• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

birdman said:
I don’t think that’s an insurance issue, that is liability... allowing manufacturers, merchants and gun owners to be sued if a gun they made or owned was used in a way that caused injury or death to another person. The republicans passed a law a few years back preventing manufacture liability lawsuits. Manufacturer and distributer liability could be a major deterrent to the production and sale of weapons like the AR15 if they were held responsible every time one was used to kill some one, let alone 34 people.
Click to expand...

This type of insurance is about liability.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Your right I made the post in haste, need to think more about it.
Click to expand...

It's a trap. Make a means test, leads to average Joe no longer being able to afford gun. Decade goes by, "oh, only rich people have guns, so second amendment need not apply " Australia.
 
Grabs Turds Bare said:
It's a trap. Make a means test, leads to average Joe no longer being able to afford gun. Decade goes by, "oh, only rich people have guns, so second amendment need not apply " Australia.
Click to expand...

The second amendment applied in Australia?
 
i don't understand the mechanics of holding Smith & Wesson liable for a mass shooting. can someone articulate the legal argument?
 
 
Junebug said:
Congress passes a law saying gun manufacturers are civilly liable for deaths committed with their guns.

Insurance companies then write policies for this liability, the costs of the premiums are passed on to the consumer, guns become marginally more expensive, and nothing else changes except the families of the deceased get a check, minus 40% for attorney’s fees obviously.
Click to expand...

Why would the victim need to hire an attorney if the insurance company is going to just cut a check?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i don't understand the mechanics of holding Smith & Wesson liable for a mass shooting. can someone articulate the legal argument?
Click to expand...

How about this: is selling an assault weapon and 100-round magazine to someone with a documented violent and disturbing past in itself negligent? Does the seller have a duty to do ANY investigation into that person's background before the weapon is sold? Did the seller receive ANY information that did or should have raised a red flag before selling that weapon? Congress isn't ever going to enact a strict liability law against gun manufacturers. Negligence lawsuits don't require Congress to do anything.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Why would the victim need to hire an attorney if the insurance company is going to just cut a check?
Click to expand...

Because the insurance company won’t cut the check
 
avalon said:
Click to expand...

There is something deeply amusing about the GOP and private health-insurance companies trying to frighten senior citizens about losing their socialized, government-provided medicare plan because LibDems want to expand said system to cover all adults. In effect, they're saying that seniors should fight socialized medicare for all so they can keep their socialized medicare just-for-the-elderly plan that already exists (and works rather well, as most seniors know.) As usual, government-provided welfare programs are fine, as long as they are provided to the "right" people and kept from "undeserving" others.
 
Highland Deac said:
There is something deeply amusing about the GOP and private health-insurance companies trying to frighten senior citizens about losing their socialized, government-provided medicare plan because LibDems want to expand said system to cover all adults. In effect, they're saying that seniors should fight socialized medicare for all so they can keep their socialized medicare just-for-the-elderly plan that already exists (and works rather well, as most seniors know.) As usual, government-provided welfare programs are fine, as long as they are provided to the "right" people and kept from "undeserving" others.
Click to expand...

Boomers are the worst.
 
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Click to expand...

Am I reading that wrong or is Nate Silver's second comment incorrect? Seems like Warren is receiving the most donations from people who prefer another candidate and Sanders is probably in a second tier with Buttigieg and Harris? Biden is getting the least support from top 5 non-Biden supporters.
 
HuskyDeac said:
Am I reading that wrong or is Nate Silver's second comment incorrect? Seems like Warren is receiving the most donations from people who prefer another candidate and Sanders is probably in a second tier with Buttigieg and Harris? Biden is getting the least support from top 5 non-Biden supporters.
Click to expand...

You are not reading that wrong.

Nate Silver is probably as responsible for Trump as Sanders supporters, fwiw, which is to say not really all that responsible.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Things only a Bernie bro would say.
Click to expand...

You don't think all of his "sure thing" poll projections - and his inspiring a generation of idiot poll whisperer pretenders - helped to instill Democrats with misplaced confidence about Clinton's ability to win the 2016 election?
 
Strickland33 said:
You are not reading that wrong.

Nate Silver is probably as responsible for Trump as Sanders supporters, fwiw, which is to say not really all that responsible.
Click to expand...

Typical, even after being shown the numbers you refuse to admit there's any significant possibility on Bernie's side.

Your totally absurd and irrelevant attempt at equivalence of Nate Silver is Catamount level of whataboutism.
 
Strickland33 said:
You don't think all of his "sure thing" poll projections - and his inspiring a generation of idiot poll whisperer pretenders - helped to instill Democrats with misplaced confidence about Clinton's ability to win the 2016 election?
Click to expand...

Dude, Silver's aggregate model outputs were the only predictive models that gave Trump a chance. On election day, Silver's output said: if the election were replicated 100 times Trump would win ~30 of the replicates. 7 out of 10 is a pretty good chance for Hillary, but it's not a sure thing. Yeah Dems got comfy and overconfident, but that is the Dems' fault for not understanding statistics, not Silver's. Now, maybe he inspired a generation of idiot poll whisperer pretenders, but I have not data on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top