Mayor of Major California City Wants Gun Owners to Get Liability Insurance

August 14, 2019

  • August 14, 2019 at 5:07 pm
    Jon says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 19

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • August 14, 2019 at 9:48 pm
      okt0ber says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 2

      And what, exactly, is that cost?

      • August 14, 2019 at 10:14 pm
        Jon says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 17
        Thumb down 19

        Loss of life. The gun lobby and fox news have half the country convinced that guns aren’t causing a problem while there are mass shootings constantly throughout the year. These aren’t far, they’re in your community just like mine. We as a nation watched a classroom of young children die and said that’s okay, we’d rather have our guns. The cost of that is human life. Craig and PolarBear and others I’m sure will turn any argument they can into something else, or they’ll claim statistics that aren’t real to justify or they’ll claim anything their Congressmen (Who are on the NRA Payroll, but that’s not at all suspicious) tell them rather than deal with the fact that guns, and they themselves are the problem.

        • August 15, 2019 at 1:45 pm
          Mark B says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 17
          Thumb down 11

          How can an inanimate object that is amoral cause a problem?
          Please explain.

          • August 15, 2019 at 3:49 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 10

            This is nonsense logic meant to disrupt a valid argument. You know exactly what I mean, you’re just trying to derail things because you can’t provide a better response.

        • August 15, 2019 at 9:53 pm
          okt0ber says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 7

          The most recent mass shootings were committed by a ultra liberal and a liberal white nationalist who wrote a climate change manifesto. Doesn’t really sound like the right wing nut jobs are the problem.

          • August 16, 2019 at 11:06 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 3

            This is the first such liberal shooter, and I think you know that. I think you’re grasping at straws desperately, which is sad.

          • August 16, 2019 at 12:41 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 5

            Wow. Is it dishonesty or ignorance.

            It is illegal to murder people. You think those folks are going to get insurance? Say WHAT?

            And there were LOTS of shooters with Lefty ties. Please, try to be honest, as hard as that is for a Lefty. Aurora, Tuscon, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Nadal Hassan, Columbine, etc. etc. etc. There are lots of left wing killers, probably more than the right wing.

          • August 16, 2019 at 1:40 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 2

            Lol @ Columbine being a lefty shooter. Your delusions are pretty hilarious Craig, but anyone with a brain is well aware that it’s the right producing angry militant young gun owner psychotics left and right. You keep your eyes shut, the rest of us are very aware of what you’re doing to radicalize young men in this country. You’re afraid of Muslims but you’re doing the same thing to young white men here and denying it.

        • August 19, 2019 at 2:30 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          And you are suggesting what ? Go get ’em all and ……?

        • August 19, 2019 at 4:28 pm
          smooth says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          So, because you have a distain for guns, those of us acting responsibly should be forced to get insurance? I am so happy to not live in the dysfunctional state that is CA.

          If guns are the problem, and not the people using them, what is your stance on driving while intoxicated? The drunk man/woman that kills a child in another vehicle because they drove drunk and ran them over is just as bad. Do we ban vehicles? There is insurance for automobiles, but after 17 years in insurance, I know, and the statistics show it, that many people do not have coverage. Bad people will still find ways to kill others and likely still find a way to obtain a gun.

          What about the opioid epidemic? Should there be insurance for that too? Those little pills are killing tens of thousands of people. Should pain pills be banned?

          How about that guy that was on the news about a week ago for stabbing people with a knife? He injured like 7 people. Ban knives? Insure them?

          I am not part of a gun lobby, the NRA or even a Conservative. I am a gun owner though. My guns have never once ran out of the house and shot anyone. I leave them home alone all day. They don’t make a mess of any kind, throw parties or even change my tv channels. I’ll be honest, I’ve never noticed them doing anything unusual. If they are the problem, wouldn’t there be signs? I do talk with them and tell them if I find out they are sneaking out and shooting people, they will be punished. Maybe I’m just a good gun owner?

