Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Except you didnt say shootings oh wise one. You said massacres. You must have forgotten what you said? Innocently wondering? I sort of grabbed the top two.

Exactly, I didn't say shooting, I said top ten massacres, allow me to demonstrate: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&site=&source=hp&q=Top+Ten+Massacres&oq=Top+Ten+Massacres&gs_l=hp.3...1388.5117.0.5226.17.10.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.k-_1t3mp8hU&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE&fp=119e58c548e398dd&bpcl=40096503&biw=1603&bih=754

Let me know whats in the top two, maybe you are googling from a Macbook or something.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

himher - please stay in topic. This thread is making the argument for liability insurance on the premise that currently the costs incurred by the misuse of firearms is socialized - meaning the taxpayers foot the bill. This would make gun owners accountable and provide financial compensation to the victims of gun violence and their families. This is a reasonable solution by using market forces to leverage risk by those who misuse guns.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Actually and again you are speaking to and of people who do own and do use guns but have never had a problem or issue. So it's not really logical to lump the uninvolved (in this case MANY MANY states away) with an incident then expect said uninvolved to take responsibility for or even feel responsibility for the actions of a random (spooky yes, call-of-duty trained yes, but random) stranger

I believe my point was made and noted. It was deliberately a stupid point. The level of stupidity on this is equal to the level of stupidity in ranting at uninvolved strangers on the internet about something that happened far away.

But how is this incident going to affect current gun owners? No one is saying hand in your guns, no one is saying guns will be illegal, they are proposing a way to make things safer. I'm sorry but if people who own guns are so afraid of government tyranny, why do you live here?

[himher 634]

Well although your socialist (also known as commie) idea might have merit at your dope-smoking parties or wherever these ideas are dreamed up I doubt you have what it takes to impose them on the 43,000,000 gun owners in the US. It's just a guess.

himher - please stay in topic. This thread is making the argument for liability insurance on the premise that currently the costs incurred by the misuse of firearms is socialized - meaning the taxpayers foot the bill. This would make gun owners accountable and provide financial compensation to the victims of gun violence and their families. This is a reasonable solution by using market forces to leverage risk by those who misuse guns.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually and again you are speaking to and of people who do own and do use guns but have never had a problem or issue.

Sure. Adam Lanza's mother, the gun enthusiast and lawful gun owner never had a problem or issue. Until she was blown away with those guns of hers last Friday. These 20 kids and 6 teachers are dead because a person that legally owned guns no civilian needs couldn't keep those guns out of the hands of her son. Her lack of responsibility is what cost the kids and teachers their lives. The lawful gun owner is fully responsible for these deaths. She wasn't the first and she sure won't be the last in that long line of legal gun owners that cause mass deaths in this country. They're all ticking time bombs. And that is why they should be required to carry insurance to cover the damage whenever that time bomb goes off.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[himher 634]

There is recent historical experience in that events such as these are used to remove rights of gun ownership from who were, at the time, current and law-abiding gun owners. Not here, but in other countries.

But how is this incident going to affect current gun owners? No one is saying hand in your guns, no one is saying guns will be illegal, they are proposing a way to make things safer. I'm sorry but if people who own guns are so afraid of government tyranny, why do you live here?

[decocker 7,198]

Well although your socialist (also known as commie) idea might have merit at your dope-smoking parties or wherever these ideas are dreamed up I doubt you have what it takes to impose them on the 43,000,000 gun owners in the US. It's just a guess.

you might want to google socialism and communism. i assure you the two are not interchangeable. maybe you've caught wind of some second hand smoke ..

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Well although your socialist (also known as commie) idea might have merit at your dope-smoking parties or wherever these ideas are dreamed up I doubt you have what it takes to impose them on the 43,000,000 gun owners in the US. It's just a guess.

Can you make an argument without being insulting? You don't have to post if it offends you so much. Steven has a right to post his ideas and proposals just as much as the anything the folks on here that hate Obama or anyone who can be label a libel does.

[himher 634]

THIS is a true statement. I would join you to convict her and everyone involved myself.

There is a need to separate those who can not and should not get anywhere close to a gun from the guns themselves. Start that discussion, and we will all join in to look for solutions.

So far the only discussion I have heard since this started has been to limit / control access from all and by all and this bothers me as much as it would bother you to be punished for a crime that someone else committed.

Sure. Adam Lanza's mother, the gun enthusiast and lawful gun owner never had a problem or issue. Until she was blown away with those guns of hers last Friday. These 20 kids and 6 teachers are dead because a person that legally owned guns no civilian needs couldn't keep those guns out of the hands of her son. Her lack of responsibility is what cost the kids and teachers their lives. The lawful gun owner is fully responsible for these deaths. She wasn't the first and she sure won't be the last in that long line of legal gun owners that cause mass deaths in this country. They're all ticking time bombs.

[himher 634]

Can you find a way to hold those responsible individuals accountable without including the millions of uninvolved?

Because it is also insulting when you classify a group and involve everyone in that group in something terrible that they had nothing to do with then propose that a solution would be to charge them for something they have full rights to do for free.

Can you make an argument without being insulting? You don't have to post if it offends you so much. Steven has a right to post his ideas and proposals just as much as the anything the folks on here that hate Obama or anyone who can be label a libel does.

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

There is recent historical experience in that events such as these are used to remove rights of gun ownership from who were, at the time, current and law-abiding gun owners. Not here, but in other countries.

And guess what? In those countries the gun violence practically ceased. And the governemnt didnt' become a dictatorship. Take Japan for example:http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/getting-a-gun-in-japan/

Look at the shooting deaths they have: 11 in a whole year.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Can you find a way to hold those responsible individuals accountable without including the millions of uninvolved?

Because it is also insulting when you classify a group and involve everyone in that group in something terrible that they had nothing to do with then propose that a solution would be to charge them for something they have full rights to do for free.

I'm sorry when did I make that classification? All anyone in this thread has done is propose ideas to make it harder for those who would do harm with firearms to have access to them. No one has said they will take your guns from you. If paying insurance is a way to hold everyone accountable then I don't see what the problem. If someone kills people when drunk driving and they have ramdom sobreity checkpoints, do you argue that since you don't drink and drive you shouldn't be tested?

[himher 634]

Japan? Yeah we love Japan. Great example. Can you even spell "democide"

And guess what? In those countries the gun violence practically ceased. And the governemnt didnt' become a dictatorship. Take Japan for example:http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/getting-a-gun-in-japan/

Look at the shooting deaths they have: 11 in a whole year.

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher

[SMR 368]

This sounds to me like a ploy to penalize gun owners and make sure we have someone to blame. Obviously, certain things like accidental discharges could be covered by the insurance (to pay for property damage and medical bills). But when someone willfully misuses your property without your consent, you aren't culpable, provided you weren't negligent.

In cases of real negligence, I think it would be more palatable for the public and more reasonable to hold the negligent personally and criminally responsible.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Japan? Yeah we love Japan. Great example. Can you even spell "democide"

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

Yeah because we would never exterminate a large group of people. And I just left there, was stationed in Yoko for 3 years, didn't remember any government mass killings on my tour.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Su and Marvin