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.
Fine. I will move next to you and practice with my rifles and handguns in my backyard. I hope you have armor plate on your house, because it's up to you to protect yourself.
I have homeowner's insurance, life insurance and I too possess firearms. So I am insured.
But what you are talking about is an initiation of force. Should your backyard firearm practice end up sending a bullet into my home, thus endangering my life, YOU possessing insurance wouldn't make any difference to me, the victim of your initiation of force. Nor would it would make you any less liable for your felonious criminal action.
You keep using examples of initiations of force meant to cause death. I wasn't aware that murderers typically took the time to get "murder insurance" before they went on killing sprees with firearms, cars, etc.
Or is it your stance that a murderer who is cool with ending human lives would pause in their nefarious activities if they were worried about their insurance company raising their rates? Oh, killing people is fine, but holy cow, State Farm might raise my comprehensive murderer rates if I go on too big a killing spree...so maybe I'll just stick to a dozen dead this year, not two dozen.
Your appeals to ridicule and emotion are tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
The advantage to me of you having insurance is that my insurance costs less. I will still insure against uninsured motorists, but that's a much lower cost than having to cover all of the costs of insurance against the acts of others. You having insurance means you bear the cost, and if you have multiple accidents, your costs go up with each incident, discouraging you from continuing to drive like an idiot.
Your cost concerns don't justify tyranny. Insurance is a common sense thing, sure, but the government shouldn't be forcing it on people.
Not in the poster I was replying to's world, where he thinks mandatory car insurance is an abomination, and we should all have to pay higher rates while he "accidentally" runs into us and doesn't feel like he should have to pay for the consequences of his actions. that's the only conclusion I can come to when he argues I should insure myself against his actions.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Mandatory insurance is a means to destroying the 2nd Amendment. Just like Poll Taxes in the South had been used to disenfranchise poor voters.
I have homeowner's insurance, life insurance and I too possess firearms. So I am insured.
But what you are talking about is an initiation of force. Should your backyard firearm practice end up sending a bullet into my home, thus endangering my life, YOU possessing insurance wouldn't make any difference to me, the victim of your initiation of force. Nor would it would make you any less liable for your felonious criminal action.
You keep using examples of initiations of force meant to cause death. I wasn't aware that murderers typically took the time to get "murder insurance" before they went on killing sprees with firearms, cars, etc.
Or is it your stance that a murderer who is cool with ending human lives would pause in their nefarious activities if they were worried about their insurance company raising their rates? Oh, killing people is fine, but holy cow, State Farm might raise my comprehensive murderer rates if I go on too big a killing spree...so maybe I'll just stick to a dozen dead this year, not two dozen.
Your appeals to ridicule and emotion are tiresome.
Your cost concerns don't justify tyranny. Insurance is a common sense thing, sure, but the government shouldn't be forcing it on people.
Me practicing shooting in my back yard is not an initiation of force, it's just me practicing. Oops, that round went a little high and hit your house. I hope you are insured to pay for the damage. No different than you arguing against mandatory auto insurance so that you can have an accident and not be responsible for the outcome.
For the record, I seriously doubt firearm liability insurance would make a difference in criminal misuse of firearms, since criminals aren't really worried about the outcomes of their actions. That's one reason I carry un/underinsured motorist coverage - if your car gets stolen and used by a criminal, your insurance isn't likely to cover that accident. But that is completely different than you getting distracted and running in to me. That cost should be on you and your insurance company.
Me practicing shooting in my back yard is not an initiation of force, it's just me practicing.
First rule of firearms - you are responsible for every bullet from the moment it leaves the barrel of the weapon until it comes to rest, wherever that may be. That isn't just a common sense fact, it's a legal one as well. If you own firearms and don't know that, you seriously need to familiarize yourself with the law before you ever fire another round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
Oops, that round went a little high and hit your house.
There is no oops. See above. You are responsible for that bullet hitting my house, because you fired the weapon, you own the bullet and you are responsible/liable for anything and everything that bullet hits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
I hope you are insured to pay for the damage.
I am. And after my insurance company does what I pay them for, they'll be after you once the cops/courts are done with your criminal negligence, because you firing a bullet into my house is criminal negligence on its best, most lenient day. Illegal/improper discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault are also on the table, but I don't control DAs. If you plan on ricocheting bullets about your neighborhood, I'd recommend having a really, really good attorney on your payroll, given what seems to be a very casual attitude towards life threatening initiations of force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
No different than you arguing against mandatory auto insurance so that you can have an accident and not be responsible for the outcome.
But in your vehicle based appeal to ridicule, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOME. It would be me breaking the driving/road rules to initiate force and the cops/courts would destroy me, insured or not. Now, if I am not insured, your insurer gets repaid from me directly, not by my insurer. If I am unable to pay a lump sum, their repayment simply takes longer.
And in your firearm ricochet absurdity, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOME. You would be breaking several firearm laws as well as committing at the very least criminal negligence and reckless endangerment, both felonies. You would be initiating force, and insured or not, the cops/courts would destroy you. Now, if you are not insured, my insurer gets repaid from you directly, not by your insurer. If you are unable to pay a lump sum, their repayment simply takes longer.