          Nobody wants to see a school or Walmart shooting. None of us want to see a shooting of any kind at all. Use some common sense though. Should we ban dishwashers because they may fall on someone? What if my bed is feeling suicidal and jumps out the 2nd story window, landing on someone? Do I need bed insurance?

          People blaming guns alone have absolutely not thought it through. You aren’t going to ban well over 300 million guns. A civil war would ensue and only one side has guns. It would be a short war. How about instead of going all stupid, we come up with some laws to keep guns away from people with mental health issues? I’m all for making it tougher to obtain a firearm. I’m all for mandatory gun lessons. Banning them will NEVER happen and forcing insurance on a gun owner is not going to occur in states where people have common sense.

          • August 19, 2019 at 6:12 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            You’re trying to divert the conversation again. It’s already been stated below your comment about it being a dysfunctional state is ridiculous, since CA provides most of the US economy. You’re then trying to turn the conversation to things you’re more comfortable wtih. It’s fine, but you’ve already been proven wrong elsewhere on this thread. Nice try though.

          • August 20, 2019 at 11:12 am
            smooth says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            Wow Jon, you have absolutely zero answers when questioned. So, how’s this? https://ballotpedia.org/California_state_debt

            Is CA not the worst state in the Union? You love your “per capita” references, so here you go. Per Capita, CA has the most debt of all the states. It has more debt than many NATIONS. I’m sorry (I’m not), but listening to anyone defend the woes of CA is something I find hilarious. You cannot run a single state, yet want to tell the rest of the country how to live? Even other liberals disagree with you. I would quantify you as one of those “never wrong” people who truly do not know what they are talking about. If you don’t like the laws of this nation, feel free to leave at any time. Nobody is keeping you here.

            Nice to see when someone posts something credible, you have no reply, or a short one simply stating they have been refuted. Typical “logic” from a person who cannot run their own life, but wants to tell others how to live theirs. It must be nice having the “puppy dogs and rainbows” outlook while your state is crumbling around you. LOL

          • August 20, 2019 at 3:44 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Yeah, CA has higher debt, CA also makes more than anyone else so what’s your point? It’s also the 5th largest economy in the world, so the debt on it’s own may be scary but it’s not really that big a deal, more money more problems. Our state actually runs quite well for those of us that live here compared say to the deep red state of Mississippi, but please tell me how we’re the worst. Our schools don’t teach religious doctrine, our teen pregnancy rates aren’t skyrocketing, our parents get paid time off when they have a baby, but please tell me how CA is awful. Jealous much? I’ve actually admitted to being wrong on this very board, it’s not an issue I have. I just hate the hypocrites on your side and the unwillingness to believe actual facts. Lol at me leaving, I like that that’s your answer because you don’t have anything else? You threw one nonsense statistic of debt at me and you’re using that as your entire argument, grow up bro.

            Credible? You posted something about the debt while disregarding all other quality of life/statistics. But hey, please tell me about how great Arkansas is. I think CA will be just fine, thanks. Enjoy coal for the next 10 years lol

  • August 14, 2019 at 6:26 pm
    KC says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 6

    I can’t think of another constitutional right for which the citizen is taxed. Is there a precedent for this?

    • August 20, 2019 at 11:17 am
      homeboycartel says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Alcohol use/purchasing. Fees associated with permits for free association and protest in exercise of the first amendment. Income tax to achieve fulfillment of the 17th amendment.

  • August 15, 2019 at 1:34 pm
    MIghtyQuinn says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 12

    Hey, Jon, I’m part of the nut job conservative base who despises knee jerk [emphasis on jerk] liberals like you. It would only be common sense to again ban automatic firearms like the AR-15 but you don’t undertake any change or restriction of that magnitude immediately in, yes, knee jerk reaction to some pretty nefarious events. We need liberals as targets because they are incapable of seeing how in the long range their overreactions will affect society. Man up and find a way to defend yourself instead of always looking to ban things as a solution.

    • August 15, 2019 at 2:30 pm
      Texkraut says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 9

      Hey, Jon, another nut job conservative here. Yeah, what we need are more laws. That’ll show ’em. And that’ll stop ’em. Yeah, right. Every shooter, or armed robber, for that matter break all kinds of laws. They don’t care. That’s what makes them criminals.
      What part of inalienable do you not understand?

