Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not a good shot, but I think I can hit center of mass from 6 feet with my grandpas old revolver.
I have some real issues with this post. First of all it's in red. Do you think you are the manager correcting a report or something?
Second of all not all gun owners have homeowners insurance or even renters insurance.
Thirdly not all policies issued by all companies use the standard ISO forms (where you might find you have coverage depending on very, very specific circumstances.) So specific that I can't recommend shooting anyone and intending relying on your coverage to protect ya.
Ya see, insurance companies don't like intentional acts by their insureds generally. So ya got a mighty big coverage question, and they might defend ya whilst hiring a separate attorney to take up the coverage question under a reservation of rights scenario. They might later deny your coverage and withdraw your attorney leaving you up **** creek, but with deep pockets maybe as ya own a home.
Fourth, back to that non-standard language as all companies don't use the ISO forms. Some companies actually do have language clearly declining coverage for use of firearms in the home, intentional or not.
So read your policy if you intend to defend yourself in your home. And see your agent about a possible umbrella policy to protect ya if need be. If they will even sell ya one, that is.
Your friendly neighborhood adjuster whose actually read many, many different insurance policies as I handled claims for an independent adjusting firm.
Excellent rebuttal ... beat me to it (especially the part about being in red). I'll also point out that there is a reason that homeowner policies require special riders / clauses for a wide variety of specific ownerships and associated liabilities: boats, jewelry, art, on and on and on. General liability coverages are riddled with exceptions and limitations. Read 'em -- if you can.
Excellent rebuttal ... beat me to it (especially the part about being in red). I'll also point out that there is a reason that homeowner policies require special riders / clauses for a wide variety of specific ownerships and associated liabilities: boats, jewelry, art, on and on and on. General liability coverages are riddled with exceptions and limitations. Read 'em -- if you can.
I like to keep it simple mostly. Unless I wanna go off on a tangent. But Fontucky once pointed out we were off on a tangent and our posts got deleted, and we were having a fine convo about Vietnam and Lemoore NAS; where I once sat in the cockpit of a F4 on a boy scout field trip. So I try not to tangent all that much (or at least I get tangental within the TOS, which I bump into now and then).
Not in your utopian view of things. But then, we all don't live in a box on wheels.
You have to have insurance to register a vehicle. Do you get the connection?
Close to home - two juveniles, ages 15 and 16, just fled a youth program and murdered a couple, ages 69 and 70, in their home. A neighbor, suspecting something was amiss, confronted the two miscreants who attempted to flee the murder scene and held them at gunpoint for the police. Thankfully, they're now behind bars. In Califoria the neighbor would likely have his firearm seized with charges pending for brandishing and you and your ilk would be applauding the seizure while labeling the murderous (blunt-force trauma and stab wounds on the victims) juveniles as poor, misunderstood products of an uncaring society.
Still enjoy throwing insults my way, I see ...
"Utopian view"? ... hardly, Chief ... dare say I am one of the very few on this board who lives realistically. All of y'all in those prescriptive ticky-tacky boxes you call "homes" are the ones trying to live visions of "utopia". No connection to reality whatsoever in your lives. The foods you eat. The activities you pursue (#1 of which is sitting in front of your tee-vee's soaking up fictionally based "reality" shows). The beliefs in imaginary deities that watch over you if you pray on your knees hard enough. The entirely addictive consumption and possession of toxic products you consider "necessities" which humanity somehow survived without for tens and hundreds of thousands of years before they suddenly became requirements for life. etc.
I don't like guns. But I don't care if people have 'em or not. I own several. My kids are shooting fanatics and hunters. I handled bodies that felt the stupidity of guns as a resource. I will never accept them as necessary or pleasureable. And there is nothing unconstitutional or stupid about calling for insurance tailored to gun ownership. I do get the connection of "registering" to insuring. Nothing wrong with registering a weapon that can be used to inflict the kind of damage that firearms can.
And yet, you haven't read a statement from me that says I support insurance or registration. All I have pointed out are arguments / positions that are valid. I don't care if people have guns or how many. I don't care if you all eat stupid foods and die slow horrible deteriorations on theoretically compensatory medications for your unwise choices. I don't care if you pray until you are blue in the face and keel over from the effort. You are entirely free to believe in your utopian dreams while I live entirely connected to nature in its primal form. -- 'cept for my computer, of course, which sinfulness I am indulging sitting on a Hawaiian beach as I type. Nice waves.
