besides my normal amazement at the ignorance of most people about firearms, now I am amazed by the accompanying vote (see sidebar) about insurance requirements for firearms owners. apparently the same lack of basic knowledge extends to readers of the IJ. why else would 45% of the votes say that firearms owners should be required to carry liability, when coverage would not apply to the principal problems involved: crime.
You give too much credit to CPCU’s. The designation stands for Can’t Produce, Can’t Underwrite. Most are eggheads who can’t make it in the real world so they teach insurance theory. Most real agents do well with common sense.
I just showed up now. Over 1,000 people have already voted and “No, Never” is well ahead in the poll now, unlike when Bob originally posted his comment. I think InsuranceJournal must have very effective viral marketing of their stories!
Wait a minute – these people are totally out of touch. There isn’t one underwriter in the entire world who would provide liability for anything other than an accidental shooting – period end of discussion.
No liability policy in the world, will provide coverage for intentional acts that are to be classified as gross, willful or criminal. Further, the for most part, depending upon the issuing carrier and their terms and conditions, personal liability coverages do not normally exclude accidental shooting/s. Be well all.
I don’t think these legislators are out of touch, I believe they sincerely want something that is both unconstitutional and detrimental to insurers and insureds.
There are plenty of insurance underwriters that provide coverage for “intentional acts” on liability policies, including me. Nowhere in the CGL policy does it exclude “intentional acts”. It does exclude “intentional injury”. Also, there is an exception for intentional injury when the intentional injury occurs from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or porperty. So you get have a gun and someone draws a gun and you have a reasonable belief that the person is going to shoot you. You can shoot and have defence and indemnity if it is reasnoable force.
GL Guru – I thought I covered intentional by gross, willful or criminal. I retired as one of the Sn VP’s of what was then and still is the largest commercial insurance broker in the world and having written a fair share of manuscript liability and excess follow form, gross, willful and criminal covers it. Obviously intend via self protection is another story. Be well.
“Schiff’s bill, The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act (HR 332), would limit the immunity for gun manufacturers and gun distributors granted under the 2005 law.”
That’s one cause-effect relationship I don’t see. The gun distributor and/or manufacturer has no ability to affect how the gun is used. How can they be held responsible? Have I missed something about a mind altering effects of guns?
As may be expected, the politicians and anti-gun folks – in order to confuse the issues, raise specious issues. The single most important subjects that must be addressed if we are truly seeking to reduce mass shootings, are the mental health of people who have access to firearms, and the so-called “gun free” zones politicians have created. Virtually all of the mass shootings have taken place in “gun free” areas, marked as such so the bad guys know where they will be safe. Again, virtually all of the mass shooters have been known to be mentally unstable by family, friends, and others, yet they are not being reported to the authorities, thus the mental health checks in the system do not work. Eliminate “gun free” zones, arm decent honest citizens (schools, universities, in the public) and create a better, more complete method of reporting of persons who have mental problems are the only workable answers to the problem we’re trying to reolsve. All else is doomed to failure, and a “feel-good” fraud being perpetrated by sponsors of such legislation.
Thank you, Bob, or pointing out the insurance ignorance of thoe who come up with the liability insurance “solution” to gun violence by the mentally ill among us. Unforunately, such “feel-good” nonsense catchs the attention of the general public (insurance ignorant) and they believe it to be a good idea. Insurance companies will NEVER sell policies that cover intentional, criminal, acts. So now we have another “infringement” on the Second Amendment being proposed.
Congress does not have a clue. Remember this guns do not kill people kill. A gun is only a thing it cannot go off without a person scqueezing the trigger. The focus should be on the person, and not the weapon. All who want to own a weapon should pass a background check. Having persons obtain liability insurance to own a weapon is not the course we should be taking. Auto kill more people each year than guns do. But we do not ban cars.
A “Gun liability insurance Navigator” signs up the law abiding citizens, takes the premium and funds Medicaid for illegal aliens. In the meantime, the ex felon on the street, who is on Medicaid, welfare, has an Obamaphone, Hud housing subsidy has illegally obtained an unregistered handgun. He/she shoots 3 people while carjacking them or robbing a store. Where do the victims file their claims?
