Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Zan15]

do they do that with other taxes then fine? not like you have a choice in paying those either.

*first you said they didn't take take all those away for abusing them, and I kinda agree on the drinking and then you go and defend my statement saying they do...

ya maybe you shouldn't drink....

You'd probably come up with better ideas then...

****
Oh ya from a quick google search looks like accidental shooting is covered under home owners insurance.

its way more complicated then a simple google search....after 25+ years in medical insurance you learn this over and over and over that insurance is never simple.

General liability in this case on your house does not cover the members of the household, only other people.

There is also limits, depending on state, that insurance companies put on guns and liability since in the case of self defense its a purposeful action by the homeowner and when something is done intentionally its usually not covered under the policy. Homeowner’s policies exclude intentional shootings from coverage, even in cases of home or self-defense...it will also exclude the people injured accidently during the act of self-defense.

There is much much more when it comes to limitations of your homeowners and guns..... good luck getting anything but a stolen gun covered.

*first you said they didn't take take all those away for abusing them, and I kinda agree on the drinking and then you go and defend my statement saying they do...

ya maybe you shouldn't drink....

You'd probably come up with better ideas then...

How ironic, you stole my silly sarcastic statement.....then told me to come up with better idea's while using mine instead of something better...… up your game Bro!!

"Not true, you can still do most of those things even after "abusing" them...."

was my exact quote. "most". Many people abuse drinking and have no consequences and do not end up losing the ability to drink legally. I would say this is the vast majority of people.

[Dadwen]

its way more complicated then a simple google search....after 25+ years in medical insurance you learn this over and over and over that insurance is never simple.

General liability in this case on your house does not cover the members of the household, only other people.

There is also limits, depending on state, that insurance companies put on guns and liability since in the case of self defense its a purposeful action by the homeowner and when something is done intentionally its usually not covered under the policy. Homeowner’s policies exclude intentional shootings from coverage, even in cases of home or self-defense...it will also exclude the people injured accidently during the act of self-defense.

There is much much more when it comes to limitations of your homeowners and guns..... good luck getting anything but a stolen gun covered.



How ironic, you stole my silly sarcastic statement.....then told me to come up with better idea's while using mine instead of something better...… up your game Bro!!

"Not true, you can still do most of those things even after "abusing" them...."

was my exact quote. "most". Many people abuse drinking and have no consequences and do not end up losing the ability to drink legally. I would say this is the vast majority of people.

well If I hurt myself with my own fire extinguisher in my own house I would think it would just be my heath insurance that would cover it not my home owners.

*well with most things you can abuse it all you want with no problems as long as you're not caught and harm other people, I figured in this conversation the abusing part being breaking laws that cause other harm would have been self explanatory, but I gave you way too much credit.

[Citizen T]

actually you do.
If you use that fire extinguisher the wrong way and blow out someone's eye... its covered under your homeowners.

Homeowners insurance does not cover intentional or illegal acts by the homeowner. Or if the person is a renter and doesn't have homeowners insurance. Renters insurance is not required by law. Actually neither is homeowners insurance which is only required by a lender. If you own your home free from mortgage then you're not required to have homeowners insurance.

[Zan15]

Homeowners insurance does not cover intentional or illegal acts by the homeowner. Or if the person is a renter and doesn't have homeowners insurance. Renters insurance is not required by law. Actually neither is homeowners insurance which is only required by a lender. If you own your home free from mortgage then you're not required to have homeowners insurance.

using a fire extinguisher accidently the wrong way during a fire is neither intentional or illegal.....like shooting an intruder is intentional.... like accidental discharge by your 10 year old.

If the person is a renter, and has no insurance there is still legal liability of the property owner who most likely has insurance on the property (landlord insurance). But you are right there are cases where there is no insurance.

Not sure why you are moving the goal post but proceed....

[Citizen T]

using a fire extinguisher accidently the wrong way during a fire is neither intentional or illegal.....like shooting an intruder is intentional.... like accidental discharge by your 10 year old.

If the person is a renter, and has no insurance there is still legal liability of the property owner who most likely has insurance on the property (landlord insurance). But you are right there are cases where there is no insurance.

Not sure why you are moving the goal post but proceed....

You brought up having homeowners insurance. It's not required by law and far more people are accidentally injured or killed on the premises of someone's home than are from firearm accidents. Why, then, should firearms owners be required to have insurance?

[Zan15]

You brought up having homeowners insurance. It's not required by law and far more people are accidentally injured or killed on the premises of someone's home than are from firearm accidents. Why, then, should firearms owners be required to have insurance?

not required by law, but by most estimates the vast majority of homeowners have insurance. Numbers of polls and studies range from low 70's to 90's.

