Active shooter at Texas elementary school

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,343
33,383
1,743
oklahoma city
Rough US statistics:
Non-firearm related homicides per year: 5K
Aggravated assaults per year: 800K
Forcible rapes per year: 140K
Fire damage per year: $20B

Every single person in our country carries an inherent risk to others. If we're going to start requiring insurance for the risks associated with owning a firearm, we should probably also start requiring insurance for simply existing.
Firearm homicides
  • Number of deaths: 19,384
All homicides
  • Number of deaths: 24,576
4 out of 5 homicides are from one mechanism. And, somehow, you don't think that mechanism is worthy of special consideration compared to ALL of the other mechanism which all together make up the 20%?

I suppose that it also makes no sense to require auto liability insurance unless we are going to require it of scooters, bicycles, and little red wagons?

There is the inherent risk of a wagon accident. Really, anything with wheels should be insured.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,343
33,383
1,743
oklahoma city
That isn't necessarily true. The insurance would also be for damages caused by criminal or negligent actions committed by the gunowners. It isn't just about covering the risks associated with stolen firearms.

IMO, gunowners should be held accountable for their own actions. They shouldn't be held accountable for the unlawful actions of others. What if someone stole your wallet and used the money inside to harm themselves or others? Should you be held accountable for their actions?
Your argument assumes falsely that a gun is a harmless object like money. You don't have to spend a gun into something to create harm, the gun is designed for that purpose. It sends a projectile rapidly at something in order to harm or damage it.
Money does not have a harmful purpose. To harm someone with money, you would have to spend it on something harmful, the most obvious example being a gun. That is not the same.

IMO, guns should quit getting carveouts from the laws that govern other things. No laws against gun research. No laws against manufacturer liability. Guns have overtaken vehicle deaths. Because they affect youth more commonly than most things when accounting for life-years lost they look even worse. It is time for Americans to stop whining about their rights and start thinking about their responsibilities.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,343
33,383
1,743
oklahoma city
And I actually think the 2nd amendment was incredibly, skillfully and well written. Average Joe Population can interpret it the way they want until they are blue in the face... the court is where the final interpreted decision will pretty much always lie.
Well, stay cocky. Because the current interpretation that you are so proud of has been around for about 40 years or so. Don't think it can't change yet again when the pendulum swings.
Enough regular people keep seeing kids die for "muh rights" like I have too many times and the courts will change, like they have before on other issues.


Gun Deaths vs. Motor Vehicle Accident Deaths Since 1999(1).jpg
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,838
8,060
1,743
Not addressing merits of gun owner liability insurance but wouldn’t the intent be to show proof of said liability insurance at time of purchase? I get some of the pros and cons but isn’t one of the supposed benefits of proof before purchase is that it halts impulse buys and makes it one step harder vs getting pissed and walking in off the street and buying an AR type weapon? At least I would hope that is one of the intents of proponents of this.
Oh I'm kinda okay with a "waiting period" on long guns/rifles... although think it's completely arbitrary. Make someone 110% intent on killing wait for a rifle... what's stopping them from buying a handgun and going through with their planned harm to others?

I've personally never purchased a long gun/rifle/AR that I didn't have to wait for. Had to wait at least 3-4 weeks for my AR to be built because it was custom ordered online.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,191
17,468
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Here's a question. If my gun is stolen, can't I just immediately drop coverage on it? If I no longer own it, then I can't be forced to pay the poll tax on it right.

Here's another. Does the taxpayer have to cover the cost of insuring guns in law enforcement, government agencies and the military?
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,838
8,060
1,743
Well, stay cocky. Because the current interpretation that you are so proud of has been around for about 40 years or so. Don't think it can't change yet again when the pendulum swings.
Enough regular people keep seeing kids die for "muh rights" like I have too many times and the courts will change, like they have before on other issues.


View attachment 96072
Not cocky... just saying everyone has their interpretation. But you nor I get to decide which is the "correct" interpretation. Absolutely the courts pendulum could swing.

And there are literally millions of 2nd amendment supporters/gun owners (especially responsible ones) that are just as sick and tired of seeing kids die as you are and I've NEVER come across one that has stated these kids died for "muh rights".