Another stupid libtard fantasy
Sargent, Those of us in the industry already know that the Homeowners policy covers accidents and Personal Liability from negligence of handling/firing a gun. We are talking about willful acts and that is always excluded. Why would the industry write something like Congress wants to cover liability for all shootings? They will not do it and a policy issued will not be worth the paper it is printed on with the long list of exclusions. I think the goofballs advocating this nonsense should go hunting with Dick Cheney.
Hello Agent,
yes, I know that the homeowners policy provides cover for accidents and personal liability for negligence in handling and firing a gun. And of course willful acts should be excluded. But bills like this show how stupid those who are supposed to serve the majority of law abiding citizens really are. While being facetious, I can see them coming up with something ridiculous bill or law like I posted above as their stupidity seems to have no bounds.
Hey, just look at Obamacare
The hope is that a insurance requirement would help limit people from obtaining guns in the first place. There is very little common sense in Washington (or Albany for that matter).
Rich, How are you going to limit criminals from obtaining guns out of a car trunk? Do you think they will buy insurance? I do agree with you there is very little common sense in DC or in many of the state governments who are trying to pass gun laws. They have no clue what is going on.
Draetish, It has been revealed that these two Islamic Chechniyan terrorist brothers did not have permits for the weapons they used to kill the MIT officer and shoot it out with the police. Criminals will never do background checks or buy liability insurance for the weapons they acquire. I wonder where they got their weapons. These pinhead politicians have in their brain the idea that making everyone register their guns and get permits will stop the shooting. They couldn’t be more wrong, but they keep on plugging away to try to take away our right to protect our family.
I really believe this is a lot of hype for political effect. Rather than offering up something that would actually help reduce a mass shooting, like doing something to institutionalize those that need it and do something with Hollywood who continues to create even more violent movies and video games which desensitizes people, especially those who have mental problems. But no, let’s go after something that will have no effect.
Lastly, just this week a nut stabbed 14 people on a college campus in Texas. I suppose that those Einsteins in Washington will want to ban knives and require any one who owns a knife buy liability insurance?
Sargent, I wonder if Obummercare will cover mental health treatment in one of their Medicaid styled policies. From what I have seen, mental health treatment has been on serious decline for decades. We have a bunch of seriously imbalanced people out there on the street. I saw an interview with people that knew this kid that did all that stabbing. They just couldn’t believe he was capable of doing that. He admitted to authorities that he had fantasized about doing it for a long time. He is emblamatic about how many young people are mentally ill in this country and need treatment.
Agent, I don’t believe that mental healthcare will improve. In fact I have said many times on this blog that Obamacare will cost far more than what we had in place, Taxes will go up far beyond what Obozo called for and healthcare will deteriorate. Why do I think this?
*Look at other countries who do the same thing. Are we any smarter? NO
* The AP came out yesterday with an article that said Obamacare costs are overrun by another $4.4 Billion not anticipated in Obozo’s original 2009 forecast.
* lastly, my wife is a nurse. She came home on Monday night. In a meeting the hospital announced that the hospital will have to cut $11.5 million dollars in cost. Why? Because Obamacare reduced payments to hospitals are so deep and the hospital will not be able to recoup. That means employee layoffs including nurses. Other employees including nurses will have to go to less than 30 hours and no benefits. Hospital equipment will be reduced such as MRI and cat scan machines. So if you need a cat scan, stand in line behind an illegal alien on Medicaid and wait 6 months to a year or die before you get one. Same thing happens in Canada. That is why Canadians come here.
Yes Sargent, in our area, three major hospitals have cut back on employees, the largest one cut 200 jobs. With the rapidly imploding Obummercare, costs are skyrocketing and they haven’t even added in the cost of the Navigators yet.
This administration is causing mental illness. I wonder about my sanity sometime just trying to absorb all these idiotic changes. My worst fear is for my kids and grandkids. What will their future be like?
Sargent, it always seems that a tragedy has to happen first in these cases and no one takes action to get one of these crazies off the streets before they do something. In the case of the Newton shootings, the mother obtained the weapons even though she knew the son was mentally imbalanced and needed to be institutionalized. Why would she have weapons in the house? We will never know since she was the first one killed. By the way, Chicago had 4 more murders over the weekend with 21 injured. Sounds like Rahm Dead Fish has it all under control, right?
