gun-nut websites. Every single one came from a preliminary data report of the CDC. I'm just mentioning it in case you are pigeonholing me as a gun-nut.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46892 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You decided to limit your discussion homeowner's insurance that would cover accidental discharge. That not at all what salaryguru originally said. You're the one who changed the subject.

As you will read later, that is not true. I was making the point that accidental discharge is not a large problem in this country. It is dwarfed by other accidents with poisoning being a huge one. Therefore I was eliminating the need for insurance for accidental use. I did not limit myself earlier to just accidental uses. I talked a lot about alcohol which is often intentionally misused. Therefore it would miss-characterizing my posts as addressing only accidental use.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46893 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"So let's talk about alcohol and poisons, and see if they invalidate that statement. Drinking is legal. Driving is legal."

Only in some places. some other places are 'dry' and you can't drink or serve in public. And, of course, no one under 21 can buy or own alcohol, right? does it stop a single college student? duh!

But, you don't have to have 'liquor insurance' for every bottle of liquor in your house. Because some kid might over do it? Is there a clause in your home owner policy about keeping your alcohol 'well secured' so others don't dangerously use it? hah

-------






" Drinking and driving is illegal."

Acutally, no. In just about every state, you can down one beer or one drink, hope in your car , and drive away and no one will bother you.

Scratch that silly statement

------



" Having an open container in your house is legal. Having an open container in your car is illegal."

In most places...not all......and do you have insurance if someone has an open container in YOUR car? really? of course, if you are parked on your own property, it is not a crime either...like out on the back 40...

but if you are under 21 in most places, it's not legal to have an open container even in your house if you are consuming it.

scratch that idea...

-----

------



"Producers, distributors, and retailers of alcohol are subject to special regulation, and there is even special branch of the federal government devoted to regulation of alcohol. "

and firearms and tobacco. wow.....the also license gun dealers.

genius at work

-------
"So it is my claim that alcohol is one of those things that has correspondingly higher civil or criminal penalties associated with its misuse. Feel free to disagree."

The only reason the feds actually have a department that 'regulates ' alcohol is since they don't want to lose 100 billion a year in taxes they collect on 'legal booze'. They spend bazillions going after the moonshiners. If there were no tax on booze, there'd be no bootleggers and moonshiners...no reason for it.

It's all about tax revenue. Nothing else.

And no, tell me the stiff penalties for letting your 20 year old kid have a can of beer? I'm waiting? Or if he takes one out of the fridge and consumes it?

The only time criminal penalties kick in ......are if you are serving booze to under age folks, making hooch on the side......or drive drunk or impaired........

and higher penalties? Gimme a break.the jails are brimming with pot users put there for teeny infractions.....and almost no drunk drivers in jail for manslaughter....or DUI tenth time.....


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46894 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"
Like alcohol, misuse of guns poses some danger to society and therefore it is reasonable to discuss ways to reduce that danger including higher civil or even criminal penalties for misuse. We do that all the time, in all kinds of situations. "


Whoa...you actually have come full cicle.


First you were on an insurance rant, forcing 100 million "Amercans" (not counting illegals) to buy your crap non-existing insurance that would cover no one in the event of intentional mis use...


then finally you get around to 'civil or criminal penalties' for misuse.

Yeah.....10 life sentences for the guy in CT..that will stop all the new crimes from happening

ANd same for the guy at VA Tech....another 10 life sentences for him! Stricter penalties for mis use of guns!....

wow...

we've just solved the world's problems!

and our jails are brimming with drug violations - like half the prison population - for possession or sale of pot, with no 'mis use'..... real smart.

Yet, 10th conviction armed robbery in NYC will get you six weeks in the slammer in NYC with half it off for good behavior...and that probably after a string of 500 armed robberies, where you only got caught 10 times.

----

"Simply dismissing that whole argument because we don't require insurance for baseball bats is nonsense. "

Actually, it isn't. YOu don't insure against someone having one drink in your house and then driving, right? you don't insure against your car being car-jacked and used in a robbery or running down 20 kids at the schoolbus, right?

and no insurance policy ever will cover INTENTIONAL MALICIOUS acts.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46895 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Apples and oranges.

Not it isn't. Both accidental drownings and accidental firearm deaths are accidents. In both cases, the cause of death is an accident. It doesn't make it an apples to oranges comparison because one death is due to a bullet and another one from water. The only reason I see is that an accidental drowning affects oneself while an accidental shooting can affect someone else in the room.

What is you objection to insurance for firearms, other than the silly hammers argument?