I am also not opposed to people who have property having to have that property insured by law, just like vehicles. They should be required to maintain some level of liability insurance If those people expect to have anyone outside the family on the property then it should be required no less then vehicles.


What percent of gun owners have insurance?


Why should vehicle owners be forced to have insurance?

as said by a whole bunch of people.
"It was apparent very early on that cars would crash and that these crashes would create damages and that the person at fault would often be unable to pay for them. Liability insurance is almost always mandatory because it helps protect other people and their property."

Why should the same logic not apply to guns?


its not about protecting your rights, its about protecting other people rights.

[Roxinius]

not required by law, but by most estimates the vast majority of homeowners have insurance. Numbers of polls and studies range from low 70's to 90's.

I am also not opposed to people who have property having to have that property insured by law, just like vehicles. They should be required to maintain some level of liability insurance If those people expect to have anyone outside the family on the property then it should be required no less then vehicles.


What percent of gun owners have insurance?


Why should vehicle owners be forced to have insurance?

as said by a whole bunch of people.
"It was apparent very early on that cars would crash and that these crashes would create damages and that the person at fault would often be unable to pay for them. Liability insurance is almost always mandatory because it helps protect other people and their property."

Why should the same logic not apply to guns?


its not about protecting your rights, its about protecting other people rights.

didnt realize owning/driving a car is a right

[Citizen T]

not required by law, but by most estimates the vast majority of homeowners have insurance. Numbers of polls and studies range from low 70's to 90's.

I am also not opposed to people who have property having to have that property insured by law, just like vehicles. They should be required to maintain some level of liability insurance If those people expect to have anyone outside the family on the property then it should be required no less then vehicles.


What percent of gun owners have insurance?


Why should vehicle owners be forced to have insurance?

as said by a whole bunch of people.
"It was apparent very early on that cars would crash and that these crashes would create damages and that the person at fault would often be unable to pay for them. Liability insurance is almost always mandatory because it helps protect other people and their property."

Why should the same logic not apply to guns?


its not about protecting your rights, its about protecting other people rights.

Should journalists be required to have insurance for slander/libel?
Police officers required to have insurance violating Fourth Amendment? or any civil right or bad shoot?
Protesters required to have insurance against property damage and harm to others?

Essentially everyone must then be required to have general liability insurance in case they ever intentionally or negligently harm another or damage another's property.

[lockedout]

Why should vehicle owners be forced to have insurance?

You aren't required to have insurance on a vehicle.

[Zan15]

You aren't required to have insurance on a vehicle.

huh? say what?

Almost every state requires some level of liability insurance on a car if you want to operate. The alternatives offered by a few states require that you prove you have the ability to pay a minimum amount of liability and even put up certificate of deposit of tens of thousands of dollars to cover future possible liabilities.

New Hampshire is the only weird ass state that its not a requirement however if you cause an accident you are responsible for the total personal damage and injury and until you pay that off you not allowed to ever drive again.

- - - Updated - - -

Should journalists be required to have insurance for slander/libel?
Police officers required to have insurance violating Fourth Amendment? or any civil right or bad shoot?
Protesters required to have insurance against property damage and harm to others?

Essentially everyone must then be required to have general liability insurance in case they ever intentionally or negligently harm another or damage another's property.

So now you are comparing something illegal (slander/libel) (property damage/harming others) to accidental and legal use of a gun?

Also defamation (slander/libel) usually would be covered under the liability/Umbrella insurance the company/self employed individual carries as part of normal business coverage.
Of course if its determined that you in fact did make statements that are ruled illegal the insurance might not pay out in most cases the judgement.
To receive coverage, you'll need to have either acted inadvertently or to have acted unknowingly. In other words, if you publish material you know is false, your liability policy may not protect you.
Just like we discussed before when it comes to intentional or illegal activities vs accidents and unintentional actions.


Police officers are covered by their employers coverage. Again all dependent on language in contract and as we discussed before.....same logic.

Not sure why you keep asking the same questions trying to find some loophole, some got'ya moment or situation.

The horror of actually being able to cover damages due to your actions is so frightful huh??

Guess we should outlaw insurance all together since it infringes on so many rights!!!

[Citizen T]

huh? say what?

Almost every state requires some level of liability insurance on a car if you want to operate. The alternatives offered by a few states require that you prove you have the ability to pay a minimum amount of liability and even put up certificate of deposit of tens of thousands of dollars to cover future possible liabilities.

