Media coverage of Florida shooting

[tcpoke]

You are thinking a bit narrowly about the impact that liability insurance would have. Sandy Hook for instance - Lanza's mother likely would have been priced out of the ownership of weapons given Adams mental state.

In this incident, I would not presume that the perp would have been able to afford or been underwritten for gun liability insurance.

Again, cost is rarely an issue as personal insurance companies never require 100% of the premium up front. As for the underwriting issue, there will always be a carrier that will issue someone a policy. Progressive is a great example of that with respects to auto insurance. No matter how many DUIs, no matter how many traffic violations, no matter how many accidents...they will absolutely underwrite anyone.

Plus, the narrow thinking is the assumption that any insurance company on the planet is going to write a policy centered around personal gun usage.

It simply is not feasible.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

It's very difficult.

So no rebuttal to my post showing evidence you’re wrong lol.

Carry on.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Why then is the murder rate setting new records?

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

if cars were a constitutional right, maybe. incremental improvements (which again are hypothetical and likely overly optimistic) aren't a sufficient argument for the slippery slope that puts on - because, again - what is the next incriment when your suggestion wasn't quite enough? and then what? and then what?

if it doesn't serve the constitution, it's probably a bad idea. if it doesn't serve a founding enumeration of the bill of rights, it's definitely a bad idea.

that's not to say we shouldn't have gun laws at all - but we do have them already. if you ban the sale and transfer of all semi-auto fire arms, you have no idea what you are doing. and i don't say that to be an asshole. i mean you literally are not likely to understand the unintended consequences.

if you think this country is divided now - try making it illegal to transfer (ie inherit, gift etc) likely far more than half of the guns in this country. that's an incredibly bad idea and for what? incremental (hopefully) improvement on something that happens a few times a year to this scale? how do you measure success in such a relatively tiny sample? i suggest to you, there's no way you can. there will always be an event to rally around and demand the next incremental rape of our constitution.

now - if it makes it easier to believe this position means i don't care about school shootings, by all means, go with that - but it isn't true. i'm just more interested in actual problems solving here rather than using it as an opportunity for unrelated social engineering - reducing the individual autonomy of the flyover masses - because that's what gun laws are about and nothing more.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Well, I admit that it would suck to be that .4 of a person....

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

if cars were a constitutional right, maybe. incremental improvements (which again are hypothetical and likely overly optimistic) aren't a sufficient argument for the slippery slope that puts on - because, again - what is the next incriment when your suggestion wasn't quite enough? and then what? and then what?

if it doesn't serve the constitution, it's probably a bad idea. if it doesn't serve a founding enumeration of the bill of rights, it's definitely a bad idea.

that's not to say we shouldn't have gun laws at all - but we do have them already. if you ban the sale and transfer of all semi-auto fire arms, you have no idea what you are doing. and i don't say that to be an asshole. i mean you literally are not likely to understand the unintended consequences.

if you think this country is divided now - try making it illegal to transfer (ie inherit, gift etc) likely far more than half of the guns in this country. that's an incredibly bad idea and for what? incremental (hopefully) improvement on something that happens a few times a year to this scale? how do you measure success in such a relatively tiny sample? i suggest to you, there's no way you can. there will always be an event to rally around and demand the next incremental rape of our constitution.

now - if it makes it easier to believe this position means i don't care about school shootings, by all means, go with that - but it isn't true. i'm just more interested in actual problems solving here rather than using it as an opportunity for unrelated social engineering - reducing the individual autonomy of the flyover masses - because that's what gun laws are about and nothing more.

Last time I checked, people weren’t carrying around the same weapons as our founding fathers. If Nikolas Cruz had to reload a musket, I’m pretty confident 17 people aren’t dead.

Trying to make an converging argument between the 2nd amendment as it was written and modern weapons is just nonsensical.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

Last time I checked, people weren’t carrying around the same weapons as our founding fathers. If Nikolas Cruz had to reload a musket, I’m pretty confident 17 people aren’t dead.

Trying to make an converging argument between the 2nd amendment as it was written and modern weapons is just nonsensical.

that's a lazy rhetorical comment. here's my lazy rhetorical reply - the founders also didn't anticipate you being able to shit unfiltered propaganda day and night on the internet like you tend to do. and yet, your free speech is still protected (for now), even though you aren't limited to screaming on a street corner or trying to fund your own printing press.

there is no technology asterisk, and you might be surprised to know that muskets were neither the height of weapons technology nor were they all that people in that time could imagine.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

So no rebuttal to my post showing evidence you’re wrong lol.