Read my other posters where I talk of other products. The hammer argument was quick off-the-cuff response. That is just arguing the extreme end of intentional misuse of a product that causes the death of a person. I normally don't argue extremes. That is why I stopped mentioning hammers after my first response and then focused on other products that cause comparable death to that of guns. Maybe you can focus any future responses on that instead of hammers. To continue to bring up hammers and ignore my other points is an indication that you don't want a serious discussion. Please don't lump into the telegraph category who argue extremes and let facts be damned. I have listed my source of data.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46896 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PSU: "I would say having a requirement for trigger locks and a safe for firearms would be equivalent to a fence for a pool."


But it is clearly not!

Your pool fence is to keep out 3 year old kids who might find it an attractive nuisance. It does nothing to keep your 2 or 3 year old kid from drowning accidentally in the pool.

Second, we assume that your guns are kept IN THE HOUSE, that you either are present in when it is unlocked, or locked up (secured) when you are not home. I don't have kids, so any argument about that is irrelevant, right? I don't need a 'gun safe' to keep my non existent kids out.

the rest of the time, my house is locked up when I am not home.


-------




" It doesn't have anything to do with insurance other than my insurance company could limit liability coverage if I didn't take those steps. "

You are talking about accidental, repeat, accidental, discharge of a weapon inside the house. NOt malicious use to KILL someone. NO insurance policies cover that.

-----

"That is different from mandatory liability coverage. It is a voluntary action to maintain insurance. I could choose to remain uninsured."


Once again you dream up this magical insurance that insures against MALICIOUS acts by either the owner or a family member. AIn't a gonna happen.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46897 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actually, you were talking about policies that don't exist and which you dreamed up.

Today they don't. Someday they may. As a gun owner, I will have to evaluate my insurance if or when they may start charging for the extra risk of a gun in a house. As a supporter of free-market solutions, I don't have a problem if private insurance companies start charging for my ownership of guns.

I also don't believe in seat belt laws and helmet laws for adults. I should be free to not use either device. But I also believe my insurance company can require in my policy to deny me coverage in an accident if I am not using those devices. I would be free to find an insurance company that doesn't have that requirement.

As a diehard conservative, why are you against free-market solutions?

It's probably buried in there somewhere.

Then they were overcharging me for my first 14 years of home ownership. As I said, my rates did not change when I added my pool to my homeowner's policy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46899 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
States have requirements for mandatory liability insurance for cars.

Yes, they do. The majority of auto collisions (guessing this time) is from accidents. It isn't from intentional misuse. As already mentioned, accidents from guns is a very small problem in this country. Shooting up elementary schools is not an accident.

If you want to pick the low-hanging fruit, go after alcohol first. I have owned a gun longer than I have consumed alcohol. I can say without the slightest hesitation that I have never intentionally misused guns but have intentionally misused alcohol. I would thinking that would hold overall for all of society. The percentage of gun owner who intentionally misuse guns would be much smaller than alcohol owners who misuse alcohol. What is being suggested is that gun owner pay for the misuse of guns by non-gun owners. I don't see how that solves gun related problems since the damage caused by non-gun owners is not be paid by them through liability insurance.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46900 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
PSU:"I also don't believe in seat belt laws and helmet laws for adults. I should be free to not use either device. But I also believe my insurance company can require in my policy to deny me coverage in an accident if I am not using those devices. "

Actually no.....

But you might be criminally liable if you weren't wearing a seat belt and that was a 'contributing factor' to the accident - and of course, the other party would likely sue and maybe get more damages....and you might even do jail time if someone was killed.....because you lost control while not wearing a seat belt.

It still has to pay.

---------



"I would be free to find an insurance company that doesn't have that requirement."

None of them do. They got to insure you. Just because your car has air bags (which you might have disconnected or taken out and sold off).....and seat belts....they still have to pay if you 'forgot' to wear the seat belt and the air bags didn't go off.....

-------



":As a diehard conservative, why are you against free-market solutions?"

Because your fantasy insurance policies you imagined to cover MALICIOUS INTENTIONAL DAMAGE don't exist in the real world.

and never will.


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46901 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 2:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"What is being suggested is that gun owner pay for the misuse of guns by non-gun owners. I don't see how that solves gun related problems since the damage caused by non-gun owners is not be paid by them through liability insurance. "


If your logic holds, your car insurance should be jacked up to cover all the cost of uninsured motorists everywhere..... because others misuse their cars, get into accidents, drive drunk or on drugs....and kill people. YOU should be responsible as a car owner, right? For other people's misuse! right? That is what you said above!.....

