fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 21, 2015 20:30:31 GMT -5
He is mixing up the two incidents- and still managed to not answer my question of whether theater guy should be charged and lose his permit.
The Waffle House guy is probably in the clear- just guilty of poor judgment- and IMO is 100X more in the right than Zimmerman was. You have a citizen witnessing an actual crime and did what they thought was right vs. some self-appointed neighborhood watch/pretend cop that thought investigating people that he felt were suspicious was within his purview.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2015 15:33:13 GMT -5
He is mixing up the two incidents- and still managed to not answer my question of whether theater guy should be charged and lose his permit. The Waffle House guy is probably in the clear- just guilty of poor judgment- and IMO is 100X more in the right than Zimmerman was. You have a citizen witnessing an actual crime and did what they thought was right vs. some self-appointed neighborhood watch/pretend cop that thought investigating people that he felt were suspicious was within his purview. Yeah- I missed the hijack. I presume it's this: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/man-accidentally-shoots-self-theater_5624fe41e4b0bce347014d1d I would say that's an incident that warrants a charge. MY personal view is that "permits" are illegitimate. I'm in favor of Constitutional carry. The Second Amendment precludes government interference with the right to bear arms, just as it precludes interference with free speech, and arbitrary searches. However, in my opinion, this does not preclude being charged with an offense having to do with the irresponsible handling or use of a firearm.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 29, 2015 19:25:13 GMT -5
He is mixing up the two incidents- and still managed to not answer my question of whether theater guy should be charged and lose his permit. The Waffle House guy is probably in the clear- just guilty of poor judgment- and IMO is 100X more in the right than Zimmerman was. You have a citizen witnessing an actual crime and did what they thought was right vs. some self-appointed neighborhood watch/pretend cop that thought investigating people that he felt were suspicious was within his purview. Yeah- I missed the hijack. I presume it's this: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/man-accidentally-shoots-self-theater_5624fe41e4b0bce347014d1d I would say that's an incident that warrants a charge. MY personal view is that "permits" are illegitimate. I'm in favor of Constitutional carry. The Second Amendment precludes government interference with the right to bear arms, just as it precludes interference with free speech, and arbitrary searches. However, in my opinion, this does not preclude being charged with an offense having to do with the irresponsible handling or use of a firearm. I consider carrying a weapon without any training is irresponsible use of a firearm. At least we can agree that negligent discharge of a weapon in public should have consequences- he is lucky he only shot himself- could have killed someone. Scotus says that it is not an unlimited right, just like the 1st and 4th are not either. I see no problem with people having to prove they have been properly trained if they desire to carry in public. I think they should carry liability insurance as well unless they can show they have enough assets to self insure in the case they maim or kill an innocent person. Since it doesn't happen that often should be reasonable. You are an insurance person right- I am curious if homeowners insurance covers a shooting- like when children get a hold of guns and kill themselves or another child or sibling even?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 29, 2015 21:57:47 GMT -5
Yeah- I missed the hijack. I presume it's this: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/man-accidentally-shoots-self-theater_5624fe41e4b0bce347014d1d I would say that's an incident that warrants a charge. MY personal view is that "permits" are illegitimate. I'm in favor of Constitutional carry. The Second Amendment precludes government interference with the right to bear arms, just as it precludes interference with free speech, and arbitrary searches. However, in my opinion, this does not preclude being charged with an offense having to do with the irresponsible handling or use of a firearm. I consider carrying a weapon without any training is irresponsible use of a firearm. At least we can agree that negligent discharge of a weapon in public should have consequences- he is lucky he only shot himself- could have killed someone.
Agreed. I do think that taking away someone's right to keep and bear arms is a very last resort-- an extreme measure. I would say that since no one was hurt, he should still face stiff fines, maybe mandated to attend an NRA or other approved course-- but that's about it.Scotus says that it is not an unlimited right, just like the 1st and 4th are not either. I see no problem with people having to prove they have been properly trained if they desire to carry in public. I think they should carry liability insurance as well unless they can show they have enough assets to self insure in the case they maim or kill an innocent person. Since it doesn't happen that often should be reasonable. I don't like the insurance end-run around the Constitution-- and make no mistake, the liberty minded among us see right through this. If you don't, and that's not what's intended by your post, I'll take you at your word, but advise you that in my opinion, you are ignorant and naive. Guns are't cars. They're not a privilege, they're a right.You are an insurance person right- I am curious if homeowners insurance covers a shooting- like when children get a hold of guns and kill themselves or another child or sibling even? I'm an adjuster, not an underwriter or an actuary-- but the standard answer I give all coverage question is: read the policy. Let's say a child kills themselves with their parent's gun-- you can't be liable to yourself. In general, homeowners policies exclude "residents" of the property. In most cases-- as far as I understand it (it isn't my area) accidents are covered by life insurance policies- so there may be coverage there depending. If a child is a visitor to the home (an invitee) and there's an accident- then generally, the homeowner is going to be liable for negligent acts-- and I'd say a kid getting their hands on a loaded gun qualifies as negligent-- then the policy would pay. Again, generally speaking-- if there's a dead child, it has been my experience that an insurance carrier will pay limits of liability in exchange for a release of all claims about as quickly as they can write the check-- covered or not. I've seen this happen personally-- twice now-- sadly, both as a result of pool accidents.
From what I understand from the people that do the actual underwriting, gun accidents are almost unheard of. They are so rare as to not be a factor. IF, however, artificial demand was created for liability insurance for firearms owners as a result of some government mandate- you would see premiums skyrocket for something that's generally already covered from a liability standpoint.
PERSONALLY, I've had a $5 million umbrella policy for several years now. It's the nature of the beast these days-- if you have any non-retirement assets to speak of, an umbrella policy is a good idea.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 29, 2015 22:25:57 GMT -5
I do not look at liability insurance as a way to get around the Constitution- but it is a fact that many gun owners do not have a pot to piss in- how is a family that has been destroyed by the misuse of a weapon supposed to recover (breadwinner killed for example) if the person is judgment proof? I think if people can afford a gun they can afford a small policy- it could not cost that much. Like I said- it is a right- but not an unlimited right.
|
|