Carry on.

Wait....wut?
You provided murder rates to prove the gun ban helped but you inconveniently failed to realize that the ban was cancelled in 2004. And I'm wrong.
Seriously, get a grip.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Wait....wut?
You provided murder rates to prove the gun ban helped but you inconveniently failed to realize that the ban was cancelled in 2004. And I'm wrong.
Seriously, get a grip.

“Still, the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired. That's suggestive, at least.”

 

[Ostatedchi]

if cars were a constitutional right, maybe. incremental improvements (which again are hypothetical and likely overly optimistic) aren't a sufficient argument for the slippery slope that puts on - because, again - what is the next incriment when your suggestion wasn't quite enough? and then what? and then what?

if it doesn't serve the constitution, it's probably a bad idea. if it doesn't serve a founding enumeration of the bill of rights, it's definitely a bad idea.

that's not to say we shouldn't have gun laws at all - but we do have them already. if you ban the sale and transfer of all semi-auto fire arms, you have no idea what you are doing. and i don't say that to be an asshole. i mean you literally are not likely to understand the unintended consequences.

if you think this country is divided now - try making it illegal to transfer (ie inherit, gift etc) likely far more than half of the guns in this country. that's an incredibly bad idea and for what? incremental (hopefully) improvement on something that happens a few times a year to this scale? how do you measure success in such a relatively tiny sample? i suggest to you, there's no way you can. there will always be an event to rally around and demand the next incremental rape of our constitution.

now - if it makes it easier to believe this position means i don't care about school shootings, by all means, go with that - but it isn't true. i'm just more interested in actual problems solving here rather than using it as an opportunity for unrelated social engineering - reducing the individual autonomy of the flyover masses - because that's what gun laws are about and nothing more.

Well said.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Last time I checked, people weren’t carrying around the same weapons as our founding fathers. If Nikolas Cruz had to reload a musket, I’m pretty confident 17 people aren’t dead.

Trying to make an converging argument between the 2nd amendment as it was written and modern weapons is just nonsensical.

Idiotic reply. That's like saying the 2nd amendment doesn't extend to digital media since it didn't exist when the founders crafted the 1st amendment.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Idiotic reply. That's like saying the 2nd amendment doesn't extend to digital media since it didn't exist when the founders crafted the 1st amendment.

I’m curious what measure of gun control you are in favor of? Since you seem to believe the status quo works.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

“Still, the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired. That's suggestive, at least.”

I don’t know if they have doubled or not but you went from murder rates to school shootings. Just thought I should point that out.

So you don’t think these murderers would have used semi automatic pistols or deer rifles with large magazines during the ten year ban? The ban on scary looking guns kept them from going through with their plans?

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

I don’t know if they have doubled or not but you went from murder rates to school shootings. Just thought I should point that out.

So you don’t think these murderers would have used semi automatic pistols or deer rifles with large magazines during the ten year ban? The ban on scary looking guns kept them from going through with their plans?

Freedom has consequences, and complete gun control isn’t the answer, but measures have been effective in the past at reducing the problem, which will never go away. People are violent, people kill...that won’t change. It never has. I’m honestly less in favor of removing types of weapons...my preference is tighter background checks, across-the-board registration on all purchases, new or used and perhaps limits on amounts purchased in a certain time period. Florida’s gun laws are among the weakest nationally...you can buy any amount of weapons all at the same time.

 

[Medic007]

I’m honestly less in favor of removing types of weapons...my preference is tighter background checks, across-the-board registration on all purchases, new or used and perhaps limits on amounts purchased in a certain time period.

What would make background checks "tighter?" What info would you look to add in addition to what is currently required?

How would registration of a firearm reduce the chance of it being used nefariously?

Agree completely on the last point.

 

[imprimis]

Why do we have insurance requirements then? The insistence that any single approach be 100% effective is the go to NRA defense. Number 2 is enforce what you got already. How is that working ?

Got to enforce it versus, say, Fast and Furious, where the government actually supplied the weapons some of which have --- wait for it --- reappeared back in the US.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I’m curious what measure of gun control you are in favor of? Since you seem to believe the status quo works.

I'm in favor of actually enforcing the gun control laws we have today to their full measure first - including fixing the flaws in the background checks. Let's see where that gets us as opposed to layering on more laws that may or may not be enforced to varying degrees.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

http://www.businessinsider.com/pro-...-trump-after-parkland-florida-shooting-2018-2

 

[davidallen]

....

