PH Gunfight thread

[kaltbluter]

I'm thinking not, but ought to ask anyway, Did you get it?

That all it takes is a running a search:replace command and you have a shiny new study to quote?

[kaltbluter]

...insurance...

We're talking about insurance again?

Should you be required to have insurance before you are allowed to enter a national forest? Just in case you need some rescuing?

Still, the problem of SAR costs is real. In much of the U.S. search and rescue work is coordinated by county sheriffs departments. And many wilderness gateway communities are small towns, in lightly populated counties with miniscule tax bases, ill-equipped financially to handle a sudden surge in pricey helicopter evacuations. So people are starting to get billed. And with your average garden variety search employing 20 or 30 searchers, and one or two helicopters at $10,000 a day, that price tag can add up quick.

[Koda]

The article was explicit that $88k was the firefighting cost. Maybe you didn't read the article and instead knee-jerked into turning the thread into a discussion of your Cause?

I read the article back then and I’m not going to re-read it now. I had no intention of creating a discussion for any cause I just asked a simple question in regards to a comment already posted regarding the original subject. FWIW I did make an attempt at closing the 2A discussion very early in the thread (see page 2) and even Karl agreed but others kept pressing on....

Do car crashes, in general, occur on purpose? Are drivers only accountable for the cost of getting the cars off the road?

are drivers civilly liable for damages they caused after the cars are cleared off the road? yes, so no....

If guns are as safe as advocates maintain, then the cost of insurance would be small. Wouldn't the purported benefits of private ownership (as argued by gun advocates) outweigh the cost of insurance? Regardless, is it morally right to not be financially responsible? Why would one feel justified in both owning a gun and not being financially responsible for associated accidents?

People are already liable for damage they cause regardless of guns being used. Besides, I’m not certain there is any insurance company that would offer it.

[Lumpy]

Reckless Endangerment is a misdemeanor.

In that case, we need new laws that cover this specific crime. That's clearly insufficient.

Why is it insufficient? It does not punish harshly enough? What do you believe the possible sentence should include?

[Koda]

Reckless Endangerment is a misdemeanor.

In that case, we need new laws that cover this specific crime. That's clearly insufficient.

Why is it insufficient? It does not punish harshly enough? What do you believe the possible sentence should include?

I thought endangerment laws varied from misdemeanors to felonies based on the circumstances, so in theory depending on the situation (injury, death) endangerment could very well provide harsh sentences tailored to the situation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment

[Lumpy]

I thought endangerment laws varied from misdemeanors to felonies based on the circumstances, so in theory depending on the situation (injury, death) endangerment could very well provide harsh sentences tailored to the situation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment

You are correct that they vary, but the variance occurs state to state, primarily. WA is a gross misdemeanor.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.050

[kepPNW]

Reckless Endangerment is a misdemeanor.

In that case, we need new laws that cover this specific crime. That's clearly insufficient.

Why is it insufficient? It does not punish harshly enough? What do you believe the possible sentence should include?

Felony status.

[Lumpy]

Felony status.

I'll ask one more time, why?

[mcds]

If guns are as safe as advocates maintain, then the cost of insurance would be small. Wouldn't the purported benefits of private ownership (as argued by gun advocates) outweigh the cost of insurance? Regardless, is it morally right to not be financially responsible? Why would one feel justified in both owning a gun and not being financially responsible for associated accidents?

People are already liable for damage they cause regardless of guns being used.

It is about private gun owner's capacity to pay for damages associated with their gun, not liability. Why would one feel justified in both owning a gun and not being financially responsible for associated accidents?

Besides, I’m not certain there is any insurance company that would offer it.

I read the article back then and I’m not going to re-read it now.

These statements indicate that gun-rights advocates (or maybe it is just you) do not think that ownership carries financial responsibility. Advocates have not created a system of responsibility for accidental damages. Advocates purport overwhelming benefits of ownership, but are not willing to feed any portion of the value of those benefits into being capable of financial responsibility for dirty side of ownership. How can advocates feel moral in both owning a gun and not being capable of financial responsibility for associated accidents?

[Lumpy]

Why would one feel justified in both owning a gun and not being financially responsible for associated accidents?

Likely due to the over-arching belief in many things that "It won't happen to me."

It's an interesting question. It also opens up a lot of interesting questions, like is requiring liability insurance an undue burden on what is considered a civil right? Can't compare it to automtive insurance requirements as driving isn't considered a civil right.