      • August 15, 2019 at 2:39 pm
        Jon says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 12
        Thumb down 9

        I don’t know, maybe the entire country of Australia should be an example to you. Not banning guns has lead to more and more gun violence and death, banning guns worked out pretty swell for those guys. Maybe your team doesn’t have all the answers. And the idea of banning AR-15s is laughable, since yours is the side that won’t consider banning ANYTHING related to guns, or even research related to guns. Get mad, you’re still wrong and history will remember that long after your weak-willed sheep lives have ended.

        • August 15, 2019 at 4:39 pm
          Bond says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 4

          “A person I greatly respect asked a legitimate question today. Why do I so adamantly defend the right to bear arms? It’s a fair question. People sometimes do evil with guns. It’s rare (far more rare than the media would have us believe), but it does happen. The answer is simple. I make my decisions based on logic and statistics. The math shows that we are far better off with an armed society than without.

          From the perspective of personal defense, I have yet to see a study that shows as many murders as self defense with firearms. In fact, it’s not even close. If you exclude gang related shootings, there are only about 2,200 murders with a firearm in the US each year. This is out of a population of well over 300 million. In contrast, estimates for self defense use of a firearm vary from 50,000 to over one million, depending on who’s doing the study. There’s no question that the 2,200 people lost is tragic. However, there are from 25 to as many as 500 self defense uses of a firearm for every one tragedy.

          Then there’s the 900 pound gorilla in the room. Somewhere between 100 million and 260 million people have been killed by their governments in the last century, depending on whose definition you use. This is the real purpose of our 2nd Amendment. If you read the Federalist Papers, the clear intention of our Founding Fathers was to have the states stronger than the federal government, and the people stronger still. They didn’t hate government, just as I don’t. They saw it as a necessary evil, as I do. They also saw the armed citizens as a source of recruits in the time of conflict. We are supposed to be a valuable resource.

          This brings us to the question of what firearms are covered by the 2nd Amendment. In the time of need, citizens were expected to show up with a firearm equivalent or identical to the current military issued one. They were expected to be proficient with it, and have sufficient ammunition for it. Bringing a handgun was better still. Every army today uses semi-automatic rifles and/or machine guns. The M4 (automatic version of the AR15) and AK47 are the current standards, so these would fit the definition perfectly. The handgun is harder to define, but a 1911, Beretta, Glock, Sig, or any of the other military issued pistols would qualify.

          So where does that leave us? We are at a point where these firearms and the magazines and ammunition for them are just barely legal. In some areas, they are already illegal. This is why I’ve personally drawn a line in the sand. We have “compromised” to the point where the original intent is nearly lost. In a true compromise, both parties give and get something. What do gun owners get when we compromise? Nothing. Criminals are unaffected, and law abiding gun owners lose more freedoms.

          If you’re still reading this and you’re for more gun restrictions, please bear with me for a few more sentences. If you had 22,000 local and national laws about where and how you can vote, would you be upset? If you had to present a photo identification, pay a fee, wait two weeks, and forfeit your medical and psychological privacy to vote, would you be upset? If the state wanted to put you in a database that showed every time you voted, and everything you voted for and against, would you be upset? This is what gun buyers deal with when they buy a gun here and try to travel with it. This is why we cringe at your suggestion of “common sense gun laws”. We’re pretty infringed upon already.

          Please think back to this when you see a call for more gun laws. Please consider the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Please understand how expensive and inconvenient it already is to buy a firearm, and understand that adding another law to the 22,000 already in place will not do any good. Those of us who choose to own firearms are not the enemy. Quite the opposite. We give up our time, money, and privacy so that we can be prepared for all the things we hope will never happen. We are the good guys.”