There are many kinds of insurance that cover intentional acts. Motor Vehicle insurance in some states including Mass. will pay if an insured driver hits someone on purpose. Most home fire insurance has an “Open Mortgage Clause” which pays a lender if you torch your house. The point that insurance designed to pay innocent third parties for intentional or criminal acts of insured persons is not unusual.
The best insurance for guns would work like No-Fault car insurance as it applies to uninsured injured persons like pedestrians. New York and Michigan have good examples. If it is required of manufacturers with a prevision that the insurer only gets off the hook if another insurer picks it up, it would not be necessary to have the government track gun owners.
The problem with that logic is those college altruisms work only under the following assumption…everyone follows the same set of rules.
Do they really think the Newtown shooter (or any other criminal) would not have had access to a gun because the market had set a high cost index for ownership?
They know better, they are pandering to the emotions of the public in order to further the interests of the trial bar, which most belong to btw
Ins Guy,
You are right. The problem is that all of the “gun control” measures that are being bantered around will do absolutely nothing to curb shootings. It will only infringe upon the tax paying, law abiding majority. It is the old saying “let’s punish the majority instead of addressing the problem minority” i.e, mentally insane, criminals, Hollywood brain fryers ( Just watch Hannibel on NBC). I can’t believe a network would allow that blood and guts show.
So all of us pay for so that Obama and “buy a shotgun” Biden (doesn’t have a clue about a gun- period) can get airtime and a back pat
Sargent, did you see the hilarious video of women trying to shoot a shotgun? Many of them were knocked off their feet. Then, they showed a petite little lady shooting an AR-15 and it was smooth and had almost no recoil. She could aim and fire at a perp and send him to hell in a few short bursts.
I wonder how the left will spin the Boston Marathon bombings. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions, right Sargent? Workplace violence, Tea Party activists, Right winger militia groups? Perhaps it is all GW’s fault. It is ironic that it happened in Boston where the hijackers started their flights on 9/11. Another bomb at JFK Library. This is the center of the liberal N/E who give terrorists a pass on everything.
Just an fyi to anyone pointing to hollywood or video game violence as the reason for shootings… violent media has been around for a long time across all mediums, get over it. I myself grew up playing various violent game titles, and have seen plenty of violent movies/shows. I’ve read violent books, and heard violent songs, and seen violence on the news, and never committed a single violent act. Seriously, any sane person can separate reality from fantasy, its not hard, so stop with the petty scapegoating of media you don’t like.
Newbie, You may be fine with watching violence on TV, Movies or Video games, but there are a lot of mentally unbalanced people out there that are influenced by them. They are de-sensitized by seeing violence and can’t separate reality from fantasy. They don’t see the difference between them and shooting a person is no different than shooting a dog. What about the poor little teenage girl that was raped by three boys and then committed suicide when they posted their deeds on the internet? I call that destroying someone’s life. These boys should be tried not only for rape, but manslaughter as well.
People commit violent acts over religion and relationships too, I guess we really need to get rid of those too…
Crazy will always find a way, trying to ban everything that you think might feed into some a delusion of any mentally unstable individual is a pretty futile effort and really just punishes the responsible majority.
Also by acknowledging that mentally unbalanced individuals are the real issue, you’re basically admitting that its not the material, its a problem with mental health.
It is interesting Newbie that Switzerland does not do gun control and every household has a weapon for defense. They have almost no crime there and no mass shootings even though their population is armed to the teeth. Criminals know that if they try to enter a home and rob or murder that there is a good possibility they won’t come out so they don’t bother.
It is interesting Agent that you reply to my comment with something completely unrelated to what I was saying.
If we want to compare to other countries in regards to the point I was ACTUALLY making, there are plenty of other countries where violent media is just as accessible as it is in the US and yet they have a fraction of the gun violence we do.
I’m not even sure what prompted your comparison to be honest, it was pretty strongly implied in my previous post (the one you replied to) that my view is that our country’s issue with gun violence and mass shootings is strongly rooted in mental health.