I repeat - you said "is that gun owner pay for the misuse of guns by non-gun owners."

so your neighbor who doesn't own a gun, breaks down your door when you are at work, uses a sledge hammer on your gun cabinet...then goes out and robs and shoots the clerk at the corner store and you are responsible? gotcha...


and if you did own a car..and the neighbor who doesn't own a car stole yours are mowed down a row of 8 year old school kids at the bus stop, you'd be responsible and pay? gotcha...

silly

In your case, you should probably require extra insurance to have alcohol in your house...say $25/yr per year per bottle or six pack...recorded when you buy it....and in effect till you return the empties.....in case you or someone else got drunk on it...legally or not..with or without your permission...

-----

and of course, once again, NO INSURANCE anywhere covers malicious acts against others......


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46902 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 3:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You are suggesting that homeowner pay for the intentional misuse of firearms by people other than the owner.

No. I am suggesting (actually salaryguru suggested) that as a condition of ownership the gun owner be required to maintain insurance for that covers all misuse of the weapon. You keep saying homeowner for some reason. Not the homeowner, the gun owner. Read on:

As to your points about securing a pool, there are requirement by both the town and my insurance company to do that. I have a fenced in backyard. For an analogy, I would say having a requirement for trigger locks and a safe for firearms would be equivalent to a fence for a pool. It doesn't have anything to do with insurance other than my insurance company could limit liability coverage if I didn't take those steps. That is different from mandatory liability coverage. It is a voluntary action to maintain insurance. I could choose to remain uninsured.

Aha! So now lets say there is a law that says you can't have a pool unless you have insurance. You'd have to either maintain the fence in accordance with the insurance company requirements or you'd have to get rid of the pool.

Now let's say there is a law that says you can't have a gun unless you have insurance that covers misuse...is it possible, just possible that the insurance company might be interested in who has access to the guns? And they might have certain requirements in that area before they issue a policy? I do. In fact, I'd say chances are 100%.

Similarly, it is a requirement that you have insurance to operate a vehicle on the public roadways, but there is no requirement that the insurance company actually give you a policy. If you don't meet their standards, they won't give you one.

This gets back to my other point. We're not requiring buyers of alcohol to pay an additional liability fee (insurance) at the cash register for damage caused by alcohol to society. We are also not requiring prescription drug buyers to pay an additional liability fee at the cash register for damage to society from prescription drug use. Why should firearms be singled out for damage to society by misuse but other significant products are not?

There are singled out. There are lots of special laws that apply only to the manufacture, sales, distribution, and consumption of alcohol that don't apply to other beverages, like say Diet Coke. As I said in the second sentence of my first post:

"There are lots and lots of things in our society that require special insurance or have special regulations."

I bolded the "or" in there for you. My list of of things that have special insurance or have special regulations. Get it? In our society, we treat different things differently. Guns aren't the same as beer which isn't the same as swimming pools, which isn't the same a baseball bat. It is perfectly fine to treat different things in different ways. Some of the things in my list has special insurance requirements. Some of those things had special regulations. Some have both.

Just because it might be a good idea to require gun owner's insurance, it not automatically follow it is good idea to require hammer owner's insurance. The two completely separate issues that a reasonable personal can evaluate separately. It is perfectly fine to treat different things in different ways. It is okay to come up with specific solutions to specific problems. We do it all the time. That was the whole point of my first post.

To put it into perspective, my brother is in final stage of liver cirrhosis from alcohol. He is also an abuser of prescription drugs. Others are being affected by his misuse of these products. There are thousands of innocent drivers and passengers killed each year from drunk drivers. Maybe you should propose the fee I mentioned above on alcohol purchases.

Well, I wouldn't recommend treating alcohol the same way we treat guns because that would be almost as stupid as suggesting we treat guns the same way we treat baseball bats. They are completely different problems. It is okay to treat them differently, it really is.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46903 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 3:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The subject was gun owner's insurance. You just made a sarcastic comment and changed the topic, neatly ducking all of his points.

I'm not ducking any points. You will see if you ever decide to read my other posts that I have addressed everything that put forward.

I did address your comment about pools, probably while you were typing. However, since you asked, I gave some examples of things that are potentially dangerous that have "commensurately higher civil and sometimes criminal liability associated it. Even if the owner and operating is using the device properly." And you rebutted by bringing up alcohol and poisons.

Yes, you did address pools as things are potentially dangerous. As I pointed out, there is not mandatory liability insurance for pool owners. There may be other regulations regarding their usage but liability insurance is not one of them. I will say I am speaking of my place of residence in NC. I will not speak of other states. I will acknowledge there is the possibility that other states may require it.