          • August 15, 2019 at 5:23 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 4

            Did you get this from an NRA pamphlet? Things posited as fact are subjective and not verifiable. You call gun violence “rare” and even “rarer than the media would have you believe” what do you define as rare? There have been 22 school shootings this year. 22. Just at schools attended by children. If you count that as rare than we need to change the definition, I would not call that acceptable.

        • August 15, 2019 at 4:45 pm
          Mark B says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 4

          #1 cause of homicide in Australia, Stab wounds at 38%, #2 Beaten to death 24%. Dang that is 62%. And guns are still obtainable in Australia coming in at #4 13%
          apparently #3 was drugs and fire at 15%
          England has a huge knife problem. Maybe the problem is not the object but PEOPLE bent on murder. We used to call it evil no one like to use that word anymore.

          • August 15, 2019 at 5:20 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 3

            Completely ignore that their homicide rate per 100,000 residents is roughly 1/5 of ours, with a steady decline since the ban on firearms.

          • August 15, 2019 at 6:54 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 4

            Oy vey.

            And I could just as easily bring up Mexico, with tight gun laws, and homicide rates in the stratosphere.

            For homicide rates we are 83rd,

            https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

            While our gun violence is among the highest in the world, our homicide rates are actually not that bad.

            The answer here is “it’s complicated”. A country with a higher homicide rate might have other factors other than just gun ownership driving violence and homicide.

            And guns can be used to defend oneself, I should add. I don’t own any, I don’t like guns, but to try and ban them is a mindset that will naturally lead to restricting others based on the minority action of bad eggs.

          • August 15, 2019 at 8:04 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 3

            Yeah we’re 83. Of 192. What are you trying to say? We’re just right in the middle? The fact is were the worst first world nation. The murder rate is lower in Kazakhstan for chrissake. No one is going to be able to ban guns completely, the problem is your side opposes stricter guidelines, background checks and mental health evaluations, or bans on clearly ridiculously dangerous weapons. Apply some of that common sense to this problem.

          • August 19, 2019 at 2:50 pm
            SAK74 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Jon it seems you are completely ignoring population………Australia has a population of just over 24M, England just over 55M…….the united states as over 327M people……..Their murder rate is so much lower than ours because we have hundreds of millions more residents……..

            I am a gun owner (also own a compound bow) and I follow all the rules, regulations, and laws that are on the book. I secure my weapons in a locked cabinet made for that purpose and ammunituion is separated from the gun. If more laws are imposed upon me I will follow those as well, however, I am not going to be a problem. The problem will be the criminal who does not follow the rules, regulations, and laws. Most have obtain their guns illegally and did not go through the proper checks to obtain those guns. Making more laws will not inspire these criminals for follow and abide by them and more than the laws they currently break. We do need to fix what is broken as we do have to much violence but the solution is not restriction of guns (people intent on causing harm will find whatever way needed to do so) the solution lies in trying to stop those people that are breaking the laws and causing the violence.

          • August 19, 2019 at 4:34 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            …right, except murder rates are calculated per so many members of a population, not number of murders. That’s why it’s called a rate. So your first statement was pointless.

          • August 19, 2019 at 5:04 pm
            SAK74 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            It wasn’t pointless at all…….the rate you said was per 100,000 residents…….even if you break the population down for all three by 100,000 residents Australia is at 240, England 550 and the US at 3,270……of course our rate is going to be higher……..we have a higher population to pull from……….

          • August 19, 2019 at 6:13 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 0

            I’m no math expert but you’re doing that wrong lol

        • August 15, 2019 at 7:29 pm
          MightyQuinn says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          Racist rhetoric won’t get anything done.

          • August 19, 2019 at 5:11 pm
            Where? says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Where was Jon racist in the post you replied to?

          • August 19, 2019 at 8:53 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            I was assuming he meant someone else lol. Bob’s over here referring to black men as “boy” so I didn’t look too closely.

          • August 20, 2019 at 4:36 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            “I was assuming he meant someone else lol. Bob’s over here referring to black men as “boy” so I didn’t look too closely.”

            I guess this is your way of saying you are a black man? I didn’t call you a boy to be racist. I said it because you’re acting like a boy.

            Knock it off.