April 15, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Sargent Major says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Newbie- You assume everyone is sane. There area a lot of mentally unstable people in the world.
Agent said-I wonder how the left will spin the Boston Marathon bombings. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions, right Sargent? Workplace violence, Tea Party activists, Right winger militia groups? Perhaps it is all GW’s fault.
Agent, It will be George Bush’s fault. Or they will ban trash cans on the street because they can injure people. Or the Tea Party is to blame because they support conservatives. Who knows, but I hope they find the btards and take care of business
I guess we will know more in a few days, but it was reported that a young 20 year old Saudi man was a “person of interest” and being held in this investigation. CSI may be able to find out something on the unexploded bombs they found and if this guy and some friends of the same persuasion are the perps, that will fit right in with the violent Muslim extremists that we let into the country. I seem to remember that Homeland Security had lifted all travel restrictions to Saudi citizens into this country recently. Hmm! I wonder if that was a smart thing to do.
Sargent, the far left continues with their spin about this bombing. Chris Wallace interviewed one of them on his program and the guy didn’t think it was an act of Terrorism. He said it was just a case of murder and should be prosecuted accordingly. This just shows how screwed up these people are and their cowardice about Terrorism and how Muslims want to kill us all.
This isn’t something people should be forced to buy and it wouldn’t cover criminal activity. Thus the goal is unclear unless it is simply to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning a gun.
Gun owners should consider it simply because accidents happen at gun ranges, shooting clubs and while hunting plus the defense costs you could incur even in a valid use of a firearm defending yourself.
besides my normal amazement at the ignorance of most people about firearms, now I am amazed by the accompanying vote (see sidebar) about insurance requirements for firearms owners. apparently the same lack of basic knowledge extends to readers of the IJ. why else would 45% of the votes say that firearms owners should be required to carry liability, when coverage would not apply to the principal problems involved: crime.
Perhaps they’re all Life or Health agents?
Any article about guns or the NRA automatically attracts a broad reader base. Votes in an IJ poll aren’t necessarily coming from CPCUs.
You give too much credit to CPCU’s. The designation stands for Can’t Produce, Can’t Underwrite. Most are eggheads who can’t make it in the real world so they teach insurance theory. Most real agents do well with common sense.
You know, Bob.
As much as we end up disagreeing on here.
I’m 100% with you on this.
I just showed up now. Over 1,000 people have already voted and “No, Never” is well ahead in the poll now, unlike when Bob originally posted his comment. I think InsuranceJournal must have very effective viral marketing of their stories!
Wait a minute – these people are totally out of touch. There isn’t one underwriter in the entire world who would provide liability for anything other than an accidental shooting – period end of discussion.
No liability policy in the world, will provide coverage for intentional acts that are to be classified as gross, willful or criminal. Further, the for most part, depending upon the issuing carrier and their terms and conditions, personal liability coverages do not normally exclude accidental shooting/s. Be well all.
I don’t think these legislators are out of touch, I believe they sincerely want something that is both unconstitutional and detrimental to insurers and insureds.
There are plenty of insurance underwriters that provide coverage for “intentional acts” on liability policies, including me. Nowhere in the CGL policy does it exclude “intentional acts”. It does exclude “intentional injury”. Also, there is an exception for intentional injury when the intentional injury occurs from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or porperty. So you get have a gun and someone draws a gun and you have a reasonable belief that the person is going to shoot you. You can shoot and have defence and indemnity if it is reasnoable force.
GL Guru – I thought I covered intentional by gross, willful or criminal. I retired as one of the Sn VP’s of what was then and still is the largest commercial insurance broker in the world and having written a fair share of manuscript liability and excess follow form, gross, willful and criminal covers it. Obviously intend via self protection is another story. Be well.
“Schiff’s bill, The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act (HR 332), would limit the immunity for gun manufacturers and gun distributors granted under the 2005 law.”
That’s one cause-effect relationship I don’t see. The gun distributor and/or manufacturer has no ability to affect how the gun is used. How can they be held responsible? Have I missed something about a mind altering effects of guns?
