champu

Yes it does. It means that if you accidentally hurt someone they can receive fair compensation for their injuries, which is the responsible way to behave towards others. Not accidentally shooting people is the responsible way to behave towards others. Making sure everyone can be sued at all times and get a settlement paid out of it is another matter.

(1) You can buy insurance, it just doesn't cover the things the author of the bill wants it to. One of the stated goals is to mandate the insurance and then let insurance companies mandate behaviors as a pre-requisite for coverage. But if the behavior is already illegal this makes no sense. (2) Having insurance for self-defense cases, especially if you have a CCW permit and carry regularly, is a good idea. That's not an argument supporting an insurance mandate in order to own a firearm. (3) Having liability insurance doesn't make you more responsible.

As an update to this post I made a couple years ago... From 2011 to 2012 my contribution went up 3.56% (*4.86%) From 2012 to 2013 my contribution went up 10.39% (*7.06%) From 2013 to 2014 my contribution went up 15.64% (*24.39%) From 2014 to 2015 my contribution went up 28.40% (*18.66%) From 2015 to 2016 my contribution went up 39.17% (*50.37%) (*parenthetical numbers are if I include the sum total of medical, dental, and vision coverage in the calculations) The Box DD numbers don't really line up with these changes cleanly because the W2 is on a calendar year and the above are on a July 1 - June 30 plan year, and I only have a couple, but my percentage of the plan cost has stayed roughly the same each year so far. Also, over the last three years my annual HRA allocation** has gone from $1200 to $1000 to $400 and new this next plan year is you only get half your allocation if you don't get an annual physical. Prescription drugs also no longer count towards meeting your deductible or out of pocket maximum and they are no longer automatically paid for out of the HRA, they did until this upcoming plan year. **if you're not familiar with an HRA, it's like a traditional PPO except you have a higher deductible but you get an annual allocation that pays your initial costs and that rolls over year to year. Having your allocation go down is essentially like having your deductible go up by that amount. My access to doctors hasn't really changed but you can kinda see the trend my costs are on.

If you can't break into your own safe in a reasonable amount of time should the lock become disabled due to an EMP* then you didn't spend enough time researching your safe. *...really?

"Secured" can mean a lot of things and it doesn't have to mean "in a safe." Keep in mind, for example, in California "in your trunk" qualifies as a locked container for the purposes of transporting a handgun. And you're right, with safes you definitely get what you pay for.

I think secured and/or locked away when you're not home or when minors are present and the gun isn't directly in your control would make sense. I have no problem with criminal liability for the owner if anything bad happens if you violate those rules. I think I've always used storage laws as an example of something I can get behind as a firearm owner. However, I think the added step of saying "locked up at all times" is subtle, but is probably a step too far. The hollow point ammo sale ban is pants-on-head stupid. If you use a firearm to defend yourself (or hell even if you're a criminal and you're off to murder someone with it) it is safer to use hollow point ammunition so it doesn't go through whatever you're shooting at. It's basically the opposite of armor piercing ammunition, which the same people also get worked up about. That I cannot understand.

Corollary: If you drone on and on in a post in speakers corner each reader will just resonate with the part they like best (note: odd responses come about due to imaginary post content.)

Ah, there's the rub. You're familiar with tuning forks, right? U-shaped metal bar with a handle, you bang it on something, and after waiting a couple seconds for the overtones to dampen out you get a nice clean reference tone that's always at the same one frequency. That frequency is a function of density, stiffness, and dimensions of the prongs. The interesting question in all of that to an engineer (or anyone who has had some other reason to study Fourier analysis) is, "what's with the banging it on something? Why does that excite this one frequency, and how come it works on any tuning fork?" Well, when you bang the fork you're imparting something that approximates what's called a Dirac delta function. A fancy name for an infinitely short duration, infinitely high spike. If you look at the frequency content of this function (the math here is a hoot, but I'll spare everyone) you'll find that it's composed equally of all frequencies. All of them... i.e. there's something for every fork. You just hit the fork with all frequencies and it filtered out the one it liked best. If you pack a book full of enough complete bullshit and hit someone over the head with it, they're going to resonate with the parts of it they like best. But what they come away with says a hell of a lot more about them than the book you happened to have handy.