Kids... people... have died... because the actions of SICK.SMURFING.TRASH. We will never legislate away their ability to do the harm they are hell bent on doing. But you sure could legislate away ones ability to defend yourself against this trash.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,203
21,206
1,743
And I actually think the 2nd amendment was incredibly, skillfully and well written. Average Joe Population can interpret it the way they want until they are blue in the face... the court is where the final interpreted decision will pretty much always lie.
I think a whole lot of people....in fact most people...have little to no idea what Scalia said in D.C. v. Heller.

His opinion actually leaves a bunch of room for argument about "gun control" provisions that a whole bunch folks in this threat have conclusively stated/assumed would be unconstitutional.

I've quoted the language multiple times.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,191
17,468
1,743
Tulsa, OK
The more I think about liability insurance for guns the less I like it. Let's break down it's effects.

Will it effect criminals who commit gum violence? No. This law does absolutely nothing to punish or deter crimes committed using guns. Zip, zilch, zero, nada, nothing.

Will it help victims of gun violence? Very little. Most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns which won't have coverage so the majority of victims would see no benefit whatsoever.

Does it affect law abiding gun owners? Yes. In fact the whole idea seems intended solely to punish gun owners, especially those with limited incomes.

Who are the biggest winners? Insurance companies that will rake in premium payments knowing that payouts will be rare due to illegal, and thus uninsured, guns being the most used. Also any politicians who receive donations from those companies could see those donations increase for passing such a law *wink wink*.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,838
8,060
1,743
The more I think about liability insurance for guns the less I like it. Let's break down it's effects.

Will it effect criminals who commit gum violence? No. This law does absolutely nothing to punish or deter crimes committed using guns. Zip, zilch, zero, nada, nothing.

Will it help victims of gun violence? Very little. Most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns which won't have coverage so the majority of victims would see no benefit whatsoever.

Does it affect law abiding gun owners? Yes. In fact the whole idea seems intended solely to punish gun owners, especially those with limited incomes.

Who are the biggest winners? Insurance companies that will rake in premium payments knowing that payouts will be rare due to illegal, and thus uninsured, guns being the most used. Also any politicians who receive donations from those companies could see those donations increase for passing such a law *wink wink*.
Exactly... thus my earlier one-word comment in this thread calling it "stupid".
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,343
33,383
1,743
oklahoma city
Not cocky... just saying everyone has their interpretation. But you nor I get to decide which is the "correct" interpretation. Absolutely the courts pendulum could swing.

And there are literally millions of 2nd amendment supporters/gun owners (especially responsible ones) that are just as sick and tired of seeing kids die as you are.
In my opinion, it is cognitive dissonance. I'm not saying that you guys like to see kids die. What I am saying is that you like your guns more than even considering doing something minor about it. There is no desire to sacrifice anything to save others. None. The vast majority do not want to take your guns away. The things that are having trouble passing aren't even really a sacrifice. The things that would help but would take some minimal sacrifice are considered impossible. The idea that the poor can afford a legal gun and expensive ammo but can't afford the few dollars to insure it is CD.

Here is another example of cognitive dissonance. Saying "insurance will not affect criminals" does not mean it will not affect criminals. But hey, as a gun owner that thought is liked that so all agree vehemently. Data. Show data where insurance does not affect the criminal element. It simply isn't the case as was already stated in this thread in post #625. Insurance can mold behavior and limit problems.

I understand paying a few bucks in insurance that you didn't have to pay in the past sounds worse than not paying it. And, I'm no expert, it may or may not be the best way. I'm mainly advocating it just to show that you guys will argue against nearly anything, no matter how small, that could save people.

You can easily talk yourself into a rationalization that nothing will help. That isn't true or this would be an issue everywhere. But, it isn't, only here and the crime-ridden parts of the third world. I would feel comfortable saying my positions not only on a message board but to anyone. Would you? Would you make them to a public health professional who studies firearm deaths and their cause? Would you make all these arguments to a Uvalde mom? There is a difference between being sick of something and being willing to do something about it.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
Firearm homicides
  • Number of deaths: 19,384
All homicides
  • Number of deaths: 24,576
4 out of 5 homicides are from one mechanism. And, somehow, you don't think that mechanism is worthy of special consideration compared to ALL of the other mechanism which all together make up the 20%?

I suppose that it also makes no sense to require auto liability insurance unless we are going to require it of scooters, bicycles, and little red wagons?

