Active shooter at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas...

[actaeon277]

I already carry extra insurance for my collection with a special rider on my homeowner's insurance, but I'm sure they're talking about liability insurance for non-defense use of arms.

I don't know...there may be some merit in choosing to take on extra liability insurance "just in case", but I'm not onboard with forcing people to do so because it feels good to some people.

Most insurance that I've heard of, will not cover you if you are a murderer.
Doesn't the "concealed carry insurance" just cover lawyer fees? Not payouts to victims and medical costs if convicted?
Auto and home insurance exempt themselves from paying out if it is murder and the policy holder is the murderer.

 

[snorko]

About the only accessory I can think of that changes a gun to an NFA item is the full "wallet" holster with a hole for the trigger AND covers the entire slide.

Non NFA item:

NFA item: (destructive device I think)

VFG on a pistol, becomes an AOW.

 

[SMiller]

KUT (the Zima drinker)
Comments make me wonder if a person has access to millions of dollars would not have a complex plan?

He was a pilot I would think a plane ready to go would be in order?
Its walking distance to the airport!

The other plan would be a fake passport change appearance flight to county where $$ can buy an exclusive life?

These are just some of my thoughts, things just don't add up.

 

[Vigilant]

VFG on a pistol, becomes an AOW.

HK Breifcase turns an ordinary SP89 into an NFA violation/AOW, depending on how you do it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Now I'm seeing people on FB bringing back up the "gun owners should have insurance" argument.

Red herring.

How would this have prevented ANY of the mass murders?

How would you enforce it?

 

[JAL]

Now I'm seeing people on FB bringing back up the "gun owners should have insurance" argument.

This was raised by one of the notoriously anti-gun senators publicly in one of the capitol hallway reporter ambush sound bites I saw within the past few days. Clearly an end-around to make the cost of gun ownership so prohibitive nobody would be able to afford them. A similar strategy was attempted during the post-bellum Reconstruction Era continuing until after WWII, to keep firearms of any kind out of the hands of newly freed slaves and "poor whites". They imposed restrictions on types of guns or had licensing and other costs imposed that made them prohibitive to all but the well-to-do. I seriously doubt this would be enacted nor would it pass legal challenges as it would be seen for what it is.

In order to enforce it you'd have to implement a national gun registry and doing that is inconceivable.

One of the Tucker Carlson segments last night had a dialog with Don Calloway, a democratic strategist and former Missouri state representative. Calloway insisted the federal government needed the means to track all gun ownership transfers and how many guns people owned so that federal authorities could surveil, investigate and conduct a search of someone and their property (e.g. homes) that is accumulating a "large number" of firearms on the suspicion they're about to commit a nefarious act (no definition of what "large" is). He couldn't get Calloway to come right out out with it, but it was obvious. The intent was creating a requirement with the only means to accomplish it necessitating a comprehensive federal gun registry. The exchange on this starts about 2:00 minutes in for a few seconds and then leaps to about 3:30 (after a mostly magazine capacity diatribe). The obvious evasion becomes increasingly ludicrous . . .

[video=youtube;ToNfQKpj7Vo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToNfQKpj7Vo[/video]

John

 

[PaulF]

Most insurance that I've heard of, will not cover you if you are a murderer.
Doesn't the "concealed carry insurance" just cover lawyer fees? Not payouts to victims and medical costs if convicted?
Auto and home insurance exempt themselves from paying out if it is murder and the policy holder is the murderer.

Yep, I don't think any of the insurance I carry would pay out in the event I murder someone.

...but that got me thinking. The popular gun-owner's narrative is that permit-holding gun carriers are significantly less likely to use their guns for illegal violence than non-permit holders...I wonder what the risk pool for "murder" insurance would look like. I think it's pretty likely the only people that would voluntarily opt for additional liability coverage are (by definiton) the most responsible and cautious among us. If the risk pool is large enough, and payouts are as low as responsible gun owners seem to believe, there should be enough profit motivation to interest insurers into creating a policy that fills this need.

With as litigious a society as we currently have, I could potentially see value in a policy that paid out to cover legal expenses and judgements (if such a policy existed).

I am curious, though, if any insurer currently offers indemnity against criminal liability of any type...or if that is even legal under US statute?

 

[Dirtebiker]

Exactly right. ^^ Defending bump stocks is the wrong battle, imo.

I estimate I could dump a 100rd surefire in about 45-50 seconds with my Geissele SD-3G. So I can clear 150rpm or so in SA if necessary and if I'm willing to destroy an otherwise good barrel with sustained ammo wasting.

I'm not willing to give up binary triggers, however.

I don't see a difference!
why support one and not the other?
why give up one and not the other?

 

[Leadeye]

The mandatory gun insurance idea, smells like looking good to big media while making more money for those selling it.

Always follow the money

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The mandatory gun insurance idea, smells like looking good to big media while making more money for those selling it.

Always follow the money

Isn't the NRA now in the insurance business? Maybe it's part of the plan with the NRA caving on this bump fire stock thing. You know, we'll cave here if you do something to help this endeavor over here.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Q. Does having reduced or restricted access to "bump-fire" stocks infringe my right to keep and bear arms?
A. No.

Q: Does banning a non-essential add-on accessory that modifies the behavior of a firearm limit my ability to effectively keep and bear arms?
A: I don't think so, but I'd love to hear a cogent argument otherwise.