So it is my claim that alcohol is one of those things that has correspondingly higher civil or criminal penalties associated with its misuse. Feel free to disagree.

Did I ever disagree with you? Please point that out. Again, I'm not talking higher civil or criminal penalties with its misuse. Would you disagree that there are not higher civil and criminal penalties for misuse of firearms? I'm pretty sure just about every state has higher criminal penalties for use of a gun during the act of a crime. Use a gun in a robbery - tack on extra years in jail.

It seems to me that you are associating mandatory liability as a civil penalty for owning a gun if you are going to stick with the argument you make above. Correct me if I am wrong. Most guns are not misused. You would be attaching a civil penalty to law-abiding owners that have not done any thing wrong.

PSU

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46904 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 3:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Like alcohol, misuse of guns poses some danger to society and therefore it is reasonable to discuss ways to reduce that danger including higher civil or even criminal penalties for misuse. We do that all the time, in all kinds of situations.

Again, I am not discussing civil or criminal penalties for misuse. There are already criminal penalties on the books. I don't follow civil trials but I would guess there have been larger settlements when a gun is involve.

To be more direct, no all guns are misused. Likely only a small number are used. Mandatory liability insurance is not a civil penalty because penalty would imply misuse. You would need to show misuse before applying any higher penalty. You are applying not a penalty, but a tax, surcharge, fee or whatever you call it on law-abiding gun owners. You just nicely call it a mandatory insurance payment to make it palatable.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46905 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"As to your points about securing a pool, there are requirement by both the town and my insurance company to do that."


Only from the outside. I could have a house full of little kids....there are no town requirements to 'secure' the pool from the house, nor the insurance company does not require any. Kids could drown. Or worse, you could go nutso on your crazy meds and drown 4 of them. Your 'liability' insurance won't cover you.

--------



" I have a fenced in backyard. For an analogy, I would say having a requirement for trigger locks and a safe for firearms would be equivalent to a fence for a pool."

There is just me in the house. Locking my doors is the same as your securing your back yard, right? Same for millions of others.

No need for seven more layers of your artificial do nothing regulations


--------



" It doesn't have anything to do with insurance other than my insurance company could limit liability coverage if I didn't take those steps. "


Right, and if you read your policy, your insurance company limits your liability. You have NONE, repeat< ZERO coverage for malicious intentional acts.

--------

"That is different from mandatory liability coverage."


YOu are right. Criminals don't bother to follow the 'law' or 'regulations'. Nor get liability insurance on their stolen guns.

-------



" It is a voluntary action to maintain insurance. I could choose to remain uninsured."

And locking my doors to my house is the same as you remembering to lock the back gate to your swimming pool, right? My guns are secured. NO one can get them unless the violate the law.

------



"Aha! So now lets say there is a law that says you can't have a pool unless you have insurance. "

But there isn't. There is a law, depending only upon where you live, that governs WHETHER a fence is required and how high that fence must be. That's it.

--------




"You'd have to either maintain the fence in accordance with the insurance company requirements or you'd have to get rid of the pool."

Yeah..fat chance. You think someone going into foreclosure is going to worry about that? And fill in their swimming pool?

---------

"Now let's say there is a law that says you can't have a gun unless you have insurance that covers misuse."

Idiot!...how many times do we come back to the point that insurance NEVER comes INTENTIONAL MISUSE!
------





"Similarly, it is a requirement that you have insurance to operate a vehicle on the public roadways, but there is no requirement that the insurance company actually give you a policy. If you don't meet their standards, they won't give you one."

Actually no...you go into the uninsured motorist pool here in TX....the 'last ditch' insurance pool......


-------



" We're not requiring buyers of alcohol to pay an additional liability fee (insurance) at the cash register for damage caused by alcohol to society. We are also not requiring prescription drug buyers to pay an additional liability fee at the cash register for damage to society from prescription drug use. Why should firearms be singled out for damage to society by misuse but other significant products are not?"


Now you finally make sense!

---------



"Just because it might be a good idea to require gun owner's insurance,"

Back on your idiot one track mind of gun insurance which no one will issue.
------








"To put it into perspective, my brother is in final stage of liver cirrhosis from alcohol. He is also an abuser of prescription drugs. Others are being affected by his misuse of these products. There are thousands of innocent drivers and passengers killed each year from drunk drivers. Maybe you should propose the fee I mentioned above on alcohol purchases."

No, let's just force everyone everywhere to buy alcohol insurance if they ever buy an alcohol product, OK? that will go to compensate the victims of the 'mis use' of alcohol. After all, how many people go nusto over diet Coke? or Pepsi? We can 'single' out the one category that kills, and requires everyone who possesses alchohol to lock it safely away. And use it responsibly.

