Shooting-people insurance, a growing industry for U.S. gun owners

[Lenonis]

Result: Antagonistic gun nuts now talking shit literally everywhere they go.

I think there is a (thankfully) very small segment of the gun community that has decided to take their stance on the offensive and to do so with absolutely no regard for how others feel. I'm talking about the groups of people who open carry AR-15s or whatever in Target or Walmart or whatnot.

Let's face it -- even though you have a legal right to do so you have just about zero actual reason to do so other than to intimidate and basically be an adult bully.

I'm not a fan of this behavior, especially as it ratchets up tensions and just makes it that much more likely an incident will occur.

[Deleted]

Wait, so in the US you even have to pay for your legal bill if you are found not guilty?

[Daelak]

I think there is a (thankfully) very small segment of the gun community that has decided to take their stance on the offensive and to do so with absolutely no regard for how others feel. I'm talking about the groups of people who open carry AR-15s or whatever in Target or Walmart or whatnot.

Let's face it -- even though you have a legal right to do so you have just about zero actual reason to do so other than to intimidate and basically be an adult bully.

I'm not a fan of this behavior, especially as it ratchets up tensions and just makes it that much more likely an incident will occur.

It's only reinforced by the false interpretation of what the founding fathers wanted. Privileged whites open carrying only strengthens their resolve and their egos.

[Lenonis]

Wait, so in the US you even have to pay for your legal bill if you are found not guilty?

It depends. Many times the legal costs are part of the damages, or lawyers just take a cut of the settlement or judgment as their fee.

But many times people have to pay and if the person who lost the case doesn't have the assets to pay you could get stuck with the legal bills.

It's not a clean cut situation but there are certainly many times that victims end up getting screwed again because of legal fees that they really shouldn't have to pay. Not a great system I'm afraid.

[lordsphinx]

You went completely off the rails here. The logic "guns are bad therefore rape is good" doesn't hold up even under the slightest scrutiny. This sort of hyperbole doesn't do the pro-gun folks any favors -- you have a strong enough case in the rest of your post without resorting to this.

You’re right, it wasn’t necessary (and was a bit childish to boot). I was simply trying to emphasize the rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. Why would anyone have a problem with said woman having protection against a lawsuit? Without this insurance, she is screwed no matter what she does the minute Scumbag McGee decides he’s going to rape her.

- - - Updated - - -

It depends. Many times the legal costs are part of the damages, or lawyers just take a cut of the settlement or judgment as their fee.

But many times people have to pay and if the person who lost the case doesn't have the assets to pay you could get stuck with the legal bills.

It's not a clean cut situation but there are certainly many times that victims end up getting screwed again because of legal fees that they really shouldn't have to pay. Not a great system I'm afraid.

It’s even worse than this. The court fees themselves can be recouped through a countersuit, but I don’t believe you can sue for your lawyer’s fees. If you want a good attorney with experience in self-defense lawsuits, then you’re going to pay for it through the nose.

[Lenonis]

You’re right, it wasn’t necessary (and was a bit childish to boot). I was simply trying to emphasize the rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. Why would anyone have a problem with said woman having protection against a lawsuit? Without this insurance, she is screwed no matter what she does the minute Scumbag McGee decides he’s going to rape her.

It really is two different issues. The first being whether or not she should have a gun or decide to resort to non-lethal methods. I would say all but the most ardent anti-gun people would say that she would absolutely have a right to shoot someone trying to rape her.

The second is the ability for her to be sued and/or suffer other ramifications from the incident. Which is really more about the flaws in our legal system rather than anything around guns. Civil courts can generate some really strange lawsuits -- such as pain and suffering from a gunshot wound that was received during an attempted rape.

I get the passion people have on this topic, but I don't really like seeing things like "people who don't like guns are all pro-rape." And, I also don't like seeing all pro-gun people painted as bloodthirsty psychopaths. There are a really large number of very responsible and quite normal gun owners out there who range from pro-self defense to hunters and sportsmen. Painting them as nuts doesn't do anyone favors on the anti-gun side either.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s even worse than this. The court fees themselves can be recouped through a countersuit, but I don’t believe you can sue for your lawyer’s fees. If you want a good attorney with experience in self-defense lawsuits, then you’re going to pay for it through the nose.

You are right -- although there are some exceptions that do allow recoup of lawyer's fees. But then again many times lawyers work on a contingency so in some cases if you lose you don't have lawyers fees anyway or they just take a cut of the award. But that's not always the case (by far).

I do think, however, most frivolous or really egregious cases can get dismissed before even going to court which would cut down or eliminate the lawyer's fees...so that's good at least.

[Rasulis]

Wait, so in the US you even have to pay for your legal bill if you are found not guilty?

In a criminal case, maybe. Depend on your income.

Civil case pretty much. That is why all businesses at least have worker's comp, automobile, and general liability insurances.

[Actarius]

A person is armed with a concealed weapon, and is grabbed from behind and taken into an alley where another person begins to assault them. The victim manages to get their pistol from their ankle holster, while the assailant has a knife to their throat, and shoots the assailant once in the chest. the assailant ends up paralyzed from the chest down, and sues the victim in civil court for damages (yes, you can sue someone for something just like this). Even though it’s nearly 100% that the victim would win this lawsuit, it’s going to potentially cost the victim hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for a good legal team.

Went ahead and got rid of all the emotional argument. The situation you're talking about almost never happens outside of movies/dramas. No one actually gets grabbed from behind and assaulted in an alley. The worst you have is a mugging, and in that situation, yes just had over your stuff so you don't die or end up in prison for murder.

