12 dead in Virginia Beach mass shooting

[Saint Frankenstein]

Kind of shocking that it was a black guy who did it.

 

[Shad]

Like punishing non-criminal vehicle owners ..?

Yes. I reject the idea of mandatory car insurance as it has become a scam against many customers.

There's your problem........ lots of gun owners have accidents, and they need to be insured for all risks.

I disagree.

If not, why do they have to insure their businesses and cars etc?

As government made it mandatory. People are not free to choose otherwise without the law coming down on them.

Gun insurance should be compulsory anyways.....

Disagree.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes. I reject the idea of mandatory car insurance as it has become a scam against many customers.

I disagree.

As government made it mandatory. People are not free to choose otherwise without the law coming down on them.

Disagree.

Now we all know!

So.... following on from the above, presumably shop-keepers and small businesses should not have to have Public Liability insurance. ??

In fact, why should any person or organisation take out insurance against any Liability risk at all?

Liability.......... and Responsibility ....... or the determination to just ignore it.

That's fine.......... and as far as...
'Gun-deaths and Injuries each day in the USA'
......., that's just about where you're at now.

 

[Shad]

Now we all know!

So.... following on from the above, presumably shop-keepers and small businesses should not have to have Public Liability insurance. ??

My point was about choice vs mandatory insurance scams.

In fact, why should any person or organisation take out insurance against any Liability risk at all?

A person should be free to decide if they want to take the risk or pay to cover the risk via insurance. Besides the idea that people are not liable for their own accidents they cause is nonsense furthering the point that it is a scam.

Liability.......... and Responsibility ....... or the determination to just ignore it.

Ergo let the people take their own risks and decide

That's fine.......... and as far as...
'Gun-deaths and Injuries each day in the USA'
......., that's just about where you're at now.

Death causes by car accidents compared to murder has car deaths ahead by a good 10k to 20k. Gun accidents are low as well.

 

[oldbadger]

My point was about choice vs mandatory insurance scams.

A person should be free to decide if they want to take the risk or pay to cover the risk via insurance. Besides the idea that people are not liable for their own accidents they cause is nonsense furthering the point that it is a scam.

Ergo let the people take their own risks and decide

Death causes by car accidents compared to murder has car deaths ahead by a good 10k to 20k. Gun accidents are low as well.

As to all of the above:-

As for your figures:-
Vehicles:-
40,100 motor vehicle deaths in USA 2017
Guns:-
www.bradtunited.org figures:-
113,108 people are shot every year.
GUNS
36,383 people die from gun violence
12,830 are murdered
76,725 people survive gun injuries
34,566 are injured in an attack
22,274 die from suicide
3,554 survive a suicide attempt
496 are killed by legal intervention
1,376 are shot by legal intervention
295 die but the intent was unknown
4,471 are shot but the intent is unknown
509 women are killed by their husband or male dating partner*

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Less than a week later and it's already forgotten and gone from the news cycle. What a banal dystopia.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And so compulsory all risks gun insurance would be a no brainer.

Very rich folks can obtain a certificate of cover, just as with insurance. All others would pay a premium.

But insurers have a right to research and refuse cover.

Uninsured guns could be seized every time, and holders be convicted of a gun crime.

This would be the first reasonable step of more to come.

It makes sense.

And would be a violation of the Constitutions Second Amendment.

Perhaps a restriction on fire rate for civilian use such as bolt action and breech-loading firearms could eventually be argued out. I personally don't like it but something should be done of which I think all sides need to come to the table and hash out a viable solution that doesn't violate the Second Amendment yet would lessen the casualty accounts. A comparison could arguably be made with vintage firearms and the evolution of modern weapon that we see now.

We do have smart technology , so perhaps developing a firearm that would only be serviceable to its owner might help.

Ultimately though, it comes down to the person him or herself, not actually the weapon itself . Remember, guns themselves don't kill people, people kill people. We've had guns throughout our history without the kind of problems were seeing today with the people that are using them. Something's changed between then and now . We ought to be looking at that.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And would be a violation of the Constitutions Second Amendment.

Sick of this nonsense argument.

A. Weapons restrictions are already legal and considered "constitutional".

B. Even if it truly were "unconstitutional", that, by itself, is meaningless. The Constitution is not Holy Writ. You have mechanisms for changing it. So if you need to amend it to reduce THOUSANDS of people dying, amend it already and stop pretending like you can't.

The "but we need our gunz for self defence" argument is a demonstrated nonsense, and given the state of your government and civic institutions "we need our gunz to protect from gummint tyranny!" sure as **** doesn't hold any water.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sick of this nonsense argument.

A. Weapons restrictions are already legal and considered "constitutional".

B. Even if it truly were "unconstitutional", that, by itself, is meaningless. The Constitution is not Holy Writ. You have mechanisms for changing it. So if you need to amend it to reduce THOUSANDS of people dying, amend it already and stop pretending like you can't.

