Ron 10 #126 December 22, 2009 QuoteGuns, explosives etc. - all obtained illegally. Unimpressed Nice. Regrettably, criminals don't normally follow the law. Quote That just tells me: You do not have enough laws, not enough control over your *law abiding* citizens which, from one minute to the next easely could mutate into mass killers Nonsense.... this just tells me you have no clue about our laws. And if US citizens could "mutate in mass killers" so could your German buddies.... In fact, it seems they have in several occasions... to include genocide. QuoteWho cares if legally or illegally. They are available, that's all what counts. Handy and available for nearly everybody. It matters if they are illegal or not.... you may not be able to tell the difference due to your pre-held hatred.... But there is a big difference. Also, you have gun crime: Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) And you have your very own school shootings: March 11th 2009 – Dressed in black combat gear Tim Kretschmer killed 9 students and three teachers at Albertville Secondary School, Winnenden, 12 miles north of Stuttgart. He fled the scene, shooting dead a gardener in a nearby psychiatric clinic before hijacking a car. After abandoning the vehicle and its driver, he fled on foot, fatally shooting a salesman and customer at a car showroom before police arrived. Two police officers and Kretschmer were wounded in the ensuing gunfight before he killed himself. Nov, 2006 Geschwister Scholl School in Emsdetten by Sebastian Bosse injured 8 April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, killed 13 teachers, two former classmates and a police officer, before committing suicide. In fact.... looking at the history of school shootings in Germany you seem to have a bunch to include things like the Cologne school massacre where the guy used a flamethrower. So maybe you should step off your high horse."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #127 December 22, 2009 Quote that sound Christel is hearing is that of the entire US air force flying over her head. Dear, actually I'm listening to an opera, the old fashioned disk. What a sound. I'm in holidays and enjoy wonderful music and high class correspondence on the internet. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #128 December 22, 2009 Wow, Ron, it's amazing how everyone but you is ignorant. Of course, it could be YOU that is misinformed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #129 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteSince it was a twenty year old kid with a Corvette being discussed, how a 40 year old's insurance rates are affected by buying a Corvette isn't relevant to the discussion. Sure it is... We are discussing the Corvette. And Johns opinion is that people who want a Corvette are more dangerous than those that want a Focus... And he tried to apply that to certain types of guns. But as proof, he tried to use the insurance of a Corvette on only ONE age group while ignoring all the other age groups and use ALL age groups in the gun example. For it to be equitable you would have to compare all age groups with a Corvette, or only one age group with the gun. I'm pretty old. I just checked with my State Farm agent. A Corvette would cost me a whole lot more to insure than a Focus.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #130 December 22, 2009 Quote I'm pretty old. I just checked with my State Farm agent. A Corvette would cost me a whole lot more to insure than a Focus. State Farm was extremely popular with a subset of bikers in the 90s because their pricing was based entirely on engine displacement. They could insure the Honda CBR600F2/F3/F4 for the same price as a more docile 600cc. Other carriers would charge double or triple. The catch was that you might need to do all your insurance with State Farm, or at least have a car policy. OTOH, such a policy would punish us BMW riders with 1200cc engines. What was the BS theory you were espousing about companies precisely knowing risk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #131 December 22, 2009 >What was the BS theory you were espousing about companies precisely knowing risk? They have a VERY good idea of the risk they will have to pay out. (Google "actuarial table" for an example.) They also are generally good at business. In your example, why on earth would they insure the more dangerous motorcycle for the same price? Doesn't that mean they don't have a clue about risk? Or might there be another reason? The answer might be found in your own comment: "The catch was that you might need to do all your insurance with State Farm." When I was 17 I got insurance through my parent's insurance company. It was pretty expensive compared to theirs but much cheaper than I could have gotten on my own. My risk didn't go down when I decided to use theirs - but Geico made a few $$ on the deal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #132 December 22, 2009 QuoteIf risk is accurately measured, why do motorcyclists (as an example) get quotes that can vary by a factor of 3 to 8x? Different insurance companies use different pools of data. The actuaries doing the underwriting start with different assumptions (e.g., what event constitutes worst case). Some insurance companies may want to discourage motorcycle policies, so they raise their price above market rate. Auto insurance is generally discounted for the first six months, with subsequent raises in premiums to cover that cost. Different insurance companies may calculate those discounts using different methods.