Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Nothing in that link has statistics on officer shootings. More deflection. It is a verified fact (as shown by multiple sources) that in 2016 LEO's killed in the line of duty were killed by assault weapons in 1 in 4 instances. Prior to that, it is a verified fact that it was 1 in 5. Instead of being concerned about the effect of assault weapons and gun violence on our police, you lie and deflect. It's embarrassing for you. Truly.
Do you believe that TSA boarding procedures shackle the people who do not do crimes on planes, and doesn't stop the people who ignore laws and want to commit crimes on planes?
You win. You may charge gun owners no more than $12 for the background check, licensing, training, etc. That's roughly what the TSA charges flyers. And they don't have require a special license or training. Do you pay attention to the pre flight announcements every time the stewardess gives them?
nothing in your stats showed the true gun crime stats - you wanted to glorify an exceptionally small % to say 1 in 4 ......... why would you do that ?
interesting thought process .... everyone is subjected to the same shackling at airports ....... fair and equal
The TSA doesn't target everyone. It only targets people who want to fly.
if TSA only made muslims go through checkpoints would you be ok with that ? white people rarely commit plane terrorism if ever .... why inconvenience all the other travelers ?
I would not be OK if the TSA only made muslims go through checkpoints.
It's not making gun owners the victims, it's that too many anti gun people see the only solution (either regulatory or financially) as being on the shoulders of gun owners. They ignore the role that all other things play into the issue (mental health, substance abuse, etc).
Only people who want to ban guns want to remove the tool. Regulation does not remove the tool.KCitons said:
It's not impossible but it does take some effort.
It wants to remove it from those that would want to shoot other people.
Its been a while for me. Have they finally caught up with the rest of the industry as far as producing "dad bod" lines? Have they backed off of their opportunistic and ridiculous pricing from the 80's?
I'm all for mental health checks. I'm all for alcohol restriction too.
Think about the two bolded statements you just made.
I agree. Let's argue about this. I'll be on the side that supports this, and you be on the side that doesn't support it.
I've agreed that what you want will have a proactive impact on gun deaths.
It doesn't, anymore than car insurance prevents car accidents.
I don't understand the exact correlation between mental health issues and alcohol/guns, so I'm not going to make a proclamation one way or another on that particular question.
I don't have any answers to your questions.
What you're saying is that you aren't going to take the time to understand the correlation, so that makes you narrow minded when it comes to gun violence.
You can search for other things like domestic violence, sexual assault and rape, and other alcohol related deaths. You start to see the role that alcohol plays in violence.
You're for doing things without regard to negative effects. I'm for doing things that are most likely to have a positive impact on preventing shootings.
but think about what you're sayingPolitician Spock said:
Gun insurance would have to have a max payout as well, or else the insurance companies couldn't manage their risk properly. The amount of what that max would be required by law to be is debatable, I agree.
Because I'm not a racist #######.
I think everyone would eventually agree to this, even if the presentation of the idea is confusing.
its not about racism or sexism or anything like that - its simply recognizing who is committing terrorism and addressing it
From what I've read here, everyone will eventually agree to this with the stipulation you also prevent the abusers from getting drivers licenses, skateboards, knives, axes, pencil sharpeners, and bicycles. Oh, and also don't test me, I'm a law abiding gun owner and can't be inconvenienced even if it means saving lives.
If you are still carrying $100,000/$300,000 I would encourage you to get out of the 70's. You are inadequately insured. The cost of becoming adequately insured is certainly worth it if you ever find yourself in a lawsuit, at least if you are a homeowner or have retirement assets.
BTW, the insurance I was talking about would be for accidents in the home or for negligent acts, such as say negligent storage, not for criminal acts. Of course in some events thee could be both.
Who has the list of THEM?
who has a list of people trying to board planes with bombs and knives ?
If we had one, then we wouldn't need plane regulations. Same holds true for gun regulations.
Again, give us the THEM list, and we can avoid regulations. This holds true for everything we regulated. If we knew who was going to commit crimes before they do, things would be so much more simple, I agree. Unfortunately, that idealistic, and not realistic.
well sure - you'd not need ANY restrictions on anyone for anything
give me a list of everyone who drove under the influence of alcohol or drugs etc last year. if you can't .... then we need massive new restrictive and shackling laws on driving don't we ? but we don't .... because in a free society the element of personal responsibility exists
Some counties make it so you can’t buy wine or any other alchohol. Some counties have made ordinances to restrict the sale of medicinal pot within their boundaries.
I suggest you look at the individual states and cities. You will see that there are already regulations in place. Start with Hawaii. Anti gun people act like everyone is able to buy guns out of a vending machine. If they can pass laws, why do other states have problems? I already mentioned the process I have to go through in my city to buy a handgun. There are two background checks (one by the county and one by the city) the handgun is registered. It's happening on a state and city level. Where the NRA usually gets involved is when the Federal government attempts to apply laws that they feel fly in the face of the 2nd Amendment. The anti gun crowd is okay with states and cities passing stronger laws, but they aren't as accepting when others don't.
What is the max payout for a dui victims family? Payout by insurance, not awarded in a wrongful death civil case.
You preface by saying it would be for negligent acts in the home. But doesn't homeowners insurance already cover this? Failure to shovel and icy sidewalk comes to mind.
Courts are not limited in awarding victims to the amount of insurance coverage the plaintiff carried. they can award more. The lawfully required minimum only insures there is at least some minum available to the victims.
