25
   

Deadly shooting on Oregon college campus

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 07:58 pm
@FBM,
Listen bud, it has long been the goal to tax tobacco at what ever it is determined is the societal costs of allowing tobacco, and we are getting there. We are seeing sustained tax increases on tobacco at 10-20% the rate of inflation. THe same idea is intended to be part of the anti gun program, bit the tax is privatized and run though insurance companies. Yes, handguns and semi's will be costing at lot higher premiums. Now I am not rejecting the program out of hand, but we need to be honest about where advocates want to go.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 07:59 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

The risk would be spread out over a 100 millions or so plus gun owners with the 300 millions or so guns having a far better safety record then cars.
Gun owners will be expected to pay for a significant portion of the societal policing cost. The costs will be in the thousands of dollars per year per gun.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 08:00 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Hmm. OK, there are already expensive licensing requirements for owning fully automatic weapons


Licensing requirements expenses is not the same as insurance expenses which should be even lower for fully automatic weapons then the run of the mill firearms.

The last time I did a search I could not find one time that a legally own and license class two weapon had been used in a crime!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 08:00 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
If you would set the rate for gun liability by the real world claim rates for such insurance I can not see how it would be more then a few hundreds dollars a year at worst.


I'd be surprised if it made it as high as $100/annum. As an add-on to other coverage, homeowner/tenant/auto, it could be less. Then apply a credit for safe gun use, alumnae/group association/period of no use and it would be insignificant unless there were big claims made. That's where the incentive from other gun owners for safe handling/storage/carry would come into play.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 08:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Gun owners will be expected to pay for a significant portion of the societal policing cost. The costs will be in the thousands of dollars per year per gun.


Then that would not be insurance but some form of gun tax by the government as private insurance companies only care about their income and outgo by way of settlements or courts ruling as far as liability is concern not policing or whatever costs.

Same as car or home insurance policies.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 08:47 pm
@BillRM,
Ferguson paid a huge chunk of their police costs through fines and forfeitures. Insurance adds a layer of bureaucracy but otherwise functions the same. The state can present you with a bill when ever it pleases, and if you dont have the insurance to pay it then you are toast. Think Bail.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 10:14 pm
@ehBeth,
Neither of the things you mentioned is a right mentioned in the Constitution. Most insurance on a gun is currently to ensure the value against theft. No liability involved.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2015 10:43 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Neither of the things you mentioned is a right mentioned in the Constitution. Most insurance on a gun is currently to ensure the value against theft. No liability involved.

Sure, but you see where gun haters want to go, and why.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 01:45 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Hmm. OK, there are already expensive licensing requirements for owning fully automatic weapons. Suppose handguns and non-hunting long guns were simply bumped up to that class? After all, it's a lot harder to sneak a 30.06 onto campus or into a theater. Just speculating.

If onerous requirements for owning full-auto weapons pass Constitutional muster, it is because such weapons are unsuitable for self defense.

Any measure that would place handguns out of reach of ordinary citizens would violate our Constitutional right to carry a handgun whenever we go about in public.

Any measure that would place assault rifles out of reach of ordinary citizens would be unconstitutional because there is no good reason to restrict harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip on a rifle.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 01:47 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Not everyone who owns a gun has the ability to carry insurance. It would put the cost of owning out of the reach of many Americans.


What a pathetic response. You're always saying how people should pay their way, so should you.

FBM
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 02:02 am
@oralloy,
The "shall not be infringed" part is pretty unambiguous, innit?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 03:36 am
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye the state can require you to have insurance but insurance cost once more depend on claim rates over the whole population of those people insurance not some number pickled out of the air by the government.

Insurance is insurance now if you are talking about something other then insurance that is fine but not what we was addressing.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 03:42 am
The gun nuts, both here on A2K and in the wider world seem to be drawn from the very worst aspects of society. Very poorly educated, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, paranoid, angry and mendacious.

Look at the creatures travelling to Roseburg, just to insult the memory of the dead and inflict as much pain and suffering as possible on grieving relatives.

Quote:
The demonstrators blamed the massacre here last week on two things: a failure to treat mental health problems and the designation of Umpqua Community College as a gun-free zone.

Many of those we spoke to said they had travelled to Roseburg from elsewhere in Oregon to make their voices hear.

They had no shortage of complaints. Mr Obama wanted to take away their guns, they said. He was interfering in state business. He favoured "Muslim immigration".

Several signs said he should go home "to Kenya". One proclaimed "Christian Lives Matter", an apparent reference to the Black Lives Matter campaign against police brutality.

The hostility to the Democratic president here in Republican rural Oregon was not just political, it was personal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34487997<br /> <br />
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 03:49 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The gun nuts, both here on A2K and in the wider world seem to be drawn from the very worst aspects of society. Very poorly educated, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, paranoid, angry and mendacious.

nicely illustrating how you remain so ignorant so late into life.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 03:52 am
@hawkeye10,
I'm just saying it as I see it. I know you think the above qualities are virtues, but you are incredibly stupid, and have a track record of making moronic pronouncements that are just plain wrong.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 04:35 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The gun nuts, both here on A2K and in the wider world seem to be drawn from the very worst aspects of society. Very poorly educated, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, paranoid, angry and mendacious.


Facts are not your friend Izzy on this subject or most other subjects it would seems.

Quote:


http://www.statista.com/statistics/249769/percentage-of-population-in-the-us-owning-a-gun-by-education/

Percentage of population in the United States owning at least one gun in 2010, by education
The statistic shows the percentage of population in the United States owning one or more firearms in 2010, by education. In 2010, about 37 percent of respondents with a college degree in the U.S. had at least one gun in their possession.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 04:43 am
@BillRM,
Says the person who spends most of his time writing incomprehensible gibberish. I've stated the facts, you can't admit to them.

There's a huge difference between a gun owner and a gun nut. You definitely fall into the latter category, along with all the bigotry that comes with it.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 05:00 am
@izzythepush,
LOL so anyone who opinions you do not care for and own guns are gun nuts however those who are gun owners as a class are not gun nuts?

Love your logic or lack of same.

Of course you come from a culture that does not even trust it Olympic pistol team members to practice on your soil less alone the general population to own firearms so your ability to judge the different if any between US gun owners and gun nuts is in some question.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 06:14 am
@BillRM,
No, your pronouncements on the victims of child pornography and the perpetrators says all anyone needs to know about you.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2015 07:05 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
As I stated cars killed 30,000 or so every year far more deaths then gun cause even before subtracting suicides that I would think would not be cover by insurance.

You might want to check your facts
In 2013 there were more gun deaths than traffic accident deaths

CDC - 2013 total firearm deaths - 33,169 (Accidental, suicide, homicide,undetermined intent)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Motor Vehicle Deaths - 2013 - 32,719
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year


More people under 26 die from guns than from auto accidents
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/08/26/americas-gun-violence-problem-in-three-charts/
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
Harrisburg Pa. Outdoor Show "Postponed" - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 08:20:25