I don't think there is a court in the world that would find that a bumpstock is factually an arm in and of itself, and thereby worthy of protection under the 2A. Banning bumpstocks simply does not effect our ability to keep, bear, or utilize arms in any reasonably arguable way.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: taking action against a product or service that has a negative effect over the public good, when that product is not itself a functioning arm and thereby excluded under the 2A, is perfectly within the established purview of the Federal Government. They don't need to bargain with us, they can simply declare the device unfit for sale in the us without running afoul of the constitution...

...and I fully expect they will.

If a shoe lace can be a machine gun, why can't a bump stock be a firearm?

 

[PaulF]

If a shoe lace can be a machine gun, why can't a bump stock be a firearm?

Welp..really? A shoelace can be a machinegun?

I'm not familiar with your reference, but it sounds exactly like what happens when we cede our own decisions to others (like government).

So, you have me curious...what is the shoestring reference?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I don't think this means there was necessarily another person though. Think about it: we know his car was full of tanerite. That can only mean he intended to use it as a bomb by shooting it. So he had to find a place he could park where he'd be able to shoot the car from his shooting spot. He may have driven the car to a possible location, parked it, went back to the hotel and checked if he could realistically shoot it from there.

Who knows why he ended up not using it? Maybe he realized that it would be hard to identify the right car at night, unless he parked in a very specific place. Maybe in order to be sure of getting such a spot he would have had to park there early and leave the car there, thus increasing his chances of being discovered.

Pure speculation of course, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the key card mystery.

If another car is found, a rental or something, then that would lead me to conclude the tanerite was for a distraction as he attempted a get away in the other car. I've seen multiple sources indicate (since my last post on the subject) that his car, with the tannerite and 1600 rounds, was found in the parking garage as CameraMonkey pointed out.

Why he didn't use it? I've read different accounts that several OR ALL of his bump-stock ARs were jammed. Presumably after putting some 200 rounds through the door at the security guard. Put no rifle together with 8-9 police on his floor, and his chance for escape was near nil, while being captured alive was a distinct possibility.

Also a possibility was that he intended to escape in his own car, and if pulled over, planned to fire rounds through the backseat until the tannerite did it's thing. See the video I posted earlier... kiterally going out with a bang.

One thing that kinda makes me iffy on the whole subject, is that everything points to the shooter. If he originally had the intent of trying to get away, why not a little more cloak and dagger? He's clearly seen in casino video, and he booked his room under his own name.

The authorities have said they have evidence he intended to escape. To me that means something like a rental car or plane/train/bus tickets at minimum and a bag o' cash if he intended to to live on the lam. Where to and how successful he might have been are open questions as well.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Welp..really? A shoelace can be a machinegun?

I'm not familiar with your reference, but it sounds exactly like what happens when we cede our own decisions to others (like government).

So, you have me curious...what is the shoestring reference?

Long ago expert witness made F Troop look bad by showing a federal jury how to turn a Title I rifle full auto with a shoestring.

I have no statement on my experimentation as a youth.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

 

[JAL]

Most insurance that I've heard of, will not cover you if you are a murderer.
Doesn't the "concealed carry insurance" just cover lawyer fees? Not payouts to victims and medical costs if convicted?
Auto and home insurance exempt themselves from paying out if it is murder and the policy holder is the murderer.

The insurance angle is simply a ploy to make gun ownership unaffordable to all but the very wealthy. It's an end-around at disarmament. I don't know of any insurance policy of any kind that covers a person who incurs injury, death or court judgment as a consequence of willfully committing a criminal act, including life and medical insurance, as well as auto, other vehicle types (boat, aircraft, etc.), homeowner and personal liability. The basis of the exclusion would be on willful, or deliberate acts amounting to mens rea (criminal intent).

What I expect to see are jurisdictions using taxation as a means to disarm their citizens, or to effectively do so by making firearms and ammunition so expensive that it becomes unaffordable. Seattle has already done this and Chicago quickly followed suit although I don't know if Chicago's is in force (yet). Ultimately, the principle of "power to tax = power to destroy" will come into play. This is nothing new. The Deep South had all manner of gun laws used to keep firearms out of the hands of all non-whites and "poor whites" who they feared could become communist or anarchist rabble such as labor unions trying to resist armed force strike-breaking methods from the Reconstruction Era until post-WWII.

John

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The insurance angle is simply a ploy to make gun ownership unaffordable to all but the very wealthy.

Analogous to Tennessee's Army and Navy Pistol Act of Jim Crow.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Long ago expert witness made F Troop look bad by showing a federal jury how to turn a Title I rifle full auto with a shoestring.

I have no statement on my experimentation as a youth.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

I learned something today...

ETA: Although, it appears to me, that if you pull on that ring-thingy in the picture in the link, that only one round is fired for each "function" of the trigger, though the trigger "functions" many times for one "function" of the ring-thingy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I learned something today...

The N in INGO stands for knowledge.

 

[churchmouse]

Long ago expert witness made F Troop look bad by showing a federal jury how to turn a Title I rifle full auto with a shoestring.

I have no statement on my experimentation as a youth.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

This is an old trick.
I will neither confirm nor deny my involvement.

 

[bwframe]

The WIBC Gun Guy show just started. Might be worth a listen.

https://tunein.com/radio/WIBC-931-s52361/