7 states introduce legislation to require gun owner's insurance, page 8

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:40 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by LFN69

I think the real problem, is what does gun insurance really cover? At least with car insurance it covers the victim. Now if somone gets shot, and they are dead, who gets what? People getting shot are not typically by accident, while accidents do happen, they aren't that many by comparison.

If your going to place a tax on the second amenment, then you need to start taxing other parts of the consituition as well. Like free speech, people have been killed for speaking out, maybe they too should have insurance.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:42 PM by macman

reply to post by intrepid

Again, the polls are not even .01% of the population.
And where do they get the numbers to call???

This really is just to easy.

Not to mention the margin of error is typically in the 4%.

But, do you know what can't be skewed?

NRA membership and firearm sales.

Here is a better sampling/poll. www.glennbeck.com...

Yes, it is Glenn Beck. I understand that.

But, the polling of 5 million people, not 1000 is a larger sampling.

And no, Fox news is not good enough for me.

edit on 8-2-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:47 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by macman

You have no clue as to the proposed insurance requirements, yet you yammer on.

The insurance is not for accidents, but for intentional actions.

For the accidents inside the home or on the property, there is home owners insurance already for that.

Please, stop speaking on topics you have no clue on.

Sounds more like a crime insurance.

For people getting shot because they are doing wrong, there would be no pay out, and they are a criminal. For the shooter that makes an error and shoots someone in an unjust situation, they would not only have to deal with the law, but also insurace that will no longer cover them.

The problem I see here is that the people commiting these horrible acts, aren't getting a background check because they are usually stealing the weapon. I don't see them going down to get insurance for a gun they just stole.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:47 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by macman
And no, Fox news is not good enough for me.

Cool. I'll be sure to note that for further discussion. I can see that there is no viable discussion here. I'm out but the points have been made for the reader.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:50 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by macman

I said it many times before, and I will say it again. Our problems could have been much less if Regan wouldn't have closed down all the mental instuitions.

The people doing these crimes are not right in their minds. There isn't any amount of law, or fines, or permits thats going to make people any less crazy. What needs to happen is they need to reopen all of the instuitions back up and start getting people the help they need.

Oddly enough Regan ended his term with a mental illness of his own.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:51 PM by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by macman

You have no clue as to the proposed insurance requirements, yet you yammer on.

The insurance is not for accidents, but for intentional actions.

For the accidents inside the home or on the property, there is home owners insurance already for that.

Please, stop speaking on topics you have no clue on.
Sounds more like a crime insurance.

For people getting shot because they are doing wrong, there would be no pay out, and they are a criminal. For the shooter that makes an error and shoots someone in an unjust situation, they would not only have to deal with the law, but also insurace that will no longer cover them.

The problem I see here is that the people commiting these horrible acts, aren't getting a background check because they are usually stealing the weapon. I don't see them going down to get insurance for a gun they just stole.

Exactly...

And my state, along with several others, have even made law, prohibiting prosecution and or awards for damages to these so-called "victims", when a law abiding gun owner must act to preserve life and property...

SO our, legislators have employed logic in these matters, but we are called illogical, for not understanding this most recent attempt to infringe on us...huh. Interesting...

edit on 2/8/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: i did

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:51 PM by macman

reply to post by intrepid

See ya!!!!

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:52 PM by intrepid

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by intrepid

See ya!!!!

Count on it.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:54 PM by LFN69

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by LFN69
Im impressed.

If you are impressed, then you need to get out more.

Originally posted by LFN69
Maybe your 5 year old also understands that their countries freedom to bear arms has led to one of the highest gun related deaths in the western World.

Oh really?? Care to provide your stats.

Originally posted by LFN69
What did you tell them when all those children were massacred? Dont worry little one, daddy is gonna git ya a BIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGG Gun to shot the bad guys with.

What I discussed with my children are really none of your business. Just as my Constitutional Rights are none of your business.

Originally posted by LFN69
Tell you what, you live in Cloud Cuckoo land and just continue to be blase about it all and hope to God that some maniac doesnt do the unthinkable anywhere near YOUR child.

Um...ok and thanks, I guess.

Originally posted by LFN69
Thats the difference fella, I may live in a small tin pot country but out attrocities are few and far between and our young children dont need armed guards in school corridors.

And you are free to stay there and do what ever you want with it. You live there, not me. I don't begin to think I have the right to tell you how to be inside your country or how your country should act.

Originally posted by LFN69
Constitutional rights? You can keep them.

