I don’t think so. I think that most gun owners are responsible and do things they should like keeping their weapon in safes and continuously training. I believe their cost would be fairly small. On the other hand, people who have high powered weapons and are generally irresponsible (for example, the mother of the Newtown shooter) would have to be a higher rate of insurance.
So, there have been dozens of mass shootings since Oklahoma City, so let’s solve the Oklahoma City problem. That makes sense.
people who make statements like these generally don’t know what they are talking about.
What solutions are you suggesting? I missed that. Please update us with your ideas.
How so? need more characters…how so?
We can’t tell who will use a car to kill people. We can’t tell who will use a frying pan to kill people. So we need to ban everything then. Anything less isn’t right to those who are killed.
An immigration ban on people from certain regions of the world. Institutionalizing people with certain psychiatric disorders.
No, owning a particular type of gun doesn’t make any person less responsible. I didn’t mean to imply that. I do think the costs would be higher for higher power weapons and I do think the costs will be higher for those that don’t properly secure their weapons from their mentally-ill children. Like the mother of the Newtown shooter.
I’m not sure how either helps in the Las Vegas case.
you did not just imply it, you outright claimed it. how is “people who have high powered weapons and are generally irresponsible” supposed to be taken except for the plain meaning of what you said?
And I admit that the wording could lead one to that conclusion, so I apologize. I meant people who have higher powered weapons would have to expect to pay more in insurance similarly to those that own high powered cars. Also, those that are irresponsible with their weapon and do not properly train themselves or secure their weapon would also have to expect to pay more for insurance.
How is an insurance company going to know how I store my firearms or how much time I spend at the range? Without that information how are they going to accurately assess risk? Even if they could monitor that information, a single event like Las Vegas or Newtowne could easily bankrupt an insurance company. What insurance company would be willing to take on that financial risk? The obvious answer is none, which is why insurance mandates for firearms ownership is really a backdoor ban. I suspect you know this is true, which is why you support it. For all the talk about “reasonable gun control”, the real goal of the gun control movement is banning the private ownership of firearms. 2nd amendment supporters have caught on to this which is why our instinct is to be skeptical of any new laws.ucfengr:
I don’t think so. I think that most gun owners are responsible and do things they should like keeping their weapon in safes and continuously training. I believe their cost would be fairly small. On the other hand, people who have high powered weapons and are generally irresponsible (for example, the mother of the Newtown shooter) would have to be a higher rate of insurance.
911 and Oklahoma City together killed more people than all the gun shootings combined. More recently, the BAstille Day murders by truck greatly outnumbered the Paddock killings. Why ignore the obvious fact that mass killings are becoming a commonplace, and assume that restricting the gun rights of honest citizens is somehow the answer.
It doesn’t. I don’t think you can stop cases like this guy. That is why I am not floundering for a solution. If anyone really thinks they can solve evil let me know.
But most people don’t think taking away the tool stops the problem. The person will just find another tool. So we’d have to eradicate all tools.