There is the inherent risk of a wagon accident. Really, anything with wheels should be insured.
I think you're sort of missing my point. An individual can harm someone else financially without killing them. You're roughly 50X more likely to suffer some type of assault than to be murdered by a firearm. Many of these assaults result in financial harm for the victims.

If scooters, bicycles, and little red wagons created 50X as many accidents as automobiles, they would likely require insurance to operate as well.

I understand that gun ownership carries a certain level of risk. My point is that simply existing carries a certain level of risk as well. An individual can create significant financial harm to others without owning a gun. Why would we require insurance for one, but not the other?
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,424
4,223
1,743
Your argument assumes falsely that a gun is a harmless object like money. You don't have to spend a gun into something to create harm, the gun is designed for that purpose. It sends a projectile rapidly at something in order to harm or damage it.
Money does not have a harmful purpose. To harm someone with money, you would have to spend it on something harmful, the most obvious example being a gun. That is not the same.

IMO, guns should quit getting carveouts from the laws that govern other things. No laws against gun research. No laws against manufacturer liability. Guns have overtaken vehicle deaths. Because they affect youth more commonly than most things when accounting for life-years lost they look even worse. It is time for Americans to stop whining about their rights and start thinking about their responsibilities.
Money isn't harmless. It's what violent criminals use to purchase weapons. Stolen money can lead to the same negative outcome as stolen firearms, it just requires more steps.

I agree with you that there shouldn't be laws against gun research. I disagree that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for their products unless they're breaking the law.
 
Last edited:

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
9,046
3,911
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
So this will be the future?

Kid loses their emotions, kills others, the rest react by going after the means instead of the intent?

I mean, it’s been real effective the last 20 years.


What will we change when they 3D print a gun and make the ammunition out of match heads?

What will we change when a smart kid figures out the power of magnetics and doesn’t even need a propellant in the projectile?

How do you fight kids that can turn scrap metal into brand new perfectly functioning Smith and Wesson .45? Several YouTube videos show how.

What about laser technology?

What about sonic weapons?

Noxious gas?

When will the time come when the parents, teachers, students and LE decide to pool their information and stop these events before they even get to planning stage?

How many more times will we hear, the police already knew, they were on the fbi radar, the teacher was scared of that one or the students all knew he would be the shooter?

But sure, let’s go completely nuts on each other while another 100,000 die from ODs. Seems like a intelligent and empathetic response. Or the 500,000 from smoking and obesity? Their choice, let them die?


Get back to me when they discover that love is the only answer.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,191
17,468
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Senators reach final bipartisan agreement on a gun safety bill : NPR

Good? I assume it is...at least they are working together and attempting to make change. We can all hate them if we desire, but I want our leaders to talk and compromise so I'm going to celebrate this as a win soon.

USA!
That seems ok to me at first glance... although I am a bit leery of red flag laws.

FYI to those who wonder, that last paragraph is why things like this are so hard to pass in the first place.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,203
21,206
1,743
Money isn't harmless. It's what violent criminals use to purchase weapons. Stolen money can lead to the same negative outcome as stolen firearms, it just requires more steps.

I agree with you that there shouldn't be laws against gun research. I disagree that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for their products unless they're breaking the law.
Other manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for their products through products liability civil actions even when they aren't breaking the law.

Gun manufacturers and retailers have a specific exemption under federal law from product liability civil actions for some reason.

I'm not saying a product liability claim against a gun manufacturer would be successful. That would be very fact specific and up to a jury if it got beyond summary judgment motions/motions to dismiss.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,191
17,468
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Other manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for their products through products liability civil actions even when they aren't breaking the law.

Gun manufacturers and retailers have a specific exemption under federal law from product liability civil actions for some reason.

I'm not saying a product liability claim against a gun manufacturer would be successful. That would be very fact specific and up to a jury if it got beyond summary judgment motions/motions to dismiss.
I'm curious as I honestly don't know. Usually when a company is held liable, is it because they acted negligent in some fashion or maybe because their product has a flaw that leads to harm.....not because somebody used their correctly working product to commit harm. Is that correct? I would be ok with that for firearm manufacturers.

Having said that, whenever someone talks about liability for gun companies, it sounds like they want them to be held liable for crimes committed with a gun, even though there was no defect in the gun itself. Maybe I'm wrong in this...if so perhaps someone can clarify.