New Hampshire is the only weird ass state that its not a requirement however if you cause an accident you are responsible for the total personal damage and injury and until you pay that off you not allowed to ever drive again.

- - - Updated - - -




So now you are comparing something illegal (slander/libel) (property damage/harming others) to accidental and legal use of a gun?

Also defamation (slander/libel) usually would be covered under the liability/Umbrella insurance the company/self employed individual carries as part of normal business coverage.
Of course if its determined that you in fact did make statements that are ruled illegal the insurance might not pay out in most cases the judgement.
To receive coverage, you'll need to have either acted inadvertently or to have acted unknowingly. In other words, if you publish material you know is false, your liability policy may not protect you.
Just like we discussed before when it comes to intentional or illegal activities vs accidents and unintentional actions.


Police officers are covered by their employers coverage. Again all dependent on language in contract and as we discussed before.....same logic.

Not sure why you keep asking the same questions trying to find some loophole, some got'ya moment or situation.

The horror of actually being able to cover damages due to your actions is so frightful huh??

Guess we should outlaw insurance all together since it infringes on so many rights!!!

No not outlaw insurance. Insurance is up to the individual and not mandated. You are equating owning a firearm with violating the rights of others. This is false. One can use a firearm to violate the rights of others just as one could use a knife, a car, even pen/paper or the spoken word. If we must insure against the potential harm of one then we would have to insure against potential harm from anything and everything.

[Ghostpanther]

Would be interesting to know if any of the shooters in this case where law abiding gun owners.....https://www.foxnews.com/us/californi...deaths-reports

California police are on the hunt Monday for a group of “unknown suspects” who opened fire last night at a backyard football viewing party in Fresno and left four people dead.

Investigators say 10 people overall were hit with gunfire during the incident, which unfolded around 8 p.m. local time.

Three people were reported dead at the scene, while a fourth succumbed to his injuries at a local hospital. Five of those wounded had non-life threatening injuries while a sixth person is being treated after he was grazed by a bullet, according to Fresno Deputy Chief Michael Reid.

“What we do know is that this was a gathering, a family and friend gathering in the backyard,” Lt. Bill Dooley told the Fresno Bee. “Everyone was watching football this evening when unknown suspects approached the residence, snuck into the backyard and opened fire.”

[Zan15]

No not outlaw insurance. Insurance is up to the individual and not mandated. You are equating owning a firearm with violating the rights of others. This is false. One can use a firearm to violate the rights of others just as one could use a knife, a car, even pen/paper or the spoken word. If we must insure against the potential harm of one then we would have to insure against potential harm from anything and everything.

Well technically insurance is mandated for a bunch of thing and even for a while for health insurance or you paid a fine to help pay for the repercussions of you not getting insurance. We also went over a car....we went over speech/libel and slander....

you are right I am equating owning a firearm with the POSSIBILITY of violating the rights of others. The horror that we would expect there to be reasonable effort made to make sure there is protections for people who are impacted by others with guns.


Let me know when thousands of people a year are severely harmed by pen/paper then I will engage in a discussion about pen/paper insurance.....

[Citizen T]

Well technically insurance is mandated for a bunch of thing and even for a while for health insurance or you paid a fine to help pay for the repercussions of you not getting insurance. We also went over a car....we went over speech/libel and slander....

you are right I am equating owning a firearm with the POSSIBILITY of violating the rights of others. The horror that we would expect there to be reasonable effort made to make sure there is protections for people who are impacted by others with guns.


Let me know when thousands of people a year are severely harmed by pen/paper then I will engage in a discussion about pen/paper insurance.....

Firearms accidents cause perhaps 500 deaths annually no where near the thousands you profess. This makes approximately 1.5 accidental death per million firearms in the US or if you'd prefer per capita then about 1.5 accidental deaths per million people.

No insurance will cover civil penalties to someone that is convicted of intentional or negligent use of a firearm. The insurance you listed earlier is essentially self defense insurance. The civil coverage is void if you found guilty of a crime during the event.

The largest number of accidental deaths each year is poisoning/drug overdose. Do we need to instate insurance requirements on pain patients in order for them to receive narcotics? or walmart shoppers prior to leaving the store with that bottle of bleach? We're talking more than 100x the number of deaths from firearm accidents.

[lockedout]

huh? say what?

Almost every state requires some level of liability insurance on a car if you want to operate.

You can operate a car on private property/your own property with no insurance.

[Zan15]

You can operate a car on private property/your own property with no insurance.