The "but we need our gunz for self defence" argument is a demonstrated nonsense, and given the state of your government and civic institutions "we need our gunz to protect from gummint tyranny!" sure as **** doesn't hold any water.

For many Americans, the Second Amendment is a defense against their own government

 

[oldbadger]

And would be a violation of the Constitutions Second Amendment.

Yeah.... expensive amendment that, in the lives of children and innocent victims, and all those hundreds of thousands of injuries caused in accidents. And you're going to keep paying, I'm afraid.

Perhaps a restriction on fire rate for civilian use such as bolt action and breech-loading firearms could eventually be argued out. I personally don't like it but something should be done of which I think all sides need to come to the table and hash out a viable solution that doesn't violate the Second Amendment yet would lessen the casualty accounts. A comparison could arguably be made with vintage firearms and the evolution of modern weapon that we see now.

Yeah yeah........... send all that to the NRA, and then see what they say about you.

We do have smart technology , so perhaps developing a firearm that would only be serviceable to its owner might help.

Since many killers and murderers owned their guns legitimately, that's a pathetic proposal.

Ultimately though, it comes down to the person him or herself, not actually the weapon itself .

Yes, which is why, for instance, you need to prove yourself capable before owning a truck.

Remember, guns themselves don't kill people, people kill people. We've had guns throughout our history without the kind of problems were seeing today with the people that are using them. Something's changed between then and now . We ought to be looking at that.

You need to Remember..... It's not the trucks that kill people, you know...... it's the people behind the wheel.


Remember, there could be a correlation between innocent's lives lost per repetition of this rhetorical sentence.

 

[oldbadger]

Sick of this nonsense argument.

A. Weapons restrictions are already legal and considered "constitutional".

B. Even if it truly were "unconstitutional", that, by itself, is meaningless. The Constitution is not Holy Writ. You have mechanisms for changing it. So if you need to amend it to reduce THOUSANDS of people dying, amend it already and stop pretending like you can't.

The "but we need our gunz for self defence" argument is a demonstrated nonsense, and given the state of your government and civic institutions "we need our gunz to protect from gummint tyranny!" sure as **** doesn't hold any water.

It is truly unbelievable drivvle that they vomit up about their rights, and the refusal to support training courses, proper qualification and liability insurance for gun users and owners is clearly indicative of total carelessness all of those injuries, killings and mass murders down through the weeks, months, years and decades.

I held conversations like this on RF several years ago after dreadful incidents became international news (although they do happen every day) and I have no doubt at all that there will be regular conversations on RF like this in several year's time.

The killings and injuries just go on.......... and on........

It's America, I guess.....

 

[Shad]

As to all of the above:-
View attachment 29573
113,108 people are shot every year.

Being shot is not a death. Words have meaning.

GUNS
36,383 people die from gun violence

Nope.

12,830 are murdered

in 2017 it was 19,946

76,725 people survive gun injuries
34,566 are injured in an attack

Not deaths. You know what the word death means rights? Need a dictionary?

22,274 die from suicide

Undermines your point about insurance as one can not insure against suicide. Also suicide isn't an accident.

3,554 survive a suicide attempt

Bad aim

496 are killed by legal intervention

Ergo not an insurance point as government has the legal power to use violence. It monopolized legal violence.

1,376 are shot by legal intervention

Not a death.

295 die but the intent was unknown

Legal acts have nothing to do with gun insurance. Maybe life insurance.

4,471 are shot but the intent is unknown

Ergo not a death

509 women are killed by their husband or male dating partner*

Which would be include under homicide stats thus an irrelevant citation


My records trump your records as they are directly from government and your link does not work. (anyone confirm this?) ‭19,946 homicide vs 40,327 deaths by car. Suicide does not matter in context of insurance.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812603
Table 20
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_05.pdf

 

[Stevicus]

I can see that you are having trouble with this suggestion.

Before we worry about how to find 'bad' guns, let's recognise that many guns used in murders and injuries are 'good' guns at this time.

But more important still, do you think that it is important that every gun injury victim, and every gun murder dependent relative should have full and complete financial compensation for all costs, support, education for children, and medical services etc etc after such an incident? Would you if you got shot? Of course you would! There you go..... the common sense of mandatory gun insurance for all gun owners and users.

Of course some idiots and many villains won't insure their guns, but thousands and thousands of unsuitable applicants for gun insurance would get turned down, and so they would have to sell or give up their guns.

At this time nobody has to insure their gun, and if you can imagine what it would be like if nobody had to insure their truck or car that might help you to see the fuller picture.

Don't worry..... it'll never happen in the US. Nothing about guns will ever happen in the US.

Well, there might be other ways of dealing with the issue.

