yeah. I'm not a gun guy really; I'm all about utility though. My brother and dad were hunters. I hope to get into it (though I'm late and slow) and I REALLY hope if its something my son loves that he will also get into.LOVE IT.
Good news is that the SCOTUS has killed that at least for California.
Supreme Court Stops California From Banning Indoor Worship While Allowing Indoor Shopping
yeah. I'm not a gun guy really; I'm all about utility though. My brother and dad were hunters. I hope to get into it (though I'm late and slow) and I REALLY hope if its something my son loves that he will also get into.
Assuming you hunt where you are, what do you go for?
You live in the city then?Man, I haven't been hunting in years. When I did, it was mostly deer or squirrel. Granddaddy tried taking me dove and quail hunting on occasion, but I was never fast enough to master that art. Now, I own guns for self defense purposes, albeit I have passed down heirlooms from my grandfather that I hope to keep that tradition alive with my kids.
You live in the city then?
Any piece of equipment I own which can pose a danger to others requires liability insurance--a car, a plane, boat, even a steam boiler. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement which does not infringe on my right to own any of those things. It should be the same with a firearm. Own any gun you want. If it's a handgun for home protection and if the owner has training and stores it properly the cost of insurance would be nominal--that's something the free market can figure out. And there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment, express or implied, which confers the right to own a gun in secret from the government.
What exactly is gun insurance supposed to cover?
It's also why one of my cars is a beater (body wise). I'm not afraid to be hit by another car or be forced to plow through something to prevent me from being pulled out of a stopped car, unarmed. I'm more likely to stop if I'm driving my sports car. But at least it does have a gun in the door panel that I've never had to use and I probably never will.
If someone tries to jack my car, they can. I'll take the insurance money then. Not sure why i'd want to shoot someone over it.Do you live in Johannesburg or something? I can't imagine living somewhere I would feel so unsafe. I live in a large city and there might be 20 or 30 carjackings per year.
If someone tries to jack my car, they can. I'll take the insurance money then. Not sure why i'd want to shoot someone over it.
It's just a freakin' car.
There is a big difference between a car, a boat, etc. and a gun. Auto insurance and such work under the premise that damage caused is accidental. Policies do not cover intentional acts.
I worked as an auto liability adjuster for an insurance company, and, while rare, we did have times where people intentionally struck another vehicle, etc. There are exclusions for such incidents.
In dealing with firearm use you can have accidental and intentional discharges. If someone is using the firearm to commit a murder, mass shooting, etc. I am not aware of insurance that will cover it. The purpose of insurance is to be a risk mitigation tool for spreading small risks across large pools of people. Intentional criminal acts are a whole other ball game and the costs escalate in a hurry. So companies are certainly not going to sell a policy for that
.......
Moreover, this is asking law abiding gun owners to pay for intentional criminal acts of another party.
Do you live in Johannesburg or something? I can't imagine living somewhere I would feel so unsafe. I live in a large city and there might be 20 or 30 carjackings per year.
If most gun owners are law abiding and criminal acts are excluded, why would insurance be a problem? Gun owners are covered for potential damages, people who use their guns for criminal acts pay into the scheme but aren't covered, those who don't pay at all can be charged and hopefully the law mandates that they lose their guns.
Surely that's a win-win.
If someone tries to jack my car, they can. I'll take the insurance money then. Not sure why i'd want to shoot someone over it.
It's just a freakin' car.
Plus having a shootout with someone who already has a gun pointed at you is rarely a good idea. Not even starting about what you might do if your family is nearby.
Dems have full control of 2 of the 3 branches. If Biden packs the court this is very likely to be enacted. That's the concern. In 2019 it had zero chance...now it's got quite a good chance.
List of cities by murder rate - Wikipedia
Homicide rate per 100k.
St. Louis United States 64.54
Baltimore United States 58.64
Detroit United States 40.74
Johannesburg South Africa 36.21
And if you are unfortunate enough to live in some neighborhoods in the US the rates are ridiculous.
From a 2018 article:
What’s the Homicide Capital of America? Murder Rates in U.S. Cities, Ranked.
Last year in St. Louis, most killings were concentrated in neighborhoods like Greater Ville and the adjacent JeffVanderLou, which sit just a few miles from the city’s downtown, and each recorded a murder rate of 162.
Meanwhile the homicide rate in Australia sits at around 0.9. We continually hear that easy availability of guns will prevent crime and yet the statistics simply don't back this up.
Surely there comes a point where you have to stop doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The US managed to introduce a whole raft of security measures after 9/11 killed 3,000 people, yet more children than that are killed by guns each year and the response is always "nope - too hard, can't do anything about it"
If someone tries to jack my car, they can. I'll take the insurance money then. Not sure why i'd want to shoot someone over it.
It's just a freakin' car.
That plummeting murder rate through the 90s thoughHere is the historical data. We see a similar trend in the USA and UK, with spikes in the early 90's with then decreasing violence.
The UK is per million rather than 100k.
Perhaps the largest gun measure in the UK went through in 1997, but the homicide rate continued to go up for a while, then back down. It didn't go much below 1997 levels and then recently started going back up again in the last couple years.
So overall the impact on homicides was not much. If anything they went up for a while.
There are some confounding factors.
The UK goes by when the crime was officially put on the books. So the 2003 spike is not totally accurate. That includes data from a serial killer who's crimes were all put on the books that year but occurred over a span of years.
From the office of statistics:
Results for "homicide " | Search - UK Government Web Archive
(download first result titled "homicide")
Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place, this is not always the case. Caution is therefore needed when looking at longerterm homicide trend figures. For example, the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003.
Moreover they indicate that homicide data waits for cases to pass through the judicial system:
The circumstances surrounding a homicide may be complex and it can take time for cases to pass through the criminal justice system (CJS). Due to this, the percentage of homicides recorded in the year ending March 2016 (and, to a lesser extent, those recorded in earlier years) that have concluded at Crown Court is likely to show an increase when the next figures from the Homicide Index are published in 12 months’ time. Conversely, the proportion of cases without suspects or with court proceedings pending is expected to decrease as police complete more investigations and as cases pass through the CJS (see What do we know about suspects section for further details).
Well they are certainly sensible provisions. I hope that is enacted for your country's sake.H.R.127: Is this Unconstitutional overreach from
authoritarian socialists bent on gun confiscation?
Text - H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
-
STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127
jbs.org/alert/stop-extreme-gun-control-bill-h-r-127/
"Members of Congress are seeking to pass an extreme and unconstitutional
gun control bill that would effectively nullify the Second Amendment.
Here are the highlights of H.R. 127’s provisions:
It creates a national firearm registry that anyone – including every
level of law enforcement and the military – can access.
The registry would require one to tell the government exactly
where one’s firearms are stored.
One would need a license simply to own a firearm.
Mandatory “psychological evaluations” are required receive this license.
One would need to pay $800 for “firearm insurance.”
It would enact extreme ammunition restrictions, including
a ban on magazines more than 10 rounds.
Violating the above provisions could lead to a prison sentence
of up to 40 years and a fine of up to $150,000."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?