As may be expected, the politicians and anti-gun folks – in order to confuse the issues, raise specious issues. The single most important subjects that must be addressed if we are truly seeking to reduce mass shootings, are the mental health of people who have access to firearms, and the so-called “gun free” zones politicians have created. Virtually all of the mass shootings have taken place in “gun free” areas, marked as such so the bad guys know where they will be safe. Again, virtually all of the mass shooters have been known to be mentally unstable by family, friends, and others, yet they are not being reported to the authorities, thus the mental health checks in the system do not work. Eliminate “gun free” zones, arm decent honest citizens (schools, universities, in the public) and create a better, more complete method of reporting of persons who have mental problems are the only workable answers to the problem we’re trying to reolsve. All else is doomed to failure, and a “feel-good” fraud being perpetrated by sponsors of such legislation.
“…mass shooters have been known to be mentally unstable by family, friends, and others, yet they are not being reported to the authorities,…”
Want to pin the liability tail on the donkey? There you go.
Thank you, Bob, or pointing out the insurance ignorance of thoe who come up with the liability insurance “solution” to gun violence by the mentally ill among us. Unforunately, such “feel-good” nonsense catchs the attention of the general public (insurance ignorant) and they believe it to be a good idea. Insurance companies will NEVER sell policies that cover intentional, criminal, acts. So now we have another “infringement” on the Second Amendment being proposed.
Really? You think these guys give a rats @#@# about the general public, other than some superficial gesture to grab a photo-op/sound-bite for votes?
Guarantee you it’s the Trial Bar lobby whispering in these Reps/Sen. ears. They’re looking for any pocket they can get their fingers into.
Congress does not have a clue. Remember this guns do not kill people kill. A gun is only a thing it cannot go off without a person scqueezing the trigger. The focus should be on the person, and not the weapon. All who want to own a weapon should pass a background check. Having persons obtain liability insurance to own a weapon is not the course we should be taking. Auto kill more people each year than guns do. But we do not ban cars.
Wow, how does the government do this?
A “Gun liability insurance Navigator” signs up the law abiding citizens, takes the premium and funds Medicaid for illegal aliens. In the meantime, the ex felon on the street, who is on Medicaid, welfare, has an Obamaphone, Hud housing subsidy has illegally obtained an unregistered handgun. He/she shoots 3 people while carjacking them or robbing a store. Where do the victims file their claims?
Another stupid libtard fantasy
Sargent, Those of us in the industry already know that the Homeowners policy covers accidents and Personal Liability from negligence of handling/firing a gun. We are talking about willful acts and that is always excluded. Why would the industry write something like Congress wants to cover liability for all shootings? They will not do it and a policy issued will not be worth the paper it is printed on with the long list of exclusions. I think the goofballs advocating this nonsense should go hunting with Dick Cheney.
Hello Agent,
yes, I know that the homeowners policy provides cover for accidents and personal liability for negligence in handling and firing a gun. And of course willful acts should be excluded. But bills like this show how stupid those who are supposed to serve the majority of law abiding citizens really are. While being facetious, I can see them coming up with something ridiculous bill or law like I posted above as their stupidity seems to have no bounds.
Hey, just look at Obamacare
The hope is that a insurance requirement would help limit people from obtaining guns in the first place. There is very little common sense in Washington (or Albany for that matter).
Rich, How are you going to limit criminals from obtaining guns out of a car trunk? Do you think they will buy insurance? I do agree with you there is very little common sense in DC or in many of the state governments who are trying to pass gun laws. They have no clue what is going on.
I don’t think the people that are obtaining guns and killing people are really the type of people that would buy insurance in the first place.
Draetish, It has been revealed that these two Islamic Chechniyan terrorist brothers did not have permits for the weapons they used to kill the MIT officer and shoot it out with the police. Criminals will never do background checks or buy liability insurance for the weapons they acquire. I wonder where they got their weapons. These pinhead politicians have in their brain the idea that making everyone register their guns and get permits will stop the shooting. They couldn’t be more wrong, but they keep on plugging away to try to take away our right to protect our family.
I really believe this is a lot of hype for political effect. Rather than offering up something that would actually help reduce a mass shooting, like doing something to institutionalize those that need it and do something with Hollywood who continues to create even more violent movies and video games which desensitizes people, especially those who have mental problems. But no, let’s go after something that will have no effect.
