Solution to Gun Violence (Page 4): Silly. This ‘you don’t care about children’ tripe from anyone is wholly self serving and less than honest I know someone who is involved in repairing...

Rose42

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Not true!

The area I live in just had a hail store where the hail was golf ball size. Cars damaged, roofs and siding damaged. The insurance companies have their own insurance on things like this so, replacing and repairing hail damage costs little to nothing.

The very same thing would happen with gun premiums.

Besides that, aren't YOUR children, and grandchildren worth that?

Hypochristian!

Silly. This ‘you don’t care about children’ tripe from anyone is wholly self serving and less than honest

I know someone who is involved in repairing hail damage. He and his crew get paid a lot of money. You are wrong about it costing little.

This isn’t a good idea because it will simply never work. There is no way to enforce it.

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

Typical responses scattered about by the leftist hypocrites. Insurance wouldn't be a hardship. Paying for it doesn't infringe on anyone. And the same worthless left screams at the thought of requiring an ID to vote because it costs too much and is too much a hardship on voters, democrat voters although they don't specifically say so, to have an ID.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

thom w wrote:

Why should the city or county be responsible for the liability? Insurance shouldn't be that bad. Liability usually comes from negligence. Since none of you legal gun owners is ever negligent, there really shouldn't be any liability and because of that the insurance company's exposure should be minimal, and the premiums should be minimal.

Get serious . The proposal was for insurance and the premiums companies would charge would be in effect a ban on guns

Your phrase “ you legal gun owners” makes it pretty clear you are intent on using this shooting as opportunity to push for a ban on gun ownership.
No bettered than the opposite end of they spectrum - not really interested in a true solution .
The shooter was a legal gun owner wasn’t he ??

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

LDB415 wrote:

I'd personally make it per ounce of liquor but I figured all the closet drinkers would go apoplectic as is. I don't drink at all.

Something about alcohol, fun while young, but life is better without it as you get a bit older.

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

Blurryeyed wrote:

Something about alcohol, fun while young, but life is better without it as you get older.

Life has been better without it entirely. I had one cherry colada in college. Cost $3.50 then for what could have tasted just as good or maybe better for 40 cents, alcohol free, at DQ. One swallow of my cousin's beer and although I haven't and never will sample horse piss for comparison purposes I don't doubt that's what beer tastes like as others have claimed. One swallow of 3 different wines, one each at 3 different times and all were horrible. So I have saved untold amounts of money others waste on alcohol.

But I have no problem imposing onerous insurance requirements on drinkers. If it's good enough for honest gun owners, and anyone not a fool knows they are the only ones who would comply with the requirement which would solve nothing, then it's good enough for drunks too.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

LDB415 wrote:

Life has been better without it entirely. I had on... (show quote)

I can't say the same, as a young person I drank heavy, but had slowed down a great deal by my mid 20s, and into my 50s had almost stopped drinking all together, but I will still from time to time have a few drinks or a couple of beers, but probably less frequently than once a month, will go several months without a drink but when company comes, well, I may or may not make up for those missed months.

btbg

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Not true!

The area I live in just had a hail store where the hail was golf ball size. Cars damaged, roofs and siding damaged. The insurance companies have their own insurance on things like this so, replacing and repairing hail damage costs little to nothing.

The very same thing would happen with gun premiums.

Besides that, aren't YOUR children, and grandchildren worth that?

Hypochristian!

How does whether or not there is insurance on guns protect my children or grandchildren? Both of my kids own guns. Several of my grandchildren have already killed their first deer and regularly hunt. They know how to use guns and are safe with them.

