Yes, mandatory firearms ownership insurance is number one on my own list of reforms. But just try to propose it and you get to witness the spectacle of right-wing NRA types suddenly crying crocodile tears because it would somehow make firearms ownership for minorities and poor people “impossible.”
You know, when I heard that there had been a mass shooting in Las Vegas, at a country music concert in 2017, an initial response was that we’ve hit peak Americana. I was wrong - gun companies profiting from it afterwards is. Actually I take that back - if the president and/or congress use this as an opportunity to promote irrelevant or awful/counter-productive legislation, that will be peak Americana…
I think that part is right - not that they had murdery plans, but just an expectation of scarcity that they needed to prepare for, as the idea that they might someday be without guns was too terrifying to contemplate.
He’s already calling this a liberal false-flag operation that’s a precursor to civil war. It feels like Jones is actually employed by the NRA, given how perfectly his fictions work to advance their agenda… now there’s a conspiracy to be made.
Nice job only showing the tip of the chart without the zero baseline so to someone passing by it looks more like a 400% jump rather than a 4% jump which is likely a meaningless statistical blip over the course of time that would almost not be visible if that chart was honestly presented…
You can do better than that sort of fear mongering.
Acid sprayed in people’s faces and cars/trucks driven into crowds at speed is the new European thing, good to see alack of guns means lack of violence.
Funnily, they never seem all that broken up when someone points out how many poor and minority people will be harmed by making health care unaffordable.
I’d like to think firearms insurance would be a fantastic business for the NRA, given their claims about all the peaceful uses of these items that, as you say, are purpose-designed to kill and maim living things.
Then I remember that their primary mission is not safety or even defending the sanctity of the Second Amendment but rather operating as the primary lobbying organisation for the gun industry.
The week is young.
That’s interesting but not necessarily accurate. What would the insurance be for, protection of the gun-owner from liability in case of accident? I know that gun ranges, sportsman’s clubs, shooting sports events and the like are indeed required to carry insurance before allowing firearm use on site. Also, gun shops carry additional business liability insurance as you point out. So I’m not sure mandating insurance for firearm owners would have any benefit.
Now, things you are licensed to own and operate, that is a list where firearms belong, and would present reasonable regulation in the spirit of the Second Amendment. Disturbingly, carry laws continue to be relaxed in the states, when the scrutiny should be greater. Open carry states - of which my state of Michigan is one, are just plain scary, and this from a responsible gun owner who holds a license permitting concealed carry. I say the more training required the better; not that it appears to apply in this situation, but any schmo should not be able to walk out of Walmart with a firearms purchased based on picture ID alone.
Unfortunately, we see time and time again that additional restrictions on gun laws don’t seem to stop criminal acts perpetrated with guns. I’m afraid the cat is out of the bag so to speak, I don’t think the US could ever go to total confiscation - it’s unimaginable with the sheer number of guns around. And of course the “authorities” will always have guns… it’s not hard to see why many feel an unarmed populace is a bad idea - mostly totalitarian authorities just beat you with clubs, like in Catalonia. But if worse comes to worse, ask yourself, would you take up arms to keep yourself and your country free? Many would say yes.
Oh, also, the NRA actually gives life members automatic death and dismembership from firearm accident insurance. So they know how dangerous they are, we all do.
A 4% bump on a market cap of $950 M is a $38 m increase in value in less than 6 hours of trading. The Dow is up 0.58% over the same period. If the executives and board own 5% of the total stock value, that’s a $1.9 M increase in their stock value, in a little over half a day, at the expense of 58 lives (and counting).
Yes let’s carry out the part of the ritual where we pretend other weapons allow for attacks on the same scale and ease. Adding together the London, Barcelona, and Stockholm terror attacks doesn’t equal what this one attack did. You also never hear the anti-bollard lobby coming out to shout down traffic calming measures in the aftermath of those attacks.
RGR had a 52 wk high of 68.6 and 52 wk low of 44.8. It opened in the middle of its range, and has had an uptick in volume of almost double in less than a day of trading.
First, your math needs some work. Second, if you’re trying to say that the Las Vegas mass shooting isn’t really affecting RGR stock, nothing to be seen here, you’ve failed.
I wonder if gun manufacturers’ stock would rise if a massacre happened at a gun show.
This is why the free market doesn’t exist. Speculation is one hell of a drug.
*** flagged NSA ***
Pretty much with you on this. I own a couple rifles, but am extremely unhappy with the NRA constantly opposing even basic regulations an with their constantly increasing right-wing partisan politics. Like how they hate liberals and never stand up for black people’s right to own guns. I’m not a member of my local gun club because they require NRA membership.
This is something that I keep expecting to happen. Gun show or NRA convention. I figure it’s bound to happen sooner or later. (Not saying I want it to happen, mind you.)
The investor class expects to make their usual profits from fear and suffering.
The insurance company would have to pay out damages in the case of anyone getting injured or injured with your weapons, intentionally or otherwise. The shooter would still bear all criminal responsibility.
So if the insurance company decided the financial risk of letting you own a gun wasn’t worth the amount you were paying them in insurance premiums then no gun for you.
Not sure if this is the best solution but darned if I don’t like the poetic justice of letting “the market” be the force that keeps irresponsible people from owning dangerous firearms.
That’s how they are presented on the source financial websites. Do you expect bb to replot them to zero baseline?
That’s the reasoning. It’s not people buying guns because it’s now ok to shoot people. It’s people buying guns because the Liberals are going to prevent gun sales. Because the Liberals/Jews/Hollywood/Lizard people run the world, you see. They elected Trump to fix things, but the Liberals won’t let him cancel Obamacare and build a wall.