|
Solkanar512 posted:You don't get the idea that a bunch of gun owners who cannot keep their poo poo locked up properly should have to have the means to pay damages to victims of their own gently caress ups? The idea that "the reason gun violence is bad isn't financial" is a loving joke, are you telling me that funerals are free, and lifetime care and lost wages account for nothing? It doesn't have to be the number one top worst thing that is bad about a situation, and frankly it's the worst thing that can easily be compensated for. People can't be replaced when someone is too stupid to lock up their precious toys. Not arguing against a requirement to secure firearms, but are you financially liable if someone stole your car and killed somebody with it? Otherwise the analogy to auto insurance doesn't work.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:08
|
|
kills, you know.
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Cascadia is the weirdest thing to me. Hmm, we make all our money selling poo poo to the rest of America via being part of the American system. Let's leave that, it will all be totally fine. Like, what is the appeal there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You don't get the idea that a bunch of gun owners who cannot keep their poo poo locked up properly should have to have the means to pay damages to victims of their own gently caress ups? quote:The idea that "the reason gun violence is bad isn't financial" is a loving joke, are you telling me that funerals are free, and lifetime care and lost wages account for nothing? quote:Last time I checked, I can be responsible for arbitrarily high damages in a car trivially, and my insurance will pay out for the victims. Ever heard of reckless driving? DUI? twodot fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Cascadia is the weirdest thing to me. Hmm, we make all our money selling poo poo to the rest of America via being part of the American system. Let's leave that, it will all be totally fine. Like, what is the appeal there. You could still trade with America, just like America trades with Canada and Mexico. (I agree though the idea of the PNW seceding is crazyballs)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
What are they going to do, move Microsoft to Alabama?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
If it would let us stop honoring California driver's licenses here I could get behind it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Cascadia is the weirdest thing to me. Hmm, we make all our money selling poo poo to the rest of America via being part of the American system. Let's leave that, it will all be totally fine. Like, what is the appeal there. I don't think people take Cascadia seriously, it's just a fun idea to float. The appeal is just in, like, cultural solidarity or something. "Hey B.C. and Oregon, we like you guys, we should really be our own country" "hey yeah haha sounds cool, we'd be the best country." There aren't any practical advantages to it, but nobody's actually going to take steps towards succession.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Not arguing against a requirement to secure firearms, but are you financially liable if someone stole your car and killed somebody with it? Otherwise the analogy to auto insurance doesn't work. I'm pretty sure if my hypothetical kid steals my car and maims or kills someone with it I'm on the hook for damages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:I don't think people take Cascadia seriously, it's just a fun idea to float. The appeal is just in, like, cultural solidarity or something. "Hey B.C. and Oregon, we like you guys, we should really be our own country" "hey yeah haha sounds cool, we'd be the best country." There aren't any practical advantages to it, but nobody's actually going to take steps towards succession. What if everyone just keeps taking the joke more and more seriously. Right up until we're on the front lines defending southern Oregon from a literal California invasion. Someone in the trenches will jump up and ask, "Wait! Wasn't this all a joke??" "Shut up and grab your gun, private!", a seargent barks back at them. "The Paul Allen 1st fighter squadron is about to launch the offensive!" (if you haven't visited Allen's flying heritage museum it's worth a look on some rainy weekend. dude has a freaking Mig-29 that can do mach 2!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1KEZz0kck
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:I don't think people take Cascadia seriously, it's just a fun idea to float. The appeal is just in, like, cultural solidarity or something. "Hey B.C. and Oregon, we like you guys, we should really be our own country" "hey yeah haha sounds cool, we'd be the best country." There aren't any practical advantages to it, but nobody's actually going to take steps towards succession. Yeah if anything it is really much more about regional identity than you know...an actual separatist movement, I could see some people getting carried away with it but it is never much farther than some Doug Flags. At least in Portland now also see a lot more Portland flags than Oregon state flags as well. Timber's games are usually a sea of Portland/Doug flags.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Cascadia is the weirdest thing to me. Hmm, we make all our money selling poo poo to the rest of America via being part of the American system. Let's leave that, it will all be totally fine. Like, what is the appeal there. It's mainly liberal/progressive frustration out of the many ways our federal system stymies things like that. I can dig it. However, being a transplant from the South, it's also carried a bit of unintentional racism as these mainly white areas would free themselves from those terrible Southern states with large black populations. But such is the subtle racism of the Northwest. Still like it here better than I did in the South.