Lastly, just this week a nut stabbed 14 people on a college campus in Texas. I suppose that those Einsteins in Washington will want to ban knives and require any one who owns a knife buy liability insurance?
Sargent, I wonder if Obummercare will cover mental health treatment in one of their Medicaid styled policies. From what I have seen, mental health treatment has been on serious decline for decades. We have a bunch of seriously imbalanced people out there on the street. I saw an interview with people that knew this kid that did all that stabbing. They just couldn’t believe he was capable of doing that. He admitted to authorities that he had fantasized about doing it for a long time. He is emblamatic about how many young people are mentally ill in this country and need treatment.
Agent, I don’t believe that mental healthcare will improve. In fact I have said many times on this blog that Obamacare will cost far more than what we had in place, Taxes will go up far beyond what Obozo called for and healthcare will deteriorate. Why do I think this?
*Look at other countries who do the same thing. Are we any smarter? NO
* The AP came out yesterday with an article that said Obamacare costs are overrun by another $4.4 Billion not anticipated in Obozo’s original 2009 forecast.
* lastly, my wife is a nurse. She came home on Monday night. In a meeting the hospital announced that the hospital will have to cut $11.5 million dollars in cost. Why? Because Obamacare reduced payments to hospitals are so deep and the hospital will not be able to recoup. That means employee layoffs including nurses. Other employees including nurses will have to go to less than 30 hours and no benefits. Hospital equipment will be reduced such as MRI and cat scan machines. So if you need a cat scan, stand in line behind an illegal alien on Medicaid and wait 6 months to a year or die before you get one. Same thing happens in Canada. That is why Canadians come here.
Yes Sargent, in our area, three major hospitals have cut back on employees, the largest one cut 200 jobs. With the rapidly imploding Obummercare, costs are skyrocketing and they haven’t even added in the cost of the Navigators yet.
This administration is causing mental illness. I wonder about my sanity sometime just trying to absorb all these idiotic changes. My worst fear is for my kids and grandkids. What will their future be like?
Sargent, it always seems that a tragedy has to happen first in these cases and no one takes action to get one of these crazies off the streets before they do something. In the case of the Newton shootings, the mother obtained the weapons even though she knew the son was mentally imbalanced and needed to be institutionalized. Why would she have weapons in the house? We will never know since she was the first one killed. By the way, Chicago had 4 more murders over the weekend with 21 injured. Sounds like Rahm Dead Fish has it all under control, right?
There are many kinds of insurance that cover intentional acts. Motor Vehicle insurance in some states including Mass. will pay if an insured driver hits someone on purpose. Most home fire insurance has an “Open Mortgage Clause” which pays a lender if you torch your house. The point that insurance designed to pay innocent third parties for intentional or criminal acts of insured persons is not unusual.
The best insurance for guns would work like No-Fault car insurance as it applies to uninsured injured persons like pedestrians. New York and Michigan have good examples. If it is required of manufacturers with a prevision that the insurer only gets off the hook if another insurer picks it up, it would not be necessary to have the government track gun owners.
Econ 101 – raise the cost of the product (guns) via requiring insurance – Cost goes up – sales go down. That is what they are shooting for.
Sounds like an infringement if I ever heard of one.
But what are we to do, if we can be mandated to purchase a product simply because we are alive (ObamaCare), what is to stop them from this?
The problem with that logic is those college altruisms work only under the following assumption…everyone follows the same set of rules.
Do they really think the Newtown shooter (or any other criminal) would not have had access to a gun because the market had set a high cost index for ownership?
They know better, they are pandering to the emotions of the public in order to further the interests of the trial bar, which most belong to btw
Ins Guy,
You are right. The problem is that all of the “gun control” measures that are being bantered around will do absolutely nothing to curb shootings. It will only infringe upon the tax paying, law abiding majority. It is the old saying “let’s punish the majority instead of addressing the problem minority” i.e, mentally insane, criminals, Hollywood brain fryers ( Just watch Hannibel on NBC). I can’t believe a network would allow that blood and guts show.