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #133 December 22, 2009 bundling doesn't account for the 3x (or more deltas). The sort of savings there should be 20 or 30%, not 70% or more. No, it's far more about charging as much as the market will bear. The market for cars that people typically drive (sedans, minivans, and awd minivans (aka SUV)) is big. Others, not so. I remember getting a renewal notice for my $140 motorcycle policy - for $880. The risk of insuring me didn't change by a factor of 6. This was around 2000 - investment returns on premiums changed dramatically. But really the message being sent by that carrier was that they no longer wanted to do bike insurance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #134 December 22, 2009 >No, it's far more about charging as much as the market will bear. That's definitely part of it as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #135 December 22, 2009 QuoteWow, Ron, it's amazing how everyone but you is ignorant. The proof that you and a few others no nothing about firearms and firearms laws is right there for everyone to read.... you know how YOU said, "Hard to see how the Texas Tower killer in 1966 would have been stopped by a CCW hero" But there were SEVERAL civilians credited with helping out in that case... Which I provided evidence to back up my position and you brought NOTHING but uneducated opinion? You don't see me tell you that you are wrong on Physics issues... I am amazed you think you know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. And the facts show you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to guns..... Sorry, but that is just the facts."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #136 December 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote A possible alternative was that they might have tried to obtain guns or explosives illegally, a police would get a tip and arrested them all. You REALLY need to do more reading. Almost EVERYTHING you say about guns is 100% wrong. They obtained BOTH guns and explosives illegally ..... Guns, explosives etc. - all obtained illegally. Nice. That just tells me: You do not have enough laws, not enough control over your *law abiding* citizens which, from one minute to the next easely could mutate into mass killers - they have access to the millions of weapons spread over the US. Who cares if legally or illegally. They are available, that's all what counts. Handy and available for nearly everybody. What a scary vision. Well there we go then. Them there damn crimals will listen and behave if we have/make for laws. And in the mean time all the rest of us have to do is give up more freedoms. Great anwser"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #137 December 22, 2009 Quote ... Well there we go then. Them there damn crimals will listen and behave if we have/make for laws. And in the mean time all the rest of us have to do is give up more freedoms. Great anwser You surely mean "answer". So, tell me then why do you have laws at all?? Give 'em up and let them damn criminals take over the power. And that poor overloaded cop in the snow never again will be forced to pull his gun. Men, if your laws do not work, it needs a profound constitutional revision. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #138 December 22, 2009 Quote Quote ... Well there we go then. Them there damn crimals will listen and behave if we have/make for laws. And in the mean time all the rest of us have to do is give up more freedoms. Great anwser You surely mean "answer". So, tell me then why do you have laws at all?? Give 'em up and let them damn criminals take over the power. And that poor overloaded cop in the snow never again will be forced to pull his gun. Men, if your laws do not work, it needs a profound constitutional revision. Hows about you tell us what will work???? Just another great example of someone pushing their agenda on the world"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #139 December 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote A possible alternative was that they might have tried to obtain guns or explosives illegally, a police would get a tip and arrested them all. You REALLY need to do more reading. Almost EVERYTHING you say about guns is 100% wrong. They obtained BOTH guns and explosives illegally ..... Guns, explosives etc. - all obtained illegally. Nice. That just tells me: You do not have enough laws, not enough control over your *law abiding* citizens which, from one minute to the next easely could mutate into mass killers - they have access to the millions of weapons spread over the US. Who cares if legally or illegally. They are available, that's all what counts. Handy and available for nearly everybody. What a scary vision. So, when are YOU going to flip out and go on a murder spree, since your post above blames the mere presence of guns for that?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #140 December 22, 2009 Quote .... So, when are YOU going to flip out and go on a murder spree, since your post above blames the mere presence of guns for that? Never, Mike. You know I do have access to weapons, I own several which are locked away some hundred kilometers from my home and only are used for hunting. But, the "mere presence of guns" does not affect me, as it's not part of our daily life. It does not exist. *We* do not think about the availability of a gun every day. Guns are no component of daily life. I never fear my next one to carry any weapon. That makes the difference. Understand it or not. I don't care. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #141 December 22, 2009 Quote Quote .... So, when are YOU going to flip out and go on a murder spree, since your post above blames the mere presence of guns for that? Never, Mike. You know I do have access to weapons, I own several which are locked away some hundred kilometers from my home and only are used for hunting. But, the "mere presence of guns" does not affect me, as it's not part of our daily life. It does not exist. *We* do not think about the availability of a gun every day. Guns are no component of daily life. I never fear my next one to carry any weapon. That makes the difference. Understand it or not. I don't care. And for a large number of americans, the presence of a gun is not a part of THEIR daily life and they don't think about availability of a gun every day - but it doesn't keep you from making accusations, does it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #142 December 22, 2009 Quote .... And for a large number of americans, the presence of a gun is not a part of THEIR daily life and they don't think about availability of a gun every day - but it doesn't keep you from making accusations, does it? Who's representing the "large number of Americans" here? You and your comrades, Mikey. Reading your posts (and the comrade's ones) leaves a strong impression that weapons are THE part of American life. Show and convince me of the contrary. I'm prepard to believe you. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #143 December 22, 2009 Nice attempted diversion. The FACT is that in a number of previous threads, which you can easily find with a search, the pro-gunners claimed that the reason for calls for assault weapons bans was NOT functionality (contrary to what you just claimed) but just because they look "scary". It seems that you and kelpdiver both are prone to making up "facts" to suit the moment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #144 December 22, 2009 Quote Quote .... And for a large number of americans, the presence of a gun is not a part of THEIR daily life and they don't think about availability of a gun every day - but it doesn't keep you from making accusations, does it? Who's representing the "large number of Americans" here? You and your comrades, Mikey. And how many regulars in SC? How many that have said they don't own guns, or don't post in the gun threads? Quote Reading your posts (and the comrade's ones) leaves a strong impression that weapons are THE part of American life. And reading YOUR posts leaves a strong impression that condescension and bigotry (in the sense of firearms) are THE part of German life. Quote Show and convince me of the contrary. I'm prepard to believe you. Sorry - I'm calling "bullshit" on this one. There's tons of SC posters that have nothing to do with gun threads, and plenty of posters IN the gun threads that don't own guns. You want to slam the gun owners, that's fine - but at least do it honestly.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #145 December 22, 2009 Quote Nice attempted diversion. The FACT is that in a number of previous threads, which you can easily find with a search, the pro-gunners claimed that the reason for calls for assault weapons bans was NOT functionality (contrary to what you just claimed) but just because they look "scary". It seems that you and kelpdiver both are prone to making up "facts" to suit the moment. That's correct - the gun bans ARE largely based on looks and not functionality. Do you have evidence of anything different?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #146 December 22, 2009 Quote .... You want to slam the gun owners, that's fine - but at least do it honestly. I do it honestly. I always said only trained, licensed and checked people should own guns. Really strictly controlled folks. *You* allow every idiot to carry a gun. That, Mike, makes the difference. DUI in Germany: You'll lose your drivers license, your hunting license, weapon owners permit, PPL (I proudly present my new one here ), skydivers license - simply everything. Even *your* history shows the smallest suscpicion, you will never have a hunting license - here in Germany. That makes life a lot more safe, methinks YMMV dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #147 December 22, 2009 >Who's representing the "large number of Americans" here? You and your >comrades, Mikey. Keep in mind that the gun nuts represent a small fraction of the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #148 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuote Nice attempted diversion. The FACT is that in a number of previous threads, which you can easily find with a search, the pro-gunners claimed that the reason for calls for assault weapons bans was NOT functionality (contrary to what you just claimed) but just because they look "scary". It seems that you and kelpdiver both are prone to making up "facts" to suit the moment. That's correct - the gun bans ARE largely based on looks and not functionality. Do you have evidence of anything different? Why do you think I believe anything different? I'm 100% convinced that someone buying "scary" weapon that has no more functionality than a regular hunting rifle is being rather immature. The gun equivalent of the boy racer with his Camaro decked out in racing stripes and the baffles out of the muffler. It's the person, not the gun, that's the problem. I thought that was YOUR position too. All I ask is that you don't keep contradicting yourselves to suit the argument of the week.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #149 December 22, 2009 Quote >Who's representing the "large number of Americans" here? You and your >comrades, Mikey. Keep in mind that the gun nuts represent a small fraction of the US. Oh really? And here on board, too? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #150 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Nice attempted diversion. The FACT is that in a number of previous threads, which you can easily find with a search, the pro-gunners claimed that the reason for calls for assault weapons bans was NOT functionality (contrary to what you just claimed) but just because they look "scary". It seems that you and kelpdiver both are prone to making up "facts" to suit the moment. That's correct - the gun bans ARE largely based on looks and not functionality. Do you have evidence of anything different? Why do you think I believe anything different? You said Ron claimed it was due to functionality - I haven't seen that. QuoteI'm 100% convinced that someone buying "scary" weapon that has no more functionality than a regular hunting rifle is being rather immature. So, how many people have done that, John? Bought the gun because it was 'scary'? Show us. QuoteIt's the person, not the gun, that's the problem. I thought that was YOUR position too. I don't think you'll find any of the pro-gunners dispute that. QuoteAll I ask is that you don't keep contradicting yourselves to suit the argument of the week. We aren't. We support gun owners regardless of what gun they buy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
