Insurance companies know their business

cawacko said:
I'm not a gun expert so please excuse my ignorance but how do violent felons have legal access to guns now?
Click to expand...

They either buy stolen guns off the streets (owned by formerly responsible gun owners) or they purchase them in the back hallways of gun shows.

cawacko said:
So what law could prevent someone not allowed to own a gun from buying one illegally from someone else off the street?
Click to expand...

The laws would make it more difficult for someone not allowed to own a gun from buying it illegally. That, in theory and practice, will reduce the number of illegal guns over years.

cawacko said:
How many times have we heard "even if it saves just one life it doesn't matter what it costs?"

Seems like that would fit the bill here if you believe arming security guards at school is the correct answer.
Click to expand...

I, myself, would prefer an armed guard in schools as opposed to inexperienced school personnel. Not an armed guard at every corridor.
 
Steelplate said:
So....we should do nothing to make the process more difficult....because some will still do it?
Click to expand...

No, you can make it harder for convicted felons to get guns but are you doing it at the expense of legal gun owners? If we take a step back the question I see is how do we protect the rights of legal gun owners without intruding on their rights while also making it more difficult or punitive for those illegally owning guns? Is it possible to do both?
 
cawacko said:
Why are you saying this to me when steelplate brought it up?
Click to expand...

Because you are a conservative who dare to point out the absurdity of the point brought up. You should have just let it go no matter how untrue/illogical it is. [/sarcasm] <-- (for the Sheldon-like...I won't say who you are)
 
cawacko said:
No, you can make it harder for convicted felons to get guns but are you doing it at the expense of legal gun owners? If we take a step back the question I see is how do we protect the rights of legal gun owners without intruding on their rights while also making it more difficult or punitive for those illegally owning guns? Is it possible to do both?
Click to expand...

Why not? Why shouldn't we punish legal gun owners? After all, it's their guns being stolen to kill people. Why not strengthen our laws to make them liable?
 
tekkychick said:
Steelplate's first post was around the blindness of the NRA. This fits in with guns in schools since they are the ones pushing it. You took it in a different direction.
Click to expand...

And that post included the illusion that passing laws could somehow magically reduce the number of guns falling into the hands of felons. The only way to do this is to take Toppers approach...no thanks.
 
Howey said:
Why not? Why shouldn't we punish legal gun owners? After all, it's their guns being stolen to kill people. Why not strengthen our laws to make them liable?
Click to expand...

If my house gets broken into and someone steals my legal gun that is stored away as it should be I (anyone) should be held liable for crimes that criminal commits? I am definitely not with you on that one.
 
cawacko said:
If my house gets broken into and someone steals my legal gun that is stored away as it should be I (anyone) should be held liable for crimes that criminal commits? I am definitely not with you on that one.
Click to expand...

If you don't report it within a certain timeframe, yes. That's usually how the regulation is proposed.
 
cawacko said:
If my house gets broken into and someone steals my legal gun that is stored away as it should be I (anyone) should be held liable for crimes that criminal commits? I am definitely not with you on that one.
Click to expand...

If they try to do that at my house...they better bring some tools....or else I'll be able to ID the perpetrators from their DNA. Their nuts will be laying on the floor from trying to lift them.

I have my guns(and some other important documents/items) stored in a gun safe that is bolted to the floor.
 
tekkychick said:
I believe it's a fairly low number. Could get bigger if teachers start packing, though.

Re insurance companies not covering molestation - they aren't dumb. It's pretty pricey when a teacher gets caught molesting a student. Just ask the catholic church how much it's costing them to pay for their priests.
Click to expand...

the firearms manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank and the insurance companies are cutting their potential losses

who is generating all of the fear that is increasing sales for home and personal protection...fear fear fear
 
Don Quixote said:
the firearms manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank and the insurance companies are cutting their potential losses

who is generating all of the fear that is increasing sales for home and personal protection...fear fear fear
Click to expand...

Follow the money, right? isn't that what they always say?
 
tekkychick said:
Yo, cawack - you can turn this into yet another thread about where felons get guns from or you can focus on the topic -

Insurance companies don't think school employees should be carrying concealed weapons.

Either way, up to you.
Click to expand...

They also think you should be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.
 
Anti-Party said:
Nearly everyone knows the talk on guns and schools has to deal with specific weapons MORE able to present a massacre. It's not just about weapons in general as the NRA paid Corporatocracy states it.

When you start making the argument that these Military style weapons are less dangerous than a hammer..........you are a pushover Corporate PUPPET.
Click to expand...

You're the last person who should be talking about specific firearms you fudd.
 
Kel-Tec PMR-30 said:
You're the last person who should be talking about specific firearms you fudd.
Click to expand...

I can though....gun freaks will tell you that there is NO difference between a .223 caliber bullet whether it's in a AR15 or a bolt action sporting rifle...or that there is no difference between a 7.62mm round(essentially a .30 caliber) in an AK-47 or in a Deer rifle.....and as far as the characteristics of the round? They're right.

The difference is this.....semi automatic, consumer versions of military "assault" weapons are designed to withstand rapid rates of fire as compared to their Sporting gun cousins...large capacity magazines, pistol grips, barrel shrouds all contribute to a much deadlier weapon than say, a Remington 7600(the deer rifle I own).

In fact, the only difference between the consumer version and the military version is the fact that they can't go fully automatic(without illegally modifying it...which about any gunsmith can do...if they are unscrupulous).

That's what the gun nuts don't tell you.....or at least don't really want you to know....that's why they focus on the round and not the gun.

Don't get me wrong...I like to shoot, hunt and have a handgun to protect my home.....I am not into "banning" anything....if you want a full auto? Great....but you will have to jump through a few.more hoops than a guy looking to buy a hunting rifle.....and I CERTAINLY don't think that expanding background checks to include private sales is in any way unreasonable....that's the difference between me, a responsible GUN OWNER.....and Gun NUTS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top