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Not arguing against a requirement to secure firearms, but are you financially liable if someone stole your car and killed somebody with it? Otherwise the analogy to auto insurance doesn't work. You're financially liable if they can prove that your negligence contributed to the death. Generally you don't with cars since they're typically locked up and not considered particularly dangerous. But imagine if some idiot left the keys in the ignition of an unlocked bulldozer and someone decided to take it on a joyride through three houses - I'd say that the construction company's negligent actions had a role to play there. To my mind, if a gun owner isn't maintaining basic accountability for their weapons, particularly in houses with minors, then they're being negligent and the law should reflect their contribution to the consequences. foobardog posted:It's mainly liberal/progressive frustration out of the many ways our federal system stymies things like that. I can dig it. However, being a transplant from the South, it's also carried a bit of unintentional racism as these mainly white areas would free themselves from those terrible Southern states with large black populations. Generally when we talk about freeing ourselves from the terrible Southern states, we're talking about freeing ourselves from the Southern populations that live in those states, and by that we invariably mean the Southern whites but we're just too polite to say it. I'd be all for Cascadia, that's for sure. Europe seems to trade goods back and forth just fine without everyone being under a single flag. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ideally, everyone would always have the means to pay damages to victims of their own gently caress ups, absolutely. What isn't obvious to me is why guns is a special category here. People gently caress up in lots of ways using a wide variety of things, and we don't generally do anything to make sure they can pay for it. Like I said earlier, cars are a special category, because being able to quickly replace your car is important to most people. But no amount of money will quickly fix any problem created by gun violence (it could fix lost wages, but if lost wages are a major concern life insurance is a better fix to this problem). It's obvious to me because of how easy it is to cause an incredible amount of damage quickly. I can kill or maim half a dozen people in a few seconds through terrible driving or just shooting them. It's much cheaper to do it with a gun! I don't understand where you get this idea that "we don't generally do anything to make sure" that people pay for their mistakes - business insurance, various types of liability insurance and so on are incredibly common requirements all over. quote:I don't think the affordability of funerals is a major societal concern, and if it is, it should be subsidized directly. As noted above, lost wages is what life insurance is for. I shouldn't have to take out life insurance just because gun nuts can't keep their toys locked up. Thus, they should have to take out that insurance. It's not fair to a victim or their family that they're now on the hook for lifetime care or lost wages, and it's not fair to the rest of us potential victims that we should have to incur increased costs to subsidize the risk we face when folks who can't keep their poo poo locked up. quote:I don't actually have car insurance, in Washington state, the legally required liability will only pay up to $50k and that's only if multiple people were injured. What I said was probably stated too strongly, there is certainly better insurance plans than the legal minimum, though I still think car insurance typically only covers accidents, which you haven't seem to dispute. Car accidents are also different than gun violence in that when cars damage things, they are often damaged in the process, which puts a ceiling on damage that guns don't have. No ceiling? All the more reason to ensure there's a way to make sure that damages are paid for. I shouldn't have to subsidize your hobby. You certainly aren't chipping in for fountain pen ink. I can't address the accident issue with absolute specifics, because my better half with the insurance license isn't responding to texts at the moment - but that being said, car insurance covers plenty of situations where you were at fault. Otherwise, what would be the point and how would others be protected?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It's obvious to me because of how easy it is to cause an incredible amount of damage quickly. quote:I don't understand where you get this idea that "we don't generally do anything to make sure" that people pay for their mistakes - business insurance, various types of liability insurance and so on are incredibly common requirements all over. quote:I shouldn't have to take out life insurance just because gun nuts can't keep their toys locked up. Thus, they should have to take out that insurance. It's not fair to a victim or their family that they're now on the hook for lifetime care or lost wages, and it's not fair to the rest of us potential victims that we should have to incur increased costs to subsidize the risk we face when folks who can't keep their poo poo locked up. quote:but that being said, car insurance covers plenty of situations where you were at fault. Otherwise, what would be the point and how would others be protected? twodot fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
It's a piss poor comparison between cars and guns in every way just stop
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
