What about suicides and accidents? What about guns that were inadequately secured, and subsequently stolen and used for crimes?
And guess what? If the vast majority of gun criminals are judgment proof, then there should be no problem requiring gun owners who are not judgment proof to have insurance. If those people’s guns aren’t involved in crimes or accidents, then insuring their guns against being used in crimes and accidents will cost almost nothing.
@“Cardinal Fang” - insurance companies are not allowed to ask about guns. However dangerous they may be in the home, they are protected by the gun lobby.
They CAN increase your fee if you have a trampoline, or many other dangerous things.
These laws can be changed.
^ what is it going to take to get ANY law in this arena changed?!?!?!?
Something just occurred to me: many of these people are going to have thousands and thousands and thousands in medical bills. Victims at least twice over.
Does anyone know of reputable funds being set up?
so insurance companies can’t ask about guns in the house but pediatricians can?
^romani, I heard something about GoFundMe pages, but I haven’t looked into it.
42 guns. 42.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/36/10/1729.abstract A study of health-care costs of firearm-related injuries.
Yes, there is one by a LV politician (just heard the press briefing by the sheriff).
From a story:
We can change the Constitution. Prohibition was the 18th amendment. Repeal of Prohibition is the 21st Amendment.
I think the NRA should fund the medical bills. If you agree, here’s their phone number so you can call them tomorrow:
(800) 672-3888
It appears that they are delaying the silencer vote. They are delayed it once after the congressional shooting.
Mr R is usually an extremely stoic individual but he finally choked up tonight when a man on the news was talking about how he grabbed his “little boy’s” (19 year old) hand and yanked him to safety.
A child (age 23) from my daughter’s office was in Vegas with her family. They haven’t heard from her. One of my daughters was going to go with her boyfriend. Cancelled last minute due to her work. I am at a loss.
Not for lack of trying to gag doctors too.
I think the bottom line is that we, as a country, have decided that gun-related deaths are an acceptable cost of gun ownership. I don’t see that changing for decades.
There’s a (sadly) predictable script for these types of events.
[pro gun advocates] “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this unspeakable tragedy”
[NRA] Silence initially, so as not to have the NRA name associated with mass shootings
[gun control advocates] Outrage. “What is it going to take for gun control?”
[pro gun advocates] “Now is not the time. How dare you politicize this event. Have some respect.”
Later on
[gun control advocates] Try to pass laws
[pro gun advocates] “There’s already enough unenforced laws on the books, we just need more enforcement”
[NRA] “Ditto and 2nd amendment and we need more good guys with guns”
Later on
[pro gun advocates] Try to pass more gun freedom laws
Most anyone who isn’t judgment proof is going to have liability insurance associated with their renter’s/homeowner’s policy. So if the minor grandchild shot the neighbor kid, they likely could be sued for negligent entrustment or negligent supervision. If the nephew was a minor and accidentally killed himself, you could be sued for the same reason. If the nephew intentionally committed suicide, then I would expect that to fall under an exclusion, in the policy, and rightfully so. The nephew’s estate shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from the nephew’s intentional act.
This isn’t true. Civilians can legally own fully automatic weapons. They’re just extremely expensive and require a special permit.
This seems like an interesting factoid, but irrelevant to the situation. You can only fire one gun at a time, so the other 16 are effectively useless. He could have been almost as lethal owning just 1 gun.
Yup, unfortunately one single automatic weapon would do but he actually had even more by final count than I mentioned based on early reports. As do many of these mass shooting killers. Part of the MO it seems, right?
No civilian needs dozens of weapons nor even a single automatic weapon.
After watching coverage yesterday and reading news stories, I’m even angrier today. How can anyone defend the right of this man to own all of this weapons which were designed to kill large numbers of people? I’ve also noticed the headlines have been quite kind to the shooter. If the shooter had been a POC, I would see different headlines and definitely hear different rhetoric.