I wonder who came up with that term? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them "Defense against persons brazen enough to invade an occupied private residence law"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dado potato
Printable View
I wonder who came up with that term? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them "Defense against persons brazen enough to invade an occupied private residence law"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dado potato
Here we go again the welfare queen myth made popular by Reagan. Ugh!
If that's your take-away, you're not paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Personally I don't think the problem is that people are so comfortable in their poverty that they chose to stay dependant on gov't programs. They stay on those programs because the programs incentivize dependence on them. Do any work and you lose your benefits dollar for dollar, or even worse, lose everything from the program. And if you would need to pay for childcare if you have a job, but lack the skills to get a job that pays better than minimum wage you'll spend your whole income on childcare. We could design better programs that enabled people to get to work that don't jeopardize the minimal amount of economic security that they already have and we would probably see more poor people willing to get out there and become productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I agree, just indicating how long the discussion of dependence has been going on in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
One of the major accomplishments of the Clinton administration was welfare reform which was supposed to help transition people from a role of dependence to independence. I'm not sure how well that's going currently but it will likely take generations to overcome the damage done between the 60's and the 90's.
Thinking more about this I'll give an example from my own life. Back in 2001 I was unemployed. The state of NY sent me a check each week for $440. I could earn up to $100/week without losing any of the benefit. After that my benefit was reduced dollar for dollar for everything I earned. So I routinely would take one day temp assignments from an agency doing basic admin work. I'd earn $15/hour, which at 7 hours meant $105 income. There was no point in working more than one day a week so I rarely did. The only benefit to working more would be that my total unemployment benefit amount would have stretched beyond the 9 month maximum benefit I could collect. I assumed, correctly as it turned out, that I would have a fulltime job in 9 months so I didn't consider that to be of much use to me.
The last time I saw the statistics there were a lot less people on welfare than before Clinton was in office.
I think that's probably correct although I don't have anything to back it up. I only brought it up initially as a factor in the breakup of the nuclear family in so many poor families caught in the cycle of dependence. Respected black economists and social commentators such as Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele have long lamented the unintended role of social service programs in destroying whole urban communities and I can attest to the negative impact on the rural communities of my youth as well. Three generations of my extended family are still caught up in the cycle, for many of the same reasons jp1 mentioned, as the path of least resistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
maybe because of about 100 gun deaths per day in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I live in the midst of stand your ground gun culture. I see it being more about power and paranoia than self defense. The paranoia is certainly being stoked by the hysteria on the news day in and day out. When you live in a big senior community everyone is home and knows their neighbors. The streets are patrolled at least three times a day. Any violence or theft is minuscule for the size of the population yet I know many people armed to the teeth and never leave the house without concealed carry.
A big shooting store and range range opened near me. They have a liquor license and a bar. I cannot imagine what could possibly go wrong.
I've noticed that hint of distrust at what others may do in every discussion we've ever had on this subject, I can understand that. Two years ago this past Christmas while driving home one evening a woman coming from the other direction decided to cross the center line and hit my car head on. She totaled both of our cars although our cumulative 18 or so airbags and restraint systems ensured that neither of us were hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
Now, over two years later I still pay very close attention to oncoming traffic and don't feel comfortable anymore on my motorcycle, while stopping short of advocating everyone else have their driving privileges suspended and cars taken away. They haven't done anything wrong.
If we're going to compare guns to cars maybe we should treat them the same way. I imagine the woman who caused the accident had insurance to cover her liability for harming you. Perhaps we need to require gun owners to have gun owners' liability insurance to cover harm caused if their gun is used to commit a crime.
I wasn't comparing objects as much as expressing an understanding of an unwarranted feeling. I don't think we can insure against that.
True that. But we can also hold people financially responsible if their weapon is used to harm another person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Anyone can bring a civil damages suit against anyone else, are you suggesting this become an automatic outcome outside the judicial system?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Upon reflection, and remembering you're an insurance guy, I'm guessing you're suggesting mandatory liability insurance on every weapon owned. If that's true, should we also require mandatory liability insurance on every knife, every brick, every truncheon type device or any other object that may be used to harm another?
I AM suggesting mandatory liability insurance. Just as exists with cars. If sticks and stones and knives were used for anywhere near the amount of harm as guns i’d suggest that too. But for now that would seem overkill.
Just like cars huh? I only need to insure my cars if I use them on a public road, not if they spend all their time sitting in my driveway. I have a .40 calibre semi-auto pistol and .38 Chief Special revolver in a lockbox in my house. Do I only need to insure them if I take them out of the box, or maybe only if I take them off my property? Trying to understand how this would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Insurance is priced by risk and exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Considering how many firearms are in this country (~400 million), and how rarely they cause injuries (~100k cases/year, many of those suicides or suicide attempts or accidental self-injuries), I'd think such a policy would be quite inexpensive. 0.025% are involved in injuries/deaths each year. 1 in 4000. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700838/ )
There are ~3 million auto injuries each year in the USA, with ~276 million motor vehicles registered. 1.08% are involved in auto injuries each year. 200x more often than than firearms are.
If insurance companies further rated gun owners like they do automobile drivers, I'd imagine people like myself who have extensive training, extensive collections, and many decades of demonstrated non-injurious use would get great rates. 15 year old males living in inner cities might have higher rates, but they aren't supposed to have guns anyways....
The "you should have firearms liability insurance" proposal is a clear attempt to impose additional burdens of ownership on firearms owners, and stamp out the culture of firearms use in this country.
People abuse rights all the time, but does that mean those rights must be abrogated?Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
If we are going to go so far as to compare guns to cars, I would suggest that increased gun regulation is to school shootings as recycling paper products is to correcting climate change. There is a much larger cultural issue that romanticizes gun use in the media and in games.