January 17, 201313 yr Yes. Seriously. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner Should you have to have a liability policy on your dog? What about your kitchen knives? Or propane tanks? Or gas can for your lawn mower? What about my kids baseball bat? My hammers? Nail gun? Ax? Chain saw? Shovel?
January 17, 201313 yr One thing that the President didn't propose . Liability Insurance . Every gun owner should have a liability insurance policy for every gun that they own .We have to do it for automobiles l see no reason why gun owners shouldn't have to do the same . With all due respect, that may be the most retarded notion I've read in this entire debate. Who/what would be the beneficiary? And for what. I wax you with my .45, your wife gets compensated by my liability insurance? That'll curb gun violence for sure.
January 17, 201313 yr One thing that the President didn't propose . Liability Insurance . Every gun owner should have a liability insurance policy for every gun that they own .We have to do it for automobiles l see no reason why gun owners shouldn't have to do the same . I don't think this solves anything. What do you base the rates on, tough to enforce, and I think it would end up being incredibly expensive. However, I have no issues with having a gun registry....our cars have to be registered, heck, even our dogs have to be registered. Nearly every part of our life is regulated by something, and people seem to have very few problems with it. When guns are concerned though, people go nuts. I think the points the POTUS made today, are quite reasonable, and he is not even close to calling for an outright ban. I don't agree with the mag limits, but can live with it. I understand the need people have/feel for protection. But, even though I've worked in terrible neighborhoods in Philly and NY City, and lived in Philly for 4 years, I've never even been close to a situation where I've felt I needed a gun to protect myself. Maybe I'm just lucky and the exception to the rule, and I hope to continue to be lucky. That being said, I've owned guns (though I currently do not now), and am looking to buy a gun to have for target and range shooting in the near future.
January 17, 201313 yr Should you have to have a liability policy on your dog? What about your kitchen knives? Or propane tanks? Or gas can for your lawn mower? What about my kids baseball bat? My hammers? Nail gun? Ax? Chain saw? Shovel? I asked why...besides the questions you pose above, what are the reasons it's stupid. You are often quick to tell me that none of the above are as effective at deterring crime. So, a gun is not the same as any of those. It is, by design, lethal. Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
January 17, 201313 yr Author I asked why...besides the questions you pose above, what are the reasons it's stupid. You are often quick to tell me that none of the above are as effective at deterring crime. So, a gun is not the same as any of those. It is, by design, lethal. Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner Because the criminals (who are going to be the one committing MOST gun crimes) won't have it so only the law abiding gun owners will have it and with it the additional costs.
January 17, 201313 yr Yes. Seriously. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner Such a policy would be just another end around proposal towards gun control through increased cost. It would add hundreds per gun to the cost of ownership, and the policy cost would no doubt be higher on weapons construed as "assault", thus limiting the average citizen's availability to own one.
January 17, 201313 yr Because the criminals (who are going to be the one committing MOST gun crimes) won't have it so only the law abiding gun owners will have it and with it the additional costs. I have a huge issue with the carelessness of many legal gun owners. The focus is always on mass shootings and use by criminals. Overlooked are the injuries and deaths caused by carelessness in use or lack of safety in storing weapons. It's more than just the recent events. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner
January 17, 201313 yr I have a huge issue with the carelessness of many legal gun owners. The focus is always on mass shootings and use by criminals. Overlooked are the injuries and deaths caused by carelessness in use or lack of safety in storing weapons. It's more than just the recent events. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner Mom, I agree that there should be a strong focus on the safety with regard to firearms. However, those numbers of accidental injuries and deaths are miniscule. The data shows that. We can compare accidental gun deaths to most every other conceivable way to carelessly die and it's at the bottom of the list. There's a myriad of links if you google them about that very thing. Again, I'm all for the safe storage and operation of weapons, but that issue is so far from what the gov't is trying to get done here that it's not remotely the crux of the gun control debate, if not an afterthought.
January 17, 201313 yr Mom, I agree that there should be a strong focus on the safety with regard to firearms. However, those numbers of accidental injuries and deaths are miniscule. The data shows that. We can compare accidental gun deaths to most every other conceivable way to carelessly die and it's at the bottom of the list. There's a myriad of links if you google them about that very thing. Again, I'm all for the safe storage and operation of weapons, but that issue is so far from what the gov't is trying to get done here that it's not remotely the crux of the gun control debate, if not an afterthought. Here's my thought process... it doesn't matter if it's 1 life or 100 in an incident. It is actually more of a problem for me in those "accidental" deaths. The issue is the same to me. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner
January 17, 201313 yr I'm wondering if those with homeowner liability insurance are already covering their guns. I know I had coverage for accidents when I had a trampoline and if my dog attacked someone. I'm sure it increased my rates during that time but it wasn't anything I really noticed. Would be interesting to find out.
January 17, 201313 yr Here's my thought process... it doesn't matter if it's 1 life or 100 in an incident. It is actually more of a problem for me in those "accidental" deaths. The issue is the same to me. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I wish there was never an accidental gun death. But life has it's inherent risks with all of the stuff at our disposal. Accidental overdose. Kids drink chemicals under the kitchen sink, just tons of stuff if mishandled. So, I don't disagree with your notion at all. My only stance is that accidental death with a firearm has zero to do with the mandate from the POTUS.
January 17, 201313 yr Because it's stupid. Why is it stupid ? Expound on your statement ? Is it stupid to by libility insurance for your car also ?
January 17, 201313 yr Such a policy would be just another end around proposal towards gun control through increased cost. It would add hundreds per gun to the cost of ownership, and the policy cost would no doubt be higher on weapons construed as "assault", thus limiting the average citizen's availability to own one. That's right .
January 17, 201313 yr Average casualties during mass shootings in the U.S. indicate that if an armed responder is on sight, the casualties average just over two. If armed responders have to be called to the scene, the casualties have averaged over 14. What more convincing do you need? Was there anyone with a weapon at Gabrielle Gifford's shooting? There were 13 I think hit when he emptied his 33 round magazine from his pistol. 2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 17, 201313 yr That's right . So we agree as to why it is stupid? It is so far off the charts it isn't even realisti
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.