One way of doing so would be for society to put its money where its mouth is. If society bans all guns, then it has the absolute responsibility to protect its citizenry without exception. If, after such a ban is imposed, anyone is a victim of a violent crime, they or their survivors immediately receive a $1 billion cash payment in compensation for the government's failure to protect them from crime.

This might be a possible compromise, since anti-gun advocates would get what they want by getting guns off the streets, while pro-gun advocates would get a government which would be more proactive in fighting crime (or else they get hit hard in the pocketbook).

 

[Curious George]

Sick of this nonsense argument.

A. Weapons restrictions are already legal and considered "constitutional".

B. Even if it truly were "unconstitutional", that, by itself, is meaningless. The Constitution is not Holy Writ. You have mechanisms for changing it. So if you need to amend it to reduce THOUSANDS of people dying, amend it already and stop pretending like you can't.

The "but we need our gunz for self defence" argument is a demonstrated nonsense, and given the state of your government and civic institutions "we need our gunz to protect from gummint tyranny!" sure as **** doesn't hold any water.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This is not for what the quote was originally intended, but it works.

A) All weapons are not efficient and effective means of self defense. Firearms however are. You point a is not very logical.

B) Let us see if there is a willingness to adopt such an Ammendment. I hope not, but if so then so be it. Do not expect such positions to go unopposed.

No, it is not "demonstrated nonsense." You are merely buying into your special brand of propaganda. Cheers though.

 

[oldbadger]

My records trump your records as they are directly from government and your link does not work. (anyone confirm this?) ‭19,946 homicide vs 40,327 deaths by car. Suicide does not matter in context of insurance.

It was not a link, it was the web site address from where I copied the data.

If you cannot see that full 3rd party liability insurance for all guns and owners is an absolutely common sense no-brainer then I cannot help you.

But if a loved one of yours was injured in a gun accident, and a Court awarded massive damages, but the respondent to the claim had no funds or property, and NO INSURANCE, then you'd be squealing for the common sense of it, I reckon.

Look........... just carry on, OK? We can talk again after your country's next mass murder, maybe? And the next? And the next?

 

[Audie]

Definitely the decade of the Psychopaths.

The USA has 4 % of the earth's population and 1.49% of mass shootings.

The kilker is black.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, there might be other ways of dealing with the issue.

Yes! Absolutely!
It would be good if the USA would pick a 'way' and follow it, any way...... and then maybe pick another?
I reckon that would be positive.

One way of doing so would be for society to put its money where its mouth is. If society bans all guns, then it has the absolute responsibility to protect its citizenry without exception. If, after such a ban is imposed, anyone is a victim of a violent crime, they or their survivors immediately receive a $1 billion cash payment in compensation for the government's failure to protect them from crime.

Ban ALL guns? Who is pushing to do that?
You can own a gun, rifle and even some pistols in the UK.
A Thousand Million pounds compensation from the government?

I'll bet that some gun crime victims at this time don't get diddly, and gun injury victims will only get compensation if a Court can find assets belonging to the defendant.

This might be a possible compromise, since anti-gun advocates would get what they want by getting guns off the streets, while pro-gun advocates would get a government which would be more proactive in fighting crime (or else they get hit hard in the pocketbook).

You do think up some strange ideas. What a shocker if you ever got big in politics.

 

[Audie]

Many others will take his place though, unfortunately.

I'm anti-gun and all for making it harder for people to murder other people, but they'll will just come up with different ways to do it... always have. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't want to get arrested for posession of fishing string or a plastic bag.

Could you be spevific about what "anti gun" means?

My fiend from college...her dad owns the ancestral
ranch in Wyoming. He has a beautifully engraved
German rifle his dad brought home from WW2.

He shoots it occasionally- a rabid skunk, a coyote,
a deer in season.

What are you "against"?

 

[Shad]

It was not a link, it was the web site address from where I copied the data.

The website does load so I can not verify your stats.

If you cannot see that full 3rd party liability insurance for all guns and owners is an absolutely common sense no-brainer then I cannot help you.

Merely because you think something is a good idea does not make it so nor does my rejection of your idea some sort of issue. You are just grandstanding here

But if a loved one of yours was injured in a gun accident, and a Court awarded massive damages, but the respondent to the claim had no funds or property, and NO INSURANCE, then you'd be squealing for the common sense of it, I reckon.

Nope. There is NHC here so those costs are covered. Prescription costs are covered by my plan. Damages can be awarded over time.

You are missing the point of mandatory versus choice.

Look........... just carry on, OK? We can talk again after your country's next mass murder, maybe? And the next? And the next?

I am in Canada. Keep babbling.

 

[oldbadger]

I am in Canada. Keep babbling.

Then what is the point of moaning about gun controls?
Canada is much more reasonable than the USA, imo.

Canada might even support gun liability insurance! I'll bet that many clubs there do already.