Technically speaking his words are in #212126 and #FAFAFD

We're in agreement over what the author was trying to say. What i'm trying to say is that the phrase, "enough to charge you" is all but meaningless.

The sentence you quoted is a non-sequitur. Intent, in this case, is difficult to prove. Independently, it's possible to charge people with just about anything for any action they make. The former doesn't allow the latter, it suggests the latter is unlikely.

As we've discussed in these threads before, this is a "running towards the gunfire [that isn't there.]" mentality brought about by active shooter training. The problem is that this was clearly not an active shooter situation. If they're worried that the guy has a gun, what the hell are they doing closing to within ten feet out in the open when you can't see the guy's hands?

Yes. Starting an argument with a police officer who pulled you over is like yelling at an ATM because you think it has your checking account balance wrong. You may be right, but what do you honestly expect to happen?

If my (as yet hypothetical) son stole my firearms and shot up a school, I would have committed a crime. So, no, I would very likely not be able to get liability insurance against that.

The moral is to label your shit. Somewhat recently I saw installation torque specified (by a European aerospace company that shall remain nameless) without any units. Somewhat suspicious of the value, I dug through some additional documentation to find they were using daN-cm. [x] metric system [ ] labeled [x] total bullshit That said, I like the idea of a candidate running with "go metric" on his or her platform if for no other reason than the fun it will be to constantly hear from people who have no reason to give a crap why it's a great idea and why it's a terrible idea for a year and a half straight.

Your first sentence may very well be true, that's what I'm hoping to determine. The second and third are nonsense. There are plenty of things you absolutely can't buy insurance for and that you will never be able to buy insurance for. e.g. no one will ever insure armed robbery or assault with a deadly weapon. The proposed law is to mandate that a person must show proof of "adequate" liability insurance before they are allowed to own a firearm. My challenge is to come up with situations that would be covered by "adequate firearms liability insurance" that you can say with a straight face, "yes, an insurance company in their right mind would ever offer a policy that didn't exclude that."

Unfortunately, the signal-to-noise of firearm statistics on the internet is extremely poor, and the data cited in the articles I have found are quite old, but it would seem the prevalence of non-LEO people making justified defensive shoots and inadvertently hitting bystanders is extremely low. (In one six-year data set for Miami-Dade that was mentioned there were zero occurances.) I'd still be interested to hear of more hypothetical situations where people feel liability insurance would actually cover the incident.

Alright, I'll bite. For starters, do you know if he's a member and/or if he has contacted them asking for their assistance? /edited for spelling

And, as we've discussed before most people in the US live in jurisdictions with storage laws that would likely preclude coverage if a child gets a gun without permission and something bad happens.

I agree. The prosecution just didn't prove it. Yeah, this tends to be an irritation when examining cases like this. I think it's the right call for precedent with an unfortunate immediate consequence because the first person it helps was in the wrong. The words of a threat really can't and shouldn't speak for themselves (particularly when it comes to internet posts) at the very least on account of Poe's law. None of this is to say it's a bad idea to get a warrant and look into a person who writes such things though.

Look, the point is that donuts... ...are like euthanasia. There's no reason you can't enjoy them with a nice cup of coffee or an opt-in death penalty. And if you don't want to die, fine, don't eat the donuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4CQin03MDQ (borderline/NSFW)

Are donuts bad things? Geez speakers corner, what has happened to you?

As I said in post #3, there is insurance available but it's there to provide legal defense for the gun owner if you didn't do anything wrong. For example if the person who breaks into your house sues you for shooting them or you have a DA trying to make a name for the self by being tough on guns. Requiring insurance doesn't make sense if you've already made everything you say you want the required insurance to cover illegal.

To be clear, I don't think this will pass let alone survive a trip to SCOTUS, so I'm not particularly worried about it. As you point out though, the type of insurance this appears to be trying to mandate doesn't really exist. You can purchase insurance as a firearm owner to cover legal defense costs if you use your gun defensively, but that's quite a bit different, and certainly not what people have in mind with firearm insurance mandates. For those who may have thrown firearms insurance mandates out there in passing in some of the gun arguments around here, am I missing something? What would the policy look like?