          • August 20, 2019 at 6:11 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            ” mentioned it previously, so you’re claiming now to barely read my posts even though you’ve been copying/pasting them into your responses for days now. Hmm. Either way something smells off there.”

            In point one, me saying boy isn’t linked to your race.

            In point two: We have gone back and forth for maybe 2 to 3 weeks, I do not see your one post saying you were black.

            In point 3: You had numerous comments taken down, so it’s possible that is behind it.

            In point 4: I decide what my comments mean, and boy, is something I have called a few others here before, Ron included.

            It has nothing to do with race, and Ron is most certainly not black.

            Just because you are, does not mean I have insulted your race. Nice try.

          • August 20, 2019 at 6:26 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            It was still a slur meant to demean me, though you meant it on age instead of race. Good job picking that one apart.

            LOL did you really just look through my posts? I’m touched you like getting schooled so much.

            You can decide what your comments intend, but what they actually mean is a whole other story, as is how they are interpreted. The road to hell is paved on good intentions blah blah lots of people think they’re doing good when they’re just spreading lies and misinformation. The puppet doesn’t know he’s on strings, is what I’m saying in your case.

            So you weren’t purposefully being racist, just accidentally racist. Good job. What, you want a cookie?

          • August 20, 2019 at 8:24 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Now you’re struggling to even make sense. You get to decide what’s offensive to black people, so if you didn’t mean it offensive its not offensive? Sounds pretty racist dawg lol keep trying so hard/crying I’ll be right here

        • August 15, 2019 at 9:57 pm
          okt0ber says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 4

          Guns are also banned in Mexico, and there is plenty of gun violence there. People don’t have the ability to defend themselves down there. Only the criminals have guns. I guess you want that here? Pandora’s box is open. You can undo it. You can only manage it. It would be nice to be Australia, but Australia still has crime. It’s also a lot easier to manage the flow of weapons when you’re literally an island. Have you ready about the mass knifings in the UK? See the pattern here? If there is anything history tells it, it’s that prohibition usually does not work for stopping much of anything.

          • August 16, 2019 at 10:48 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 3

            Again since you joined twice: it’s not about full prohibition, it’s about higher standards. We fire a police officer for inviting violence online, maybe gun owners should be held to a higher standard. Clearly the people committing these crimes are able to legally purchase firearms somewhere time and time again, maybe close some loopholes. Don’t just shut down the conversation each time stricter gun laws are put on the table. The current laws are not working. Have children that you have to discuss an active shooter situation with and tell me the laws are working as they are. They’re clearly not.

          • August 19, 2019 at 11:38 am
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 6

            Gun owners should be held to a higher standard, you say.

            “Hey there, mass shooter, did you make your monthly class on accuracy this month?”

          • August 19, 2019 at 1:08 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 3

            Yeah, because it’s not like we all work in an industry that takes part in these very activities. The whole idea is you take steps towards mitigation, you eventually see a reduction in losses. The gun lobby and the right-wing are completely blocking even a conversation on loss reduction here, because they would lose a profit. Your side has convinced their constituents that it’s about their freedom, but really it’s about lining politicians’ and gun manufacturers’ pockets with blood money. You take an active part in this, and their system loves you for it I’m sure but the rest of us would like to stop ignoring reason and common sense.

  • August 15, 2019 at 1:43 pm
    Mark B says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    As of now my homeowners policy does not exclude me shooting someone per say, presuming I am not intentionally robbing a bank or something along those lines. I presume if something like this passes Absolute Exclusions will for forthcoming.
    And seriously, how much coverage can you put on a life or multiple lives.
    I can see it now, Ah, I would like to by some liability coverage in case I shoot someone. How much for 10M in coverage. I have a concert to attend. Yeah wow, like that will work.

  • August 15, 2019 at 2:01 pm
    reality bites says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 0

    Don’t HO policies exclude criminal activities? How could liability insurance be demanded when coverage won’t respond?