Even assuming that some crazy guy with a gun started shooting at their school how would that person having insurance help with their safety? It wouldn't. If gun insurance were inexpensive enough I would consider having it to protect myself from a lawsuit, but it would do nothing to make my children or grandchildren safer.

btbg

BooIsMyCat wrote:

The problem with all you spout... that "army&... (show quote)

We are in agreement about one thing. I also would like to weed out the bad apples with guns. The problem is your solution is to make gun ownership more expensive for those who aren't bad apples, while those who already illegally have guns will not purchase insurance anyway. And, that is obvious as if you can't legally own a gun you aren't going to report that you have one so that you can purchase insurance on it. That means millions of illegal guns on our city streets would still be there, so your plan does nothing.

btbg

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Typical right-wing extremist rhetoric! br br Lock... (show quote)

There is a big difference between limited entry points and limited exits. Our local schools have all the doors except the front door locked at all times. But you can just push a bar on the inside and they open. The door that is open opens into an entry way with the only access into the rest of the school through the office where you have to be buzzed in. No, they don't have bullet proof glass yet, but it still delays entry.

As to the teacher in question at Uvalde there is no question she saw knew the gunman was there because she ran to her classroom to get her phone, went back to the door and called 911. That is a matter of public record. Yet, she never shut the door. As to teachers having guns, my view of that is anyone with a concealed carry permit should be allowed to have a gun in a school, including teachers. When I was in school we had teachers with guns in school, and I'm assuming that you did too.

Shoot we had a lot of high school kids with guns in the gun racks of their unlocked pickups at school on a daily basis, and never had a problem. If you look at the history of mass shootings at schools almost all of them have happened after guns were banned at schools. That is just a fact.

Wuligal Loc: Slippery Rock, Pa.

BooIsMyCat wrote:

You don't know that. Nothing more than your opinio... (show quote)

What about all the stolen guns that are used or street crimes? How do you get an insurance policy on a stolen gun.....or why even bother? Just a question.......

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

btbg wrote:

How does whether or not there is insurance on guns... (show quote)

Another "ass"umption on YOUR part.

The "insurance" premium(s) COULD be used, not to enrich the upper echelon of insurance executives but to build better security measures in NOT just the schools but other buildings as well.

I don't claim to have all the answers.. never did and never will but, too bad you can't think outside of your small box.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Rose42 wrote:

Silly. This ‘you don’t care about children’ tripe from anyone is wholly self serving and less than honest

I know someone who is involved in repairing hail damage. He and his crew get paid a lot of money. You are wrong about it costing little.

This isn’t a good idea because it will simply never work. There is no way to enforce it.

OH, yes... if I remember correctly, you know doctors who claimed the virus and the vaccines were fake.

Well, I know someone who is involved in the insurance company... funny how that works... and they clearly state that they have contingencies for hail damage in areas that are prone to hail storms. That is one reason why they "rubber stamp" payments for damage claims in some areas.

FrumCA

rmalarz wrote:

Why focus on weapons? I can't name one incident wh... (show quote)

A very sane suggestion. As intelligent and forward looking the left claims to be, they can't seem to grasp this logical approach.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

btbg wrote:

We are in agreement about one thing. I also would ... (show quote)

I disagree.

Over time, illegal guns would be harder and harder to acquire simply because sellers couldn't sell w/o getting proof of coverage. Gun shows should be illegal as well as these raffles where guns are won based on purchase of a winning square on a bingo card.

Look at most gun thefts... usually but, not always, those thefts are of weapons NOT properly secured under lock and key. Just another issue with gun safety in this country.

Is insurance the ONLY answer? NO! But, doing what YOU prefer... NOTHING! Hasn't worked!

YOUR state and voters in YOUR state are responsible for HOW your state AG treats repeat criminals... it's NOT a federal issue, unless it's a federal crime. You gun nuts COULD vote out those in your town, city, and/or state that seem to be soft on violent crime. But, you would rather do NOTHING!

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

DennyT wrote:

Gun owner liability insurance is either naive or intended to be a backdoor “ ban on gun ownership .
One can only imagine the premium to protect against a multimillion dollar law suit over a shooting such as Buffalo or Ulvade.

Not workable .

Only in your mind.