I like to keep it simple mostly. Unless I wanna go off on a tangent. But Fontucky once pointed out we were off on a tangent and our posts got deleted, and we were having a fine convo about Vietnam and Lemoore NAS; where I once sat in the cockpit of a F4 on a boy scout field trip. So I try not to tangent all that much (or at least I get tangental within the TOS, which I bump into now and then).
Whoa! Speaking of guns, F-4's, Vietnam and such ... it was an incident with an F-4 that is thought to have been the primary event that stole 65% of my hearing ... people have asked me often if I am deaf due to guns in the war ... no, due to aircraft noise and concussion blast caused in the case of the F-4 by breaking the sound barrier on a low pass so close it blew me ass over teakettle for somewhere between 20 and 30 feet airborne (I was on the ground when it went by). Think guns are loud and you should wear hearing protection? Heh. Try a jet breaking sound a couple hundred feet (maybe less?) away.
I don't like anything about guns. Don't care much for F-4's either. Outlaw 'em both in California and I'll move back.
I like to keep it simple mostly. Unless I wanna go off on a tangent. But Fontucky once pointed out we were off on a tangent and our posts got deleted, and we were having a fine convo about Vietnam and Lemoore NAS; where I once sat in the cockpit of a F4 on a boy scout field trip. So I try not to tangent all that much (or at least I get tangental within the TOS, which I bump into now and then).
Obviously even when you're wrong. CA has no 'Castle Doctrine.' "Use a gun, go to jail" is a more likely scenario even in self-defense. But what does a former CA cop know?
"Utopian view"? ... hardly, Chief ... dare say I am one of the very few on this board who lives realistically. All of y'all in those prescriptive ticky-tacky boxes you call "homes" are the ones trying to live visions of "utopia". No connection to reality whatsoever in your lives. The foods you eat. The activities you pursue (#1 of which is sitting in front of your tee-vee's soaking up fictionally based "reality" shows). The beliefs in imaginary deities that watch over you if you pray on your knees hard enough. The entirely addictive consumption and possession of toxic products you consider "necessities" which humanity somehow survived without for tens and hundreds of thousands of years before they suddenly became requirements for life. etc.
I don't like guns. But I don't care if people have 'em or not. I own several. My kids are shooting fanatics and hunters. I handled bodies that felt the stupidity of guns as a resource. I will never accept them as necessary or pleasureable. And there is nothing unconstitutional or stupid about calling for insurance tailored to gun ownership. I do get the connection of "registering" to insuring. Nothing wrong with registering a weapon that can be used to inflict the kind of damage that firearms can.
And yet, you haven't read a statement from me that says I support insurance or registration. All I have pointed out are arguments / positions that are valid. I don't care if people have guns or how many. I don't care if you all eat stupid foods and die slow horrible deteriorations on theoretically compensatory medications for your unwise choices. I don't care if you pray until you are blue in the face and keel over from the effort. You are entirely free to believe in your utopian dreams while I live entirely connected to nature in its primal form. -- 'cept for my computer, of course, which sinfulness I am indulging sitting on a Hawaiian beach as I type. Nice waves.
Whoa! Speaking of guns, F-4's, Vietnam and such ... it was an incident with an F-4 that is thought to have been the primary event that stole 65% of my hearing ... people have asked me often if I am deaf due to guns in the war ... no, due to aircraft noise and concussion blasts caused in the case of the F-4 by breaking the sound barrier on a low pass so close it blew me ass over teakettle for somewhere between 20 and 30 feet airborne (I was on the ground when it went by). Think guns are loud and you should wear hearing protection? Heh. Try a jet breaking sound a couple hundred feet (maybe less?) away.
I don't like anything about guns. Don't care much for F-4's either. Outlaw 'em both in California and I'll mve back.
I do believe there are no F4's in service any longer.
I can hear the F-16s light off here in Fresno though. I hear they might get F-15s.