    • August 15, 2019 at 3:05 pm
      Mark Ambrose says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      I believe this would extend to a Tax by the city, not a requirement to buy it from an insurance company. So it would be the city that would run the program and call it insurance and reap the benefit of the premiums and not actually have to show like an insurance company that the premiums collected went to redress any claimants.

  • August 15, 2019 at 4:32 pm
    Mark B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 3

    Not to Trivialize the horrible situation of people bent on murder and choosing to use a gun as their choice of weapon but 2019 has seen 125 deaths in mass shootings so far. Hopefully it stops there. While distracted driving aka playing with your phone kills 4000-6000 people per year and upwards of 400,000 physical injuries per year. This is 5 times more then drunk drivers. I am more then sure those who were killed or injured are just as innocent as those kids in a classroom yet there sure is no outcry to do something about it. O wait, here’s a ticket.

    • August 15, 2019 at 6:24 pm
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 2

      Let’s use another thing this administration has done as reference.

      The Trump administration wanted to fight sex trafficking and crimes, so they enacted the FOSTA act which took away the ability for escorts to advertise their services online. And it has worked. They cannot post their services online with the ease that they did, and so sex work has dropped dramatically over the last two years. The Trump administration took the ability to use the internet away and it worked, despite opposition. So why are you so opposed to the exact same tactic in removing gun violence? If you remove guns, the violence will drop dramatically. Your administration has proven this method, haven’t they?

      • August 19, 2019 at 2:58 pm
        SAK74 says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        I hate to be the bearer of bad news but sex workers are still advertising online quite easily……when Craig’s List closed the door on those types of ads, other sites popped up to take their place. The ads have to be worded just so and the sites to review the ads to make sure they are staying within the laws/rules. So it really did nothing…….it caused a slight disruption until those looking to do bad and break the law found a work around…….

        • August 19, 2019 at 4:39 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Early indications are showing the number of online ads has dropped 60-80%. There are always sites out there, but what are you basing your information on? The law itself is heavily flawed but it is having a major effect. Your statement that it did “nothing” is actually super easy to refute. This is the second such comment you’ve made on this board containing outright false information, are you even doing a preliminary search on these statements to verify your information or are you comfortable just mindlessly sharing misinformation?

          • August 19, 2019 at 5:12 pm
            sak74 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            I know people that used Craig’s List for these things and those same people are now using the new sites that have popped up. Maybe conventional ads like those originally seen in online forums are down but several more sites have been set up to skirt the law. Your average joe probably isn’t going to be able to find the ads as they won’t know exactly what to look for, like I said those looking to break the law know where to go and it is still available online……

          • August 19, 2019 at 6:14 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            You know people. That’s not actual verifiable evidence. A quick internet search will verify my info, yours not so much. Anything can be claimed, such as me knowing people who find your people full of it. Try to have some factual evidence behind your argument, you’re incorrect here.

    • August 15, 2019 at 6:25 pm
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 5

      Also, where do you get your numbers? https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ puts the mass shooting numbers at double that, with 415 deaths involving children alone. Why do you want dead children?

      • August 15, 2019 at 7:01 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 4

        While I won’t go over the topic at hand on this matter, as my thoughts on gun ownership are complex, I will note that the shadowy figure you don’t see is in your source.

        Democrats have used your source to say there were 255 mass shootings. This source quantifies a mass shooting of injury or death of 4 people or more, regardless of what they are doing.

        In this case, words matter, do you know why?

        Because mass shootings have no other purpose than to unload on a mass of people. Ergo the term. Including robberies, theft, or people who go on a shooting spree when the police come to get them on a warrant, does not identify the right crowd, when you want to claim people are causing mass terror and white supremacy, which is what the left are implying. Many of those shootings would have had nothing to do with spreading fear.

        But we’ll quote them just the same to call it a white supremacy problem won’t we? Even if most the shooters are white, this doesn’t mean they are engaging in white supremacy by robbing a bank for example.

        In this way, definitions and word use matter. And your source fails the test, combined with the democrats invoking it.