Don't let the door hit you in the butt.

Firstly, I have to say thank you.
Here I have been, day off work with nothing to do because I have a knee injury and wondering what the hell I could do to entertain myself.
Then you came along.
Its quite gratifying to swap words with somebody bereft of any common sense, sound judgement and integrity but, today, you fell into my lap.
Sir, you have kept me entertained for hours ( yes, sad I know ) but, us simple English folk who no longer can defend themselves and their civil rights, derive a very basic pleasure out of feeling smug and superior to a nation that once stood proud but is falling apart at the seams.
Yes, we have little to dance for joy about in Blighty but, I suspect along with Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and all those other English speaking nations in the free World, we can look to you and realise that, how ever bad it is where we are, it will never be as bad as where you are.
I admire your stoic approach to this thread, Im in awe of your steadfast refusal to see any other point of view and i greatly appreciate your endeavors to appear cognant, wise and intelligent in your thoughts and beliefs.
Yes, you are quite right, It really has nothing whatsoever to do with anybody outside of the USA and, in truth, I dont give a damn but ive enjoyed throwing things onto the table here to be devoured and spat out.
There will be no reasoning with you or America, the rest of the World already knows this as it also notes your country's slow but sure demise. We are slowly coming to terms with living without you, which your distain and sarcasm will, no doubt ellicit a witty response, as before.
It doesnt matter though, does it. You may win the battle but you will never win the war and that, sir, is what frightens you the most.
Your country is imploding and there is sod all you can do about it, apart from having more guns.
Finally, here are my "stats that you "cared" me to provide.
No, Its not neccessarily THE most accurate and up to date but not even a bone head like you can overly contest its contents.
en.wikipedia.org...
You are in good company fella, rubbing shoulders with all the other third rate nations.
Enjoy.
PS: Dont try too hard to respond, i dont give a sh*t anyway!

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:56 PM by itsthetooth

reply to post by babybunnies

Why shouldn't you be required to have liability insurance for the deadly weapons that you own?

NRA already lobbied to have gun makers excempt from this sort of lawsuit, so why shouldn't the gun owner's be liable?

You hit someone with a car, or someone slips on your sidewalk outside your home, they can sue you for damages and you can claim on insurance. Why shouldn't this be the same for firearms?

Because firearm owners have never been in the red when it comes to mistakes. What statistics show is that legal gun owners are using thier guns in the correct way, and protecting themselves and others like they are suppose to.

It's not the legal gun owners that are causing the problems, its mental cases that got ahold of guns they shouldn't have. We need to reopen up all of the mental hospitals and start getting people the help they need. There isn't any amount of tickets, fines, or tests thats going to stop mental people from doing illegal things, the only thing you can do is get them the help they need.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 12:56 PM by macman

Originally posted by LFN69

PS: Dont try too hard to respond, i dont give a sh*t anyway!

*Shrugs shoulders* Ok.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 05:06 PM by elfrog

reply to post by FortAnthem

Sorry, won't read your post because of your irritating avatar... nothing is more irritating when I'm trying to read something, than a whirligig _javascript thing flipping around on the screen. The cat is ok but it doesn't have to move.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 09:08 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by babybunnies
Why shouldn't you be required to have liability insurance for the deadly weapons that you own?

NRA already lobbied to have gun makers excempt from this sort of lawsuit, so why shouldn't the gun owner's be liable?

You hit someone with a car, or someone slips on your sidewalk outside your home, they can sue you for damages and you can claim on insurance. Why shouldn't this be the same for firearms?

Well considering how many guns there are out there that are not used in crime and compared to those that are used.....it looks like a big fat money making deal.

Also consider how hard it will be to collect from the insurance firms even if an insured gun was used in a crime ect. The laws will be written in such a way as to give the impression of a blanket coverage system when in fact it will just be very hard for anyone to get anything out of the insurance firms. As well insurance fraud will be very tempting in gun liability cases....another reason why it will be hard to collect.

As well I would say that a full 85% or better of all guns used in crimes ect couldnt be insured or will fall under the law or terms of contract in such a way as to make it very hard to collect. Example.....someone breaks into a home and steals a gun uses it in shootout at bank hold up. Insurance wont pay claiming the gun was stolen from insured or that insured didnt take enough care to hide the thing....ect ect ect. In short any sort of crimnal use of a gun, 98% the case, that would result in liability will not be covered anyway.

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 >> ^^TOP^^