• 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!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

HowardDeanSux said:
During my surgery residency, I would estimate >95% of shootings were due to black on black crime. Most shootings were related to drugs. Sorry this doesn't fit your narrative but continue...
Click to expand...

Not sure where you did your residency, but this is likely true in most big cities. It highlights a few things about gun violence and gun control that I think are compelling:

1. Stopping gun violence is not about stopping high profile gun massacres. They are awful but represent a tiny fraction of deaths by gun.
2. The people who are most militant about the need to possess a gun "for protection" generally live in safe, often rural neighborhoods. The risk of being the victim of violent crime is greatly reduced simply by not engaging in the drug trade or living in drug-infested neighborhoods.
3. The people who most overwhelmingly support gun control are the people who actually have to deal with the results of gun violence on a day to day basis in their neighborhoods and in their families. If the narrative that "more guns make you safer" has any reality, why is it that the people who live closest to crime are the most in favor of gun control?
4. It is likely that all, or almost all, of the gunshot wounds you treated in your residency were caused by guns that were originally purchased perfectly legally. Guns end up in the hands of a criminal or maniac through gift, theft, or unregistered sale. Unlike drugs or booze, guns and ammo are not items that can be grown out of the ground or easily manufactured in a basement. Limiting gun violence by criminals and maniacs means restricting the sale of guns, period.
 
PhDeac said:
Especially since there's no will to increase public spending on mental health and it's still stigmatized.
Click to expand...

100% correct. This (for me) comes exclusively from listening to my parents (57 and 63) talk about mental health. They don't think it's a "real" thing or a "serious" issue. More people make it up to get out of things or to make excuses. I feel bad for downing them, but it's how they were raised. Their parents (the 80-100 year old range) didn't have a clue about mental health issues and I'm sure probably though it was bullshit/witchcraft/lack of going to church. Until this generation fades away, I doubt we'll see serious change in the stigma.
 
Last edited:
Deacon923 said:
Not sure where you did your residency, but this is likely true in most big cities. It highlights a few things about gun violence and gun control that I think are compelling:

1. Stopping gun violence is not about stopping high profile gun massacres. They are awful but represent a tiny fraction of deaths by gun.
2. The people who are most militant about the need to possess a gun "for protection" generally live in safe, often rural neighborhoods. The risk of being the victim of violent crime is greatly reduced simply by not engaging in the drug trade or living in drug-infested neighborhoods.
3. The people who most overwhelmingly support gun control are the people who actually have to deal with the results of gun violence on a day to day basis in their neighborhoods and in their families. If the narrative that "more guns make you safer" has any reality, why is it that the people who live closest to crime are the most in favor of gun control?
4. It is likely that all, or almost all, of the gunshot wounds you treated in your residency were caused by guns that were originally purchased perfectly legally. Guns end up in the hands of a criminal or maniac through gift, theft, or unregistered sale. Unlike drugs or booze, guns and ammo are not items that can be grown out of the ground or easily manufactured in a basement. Limiting gun violence by criminals and maniacs means restricting the sale of guns, period.
Click to expand...

Nope, increasing the sale of guns to good guys to thwart the criminals and maniacs is the solution, period.
 
elkman has been uncharacteristically silent. we need him to come in and quote some case from the New Hampshire Supreme Court or something to show why we're all wrong.
 
all of those are great suggestions except this insistence on liability insurance, which would only create a tiny barrier to purchasing/owning/brandishing firearms. you can buy a renter's insurance policy for $10-$15/month.

unless we're going to build a complex registration system to enforce that requirement, it's pointless. some states have a system like this for auto insurance and it's haphazard at best. Maine had one for car insurance and they actually did away with it b/c it didnt' work. And this is for cars, something for which we have multiple forms of vehicle and personal ownership registration levels.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
all of those are great suggestions except this insistence on liability insurance, which would only create a tiny barrier to purchasing/owning/brandishing firearms. you can buy a renter's insurance policy for $10-$15/month.

unless we're going to build a complex registration system to enforce that requirement, it's pointless. some states have a system like this for auto insurance and it's haphazard at best. Maine had one for car insurance and they actually did away with it b/c it didnt' work. And this is for cars, something for which we have multiple forms of vehicle and personal ownership registration levels.
Click to expand...