I'm just waiting for the 5-4 supreme court decision that there's nothing in the constitution that gives you the right not to be shot by a petulant teenager.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:What are they going to do, move Microsoft to Alabama? The vast majority of tech jobs in the US are not in the pacific northwest. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Cascadia held the most appeal to me when that shithead George W. Bush was whining about how unfair it was that the PNW got so much cheap public hydropower when everyone else had to pay "market" rates to for-profit utilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:What are they going to do, move Microsoft to Alabama? They'll move Boeing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Then we'll just have to make tractors. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Portland has an ugly flag and should adopt the Doug flag as its own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:It's a piss poor comparison between cars and guns in every way just stop It's twodot, he can't. Also the Cascadia thing is cool but I think we should just keep passing laws that contradict federal law rather than secede because as mentioned above, guess who our philosopher kings will be
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's twodot, he can't. no, solknar brought it up, but who cares because its all bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm pretty sure if my hypothetical kid steals my car and maims or kills someone with it I'm on the hook for damages. You're responsible in this instance because it's your kid, not because it's your car. So in your world if your kid steals someone else's car and kills someone do you really think the family of the deceased is going to sue the person that your kid stole the car from and not you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:It's a piss poor comparison between cars and guns in every way just stop Quit being so loving lazy. If you think it's so terrible, then at least say why. The whole loving point is that when you have something optional and dangerous you have to be responsible for it through some mix of required training, certification, registration and having money/bonds/insurance set up to pay for damages that occur to others because you were a loving idiot. Do you disagree with this? Krailor posted:You're responsible in this instance because it's your kid, not because it's your car. If you left your death machine unlocked and easily accessible to people who aren't supposed to be using it, then yes you're going to be a party to the lawsuit - this was already addressed! twodot posted:This doesn't seem honest, guns are not special in this regard. As an example, anything that starts or accelerates fires can easily cause an incredible amount of damage quickly, but there's no fire-making insurance being proposed. (edit: Practically speaking fires cause substantially less damage than guns, but that just means fire-making insurance would be affordable) Folks who deal with or transport highly flammable materials are subject to all sorts of regulations, certifications, insurance requirements and transportation restrictions. quote:What's the list of things people can buy, but they must have insurance to use? I've got: cars. Businesses need various sorts of insurance, sure, and if we're proposing gun insurance for businesses that own guns, I'd be more ok with that (but I'd still want to see what sort of limits you'd propose). I don't have to make a loving list, we're just talking about guns. I don't have to account for every single instance of everything that might cause damages to someone else, there's a huge body of law covering this already. Guns are only special because some people believe they shouldn't have to take personal responsibility when they gently caress up and allow others to die through their own negligence. quote:But why are guns special? There's lots of ways to die, hoping that if you die, it's by gunshot from a gun that was legally owned so your family can go after the gun insurance company is a stupid gamble. If you're dependent on someone's wages, the correct solution to that is to purchase disability/life insurance. Again, I don't have to account for a perfect solution to every last thing guns do to innocent people. There are plenty of accidental shootings that happen when kids find and play with guns, or steal their parents guns and shoot up a school, and it's not loving fair to the rest of us that we have to deal with your poo poo. quote:Being at fault is pretty clearly different from deliberately hitting someone. When you are at fault in an accident, it is still an accident. edit: Also, regardless of what insurance companies offer, at least in Washington, the minimum requirement only covers accidents. http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.29.090 Again you pedant, I specifically mentioned things like reckless driving, DUIs and so on. I'm talking about negligence here, not premeditation. Like I've made clear several times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
I would argue that negligence and accidents w/r/t guns is far from the biggest issue--it's murder and assault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
How locked do you expect a thing to be? A car is a broken window and some crossed wires to steal, is anyone who doesn't own a garage negligent if someone steals their locked car and mows down a preschool? How about if someone kicks down your locked door and steals a cased, unloaded gun from your closet? Is "not having a thousand extra dollars for a safe" negligent?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:I would argue that negligence and accidents w/r/t guns is far from the biggest issue--it's murder and assault. That's perfectly fine and a much easier argument to make. It's just that no one openly plans on murdering or assaulting anyone and negligence is still rampant, so just make them all carry insurance. Javid posted:How locked do you expect a thing to be? A car is a broken window and some crossed wires to steal, is anyone who doesn't own a garage negligent if someone steals their locked car and mows down a preschool? How about if someone kicks down your locked door and steals a cased, unloaded gun from your closet? Is "not having a thousand extra dollars for a safe" negligent? I think outside of specific requirements (gun locks or safes, I think this is a state by state issue), a reasonable person standard should suffice. It isn't about specific measures (though if a state feels like instituting some, then go ahead), it's about ensuring that the owner was acting in a responsible manner and behavior contrary to that is properly accounted for when it risks or harms others. Your examples are purposefully extreme when this sort of thing is quite common in the law already. Locking a vehicle and ensuring the keys aren't left in the ignition is perfectly reasonable. Having your gun locked away and unloaded is fine. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to understand, but I guess when guns are the topic then reasonable ideas just get thrown out the window. Hasn't anyone ever heard of an attractive nuisance? Seriously, it's not that loving hard. If you have a gun, there's a risk it could be used to harm others. If it does and you were negligent or malicious, you're on the hook for damages. Since those damages can be huge, you should have to carry insurance to ensure that those damages can be paid. It's really not that loving difficult folks. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:That's perfectly fine and a much easier argument to make. It's just that no one openly plans on murdering or assaulting anyone and negligence is still rampant, so just make them all carry insurance. If genuine negligence can be proved it's already actionable, and anyone found at fault should be covered under the liability portion of their homeowner's or renters insurance. So what are you actually proposing here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Javid posted:How locked do you expect a thing to be? Due diligence. There is a huge difference between someone stealing a gun out of a nightstand and stealing it out of even the cheapest locking safe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Folks who deal with or transport highly flammable materials are subject to all sorts of regulations, certifications, insurance requirements and transportation restrictions. Solkanar512 posted:It's obvious to me because of how easy it is to cause an incredible amount of damage quickly." quote:I don't have to make a loving list, we're just talking about guns. quote:There are plenty of accidental shootings that happen when kids find and play with guns, or steal their parents guns and shoot up a school, and it's not loving fair to the rest of us that we have to deal with your poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
LGD posted:If genuine negligence can be proved it's already actionable, and anyone found at fault should be covered under the liability portion of their homeowner's or renters insurance. So what are you actually proposing here? I didn't know that homeowner's or renters would cover such damages. The fact that so many gun owners are against the idea that they should be held responsible for their own negligence lead me to believe they were off the hook. So long as the bar for "genuine negligence" isn't too ridiculous, and there's a requirement to carry some form of insurance that will cover these damages, that's really all I'm after.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I didn't know that homeowner's or renters would cover such damages. The fact that so many gun owners are against the idea that they should be held responsible for their own negligence lead me to believe they were off the hook. So long as the bar for "genuine negligence" isn't too ridiculous, and there's a requirement to carry some form of insurance that will cover these damages, that's really all I'm after. Well there really isn't a requirement to carry homeowners or renters insurance, but most people do because it's both a really good idea and because anyone giving you a mortgage is going to require it. Laws around it could probably be tightened up in terms of requiring coverage/ensuring it's adequate, but accidental shootings represent such a tiny, tiny proportion of unintentional injuries/deaths* that it's really hard for me to take it seriously as its own public health issue. *So small that they get lumped into an "Other" category along with drownings, suffocation, and the more unusual/interesting ways of injuring yourself that represents 4% of emergency room visits. We can't say for certain what proportion of those incidents are caused by accidental firearm discharge, but based on fatalities it likely isn't going to be a very high proportion of that total- accidental drownings cause 8 times as many fatalities, and "Other and unspecified nontransport accidents and their sequelae" about 30 times as many. LGD fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Portland has an ugly flag and should adopt the Doug flag as its own. Doug does own 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
There's no law against leaving your keys in the ignition. Know why? ~*because hand-wringing liberal simps aren't trying to ban cars through a piecemeal series of insincere strategems*~ 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Yes we are. We want to replace all roads with bike lanes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:I nominate Kyle MacLachlan as king of Cascadia. Kshama Sawant as Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Cascadia Ardennes posted:Yeah if anything it is really much more about regional identity than you know...an actual separatist movement, I could see some people getting carried away with it but it is never much farther than some Doug Flags. At least in Portland now also see a lot more Portland flags than Oregon state flags as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
SeekOtherCandidate posted:
One side of the Oregon flag owns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
I support the formation of Cascadia because the flag is so much better than the WA state flag, that poo poo is boring as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
ATP_Power posted:I support the formation of Cascadia because the flag is so much better than the WA state flag, that poo poo is boring as all hell. They should literally change the flag. Washington:  Cascadia:   (  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:33
|
|