School Shooting in Tennessee (6 killed incl. 3 children) (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

put me on ignore then.

Thanks, i think that might be the most coherent, intelligent thing youve ever posted on here.. great idea !

 

[efil4stnias]

You were looking good... Until we hit "Assault Weapon". That's just a buzz / scare word... All Semi-Auto/Auto weapons are "Assault Weapons" in the hands of the wrong person... I can list about a dozen guns that are not the AR15 or an "Assault Weapon" that shoot the same round, have the same mag capacity, and have the same fire rate as an AR platform weapon... No one is looking to ban them - because they have not been deemed the boogey man.

Heck if you have enough money (or get them illegally) you can still get full auto weapons and silencers.

Then you went Insurance? Blah... Yeah, that'll help (no it won't)_... If you only want guns in the hands of rich people and criminals/drug dealers. Because rich people will be the only ones able to afford it, and criminals/drug dealers won't care if they are not following the insurance law. Oh yeah, it also makes insurance companies richer.... all that sound good?

I always look good.

what would you want to call them then?

I distinctly remember what my Drill called them in boot camp- killing machines.

I didnt say "ban" on ANY assault weapon, did i? I said that if you want to own one, you will have to purchase coverage to make it less likely that the weapon is used in a manner in which it was not your intention.

you buy car insurance, right? home insurance w/ personal liability ? ( which maybe just add an addendum to the home policy personal liability that would serve same purpose )

Its part of "ownership" for certain items. If you want to own an $600 "assault styled" weapon, then you must comply with the requirement to do so. Just like car, just like home. You arent entitled to a car or home if you cannot afford the insurance, nor are you entitled to owning a weapon, if you cannot afford the insurance. Doesnt mean "only the rich" will own weapons. Thats a strawman argument.

Shoot, if enough folks purchase insurance ( law of large numbers ) chances are great that the costs would likely be half that ( $200/yr )and just like auto/home, if claim free, discounts applied to a point where it may only cost you $100/yr. Just like with auto insurance, the "built in incentive" to lower pricing is GOOD DRIVING HABITS. Same application here- GOOD GUN OWNERSHIP HABITS leads to lower pricing.

Jim Bob country should have no issue paying $200/yr ( $18/mo ) to own. Because its what is required to do so. Simple really. Those getting all butthurt over have no intention of finding a solution other than to lay blame everywhere else BUT the fact that the weapon is easily accessible and no current regulations in place to curb misuse.

 

[UptownSaintsFan]

Then have some sense of the total picture... or put me on ignore then.

i have some sense of it and i disagree with pretty much all of what you've said. If you don't want reactions, don't post?

 

[Bayouboy]

The majority of the country is in favor of more restrictions on firearms, especially semi-automatic ones.

Agree. It boils down to the "all or none" argument with the 2nd amendment. It's frustrating that we can't employ common sense measures regarding guns.

 

[Infoman]

Thanks, i think that might be the most coherent, intelligent thing youve ever posted on here.. great idea !

Is it? Then feel free to join anyone else that doesn't have the ability to refute a single fact I have posted... or wants to genuinely engage in logical discussion in good faith to try and find an amicable solution to the overall problem. I know there is no way you are ever going to listen to reason or acknowledge clear facts anyway... so adios fella.

 

[Infoman]

i have some sense of it and i disagree with pretty much all of what you've said. If you don't want reactions, don't post?

I am fine with the reactions when the are followed by context and which points and facts you disagree with... not drive by head sanding.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Let there be NO doubt .




.


.

 

[DaveXA]

You are assuming companies will make this affordable and assume the risk... You're also assuming 1 gun.... Whereas most novice hunters and primary home defenders - Have several. We agree that weapon ownership should require some type of safety course, proper storage, and a person to register it like a car. I am willing to try all of that... But bringing Insurance companies into this.... Is a horrible idea.

I think gun insurance, if that were to be implemented, would have to be heavily regulated to prevent insurance companies from overcharging or whatever. There would be a price cap and tied to inflation. There’s a way to make it work if there’s a willingness to do it. There has to be accountability in terms of making sure all of the necessary steps are taken.

Maybe instead of insurance companies, there’s some sort of federal insurance when obtaining a firearms license? Idk, just throwing ideas out there along those lines.

 

[UptownSaintsFan]

I think gun insurance, if that were to be implemented, would have to be heavily regulated to prevent insurance companies from overcharging or whatever. There would be a price cap and tied to inflation. There’s a way to make it work if there’s a willingness to do it. There has to be accountability in terms of making sure all of the necessary steps are taken.