If your situation actually happened, the victim should not just shoot. They should make the assailant aware and give them the chance to back away and flee. Nearly anyone in that situation would realize that if they don't let the person go, they will likely die.

I know a lot of my fellow citizens feel that if they feel threatened, they have the right to take another persons life. I respectfully disagree. It should be a last resort. Which is why I disagree with castle law, stand your ground, open carry, etc. I believe that you should only be able to take someone's life if they intend to take yours. In your situation it's obvious that the assailant has no intention of murder, the weapon is strictly for intimidation. Same thing when you get mugged. They don't actually want to kill you they just want something from you.

And, since I know the normal response to my argument, I'll just preempt it.

There's no way you can expect somebody to be calm enough in that situation to let their attacker know they have a gun. If you own a weapon with the sole intent of ending someone's life, you should be able to inform someone that you have the ability to do so if they do not stop. If you can't, then get rid of the weapon.


I'm fine with people owning guns. If you own them, however, you should be expected and prepared to use them. Not going around murdering people because they scared you/trespassed on your property.

[Provenance]

Why is the picture of the person who committed the crime relevant to the story?

Oh yeah. You mention liberals. So you have to race bait with some black kid committing the crime. I get it.

While its a cool story. Why does one crime, while sad and tragic, have to deal with this topic or the person who committed this crime. The people who walked by is what our society is typical today.

As far as I can see, you seem to be the only one actually making a big deal out of the picture. The rest of us intelligent folk just saw him as a person who committed a crime. Possible closet racist? I would get that checked out if I were you.

[Daelak]

I'm not sure untrained citizens help make a well-regulated militia, but the interpretation over the years has shifted to be everyone needs a gun to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Never mind that in modern times the military would be able to put down an insurgency pretty easily and a tyrannical government would then ban guns.

Yea the pro firearm people don't think that far Vegas.

[Felya]

Nobody stopped to help because of the simple psychology of groups, which is that everyone reasons that because there are many people, someone else will help so they don't have to. It's why Kitty Genovese died, and it's why nobody helped here.

You're inventing a retarded reason so that you can bash liberals, when we already know exactly why this shit happens. And it has nothing to do with fear of being sued.

It's good to be beaten to post this. Glad it's that much common knowledge. For those who don't know:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murd...Kitty_Genovese

[lordsphinx]

The situation you're talking about almost never happens outside of movies/dramas. No one actually gets grabbed from behind and assaulted in an alley.

Sorry, but this happens often. Maybe not an alley, but joggers in the park, people getting in their car in a parking garage, women leaving a bar, women walking into their apartment building, etc. If you think women are not raped in public, then you’re sorely mistaken.

If your situation actually happened, the victim should not just shoot. They should make the assailant aware and give them the chance to back away and flee. Nearly anyone in that situation would realize that if they don't let the person go, they will likely die.

And give the assailant a chance to overpower her? Abso-fucking-lutely not. You defend yourself in any way possible, you don’t tell the person you have a gun. That’s idiotic, and naïve. You accused me of citing a movie plot as reality, but this is simply the epitome of non-realistic bullshit. If the mugger was 20 feet away, then maybe, but not when he’s on top of you.

I know a lot of my fellow citizens feel that if they feel threatened, they have the right to take another persons life. I respectfully disagree. It should be a last resort. Which is why I disagree with castle law, stand your ground, open carry, etc. I believe that you should only be able to take someone's life if they intend to take yours.

And you’re free to have your opinions, but not to pass judgment on those who have a different opinion than you.

In your situation it's obvious that the assailant has no intention of murder, the weapon is strictly for intimidation.

Are you recommending the woman just lay there and take it? Of should she scratch and claw and bite someone with a knife to her throat? I’m not sure I understand what your recommended course of action is here.

Same thing when you get mugged. They don't actually want to kill you they just want something from you.

No, it’s not the same thing. Getting mugged and getting raped are two completely different levels of violation. You can’t compare the two.

Not going around murdering people because they scared you/trespassed on your property.

Who said anything about shooting someone over being scared, or someone taking your property? You can’t put words in someone’s mouth, then argue with those same words. Nobody is trying to justify shooting someone over a watch or because they look scary. Stop that.

[TwoNineMarine]

Do you store your firearms in a secure area?

Yes. As I've told ya before.

I've got a nice safe.

Only times my weapons are out is if I'm cleaning them and or using them. I will though be grabbing a small finger print safe for my pistol for quick easy access.

[Espe]

It's what the founders wanted, armed untrained citizens with firearms pooling together legal slush money to ensure their right to bear arms supersedes one's right to live.

When one of the most biased Supreme Court benches in history decided to undermine the original interpretation of the Second Amendment in 2008 to dismiss the requirement for a well-regulated militia they opened the floodgates for this shit. There is no fight, no battle, no war left. The NRA won and they are raking in record profits. Congratulations conservatives, truly doing "god's work."

- - - Updated - - -

you hear about cops shooting someone just because, "They said something and he didn't comply." and people are all nodding their heads like it's totally ok for the police to just kill you if you don't do what they say instantly.

Some people. Some "people."

[dextersmith]

“All weapons covered,” makes me think of The Purge with chainsaws and grenades.

Every cop must already have this.

- - - Updated - - -

How did Zimmerman pay 1.5 mil?

[Frolk]

Its bad when it has gotten to this point.