In either case, the initiator of force is still responsible, and the only thing that changes based on whether or not that initiator of force is insured is by whom and how quickly/easily that victim's insurer is paid back for doing their contracted job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
For the record, I seriously doubt firearm liability insurance would make a difference in criminal misuse of firearms, since criminals aren't really worried about the outcomes of their actions. That's one reason I carry un/underinsured motorist coverage - if your car gets stolen and used by a criminal, your insurance isn't likely to cover that accident. But that is completely different than you getting distracted and running in to me. That cost should be on you and your insurance company.
And I have comprehensive car insurance. Never not had it. Same for renter's/homeowner's, life, supplemental life, medical and dental insurance. And I own firearms for home defense. I believe in risk mitigation in all things, as I am a quite risk adverse individual.
And I still say government compelling the purchase of a product, any product, with mandatory/compulsory laws is, in fact, TYRANNY. Your appeals to ridicule/emotion are fallacy arguments and the point still stands fine on its own merits.
First rule of firearms - you are responsible for every bullet from the moment it leaves the barrel of the weapon until it comes to rest, wherever that may be. That isn't just a common sense fact, it's a legal one as well. If you own firearms and don't know that, you seriously need to familiarize yourself with the law before you ever fire another round.
There is no oops. See above. You are responsible for that bullet hitting my house, because you fired the weapon, you own the bullet and you are responsible/liable for anything and everything that bullet hits.
I am. And after my insurance company does what I pay them for, they'll be after you once the cops/courts are done with your criminal negligence, because you firing a bullet into my house is criminal negligence on its best, most lenient day. Illegal/improper discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault are also on the table, but I don't control DAs. If you plan on ricocheting bullets about your neighborhood, I'd recommend having a really, really good attorney on your payroll, given what seems to be a very casual attitude towards life threatening initiations of force.
But in your vehicle based appeal to ridicule, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOME. It would be me breaking the driving/road rules to initiate force and the cops/courts would destroy me, insured or not. Now, if I am not insured, your insurer gets repaid from me directly, not by my insurer. If I am unable to pay a lump sum, their repayment simply takes longer.
And in your firearm ricochet absurdity, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOME. You would be breaking several firearm laws as well as committing at the very least criminal negligence and reckless endangerment, both felonies. You would be initiating force, and insured or not, the cops/courts would destroy you. Now, if you are not insured, my insurer gets repaid from you directly, not by your insurer. If you are unable to pay a lump sum, their repayment simply takes longer.
In either case, the initiator of force is still responsible, and the only thing that changes based on whether or not that initiator of force is insured is by whom and how quickly/easily that victim's insurer is paid back for doing their contracted job.
And I have comprehensive car insurance. Never not had it. Same for renter's/homeowner's, life, supplemental life, medical and dental insurance. And I own firearms for home defense. I believe in risk mitigation in all things, as I am a quite risk adverse individual.
And I still say government compelling the purchase of a product, any product, with mandatory/compulsory laws is, in fact, TYRANNY. Your appeals to ridicule/emotion are fallacy arguments and the point still stands fine on its own merits.
First, I've probably forgotten more about firearms and firearm safety than you ever knew. I used to shoot 10,000 rounds or more a year of .308 and .223, and 10,000 rounds of .22. I was never much of a pistol guy, but as Quigley said, that doesn't mean I don't know how to use them. I've been an RSO and have taught firearms safety to groups from Boy Scouts to the elderly.
Second, your claim that mandatory insurance is tyranny is ludicrous on its face, and is utterly meritless. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our actions do not harm others, and that we can make others whole if we damage them. Unfortunately, we have to force people to do that via mandatory insurance.
First, I've probably forgotten more about firearms and firearm safety than you ever knew. I used to shoot 10,000 rounds or more a year of .308 and .223, and 10,000 rounds of .22. I was never much of a pistol guy, but as Quigley said, that doesn't mean I don't know how to use them. I've been an RSO and have taught firearms safety to groups from Boy Scouts to the elderly.
Second, your claim that mandatory insurance is tyranny is ludicrous on its face, and is utterly meritless. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our actions do not harm others, and that we can make others whole if we damage them. Unfortunately, we have to force people to do that via mandatory insurance.
Insurance companies are privately owned, for profit companies...the Govt FORCING people to carry it, greatly benefits this industry.
I could understand the Govt recommending coverage, but FORCING IT, nah, that conflicts with the American way.
Insurance companies are privately owned, for profit companies...the Govt FORCING people to carry it, greatly benefits this industry.
I could understand the Govt recommending coverage, but FORCING IT, nah, that conflicts with the American way.
So, who pays when your hit my car with yours and you don't have insurance because "tyranny", and are judgement proof in court because you have no assets? That means I have to pay for your idiocy.
Hi my name is Corn Pop can anybody tell me where i can go to get insurance for my Biscuit.
Thx Much we all gotta share the responsibility....
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.
