The problem with your uninsured owners, maniac, is that unlike uninsured driver coverage (which covers the insured driver should he be hit by an.uninsured one) you are telling gun owners they have to pay a premium in case someone without a gun is shot by someone without any gun insurance. That would never float. What the companies should offer instead is uninsured gun protection to everyone even if they don't own a gun and then those who carry that coverage would get a pay out if they were unlawfully harmed by a firearm. There family getting it if they were killed of course. It could be a life insurance rider.

Their not there...

Maniac, again, not a terrible idea, but the last 2 of these events were done with stolen guns The OR guy stole his, and the CT man took his from his mother.

I keep almost all mine locked up in a gun rack. I have a hand gun (I have a carry permit) that is usually with me, or if sleeping, near my bed. I do put trigger guards on mine, except for my one shot gun, that if need be, I can use for home defense, but I highly doubt that day will come.

There is a tremendous responsibility that comes with gun ownership, and the younger a child is exposed to this, the better it is for everyone involved.

Example, during Dove or quail season (dove is after the corn is harvested), it is VERY common to see young children (12-16) walking down back country roads, with shot guns and strings of birds on their belt. Nobody here even for a MINUTE thinks there is something wrong with this. This is our culture, it is how we have always done it. For some people here, they seem to be overly insensitive to that, but overly sensitive to others.

I remember duck hunting when I was 8, pheasant hunting behind our Golden Retrievers, sitting in a deer stand with my old man freezing my nuts off, but the minute a good deer is seen, I forget I have hypothermia...lol

These are some of my best memories, because they all involve my father and brother and friends.

Even now, I rare take a deer, and usually a smaller buck if I do, as they simply just taste lots better than the older ones.

This is OUR culture, but it appears people lke ghug, think my culture is worthless.

So you are now saying that it's a culture thing rather than a mental illness thing?

Woops, that wasn't you, my bad ^

And, Nigee, I will leave the choice to use a gun up to my children if I am to have any. It's written pretty clearly that it's a right, and while I don't support it being used in the way some people do - thus my worries of semi-automatics - I understand that handguns are of a much smaller danger. We are never *ever* going to stop all homicide or murder but we can stop mass murder. Simple as that.

bO SOX, I am nto sure what it is, but if there are so many guns here, and we never do such things, and have no crime hardly (violent) then it cant be a 'gun thing'

We can stop mass muder? Oklahoma city, biggest mass murder in our history beside 9/11

and he didnt use a single bullet.

bo sox, this man in CT used only hand guns His Ar was in his car, even though peopel keep saying he used an AR, the police say it was 2 hand guns a 9mm and i forget the other, but it was a handgun. he had a .223 in his car.

Mass murder... Yout hink eliminating semi-auto rifles will stop mass murder? The asswipe in CT used two hand guns and killed 26 people. He could have done that with a revolver. If someone is determined to kill, he will kill. If he is determined to.kill lots of people, he will kill lpts of people. Be it with a fertilizer bomb or setting fire to a building or taking a hand gun into a school or flying a jetliner into a skyscraper.

bo sox i stand corrected. They have apparently added an AR 15 as the weapon of destructino, when I 100% remember the initial police report said a 9mm and anotherhand gun.

Im curious how the police fucked up that initial report so badly, and missed a fucking Ar 15 on their initial report.

Ar 15 is similar to an M 16 without the automatic option on it.

btw, AR means 'Assualt Rifle' usually, and I read it was a .223 in the car.

Drau, you also saw that it was 2 hand guns, right

Yep. The AR was repprtedly in his trunk. He had two hand guns, one standard issue police and one standard issue federal law enforcement. Somebody fucled up that reporting big time.

oK, now this is becoming more clear. I always assumed Ar 15 fired 5.56 rounds, like the M16 does. It does not. It fires the .223, so now I am VERY confused, since I am 100% sure the AR was somethign else they didnt name, but named the caliber as .223

Now, I find out that is exactly the round the Ar 15 fires.