Maybe instead of insurance companies, there’s some sort of federal insurance when obtaining a firearms license? Idk, just throwing ideas out there along those lines.

Or the free market could dictate what it costs. Guns are dangerous, insurance will be high. If you want a gun, you have to pay to play.

 

[Infoman]

I always look good.

what would you want to call them then?

I distinctly remember what my Drill called them in boot camp- killing machines.

I didnt say "ban" on ANY assault weapon, did i? I said that if you want to own one, you will have to purchase coverage to make it less likely that the weapon is used in a manner in which it was not your intention.

you buy car insurance, right? home insurance w/ personal liability ? ( which maybe just add an addendum to the home policy personal liability that would serve same purpose )

Its part of "ownership" for certain items. If you want to own an $600 "assault styled" weapon, then you must comply with the requirement to do so. Just like car, just like home. You arent entitled to a car or home if you cannot afford the insurance, nor are you entitled to owning a weapon, if you cannot afford the insurance. Doesnt mean "only the rich" will own weapons. Thats a strawman argument.

Shoot, if enough folks purchase insurance ( law of large numbers ) chances are great that the costs would likely be half that ( $200/yr )and just like auto/home, if claim free, discounts applied to a point where it may only cost you $100/yr. Just like with auto insurance, the "built in incentive" to lower pricing is GOOD DRIVING HABITS. Same application here- GOOD GUN OWNERSHIP HABITS leads to lower pricing.

Jim Bob country should have no issue paying $200/yr ( $18/mo ) to own. Because its what is required to do so. Simple really. Those getting all butthurt over have no intention of finding a solution other than to lay blame everywhere else BUT the fact that the weapon is easily accessible and no current regulations in place to curb misuse.

Not my point but yeah... Mine was called Marie Jannet...

My point was, making insurance mandatory only applies to those that would buy it and maintain it legally (I.e. All gun owning law abiding citizens that don't plan to immediately shoot up a place, and immediately off themselves).... Hence having zero impact on these situations, or especially all the other situations (like 99% of the other situations where kids are killed by gun fire and no one seems to care) and kids are killed by guns that were stolen or gotten illegally. Mandating insurance would have one impact... taking more money from citizens that don't break the law... and making huge insurance companies richer. With that said, I am not sure there is an Insurance Company on the planet that would touch this with a 10 ft pole... JMO.

 

[BayouSAINTJoe]

Or the free market could dictate what it costs. Guns are dangerous, insurance will be high. If you want a gun, you have to pay to play.

I like the insurance idea...kills 2 birds w/ one stone. Unpaid/unsettled hospital costs as a result of gun violence and curbs the number of guns in circulation. If you have 50 (not sure why anyone would...but whatever, people do) guns you'll be a little more cavalier w/ where they are at any given time, increasing chances of theft and or accidents. But if you have 1 or 2 you're more likely to make sure that they're behind lock and key.

 

[Dallas_Saint73]

Yeah, I tend to think the shooter was going to attack whoever was in the way. Didn't matter who got in the way.

That's my thought. The target was the school and/or religion and the children and teachers were collateral damage.

When people are on a sick mission, they don't think "hmm, a kid, better not shoot".

 

[Semper]

 

[Tapxe]

I'm all for resrticting
the ability to purchase weapons like the AR-15.

After reading that Washington Post article about the rounds and impact, I wonder if an easy 1st step might be to restrict the type of ammo accessible for civilian rifle use.

If the rounds being high velocity makes them that much more deadly, then regulating the muzzle velocity for that ammo would arguably make the rounds less deadly. Therefore, you'd have more survivors and less danger to LE who are responsible for stopping a perp.

IDK, if it would really help that much overall. It seems like the kind of thing that might be possible as no one is losing access to the weapon and seems no more restrictive than saying no full auto.

 

[Complex Kid]

You were looking good... Until we hit "Assault Weapon". That's just a buzz / scare word... All Semi-Auto/Auto weapons are "Assault Weapons" in the hands of the wrong person... I can list about a dozen guns that are not the AR15 or an "Assault Weapon" that shoot the same round, have the same mag capacity, and have the same fire rate as an AR platform weapon... No one is looking to ban them - because they have not been deemed the boogey man.

Maybe go with whatever an "Assault Weapon" was in 1994. Seemed to work pretty well, maybe start there.