I don't have a drop of alcohol in the house. I'd be home free. BUt your relative should have to have big time insurance, likely you too!....



"Well, I wouldn't recommend treating alcohol the same way we treat guns because that would be almost as stupid as "

Nothing else needed of that sentence...


t

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46906 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 5:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Not it isn't. Both accidental drownings and accidental firearm deaths are accidents.

I suppose one could intentionally drown another person in a swimming pool. One can certainly kill another person with a gun, so to that extent, they may be comparable. Both should have insurance.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46908 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 6:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not it isn't. Both accidental drownings and accidental firearm deaths are accidents.


CountUpp:"
I suppose one could intentionally drown another person in a swimming pool. One can certainly kill another person with a gun, so to that extent, they may be comparable. Both should have insurance.

---

I didn't really think you were that much of an idiot.

No homeowner policy will cover you if you INTENTIONALLY drown someone in your pool.

No homeowner policy or gun policy will ever cover you if you INTENTIONALLY murder someone.

So why do you keep harping on it?

I thought you guys had more brains than that.



t

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46909 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 7:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Yes, they do. The majority of auto collisions (guessing this time) is from accidents. It isn't from intentional misuse. As already mentioned, accidents from guns is a very small problem in this country. Shooting up elementary schools is not an accident.

Those of you who don't understand the concept I advanced should inform yourselves about Uninsured Motorist insurance.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46910 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 7:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
As I pointed out, there is not mandatory liability insurance for pool owners.

You might want to check your homeowner's insurance policy or talk to your agent. In most states your homeowner's insurance rates go up slightly if you have a pool to cover the additional liability risk. Also, insurance companies sometimes refuse to insure homes if the pool does not have adequate safety features to reduce liability risk.

So . . . if you have a mortgage, depending on where you live, you can have a hidden requirement to have liability insurance with your pool.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46911 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 7:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Most guns are not misused. You would be attaching a civil penalty to law-abiding owners that have not done any thing wrong.

Most cars are insured and most cars are not involved in drunk driving violations, but we all pay higher rates to cover those that are not.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46912 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 8:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Also, insurance companies sometimes refuse to insure homes if the pool does not have adequate safety features to reduce liability risk.

So . . . if you have a mortgage, depending on where you live, you can have a hidden requirement to have liability insurance with your pool. "

wow.....massaging words...


'safety feature'...duh..

IN nearly every city or town, you can't get a building permit to put in a pool unless you construct a fence to keep out people.

THe only 'safety' feature you need in your house to protect outsiders from getting in and 'borrowing your guns' (they are already criminals at that point) and 'accidentally shooting someone'.... hah...more likely they'll INTENTIONALLY shoot someone..... but all you need are standard door locks. And use them when you are not home.

They can also refuse to insure it if it wasn't built to the city building code. Try getting insurance on a house made of stuffed wall tires, or a wall made of recycled bottles. no way. or a shanty made of old barn boards without adequate structure.....

so?

YOu aren't saying anything new.

and the fence only allows you to get liability insurance for ACCIDENTAL deaths in your pool...... not one where you grab the neighbors kid and drowns them intentionally. In that case, it provides ZERO coverage.

So why beat a dead horse? none of the mass killing sprees would have been solved by 'gun locks' or 'gun safes' when a family member, or the person owning the guns, committed the killing spree, right?


LIbs are quite dense.


t.



t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46913 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 8:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Most cars are insured and most cars are not involved in drunk driving violations, but we all pay higher rates to cover those that are not"


I doubt it.

You only pay for UNINSURED motorists...no matter who they are...by being forced to buy uninsured motorist coverage on your policy.

It's already illegal do drive drunk

It's already illegal in most states to drive on public roads without liability insurance.

We have ways to keep drunks off the roads, but we seldom use them in time.

Turns out the Dallas Cowboy who killed his passenger in a high speed drunk driving accident...was driving on a suspended IL license from TWO previous DUI convictions...... so not only didn't he have a valid drivers license, his car insurance coverage was void because of it.....and he killed someone.......but we couldn't manage to keep him off the streets!......(and no cop would have given him a ticket until he crashed)...... now they've got an ankle bracelet that monitors alcohol use on him....he can't drive.....and likely is going to the Big HOuse for a couple years after his trial.

Too late, though , for the guy he killed and it could have been you and your kids he mowed down.

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46914 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 8:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So why beat a dead horse? none of the mass killing sprees would have been solved by 'gun locks' or 'gun safes' when a family member, or the person owning the guns, committed the killing spree, right?