I distinctly remember them reporting the AR .223 in the CAR. it was from the police spokesman on one of the networks, and now it was the weapon that did al the killing?

Something dont sound right here.

How can the story change THAT much. from the trunk, to the school, to the weapon of choice.

Ok drau, I found it. This is the initial report
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559261/connecticut-elementary-school-massacre-18-children-among-27-dead/

"At least three guns were found — a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car, authorities said"

Something stinks a lot here. the .223 is the AR 15, which initially was found in the car, but now is the weapon that did it all?

Then again initial reports had some second shooter having left the school and cops.looking for him... Honestly, the media needs to STFU on details until everything is known. They fuck up more shit.

that was from the police Drau, that is what THEY said. Media didnt report the initial gun locations/use, the police did. Now, the media has changed it to the AR being the weapon in the school.

I told myself when it happened, "they will make this about politics, and not give a rats ass about the poor kids" The media is lying thru its damn teeth

Oh and Santa - I know this was farther back in the thread, but I just said shotguns and rifles, not assault rifles. Bolt loaded single shot rifles are rifles but they aren't even semi automatic as you have to manual expel the cartridge and reload the chamber by bolt action.

Insurance sounds like an amazing idea. We need it for everything else, why not things designed specifically to kill?

OK, so there is this apparent view that nearly every household in the US has a gun. If 89 guns per 100 people but nearly 2/3rds of gun owners own more than one that pretty much means less than half the households in America have a gun. Now add in the fact that my estimate was on a 2 guns forbeach of those 2/3rds and adjust it for gun collectors who hqve many many guns (lile my brothers 30 odd rifles and hand guns - he is a cop and a collector) and you start to see that a significant majority of thevUS population is unarmed.

Did the police change their report is it just typical.liberal media bias making a gun im a trunk the killing weapon?

well, the Gun in the trunk is an Assault Rifle, and thatis the ban they are asking for, so it makes me very concerned about this change in the report

thats a godo question Drau. The media wants the AR to be the killing weapon, I am sure of that, but was it.

For the kids, it is not important, but if the media tries to play politics with their death, then it is very important.

@F4,

Grown up? You mean rolled over in submission. You're brainwashed if you think the politicians who outlawed guns have the safety of their constituents at heart when legislating such prohibitions. A disarmed populace is a controlled populace. As Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Yeah, that is true gun ownership does not equal violence, depending on where you live maybe....

But there might ring a bell on gun density around the world...The US is number 1, a status that I will not consider as prize winning

homicide rate by country:
USA 4.2 lacks gun control
Canada. 1.6 has gun control
United Kingdom 1.2 has control
Japan 0.3 really strict gun control
Singapore 0.3 really strict gun control
Hong Kong 0.3 really strict gun control

nough said. I would not support a 2nd ammendment added to countries. But for the USA, there are 88 guns per 100 people, any law banning guns would fail miserably and would only prevent law abiding citizens from gaining guns.

On that note states with more lax gun laws have lower crime. State by state differs from country by country in that regard.

So I am looking at this from a country by country perspective. In the USA gun control would be a bad bad idea, in a country like Canada gun control would be a good idea.

@Fasces

Your argument overlooks much. 1. Law abiding citizens owning guns in itself is a bad thing by virtue of the huge number of fatal and non fatal accidents caused by gun ownership. 2. You seem to imply that any move to ban guns would need to be one flat total ban. Of course this would not be the case, since the number of guns in the US is huge. It would require a phasing out method, which would still be much better than leaving guns alone. 3. You seem to be implying that more lax gun laws lead to less crime, which may be the correlation, but certainly not causation.

in different states*

@ Michigan Man

If you actually think that people owning guns is a good check on governmental power you are deluded. An armed populace could do nothing against a government military. All it will do is cause death to itself via accident and such acts as we have recently observed.