No, not if it was set up the way it should be set up. The big difference is that car and homeowners/renters policies exclude coverage for intentional acts, because the purpose of a car is not to crash it, and the purpose of a house is not to burn it down. The purpose of a gun is to shoot someone/something. So set the standard form policy up so that is has to cover intentional shootings. That would make the insurance company a big-time background checker on who gets a gun or not. And no, that wouldn't mean that people would go around shooting others because they have insurance, because the criminal punishment would still remain (people aren't not shooting each other because of potential civil liability).

The percentage of legal guns used in intentional crimes is still very, very low, so insurance companies could still make money on reasonable rates to keep the program, but it would provide decent recoupment for victims and, more importantly, prevent some wackos from getting guns. Auto rates are relatively reasonable for most people, and I would think that the percentage of cars that accidentally kill people each year is still greater than the percentage of legal gun that are used to intentionally kill people. The death damages from a gunshot victim are going to be pretty similar to the death damages of an auto fatality, so it isn't like fatality awards would destroy the system. So the system would work if set up properly.

As to enforce the requirement, that would be pretty easy. No purchase of guns, or just as importantly ammo, without showing a valid insurance policy.
 
Last edited:
Why would any company sell insurance for intentional acts? That's not insurance. That's called an amusement park.


also, lol at pushing the burden on the insurance industry to come up the background checking mechanism. And you guys think medical E&O insurance and lack of tort-reform is an industry-breaker. ha
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Why would any company sell insurance for intentional acts? That's not insurance. That's called an amusement park. Again, the criminal deterrent is much bigger than the civil deterrent. Who thinks of the civil liabilities as their top concern when shooting someone? And why wouldn't a company sell insurance for intentional acts if they could make money doing it? Whether you call it intentional or accidental, they're still making money.


also, lol at pushing the burden on the insurance industry to come up the background checking mechanism. And you guys think medical E&O insurance and lack of tort-reform is an industry-breaker. ha Because the background checking mechanism is directly in the insurance companies' best interests to get it right. And they would have unlimited cash flows at the beginning to implement it, as you know that gun lovers are going to pay whatever rates are thrown out there. And if they don't and it becomes an industry breaker, then less guns, which is part of the point.
Click to expand...

Comment above
 
are you one of those people who just think the insurance industry fucks everyone and makes infinite money?
 
Not at all. I worked for an insurance company between college and law school and saw how they made (and did not make) their money. It's simple math. Set the premiums high enough to cover the projected cost outlays, overhead, and profit. And in this case, you have a non-essential but extremely passionate market that will basically pay whatever premiums you reasonably set, the vast, vast majority of whom will never have anything remotely approaching a claim. It is a fucking goldmine if done right.
 
yes, but you must also realize that rates are heavily regulated by the government, by state. So we'll need a Federal Level registration or 50 state registrations to be linked with the private sector, a total non-starter for the NRA/political climate. On top of that the overhead not to mention surplus requirements for the inevitable crazy lawsuits once it's clear companies will have to pay for intentional acts will make owning a gun impossibly expensive. no way any of it gets past the NRA's lobbying machine now that owning a gun will only be for the superwealthy, effectively ending the 2nd Amendment. it's a fantasy.
 
Last edited:
2&2, what happens to uninsured guns? Does Obama get to take them?
 
Again, it shouldn't be any more expensive than owning a car. Not to sound trite, but the value of a dead person is a value of a dead person, regardless of how they died. Car insurers handle it all the time. It isn't like someone is going to be worth $50 million because they were shot versus $1.2 million because they were killed in an auto accident; that isn't the way it works. And, on a pro rata basis, gun-related violence (even including the intentional) occurs much less frequently than car accidents, yet insurers deal with car accident lawsuits on a daily basis just fine.
 
PhDeac said:
2&2, what happens to uninsured guns? Does Obama get to take them?
Click to expand...

Yes. National registry with proof of insurance needed to get on it, same registry card is needed to buy ammo. If you're caught with a gun without being on the registry, then it is a federal firearm offense in addition to forfeiture of the gun.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Again, it shouldn't be any more expensive than owning a car. Not to sound trite, but the value of a dead person is a value of a dead person, regardless of how they died. Car insurers handle it all the time. It isn't like someone is going to be worth $50 million because they were shot versus $1.2 million because they were killed in an auto accident; that isn't the way it works. And, on a pro rata basis, gun-related violence (even including the intentional) occurs much less frequently than car accidents, yet insurers deal with car accident lawsuits on a daily basis just fine.
Click to expand...

um, that's not how lawsuits work. at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top