      • August 15, 2019 at 8:06 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 5

        Your side is funded by the NRA lobby and Russia. Stop being such a dumbass about it. You’re looking for conspiracies where people are just trying to protect their families, but ignoring the very clear people profiting on our suffering. It’s just silly that you think there’s a shadowy Democrat when clearly the rich old evil white men funding the world’s problems are right on your side.

        • August 15, 2019 at 10:10 pm
          okt0ber says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 6

          You want to protect your family? Buy a firearm. Don’t take away someone else’s rights because you’re not intelligent enough to protect your family without government intervention.

          • August 16, 2019 at 10:04 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 1

            You are statistically more likely to accidentally shoot yourself, a family member, or a friend than you are protecting your family from an intruder. Then, there is the whole issue of someone else in your home getting a hold of that weapon and accidentally shooting self, family member, or friend. It compounds the whole problem.

            I love this one:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTGmTrQXrwg (careful with the volume on this one – I recommend headphones)

          • August 16, 2019 at 10:40 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            Yeah, your side NEVER wants to take away the rights of others. What a joke. The issue isn’t fully banning, it’s higher standards for gun ownership. It’s mental health evaluations and reduction of loopholes, common sense reactions that your party fights tooth and nail. It’s accountability that your party refuses to deal with.

          • August 16, 2019 at 10:45 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            To go one further, it’s about the fact that it’s time for you and members of your party to be a man and admit wrong and try to fix things. Instead you’ve been scared children hiding behind your guns. It’s time to grow up, children.

          • August 16, 2019 at 12:42 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 5

            How many mass shooters had no father in their life? 26 of the last 27.

            Must be the gun . . .

          • August 16, 2019 at 1:38 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            How many of the last 27 mass murderers had a penis?

            You’re right, it is the dad’s fault!

          • August 18, 2019 at 3:05 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 5

            No, it’s the gun’s fault. Take away guns and people who want to kill won’t want to kill anymore. (The logic of the Left: just stop when you run into truth.)

          • August 18, 2019 at 3:30 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            Since I highly doubt you’ve ever served any military time let me explain. It’s a lot harder to kill someone without a gun. Significantly harder. If you take away the access, yes some people will still die, but the numbers will go down. Additionally collateral deaths and mass murder deaths will drop greatly. It’s common sense, which once again is why there’s no surprise that you can’t figure that out.

          • August 18, 2019 at 5:27 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mass-shooters-fatherless-us/

            Just dropping that here as a reminder that Craig spreads lies as the truth.

          • August 19, 2019 at 12:09 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 6

            Everybody please read the Snopes article. Please.

            Their Sherlock Holmes pursuit of one lead to another over 7 different avenues isn’t funny enough. (Gee, why not ask the author of the study directly.)

            Then, they completely miss the point by assessing shooters who at one time had a father in the home, when the study said there was no father in the lives of the shooter AT THE TIME OF THE KILLINGS. (Close enough for biased liberals.)

            And even THEN, Snopes can only discount 7 shooters. Final Snopes score: 19 of 26 shooters had no father in the home. Wow. What investigative journalism!

            For thoughtless people, that’s “truth”.

          • August 19, 2019 at 12:41 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            I agree with Craig — Everybody please read the Snopes article!! Craig’s summary is inaccurate at best, intentionally misleading at worst. I highly suggest you do not take his post as an accurate summary of the information and instead read the Snopes article for yourself.

          • August 19, 2019 at 1:12 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            Couldn’t have said it better myself. I mean, it would have been funnier since I’d have insulted Craig more, but your points remain valid, Rosenblatt. Craig spreads misinformation, it’s his shtick here. He’s operating in a totally different reality, he’s so convinced that he’s right that there’s no possible evidence that can shake him. It’s not even the blind leading the blind, it’s the blind actively working to remove everyone else’s sight.

          • August 19, 2019 at 6:08 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Man Up, Rosenblatt. Tell where I got it wrong.

            19 of 26? Correct. They only “dispute” 7. That means 19 of 26 is the WORST they can prove.

            Did they talk to the author of the study? Nope. They grabbed an unrelated CNN article on the worst mass shootings. How did they end up there? By speculating about what the author meant and bouncing from one link to another. Got that right too.