Plus, the narrow thinking is the assumption that any insurance company on the planet is going to write a policy centered around personal gun usage.

It simply is not feasible.

You've discussed this insurance execs? Perhaps we should compare notes then...

 

[davidallen]

if cars were a constitutional right, maybe. incremental improvements (which again are hypothetical and likely overly optimistic) aren't a sufficient argument for the slippery slope that puts on - because, again - what is the next incriment when your suggestion wasn't quite enough? and then what? and then what?

if it doesn't serve the constitution, it's probably a bad idea. if it doesn't serve a founding enumeration of the bill of rights, it's definitely a bad idea.

that's not to say we shouldn't have gun laws at all - but we do have them already. if you ban the sale and transfer of all semi-auto fire arms, you have no idea what you are doing. and i don't say that to be an asshole. i mean you literally are not likely to understand the unintended consequences.

if you think this country is divided now - try making it illegal to transfer (ie inherit, gift etc) likely far more than half of the guns in this country. that's an incredibly bad idea and for what? incremental (hopefully) improvement on something that happens a few times a year to this scale? how do you measure success in such a relatively tiny sample? i suggest to you, there's no way you can. there will always be an event to rally around and demand the next incremental rape of our constitution.

now - if it makes it easier to believe this position means i don't care about school shootings, by all means, go with that - but it isn't true. i'm just more interested in actual problems solving here rather than using it as an opportunity for unrelated social engineering - reducing the individual autonomy of the flyover masses - because that's what gun laws are about and nothing more.

Much to unpack here and unfortunately thumbing it in the back of a car... Will try and reply later but want to ack

 

[CBradSmith]

Much to unpack here and unfortunately thumbing it in the back of a car... Will try and reply later but want to ack

 

[PDT816]

The increase of mass shooting incidents is a very, very good place to start the conversation.

What are we doing as a society that is shaping so many of our youth in to mass murders? What makes them flip the switch to decide they are going to kill in the first place?

 

[tcpoke]

You've discussed this insurance execs? Perhaps we should compare notes then...

Yes. It’s what I do for a living.

 

[CBradSmith]

Yes. It’s what I do for a living.

Well....Damn....DavidAllen would like to share notes.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Freedom has consequences, and complete gun control isn’t the answer, but measures have been effective in the past at reducing the problem, which will never go away. People are violent, people kill...that won’t change. It never has. I’m honestly less in favor of removing types of weapons...my preference is tighter background checks, across-the-board registration on all purchases, new or used and perhaps limits on amounts purchased in a certain time period. Florida’s gun laws are among the weakest nationally...you can buy any amount of weapons all at the same time.

You’re more realistic than I imagined you would have been. You score better doing this instead of memes and links. Good job. JMO.

 

[Medic007]

You’re more realistic than I imagined you would have been. You score better doing this instead of memes and links. Good job. JMO.

Double like. When he posts his own thoughts, he always makes good points.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

I had to turn off the TV this morning. The same video clips being shown repeatedly. The same information endlessly looped. Two minutes and you’ve got it. Endless droning wears me out.

And then there’s the internet, full of crap as usual. Here’s a pic of the shooter dressed up in antifa garb. Only it’s not the shooter. The shooter is a registered Democrat. Only the shooter is 17 years old, so how can he be registered to vote at all?

I think I’ll turn on the news again in a few days once the world pulls its head out of its ass and can give us the facts.

So here are some facts that have been coming out now that the dust has settled.



In his first message to the chat group, Cruz bragged about writing a letter to President Donald Trump -- and receiving a response. CNN reached out to the White House for comment about any correspondence to and from Cruz but has not heard back....

"He seemed nice but also had some mental issues," one member told CNN. "All (I know) is that he likes guns and really hates liberals."

 

[wyomingosualum]

So here are some facts that have been coming out now that the dust has settled.

View embedded media

In his first message to the chat group, Cruz bragged about writing a letter to President Donald Trump -- and receiving a response. CNN reached out to the White House for comment about any correspondence to and from Cruz but has not heard back....

"He seemed nice but also had some mental issues," one member told CNN. "All (I know) is that he likes guns and really hates liberals."

Easy to tell it’s him just by looking at that pic, right?

Looks like the FBI has even more explaining to do. How often does a team fumble the ball twice on the same play? The good thing is that they’re owning it up to now.