So all of us pay for so that Obama and “buy a shotgun” Biden (doesn’t have a clue about a gun- period) can get airtime and a back pat
Sargent, did you see the hilarious video of women trying to shoot a shotgun? Many of them were knocked off their feet. Then, they showed a petite little lady shooting an AR-15 and it was smooth and had almost no recoil. She could aim and fire at a perp and send him to hell in a few short bursts.
I wonder how the left will spin the Boston Marathon bombings. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions, right Sargent? Workplace violence, Tea Party activists, Right winger militia groups? Perhaps it is all GW’s fault. It is ironic that it happened in Boston where the hijackers started their flights on 9/11. Another bomb at JFK Library. This is the center of the liberal N/E who give terrorists a pass on everything.
Just an fyi to anyone pointing to hollywood or video game violence as the reason for shootings… violent media has been around for a long time across all mediums, get over it. I myself grew up playing various violent game titles, and have seen plenty of violent movies/shows. I’ve read violent books, and heard violent songs, and seen violence on the news, and never committed a single violent act. Seriously, any sane person can separate reality from fantasy, its not hard, so stop with the petty scapegoating of media you don’t like.
Newbie, You may be fine with watching violence on TV, Movies or Video games, but there are a lot of mentally unbalanced people out there that are influenced by them. They are de-sensitized by seeing violence and can’t separate reality from fantasy. They don’t see the difference between them and shooting a person is no different than shooting a dog. What about the poor little teenage girl that was raped by three boys and then committed suicide when they posted their deeds on the internet? I call that destroying someone’s life. These boys should be tried not only for rape, but manslaughter as well.
People commit violent acts over religion and relationships too, I guess we really need to get rid of those too…
Crazy will always find a way, trying to ban everything that you think might feed into some a delusion of any mentally unstable individual is a pretty futile effort and really just punishes the responsible majority.
Also by acknowledging that mentally unbalanced individuals are the real issue, you’re basically admitting that its not the material, its a problem with mental health.
It is interesting Newbie that Switzerland does not do gun control and every household has a weapon for defense. They have almost no crime there and no mass shootings even though their population is armed to the teeth. Criminals know that if they try to enter a home and rob or murder that there is a good possibility they won’t come out so they don’t bother.
It is interesting Agent that you reply to my comment with something completely unrelated to what I was saying.
If we want to compare to other countries in regards to the point I was ACTUALLY making, there are plenty of other countries where violent media is just as accessible as it is in the US and yet they have a fraction of the gun violence we do.
I’m not even sure what prompted your comparison to be honest, it was pretty strongly implied in my previous post (the one you replied to) that my view is that our country’s issue with gun violence and mass shootings is strongly rooted in mental health.
Newbie- You assume everyone is sane. There area a lot of mentally unstable people in the world.
Agent said-I wonder how the left will spin the Boston Marathon bombings. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions, right Sargent? Workplace violence, Tea Party activists, Right winger militia groups? Perhaps it is all GW’s fault.
Agent, It will be George Bush’s fault. Or they will ban trash cans on the street because they can injure people. Or the Tea Party is to blame because they support conservatives. Who knows, but I hope they find the btards and take care of business
I guess we will know more in a few days, but it was reported that a young 20 year old Saudi man was a “person of interest” and being held in this investigation. CSI may be able to find out something on the unexploded bombs they found and if this guy and some friends of the same persuasion are the perps, that will fit right in with the violent Muslim extremists that we let into the country. I seem to remember that Homeland Security had lifted all travel restrictions to Saudi citizens into this country recently. Hmm! I wonder if that was a smart thing to do.
Sargent, the far left continues with their spin about this bombing. Chris Wallace interviewed one of them on his program and the guy didn’t think it was an act of Terrorism. He said it was just a case of murder and should be prosecuted accordingly. This just shows how screwed up these people are and their cowardice about Terrorism and how Muslims want to kill us all.
This isn’t something people should be forced to buy and it wouldn’t cover criminal activity. Thus the goal is unclear unless it is simply to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning a gun.
Gun owners should consider it simply because accidents happen at gun ranges, shooting clubs and while hunting plus the defense costs you could incur even in a valid use of a firearm defending yourself.