            And was I right that Snopes “fact checks” satirical sites? Yep. (Imagine fact checking Saturday Night Live and you see why they have no credibility. Snopes: “Alec Baldwin playing Trump was wrong; Trump never said that!”

          • August 19, 2019 at 6:16 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            I thought it was 26 out of 27? That’s the problem with you Craig. You were literally proven wrong front and center of this board and you still deny it. It’s actually mental illness at your point buddy. You should really consider seeing someone, or at the very least go to r/thedonald where you belong with your false information.

          • August 19, 2019 at 8:00 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Jon,
            Certainly you know by now that all he does when proven wrong is move the goalposts. Like Judge Smails kicking is ball back toward the fairway, “Don’t count that, I was interfered with.”

          • August 20, 2019 at 9:24 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            I’m not going to waste my time pointing out where you were wrong, Craig. People can read the Snopes link and see for themselves.

            I have pointed out the error of your summaries numerous times in the past your replies each time have been insults, insults, straw man arguments, goalpost shifting, insults and more insults.

            Considering you even tried to fight me when I told you that three bullet points after a paragraph were related directly to the preceding text and weren’t their own standalone comments, it’s evident you’re more interested in arguing than discussing matters like an adult.

          • August 20, 2019 at 10:49 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            LOL Did he really try to fight you? He would be hilarious if he weren’t serious.

          • August 20, 2019 at 11:20 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            He was verbally fighting me; it wasn’t physical. Thought that distinction was implied.

          • August 20, 2019 at 3:47 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            It may have just been wishful thinking on my part, see him get that no-chin knocked off lol

          • August 20, 2019 at 4:36 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            I can’t condone you hoping that anyone here is on the receiving end of any kind of physical violence. While I understand why you feel that way, posting that is not appropriate.

            Now, I’d be happy to discuss with you Craig’s consistent insults, goalpost shifting, straw man arguments, inability to cite credible data to support his arguments, or any other type of argument fallacy he posts ad nauseum on this site.

        • August 16, 2019 at 3:38 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Cry more snowflake

        • August 16, 2019 at 3:40 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Yeah, it wasn’t racist at all referring to me as “boy” to try and get a rise out of me. You and I both crossed the line multiple times and we both got shot down for it, the difference is I can acknowledge and move on whereas for you it appears somebody needs to call the wah-mbulance. More crybaby conservatives that can’t stand the heat when they’re called out? I guess no one should be surprised.

        • August 16, 2019 at 7:04 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          This is nothing to do with crying, it’s a matter of trends.

    • August 19, 2019 at 3:55 pm
      ??? says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Yet vehicles require licenses, registration, insurance.. they require testing and renewals of those licenses and registrations.. If you even made gun ownership a similar process as car ownership, it would be progress in the right direction. If you are old enough to recall MADD, there was a significant campaign to make the roads safer, one that made an impact for the better.. Who would have thought not letting kids under 21 drink and get behind the wheel would be beneficial…

  • August 15, 2019 at 5:23 pm
    John Pavliga says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 2

    This measure is purely punitive of law abiding citizens who choose to exercise a right Mayor Liccardo doesn’t like.

    Criminals who use firearms in robberies, mass murder and gang violence aren’t likely to purchase insurance for their weapons. They’re criminals, after all. And having other citizens who do abide by the law won’t deter the murderous among us to not kill.

    There also would not be any savings to cities or other governments. The proposed insurance policies would certainly NOT cover incidents that don’t involve their own policyholder or their policyholder’s guns. And they’d probably exclude criminal acts.

    So at the end of the day, it would just be a punitive measure to force the law abiding folks to hand money over to insurers.

  • August 19, 2019 at 7:58 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

    Uhh, and MacGyver. Don’t you dare underestimate the power of physics!

  • August 23, 2019 at 12:09 am
    Allison says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    One cannot impose pre-conditions on peaceful, lawful exercise of a Constitutional right. See you in the courts mayor…



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*