How do you know? You just posted that Lanza's mother was going to have him committed. He was obviously unhinged, so how come her guns weren't secure? She didn't get around to it, that's why.

Now 27 are people dead, but we can all sleep soundly knowing they died defending the right of people to leave their guns out where nut jobs can find them and go a on shooting spree.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46916 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 8:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Most cars are insured and most cars are not involved in drunk driving violations, but we all pay higher rates to cover those that are not.

I can think of about a hundred other things just like that that don't even involve insurance. The Superfund law for example included a tax on new chemicals to pay for cleanup of past spills.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46917 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 9:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"How do you know? You just posted that Lanza's mother was going to have him committed. He was obviously unhinged, so how come her guns weren't secure? She didn't get around to it, that's why.

Now 27 are people dead, but we can all sleep soundly knowing they died defending the right of people to leave their guns out where nut jobs can find them and go a on shooting spree. "


The guy was a genius. DO you really think any gun cabinet or trigger locks would have taken him more than five minutes to defeat? Silly!..... He was a tech genius.....and, yep, he killed his mother....but two weeks ago, he almost killed here with a KNIFE!....oh, right...a safe for all your kitchen knives...and the ax in the garage...... and big hammers........

You think she left them out in plain sight when she was telling folks that never turn your back on him?

ha...


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46919 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 10:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Those of you who don't understand the concept I advanced should inform yourselves about Uninsured Motorist insurance.

I understand the concept of uninsured motorist insurance. It covers insured motorists against losses from injuries caused by uninsured motorists. That coverage extends to the insured even if they are not driving. It could cover the insured while walking or riding a bike. But that is not your concept here. Your suggestion is not for insured gun owners to be covered against losses by uninsured gun owners. You are extending it to all people, gun owners and non-gun owners.

What you really are suggesting is a Gun Victims Fund. As someone said to me, you are not making an apples to apples comparison. Your suggestion goes way beyond Uninsured Motorist insurance.

As already mentioned, why are you not suggesting Alcohol Victims Insurance to pay for damages from people who are drinking alcohol. The number of victims between guns and alcohol are similar in size.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46920 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 10:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You might want to check your homeowner's insurance policy or talk to your agent. In most states your homeowner's insurance rates go up slightly if you have a pool to cover the additional liability risk. Also, insurance companies sometimes refuse to insure homes if the pool does not have adequate safety features to reduce liability risk.

Why? My agent already knows I have a pool. I reported it to her when it was built. I already said I told them about the pool. How many times do I have to report it?

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46921 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/18/2012 11:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why? My agent already knows I have a pool. I reported it to her when it was built. I already said I told them about the pool. How many times do I have to report it?

I'm really not concerned with what you do with your pool and never stated anything remotely like that. You claimed that pool liability insurance was not required and I simply pointed out that it probably is and you just don't know about it. Why do you think you needed to report it to your insurance agent? If they weren't charging you for it, it wouldn't matter.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46922 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 12:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm really not concerned with what you do with your pool and never stated anything remotely like that. You claimed that pool liability insurance was not required and I simply pointed out that it probably is and you just don't know about it. Why do you think you needed to report it to your insurance agent? If they weren't charging you for it, it wouldn't matter.

I reported it because I want to limit my potential exposure to liability. I checked with the agent to see if the pool was covered by the current policy or if I needed a special rider or additional liability insurance. I was told that the current policy would cover the cost and my premium would not change. I never said not to check with your agent. All I'm saying is that there is not an automatic premium increase due to adding a pool.

As for pool liability insurance being required, it isn't. It a condition of the mortgage loan. Once the house mortgage is paid in full, what regulation could you cite that would prevent me from dropping all coverage on my house if I choose to do so?

Since you like making comparison to auto insurance, why do I need full coverage on my vehicle? I don't since I don't owe anything on my vehicle. But when there was a loan, the loan company made sure I was carrying full coverage.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46923 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 1:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
As already mentioned, why are you not suggesting Alcohol Victims Insurance to pay for damages from people who are drinking alcohol.

Do you really not understand why? I'm going to try to throw you a bone here. Remember my first post in this thread where I said I was embarrassed for you? The reason why I was embarrassed for you is that your logic doesn't make any sense. You argument takes the form:

If one suggests that X is a solution for Y, then one must also suggest X as a solution for Z.

But it doesn't follow. Just because I was able to teach my dog to fetch, it doesn't follow I can my hamster to fetch by using the same method. There's no reason for that to be true.

