School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

[honorentheos]

Sorry that the perfect is in the way of the better here, but that's how your post reads to me.

I don't see what you propose as "better." Under your system, the insured shooter is relieved of the financial consequences of his careless or intentional harm -- his insurance company pays for the harm. That's the fundamental problem with insuring the gun owner or user. If we want to use insurance as a tool to accomplish some goal, we should do it in a way that doesn't work against the stated purpose.

In my scenarios the people paying for insurance are incentivized to make themselves attractive customers to insurance providers who are incentivized to assess the risk of a particular gun being owned by a particular individual. The cost being carried by someone who won't die in a shootout with police is a feature not a bug.

[K Graham]

Looks like "what about Chicago" has been a right-wing excuse for many years.

60% of illegal guns involved in crimes in Chicago come from other states (Indianapolis). Like vaccination, gun control is most effective if everyone is doing it.

The funny thing is Ajax doesn't own a gun or really care about guns except he's a Christian because he believes in guns. Like I said, Ajax and every other right-winger would suddenly have all kinds of ideas about how to fix this if it was their kid rather than someone else's.

Ben Shapiro and Sean Hannity both had lengthy suggestions for fixing this. Ben has kids in in school as well. There was no armed security guard at the school. The doors were unlocked. We needed single ports of entry with multiple exits. We need police who are willing to fight and we get that by treating them better. We need to catch and act on the many red flags that were up with these shooters. One thing we don't need is the government going around and collecting the guns law biding citizens need to defend themselves from outlaws who will always have guns. Gun free school zones have become a convenient soft target for evil pos mass shooters who want to kill kids.

Shapiro and Hannity and political hacks bought and paid for by the NRA and other immoral outfits that Nazis love to rely on. Suggesting that these two despicable morons have anything valuable to offer to this problem is nothing short of laughable, but that's what we've come to expect from our resident racist.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Former US Marine rifle and pistol coach is fed up with gun nuts

https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglev ... is_fed_up/

tl;dc - Marines have to qual once a year @ two weeks of training and range time. Marines aren’t allowed to keep privately owned weapons in their barracks, but rather with the Provost Marshal who then issues them a receipt with detailed check-in/check-out information regarding use. There are similar rules for the Army, though they relax for servicemembers in Post housing or off-Post housing (but you lose access to those weapons if you get mixed up with the MPs for relatively serious offenses).

Anyway. Watch the video. He makes some salient points.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

I don't see what you propose as "better." Under your system, the insured shooter is relieved of the financial consequences of his careless or intentional harm -- his insurance company pays for the harm. That's the fundamental problem with insuring the gun owner or user. If we want to use insurance as a tool to accomplish some goal, we should do it in a way that doesn't work against the stated purpose.

In my scenarios the people paying for insurance are incentivized to make themselves attractive customers to insurance providers who are incentivized to assess the risk of a particular gun being owned by a particular individual. The cost being carried by someone who won't die in a shootout with police is a feature not a bug.

We don't know today how to assess the risk of a particular gun being owned by a particular person before the person injures or kills someone with the gun. How do you expect insurance underwriters, who aren't even trained psychologists, to assess those risks? And do it in a way that passes constitutional muster? What should go on an underwriter's checklist that would have a high probability of screening out people who will use the firearm to intentionally injure or kill without depriving millions of citizens of their constitutional right to own a firearm?

If you want to talk about incentivizing behavior, if I go hunting and negligently shoot my buddy, I'll I'm likely exposed to zero financial consequences. I've got something like a $300,000 HO policy with a $1 million umbrella that will very likely take care of any damages suit. If I couldn't insure my liability for injury from firearms, I have a huge financial incentive not to be careless with my guns. We have to think about the law of unintended consequences. I think it's a bad idea to protect gun owners from the financial consequences of intentionally shooting people.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

&

[Binger]

&

Almost 30 years later and this is still just noise. The Tec9 was re-issued in a California compliant version and then again with a name that did not have "Tec9." Still today, there is just posturing about what is an assault rifle made for the military and what is not. The definitions, frankly, are based more on feelings than facts and as long as these debates are just feelings traffic, we will be exactly where were were in 1994 when these presidents wrote what you shared and Biden was passing his crime bill that him and his buddy Strom Thurmond drafted.

There are actual military grade features available on guns. One can get a .458 SOCOM complete upper in the mail and slap it on a AR-15 lower. SOCOM is the acronym for The United States Special Operations Command which is the unified combatant command charged with overseeing the various special operations component commands of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force of the United States Armed Forces. The 458 complete upper can be ordered by anyone, at anytime and delivered by the USPS, UPS or FedEx.

There are other SOCOM products available to the public, like the .300 NORMA and .338 NORMA Magnum. Those can be purchased in California, no problem.

Until we agree on definitions, regardless of our feelings, we are not really talking with one another. Another rant by a senator or congressperson about automatic weapons being sold without a background check at gun shows is clickbait and there will be MANY viewers that love that. And, anyone with half a brain will know the senator or congressperson is talking out their ass again. The feelings will be soothed or unsoothed by the drama, and nothing will happen, again.

& , indeed.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglev ... is_fed_up/

The Marine makes some good points - especially in that the Pro-Gun lobby doesn’t actually want to do anything - start at 1:17 if you’d like. that's their gameplan. And we’ll keep seeing dudes smoke some fools at a grocery store, or kids killing other kids with guns, rifles, assault weapons, or whatever people want to call ‘boomy metal thingies that people go ugh owie ouch phhbbt’.

- Doc

[doubtingthomas]

Until we agree on definitions, regardless of our feelings, we are not really talking with one another.

Or people like you complicate things too much. Prostitution and drug advocates use the same argument.

Until we agree on definitions to what paid sex is, regardless of our feelings, we are not really talking with one another.

[Binger]

Until we agree on definitions, regardless of our feelings, we are not really talking with one another.

Or people like you complicate things too much. Prostitution and drug advocates use the same argument.

Until we agree on definitions to what paid sex is, regardless of our feelings, we are not really talking with one another.

Cool. Then expect more of the same. Or expect worse of the same.

[doubtingthomas]

Cool. Then expect more of the same. Or expect worse of the same.

Of course, I expect more of your same bullcrap.

Different toilet, same crap.