Actually it was 24 years ago, the North Hollywood botched bank robbery and shootout. Eleven injured and the two perpetrators dead. A Norinco 56 S 1 and a Bushmaster Dissipator were used.
Ten innocents dead
- Thread starter WuzzaCBXRider
- Start date
Actually it was 24 years ago, the North Hollywood botched bank robbery and shootout. Eleven injured and the two perpetrators dead. A Norinco 56 S 1 and a Bushmaster Dissipator were used.
That's not true. Might be true for mass shootings. Regardless there is no use for them in society, and that extends to semi autos, in my humble opinion.
Sadly true but if one psychopath is kept from acquiring a weapon, it's worth it. The problem is, the idealistic notion of training, teaching ethics and limiting violence in video games and movies doesn't work either. Doing nothing is not an option.
Something has to be done but what?? Trying to stem the flow of weapons of all sorts in the US is like trying to plug a hole in a dam with chewing gum...
michael parris heuberger
Registered
Hi. So we back to flintlocks?
Was that the inspiration for the shootout in the movie HEAT?
Mythos
Registered
If they can buy them legally which I'm sure people with a criminal history aren't allowed to do, they would have to pay the tax. Stealing guns or purchasing them on the black market is probably the way that criminals get guns.
Mathewrussell52
Registered
Nope still scary. Maybe cap guns.
Mythos
Registered
My point was that insurance wouldn't curb the use of a gun to commit a crime. If a gun owner shoots someone, insurance could replace the financial loss caused by the victim's death but a criminal will not have insurance on a gun especially if they aren't supposed to have a gun in the first place. I know gun accidents happen and gun owners can go psycho but I'm not worried about that any more than I am about getting struck by lightening. I'd be more likely to get shot by criminal...and I'm not even worried about that so I don't feel compulsory gun insurance is necessary.
I just did a google and it appears even more people get killed by guns each year than cars. I'm guessing most of the gun deaths are not accidents though. Would gun insurance cover intentional shootings? I doubt that very much, not any more than life insurance covers suicide.
A couple of things:
First, statistics show you are much more likely to be the only person your weapon ever kills. Most life insurances do in fact cover suicide in some fashion, usually, there is a 2-3 year exclusion - then it's covered.
Second, insurance would cover shooting by an uninsured person the same way as a car is covered. You can buy insurance against an uninsured driver.
Third, shootings are more common than lightning strikes. In fact, you are 500 times more likely to be killed in a shooting than a lightning strike in the US. Yes, I googled that.
Fourth, gun insurance would pay the estate of the person you killed in a shooting. It probably would not pay your estate if you shot yourself. It's like mandatory car insurance - it protects the other guy.
Mythos
Registered
If I'm a lot more likely to kill myself with my gun than anyone else and gun insurance probably wont cover me killing myself, that's less reason for me to want that insurance. If I ever kill an assailant or an intruder on purpose, I don't want a payout from my insurance going to their family. I also don't want my premium going up because I used that insurance after killing that person in order to protect myself from that person.
In my life, I have had two people close to me get killed in car accidents and I have heard of a few others who were close to people that I know. I don't know anyone who was accidentally killed by a gun. I know many people who have been injured in automobile and motorcycle accidents. The only person I have ever heard who had injured himself with a gun by accident happened just last year. In 54 years I haven't noticed the high risk of getting shot by accident or on purpose.
In my life, I have had two people close to me get killed in car accidents and I have heard of a few others who were close to people that I know. I don't know anyone who was accidentally killed by a gun. I know many people who have been injured in automobile and motorcycle accidents. The only person I have ever heard who had injured himself with a gun by accident happened just last year. In 54 years I haven't noticed the high risk of getting shot by accident or on purpose.
I don't think you are getting the point here. The insurance protects the person you shoot who is not committing an illegal act. You are thinking of this insurance as if it protects you when the point is it protects the person who is put in danger by you having the right to walk around with a gun, like the mandated minimum liability insurance on cars.
There are lots of accidental shootings. A famous one was bobo Chaney shooting his hunting partner in the face! Tons of accidents every year. Remember anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all.
Mythos
Registered
@fallenarch Yes, I get it the money goes to the victim but from my perspective, that is covering the gun owner as well ---for damages they otherwise might be sued for if they acidentally kill someone. I think most people get coverage for causing a catastrophic loss to others because they fear ever being held liable for such a loss.
If you call it demographics instead of anecdotal evidence, it sure does matter to insurance companies. If you hunt, carry on your person or live in a high crime area, you're high risk and you will pay more than a non-hunter living in the burbs who keeps his gun in his nightstand.
If you call it demographics instead of anecdotal evidence, it sure does matter to insurance companies. If you hunt, carry on your person or live in a high crime area, you're high risk and you will pay more than a non-hunter living in the burbs who keeps his gun in his nightstand.
Those numbers are based on extensive statistical data and are very good at predicting what is likely to happen. You may not be the bad busa pilot but insurance rates are based on loss exposure to a class of people. A sneaky way of saying profiling. If you are 45, own a home you pay what the loss rate is on 45 year olds with a house, usually in a geographic location.
Mythos
Registered
Yes and if you're a man, you pay more for car insurance than a woman. If you're a single man, you pay even more and of course, if you're a young single man, forget it! I believe I paid over a thousand bucks a year for liability car insurance on my old beater when I was a young single guy living in an area with a high rate of theft and that was 30 years ago.
on a related note, don't EVER voluntarily let an insurance company monitor or test you if you don't need to. They'll offer a lower insurance rate in exchange for a physical but they're not looking for ways to save you money, they're looking for ways to charge you more and now they have the proof that you're high risk. I wouldn't even recommend a teenager in great shape do this. Once it's done, the records are kept for 7 years and they do share info with other insurance companies or so I was told. I fell for it twice on life insurance. I guess I forgot the first time when I was 25 years old. This is why I won't let my auto insurance company monitor my driving habits and I drive my truck like a granny. Obviously I wouldn't let them monitor my driving habits on the busa.
on a related note, don't EVER voluntarily let an insurance company monitor or test you if you don't need to. They'll offer a lower insurance rate in exchange for a physical but they're not looking for ways to save you money, they're looking for ways to charge you more and now they have the proof that you're high risk. I wouldn't even recommend a teenager in great shape do this. Once it's done, the records are kept for 7 years and they do share info with other insurance companies or so I was told. I fell for it twice on life insurance. I guess I forgot the first time when I was 25 years old. This is why I won't let my auto insurance company monitor my driving habits and I drive my truck like a granny. Obviously I wouldn't let them monitor my driving habits on the busa.
pcs
Registered
aint nobody in their right mind going to carry a spoon as a primary weapon into a combat zone or into a building to kill as many people as possible. mental health is a factor but how many people can a deranged person kill will a spoon at a walmart before he can be stopped vs running in there with a single ar15 and 1 30rd mag... the idea that gun laws only prevent law abiding citizens from getting guns is ludicrous. both mass shooting in march were carried out by legally purchased guns. criminals buy guns legally too, gun shows, private sales, gifts... all legal.
Of course all it takes is some criminal elements to know someone has insecure firearms at their house to plan a break in and grab them...then those weapons are out on the street...
Firming up personal firearm security and safety would help a little to keep at least a few weapons off the streets and maybe circumvent a few innocents (little kids mostly) accidentally killed by a "discovered" firearm in their home....
Similar threads