We toured the air national guard base here also. Was going to get to sit in their simulator but it was down that day and they didn't let us. They were still flying F4s here then also.
"Utopian view"? ... hardly, Chief ... dare say I am one of the very few on this board who lives realistically. All of y'all in those prescriptive ticky-tacky boxes you call "homes" are the ones trying to live visions of "utopia". No connection to reality whatsoever in your lives. The foods you eat. The activities you pursue (#1 of which is sitting in front of your tee-vee's soaking up fictionally based "reality" shows). The beliefs in imaginary deities that watch over you if you pray on your knees hard enough. The entirely addictive consumption and possession of toxic products you consider "necessities" which humanity somehow survived without for tens and hundreds of thousands of years before they suddenly became requirements for life. etc.
I don't like guns. But I don't care if people have 'em or not. I own several. My kids are shooting fanatics and hunters. I handled bodies that felt the stupidity of guns as a resource. I will never accept them as necessary or pleasureable. And there is nothing unconstitutional or stupid about calling for insurance tailored to gun ownership. I do get the connection of "registering" to insuring. Nothing wrong with registering a weapon that can be used to inflict the kind of damage that firearms can.
And yet, you haven't read a statement from me that says I support insurance or registration. All I have pointed out are arguments / positions that are valid. I don't care if people have guns or how many. I don't care if you all eat stupid foods and die slow horrible deteriorations on theoretically compensatory medications for your unwise choices. I don't care if you pray until you are blue in the face and keel over from the effort. You are entirely free to believe in your utopian dreams while I live entirely connected to nature in its primal form. -- 'cept for my computer, of course, which sinfulness I am indulging sitting on a Hawaiian beach as I type. Nice waves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Whoa! Speaking of guns, F-4's, Vietnam and such ... it was an incident with an F-4 that is thought to have been the primary event that stole 65% of my hearing ... people have asked me often if I am deaf due to guns in the war ... no, due to aircraft noise and concussion blast caused in the case of the F-4 by breaking the sound barrier on a low pass so close it blew me ass over teakettle for somewhere between 20 and 30 feet airborne (I was on the ground when it went by). Think guns are loud and you should wear hearing protection? Heh. Try a jet breaking sound a couple hundred feet (maybe less?) away.
I don't like anything about guns. Don't care much for F-4's either. Outlaw 'em both in California and I'll move back.
Forty-plus years ago. Get over it. There's help for that, ya know.
Enough said that you don't like guns, yet you own them. Go figure! Massive amounts of verbiage neither helpful nor relevant. We ain't takin' combat.
Obviously even when you're wrong. CA has no 'Castle Doctrine.' "Use a gun, go to jail" is a more likely scenario even in self-defense. But what does a former CA cop know?
We have reasonable DA's. /shrug
What do ya want me to do? Call my friend Trevor Oppliger who I grew up with and get a quote? (He was my catcher in little league and went to Roosevelt with me). Maybe I'll ask his daddy the judge...
Meanwhile self-defense cases can and do prevail in CA without needing a "castle doctrine."
And I fully intend to shoot someone in the chest if they come in, thanks.
Fort-plus years ago. Get over it. There's help for that, ya know.
Enough said that you don't like guns, yet you own them. Go figure! Massive amounts of verbiage neither helpful nor relevant. We ain't takin' combat.
There's no "getting over it" ... if you'd been there you'd know. Tell that to the Pearl Harbor survivors I meet each year here on Dec. 7th (as my sailboat is moored in PH right next to the National Memorial. Shameful wisecrack from you. Surprising. ... And should I "get over" my hearing loss, which resulted in me giving up my dream of becoming a symphony musician as I trained for when a youth prior to service? How about my limited use of one arm? How about the damage to my internal organs - from which I have struggled to become healthy again for "over forty years" ... or my facial / dental damage that makes every bite of food I eat a chore ... your comment stinks to hell, Chief.
Helpful or relevant? Entirely both. I don't like guns -- but what I really don't like is stupid chatter justifying them falsely. If you like or feel the need for them, your business. But misquoting facts and studies and truths is BS, and you know it ... the Gay Kleck "study", for example ... get real. 'Conflating' insurance requirement with denial of rights, for another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