Wonderful, thank you for adding to the discussion. Glad to know you can operate a Car for a next to useless purpose without insurance.
Just couldn't admit you were wrong so you looked for any little loophole while knowing full well what we were discussing, huh? Grats

- - - Updated - - -

Firearms accidents cause perhaps 500 deaths annually no where near the thousands you profess. This makes approximately 1.5 accidental death per million firearms in the US or if you'd prefer per capita then about 1.5 accidental deaths per million people.

.

Hmm when did the needle and goal post just get moved to just talking about "deaths"??

You are missing all the other people severely harmed buy adding your little qualifier to the discussion. You do know there is still huge liability if the person who gets shot does not die right? you know insurance covers more than just deaths right?

Actually, according to CDC’s WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S., though only about 600 people killed in such shootings. So I guess I was right.

https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Emergency Department Visits 2001 - 2014, United States 231,350

No insurance will cover civil penalties to someone that is convicted of intentional or negligent use of a firearm. The insurance you listed earlier is essentially self defense insurance. The civil coverage is void if you found guilty of a crime during the event.

.

Never said It would. I believe I actually said it wouldn't several times.

The largest number of accidental deaths each year is poisoning/drug overdose. Do we need to instate insurance requirements on pain patients in order for them to receive narcotics? or walmart shoppers prior to leaving the store with that bottle of bleach? We're talking more than 100x the number of deaths from firearm accidents.

Now we are adding accidents caused to self? Why move the goal post from accidently harming others and their own individual rights??

ok lets run with it.

There is insurance already, product liability insurance. There is insurance on the doctors and pharmacies if their are liable for the overdose. There is also Health insurance, which was mandated up to this year and will probably be again soon-ish and still is in a few states. Homeowners will also cover in the case of accidental overdose of legal prescription.

I mean do you really want to go down this road because right now there is a multi billion dollar settlement being hashed out for corporations liability when it comes to overdoses and death/injuries related to Narcotics and Pain/Opioids meds even if they were used illegally…..

Shall we apply the same standards to gun manufactures? I know they are sure trying.


Keep looking for that ah-haaaaa moment I will be here if you want to talk /hugs

[I Push Buttons]

Why move the goal post from accidently harming others and their own individual rights??

Why stop there?

Let's force everyone to buy insurance if they wish to practice their right to free speech as well for the same bullshit reasons... Someone may utter some fragile person's trigger words and cause them mental anguish and all that jazz.

Such people deserve to be made whole against after being accosted by fully automatic assault words, don't they?

[Zan15]

Why stop there?

Let's force everyone to buy insurance if they wish to practice their right to free speech as well for the same bullshit reasons... Someone may utter some fragile person's trigger words and cause them mental anguish and all that jazz.

Such people deserve to be made whole against after being accosted by fully automatic assault words, don't they?

You should read back a few pages.....

we already went over free speech

You don't need insurance for practicing your right to free speech as there is no liability to free speech.

You are confusing free speech with libel and slander, for which there would be damages......for which is not covered under your right to free speech.

But good try buddy at your strawman's.

[I Push Buttons]

You should read back a few pages.....

we already went over free speech

You don't need insurance for practicing your right to free speech as there is no liability to free speech.

You are confusing free speech with libel and slander, for which there would be damages......for which is not covered under your right to free speech.

But good try buddy at your strawman's.

What the fuck are you even talking about with defamation?

I am referring to SJWs and constantly pushing for shit like 'trigger warnings' and the like because those people believe words cause genuine psychological harm to people. And sarcastically arguing if such harm were real, then by the same bullshit argument you are making towards guns, people ought to have liability insurance if they wish to practice their right to free speech in case they harm some fringe leftist's delicate sensibilities with the words they say.

[Zan15]

What the fuck are you even talking about with defamation?

I am referring to SJWs and constantly pushing for shit like 'trigger warnings' and the like because those people believe words cause genuine psychological harm to people. And sarcastically arguing if such harm were real, then by the same bullshit argument you are making towards guns, people ought to have liability insurance if they wish to practice their right to free speech in case they harm some fringe leftist's delicate sensibilities with the words they say.

Good let me know when that causes damages and when a judge issues a judgement for such a case...and does not consider it Libel or Slander.
Till then its just you making up a bullshit scenario with key words like SJW and Trigger.....

Let me know a year when the so called "bullshit" argument I am making does not result in 10's of thousands of people ending up in the hospital thanks to accidentally "practicing" their right to bear arms.
Not sure how something can be considered bullshit when there has been over 250 THOUSAND accidental injuries in 13 ish years.


till then your attempt at a horrific strawman's argument is worthless to everyone.