So if someone suggests say, requiring insurance for firearms as a partial solution for gun violence it goes not follow that the same solution will work for alcohol abuse. You're not catching anyone in a trap by raising the question. You're simply trying to conjoin two unrelated things. It makes no sense. There is no logic at all to your arguments.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46925 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 9:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So if someone suggests say, requiring insurance for firearms as a partial solution for gun violence it goes not follow that the same solution will work for alcohol abuse. You're not catching anyone in a trap by raising the question. You're simply trying to conjoin two unrelated things. It makes no sense. There is no logic at all to your arguments.

What solution will it provide? You are on record saying it will change behavior. You have not said what behavior change will come about from requiring insurance. What it is is a smoke screen for gun control. You will note that the thread title is 47 guns. What the suggestion really is trying to do is make it so expensive for a person will multiple guns to own them due to the cost of insurance. The insurance solution is a regressive form of a tax against poor people. It won't affect people with higher income.

Also the insurance solution is a backdoor way of requiring every gun by law-abiding owners to register their guns. Currently, the government does not have this information. You can see why gun owners do not want this type of solution. It does nothing to reduce gun violence. All it does is give the government a database of guns in this country that they can use in future gun control actions.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46927 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 10:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"So if someone suggests say, requiring insurance for firearms as a partial solution for gun violence it goes not follow that the same solution will work for alcohol abuse. You're not catching anyone in a trap by raising the question. You're simply trying to conjoin two unrelated things. It makes no sense. There is no logic at all to your arguments. "


Quit the contrary.

I"ve got a thousand time better chance of being wiped out by a drunk driver. why shouldn't I require everyone who ever drinks to have a $1500 interlock on their car...that can't be started by a drunk driver? After all, someone might steal my car, drive drunk and kill someone.

of course, requiring an alcohol blood level monitor on EVERY car owned by everyone would reduce the number of drunk driving deaths......

Better yet, no car should be allowed to go over the speed limit in your state. If you live back northeast, you can only buy a 40 horsepower engine. 3 cylinders. no need for 200-300-400 horseower cars! that's dangerous! and we'll make everyone have to have a manual transmission, so they have to keep focused on driving. No more yakking on the cellphone with one hand, and blindly going down the road. No siree.....you'll need both hands ..one to drive and one to shift the 3 on the column gear shift lever for your 40 HP car. You won't have road rage, either...as cars will barely move fast enough to allow it.

See? a simple mind can come up with a simple solution to avoid drunk driving deaths and distracted driving and road rage. Mandatory interlocks on every car and no car over 40 horsepower!.....


t

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46929 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 10:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
telegraph, have you ever considered responding to the person who made the comment? I keep finding posts in my Replies folder where you respond to other posters using the italicized sentences in my posts. I really like knowing when people are making responses to my posts, not other people's posts.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46931 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 10:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"telegraph, have you ever considered responding to the person who made the comment?"


Use the 'whole thread button'....you get everything all at once.


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46933 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 11:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
why we really need 'car control'....



Horror on the highway: Incredible footage shows terrified driver being chased by a road-rage 'lunatic' who leaps on his bonnet and smashes windscreen with bare hands

Former policeman Ken Olsen was driving in Brisbane, Australia
He says he does not know what angered the other driver before the attack
The 'raving lunatic' rammed him seven times before leaping onto his car
Mr Olsen filmed the entire incident on a camera fitted to his dashboard
After it was shown on television, the man rang police to hand himself in


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250449/Incredible-f...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



---

We obviously need 'better testing' of all drivers, including a couple hour psychological test. you never know when a driver is going bonkers and mowing down a row of kids at the school bus stop.


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46934 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 11:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sykesix and salaryguru,

I think we've both have beaten the suggestion to death. Although I can't claim it was a blast debating the topic, I do respect your opinions on the issue. I've know both of you to be respectful on other issues in the past and don't debate by slinging mud. I don't think in this case that we will agree. That just means your looking through rosy colored glasses and I'm right. :)

I am for banning emoticons but I had to toss that one in before I have to start paying insurance on them.

There are no hard feeling on this discussion. I'm sure we will be posting on the same side of other topics in the future. To give this board a break (from telegraph), I'll attempt to move on to other issues.

As for gun violence in this country, I don't have the solution. It is a difficult problem that has no easy solutions. I do express my opinion on what I think will not work but I do not know what will work.

PSU

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LordArthur Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46936 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 1:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Also the insurance solution is a backdoor way of requiring every gun by law-abiding owners to register their guns." PSU


Not to mention it would cost a butt load of money and dissuade a lot of people from owning and buying guns. For me it's the money thing.

I'm tired of government thinking of new ways to control me and empty my wallet. It's like they spend their days dreaming up new ways of licensing and gouging money out of people. It's got to stop somewhere.

When we lived in a little county in East Tennessee it cost me $24/year to get my car license renewed each year. After we moved here there is an emissions test which costs $10.00 + $50.00 Wheel Tax + $24.00 so the cost to me has more than tripled from where we used to live.

By the way when you go to get the emission test you have to set in long lines with cars all around you waiting with their engines running spewing out noxious fumes. It probably causes more pollution than it saves.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PSUEngineer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46937 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
By the way when you go to get the emission test you have to set in long lines with cars all around you waiting with their engines running spewing out noxious fumes. It probably causes more pollution than it saves.

Do they still do emissions tests in TN? In NC, we've switched from tailpipe emissions tests to OBD II inspection.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46938 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Art:"By the way when you go to get the emission test you have to set in long lines with cars all around you waiting with their engines running spewing out noxious fumes. It probably causes more pollution than it saves. "

The guy at the emission test facility says almost none of the cars less than 15 years old ever flunk......

It takes 10-50 minutes depending if you hit at a busy time. There are inspection stations all over. Inspection and emission testing is $39.75 Or forty bucks.....and that on top of your $80 car registration....



t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUpp Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46939 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 1:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
By the way when you go to get the emission test you have to set in long lines with cars all around you waiting with their engines running spewing out noxious fumes. It probably causes more pollution than it saves.

Art


I got our Chevy Venture smog checked yesterday. No lines. Took about 15 minutes. Cost $59

Count Upp

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LordArthur Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46949 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 8:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Do they still do emissions tests in TN? In NC, we've switched from tailpipe emissions tests to OBD II inspection." - PSUengineer


I don't have a clue what a OBD II test is? They hook my car up to some kind of computer thing-a-ma-jig and somehow test the gas cap. When I had a 1990 Toyota Tercel they did the tailpipe thing but now that I have a "newer" 2005 car they do something up under the steering wheel.

I don't know. The whole thing is irritating. The surrounding hillbilly counties don't have it so here we are surrounded by non-emission test counties and our county decides to have an emission test.

I think it's just a way to con us out of $10.00/year. Just another tax.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LordArthur Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46950 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 8:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"It takes 10-50 minutes depending if you hit at a busy time. There are inspection stations all over. Inspection and emission testing is $39.75 Or forty bucks.....and that on top of your $80 car registration." - tele


The people who dream up all these different taxes must think people have a never ending pot of money they can dip into. I sure would hate to be poor and have to come up with all the different fees and licenses they gouge you for. I'm just lucky that I married well and my wife has a good job so it's not as onerous for me or otherwise I'd be in the same boat.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LordArthur Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46951 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 8:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I got our Chevy Venture smog checked yesterday. No lines. Took about 15 minutes. Cost $59." Count Upp


I'm living on $933/month right now. $59 for what I consider to be essentially nothing would be a major expense to me right now.

Like I said none of the surrounding hillbilly counties have emissions tests and the last time I checked the air doesn't stop blowing at the county line.

It's like CO2 emissions being curbed in one country and not another. China and India and Indonesia and Thailand and Malaysia and Cambodia and Laos and Burma and Sri Lanka aren't going to do jack squat about curbing any kind of emissions. They are too busy just trying to keep their people's bellies full.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46952 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/19/2012 8:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
art:"
I don't have a clue what a OBD II test is? They hook my car up to some kind of computer thing-a-ma-jig and somehow test the gas cap. When I had a 1990 Toyota Tercel they did the tailpipe thing but now that I have a "newer" 2005 car they do something up under the steering wheel. "


That connection to the computer - is the On Board Computer, Generation II...

It tattles on you if your car emission system is not working properly.

NO need to do a tailpipe inspection...you car is continuously doing it.



OBD - On Board Computer.....part of your car's engine system.

WHen the 'check engine' light comes on, usually it means that something is screwing up your emissions......and you need to get it fixed....





t

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46975 of 63268
Subject: Re: 47 Guns? Really? Date: 12/20/2012 7:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I'm living on $933/month right now. $59 for what I consider to be essentially nothing would be a major expense to me right now.

Others breathing the air in your county must not agree with your assessment that this is nothing. Concentrated smog can sicken or kill people with respiratory problems.

But if paying $5 per month to help keep those people healthy is too much for your current income stream, you could always sell one of your guns to get the money for the payment. One less gun would also lessen the impact on any future tax or insurance requirements that might be passed.

SG - always trying to be helpful:^)

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (85) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement