We have no need for gun control. Sure we don't!!!

589 posts / 0 new
Last post
Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Some folk, even progressive folk, have fired a gun and miraculously avoided murdering someone when they did.

Progressive or not, I'm happy to report a 100% avoidance rate.

Quote:
Perhaps the meme that "guns are designed for murdering humans" doesn't resonate with anyone who's actually fired a gun and not murdered a human.

I believe the first guns fired spears, and later on they were made to fire bits of metal, or shrapnel.  So I think they were originally meant for killing things, if not people.  If guns were merely designed with no other functionality than to fire a projectile, then today we'd be dealing with little more than fireworks.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Progressive or not, I'm happy to report a 100% avoidance rate.

Props to you for that murder avoidance.  How did you manage to use a device that's solely for murder for something other than murder?  And I wonder if there might be others?

Quote:
If guns were merely designed with no other functionality than to fire a projectile, then today we'd be dealing with little more than fireworks.

Unless you or your loved one is a paper bullseye target, I think that most of the time you are dealing with little more than fireworks.

Until someone decides to shoot someone else, and then for a time you're dealing with a highly-effective, purpose-built, sole-use murder tool.

 

NorthReport

Precisely.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:
But too few are willing to place the blame squarely where it belongs

Where exactly would that be?  If someone was angry and deranged enough to go on a shooting spree, it wouldn't make them any less angry and deranged if they couldn't access a gun.  They'd most likely find another way.

This is a rather sad attempt at the guns don't kill people argument.

Does not work. Guns make it easier, more efficient. Quicker. Deadlier. And that's the point.

NorthReport

Day after San Bernardino, Republicans line up to crush gun control efforts

All four GOP senators running for president vote against extending FBI checks to every firearm sold and banning sale to individuals on terror watchlists

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/day-after-san-bernardino-...

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I think this is where it could be useful to be clear about where we're talking about.

Yes, in the U.S. it's still not unheard of to open a new bank account and receive a free gun.  But that's SO not the case in Canada.  And somehow things get strangely slippery and we end up discussing how CANADA needs to amp up its gun control laws because someone in Florida bought an assault rifle using a library card as identification.

I agree that it makes no sense to use events in the U.S. to make a case for increased gun control in Canada. Most Canadians feel that gun violence is mostly under control in Canada and that the current levels of gun control are mostly adequate here. The same can not be said for the situation in the U.S. The situation in the U.S. can actually be used to argue in favour of Canada's gun control system.

Hurtin Albertan

Some countries have lots of guns and very little gun crime.  Some countries have lots of guns and lots of gun crime.  Some countries have few guns and little gun crime.  Some countries have few legally owned or privately owned guns and lots of gun crime.

Maybe, just maybe, the issue lies with the culture of the society, with their values and such, and how they conduct themselves in their day-to-day activities and interactions with each other.

Anyways, just because something had a shady history doesn't mean that it always has to be used for shady purposes.  

If guns are only used for killing I think almost all of mine are defective.  I do happen to own a Lee-Enfield rifle made in 1943. Remotely possible that it saw service in WW II but more likely some conscript complained bitterly about having to cart it around while on sentry duty at the gate of an RAF airfield in the UK.  I sometimes like to imagine my guns having pleasant conversations amongst themselves inside my gun safe, and that old Lee-Enfield telling outrageous lies about it's past military service to the wide-eyed younger guns who don't know the real truth.  For some reason I picture it as having a Welsh accent.

Slumberjack

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
I sometimes like to imagine my guns having pleasant conversations amongst themselves inside my gun safe, and that old Lee-Enfield telling outrageous lies about it's past military service to the wide-eyed younger guns who don't know the real truth.  For some reason I picture it as having a Welsh accent.

Does the back and forth contain other discernable accents?  How about an Al Pachino 'little friend' accent?

Hurtin Albertan

I do have a shotgun that was made in Brazil, I suppose it would have that sort of accent.  Can't remember if Brazil is more Spanish or Portugese history-wise but it's 4:00 AM and I don't feel much like googling.  But yeah, something Spanish, but with class, it's also an older gun so I can't picture it speaking in a stereotypical Cheech Marin style accent.

Of course the Winchesters have a western drawl, especially the lever actions.

Thanks for the laugh, and congratulations from successfully diverting me from the angry anti gun control rant I was going to post.

Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Props to you for that murder avoidance.  How did you manage to use a device that's solely for murder for something other than murder?  And I wonder if there might be others?

Happily there are.  You see, they gave us figure 11 and figure 12 targets to shoot at and these sufficed to draw those murderous impulses plumb out of our systems.

NDPP

That Lee Enfield was a standard Eatons catalogue $50 deer rifle for donkey's years if memory serves as it so often doesn't..

Hurtin Albertan

I paid $50 for mine but that was about 10 years ago, sadly someone took a hacksaw to the poor thing and "sporterized" it somewhere along the line.

They did a halfways decent job on it at least, but there's no way I'd ever be able to restore it to it's former factory fresh condition now.

If I'd have been smarter I would have bought way more guns 10 or 20 years ago, it would've been like buying gold when it was $400 an ounce.

I've got a few that might give me a decent return on my investment in another 10 or 20 years, assuming I am still allowed to own and sell them by then.  I always get a kick out of the old gun ads people dig up from the shadowy recesses of the internet, sure, $30 might have been a lot of money back in the 1950's but WOW the stuff you could buy through the mail back then...

Come to think of it, back in the day in Canada you could own pretty much anything, up until the 1970's I think it was when the FAC came out.  Although handguns have been Restricteds since the 1930's.

And there didn't seem to be a huge amount of mass shootings with all the military surplus rifles, submachine guns, and machine guns that were floating around back then.  I think that's pretty compeling evidence that guns and gun control have doodley-squat to do with anything, and society and culture play a far more influential role in gun crimes.

NDPP

I grew up close to the US border and had lots of American teenage friends on their side. They were mostly all gun nuts and seemed to delight in shooting up anything and everything. I agree with you that society and culture play an influential role, but given we have now been steeping and soaking in theirs for quite a while I think easy availability would quite quickly produce the same sort of mayhem.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Although handguns have been Restricteds since the 1930's.

Despite this, they're apparently responsible for about 62% of gun homicides in Canada.

The much more accessible long guns come in at 23%.

The rest of that 100% is made up of "other" -- sawed-off rifles or shotguns, fully automatic weapons, and "firearm-like" weapons -- all of which are prohibited weapons that cannot be bought up here.

NorthReport

FBI says San Bernardino attacks considered act of terrorism; shooter pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/04/san-bernar...

NorthReport

What's the big deal whether or not it is defined as terrorism? 14 people died, scores were injured and hundreds of thousands frightened

NorthReport

Does Motive Matter in Mass Shootings, Like the One in San Bernardino?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/03/does-motive-matter-in-ma...

NorthReport

In Mass Killings, Islamist Terror Is a Unique Concern

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/03/does-motive-matter-in-ma...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Does Motive Matter in Mass Shootings, Like the One in San Bernardino?

To the dead, or their families, maybe not.  One of Canada's most outspoken opponents of criminals having any rights at all beyond gruel and water is the mother of Tim McLean, who was killed by Vince Li, whose motive was "insanity" in the strict legal sense.

But other than them, isn't motive still a lynchpin of the law?  Or else is a white neo-Nazi who firebombs a black church just an arsonist, like a homeless man who starts a fire trying to keep warm?  Even if the state's sentence is no different, don't we still care WHY criminals do what they do?

Hurtin Albertan

I still say the restrictions on handguns in Canada has given us a different gun culture than the US.  I personally know a lot of gun owners, but only a few of them have handguns.  If I lived in the States I'd have handguns and everybody I knew who had guns would have handguns. 

I never felt like jumping through the extra hoops like a trained seal just so I could own a handgun.  I will be applying for my RPAL in the new year mainly because some time in the future I'm apparantly going to be inheriting the handguns a relative of mine owns, no one else in the family is into guns at all and no one else is remotely interested in them.

In Canada you have to put in a minimal effort to get a gun in the first place, more of an effort to get a handgun, legally at least.  And up here there are laws in place for secure storage of handguns, again assuming people follow them, which I think most Canadians probably do.

Depending on what US state you live in you might not have to put in much of an effort at all.  So people down south of the border buy a handgun for whatever reason, it sits forgotten in a closet and then one day the wrong person gets their hands on it and there's another accidental shooting, or it's used in a crime, or stolen and sold on the black market, etc etc etc.

They are small and easily concealable and don't weigh much and can still be lethal if you know how to shoot them properly or even if you are close enough that it's hard to miss.

I'm not surprised at all that they would be used in 62% of Canadian gun homicides, but how many of those are committed by the stereotypical lawful owner of the handguns and how many are committed by the stereotypical criminal?

Hurtin Albertan

I'd say motive matters.  We are coming up on a gruesome anniversary again in Canada, the motive behind that tragic incident matters to a lot of people.

NorthReport

At least in Canada fewer and fewer people are cutting the gun nuts much slack.

Hopefully Americans will finally clue in as well.

Gun debate yields page one editorial

The New York Times is running an editorial on its front page Saturday, the first time the paper has done so since 1920, calling for greater regulation on guns in the aftermath of a spate of mass shootings.

The editorial, headlined “The Gun Epidemic,” describes it as “a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.” It suggests drastically reducing the number of firearms, and “eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.”

 

“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment,” it reads. “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”

In a statement, the publisher of The Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said the paper was placing an editorial on Page 1 for the first time in many decades “to deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country’s inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns.”


https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/12/04/gun-debate-yields-pag...

 

NorthReport

Syed Farooq is an American: Let’s stop the Muslim vs. Christian debate and take a look at ourselves

His terrible deed does not spring from an unknowable foreign culture. It is violence endemic to the United States

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/03/syed_farooq_is_an_american_lets_stop_the...

Paladin1

Trudeau wants to bring back the att (authorization to transport) for handguns and restricted rifles as a form of gun control.  

To paraphrase you own a car.  To drive the car to work you need a licence and insurance. It's illegal to  drive without those. The att is a third piece of paper that says you're allowed to drive to work,  even though you already have a licence and insurance.  It's an empty gesture and a waste of time.  

 

He's also talking about banning assault weapons,  which is smart because it's an ambiguous term.  There's no real definition of what an assault weapons is.  

NorthReport

How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shoo...

NorthReport

Gun buys, applications likely to surge as pols push gun control laws

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/04/gun-buys-applications-likely-...

Hurtin Albertan

See?  See?  US sees surge in first time gunbuyers!!

All those guns ending up in closets, desks, and dresser drawers.  Maybe a small lock box for a lot of the first time handgun buyers.

You can get an budget priced or a used handgun for a couple hundred bucks.

Rev Pesky

Paladin1 wrote:
...To paraphrase you own a car.  To drive the car to work you need a licence and insurance. It's illegal to  drive without those...   

Yes, and every car is registered, not just here, but in every jurisdiction in the world. You can literally track a car anywhere in the world. For a small fee anyone can get the history of a car, who's owned it, how many times it's been in the shop, where in the world it has been, in fact all the information about the car and previous owners.

And in most jurisdictions, insurance is compulsory. So why can't we ask the same for firearm owners? I know one thing for sure. If firearm owners were required to buy liability insurance for their weapons, It would be private enterprise that forced the weapons to be registered. It would also force the owners to take proper care of their firearms.

NorthReport

How does a freakin' person like this get to be a university president? He is just an absolute idiot!

Oh yea James Moore. Frown

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/05/liberty-...

NorthReport

Here we go again.

Police investigate London tube stabbing as terrorist incident

Attacker who reportedly said he was reacting to Syria intervention is arrested after severely wounding man at Leytonstone station

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/05/suspect-custody-after-sta...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The UK could have stopped him if they'd had the courage to enact stronger gun control.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The UK could have stopped him if they'd had the courage to enact stronger gun control.


Yes, and had he had a gun all three would probably be dead now,

NorthReport

Montreal Massacre lessons took 25 years to learn

Francine Pelletier says we are finally waking up to real cost of staying silent

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-massacre-lessons-took-25...

NorthReport

Right on!

California Gov. Brown says looser gun laws in Arizona, Nevada create opening for terrorists

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/5/california-gov-brown-says...

NorthReport

They need to do much more than mock these gun buts. Research perhaps? Like for example, who has contributed to more violence in the USA? ISIS or the NRA? 

Gun-control fans mock Republicans for ‘thoughts and prayers’ after San Bernardino shooting

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/3/gun-control-fans-mock-rep...

NorthReport

Today is December 6

But why do we need incidents like what happened in Montreal 25 years ago for common sense to ruule? It boggles the mind what bullshit the gun nuts spew out, whereas anyone with half a brain knows that the more guns you have the more violence you will get. Our goal should be to reduce the violence in our society which clearly means get rid of all the guns as quickly as possible. 

NorthReport

San Bernardino shooting: gun sales soar in familiar pattern of panic and profit

Share prices are up for Smith & Wesson, whose weapons were used in attack, as gun control advocates try to recast gun lobby fear-mongering as corporate greed

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/san-bernardino-shooting-g...

NorthReport

Don't you just love the spirit of Jesus in this Christmas card?

This Is The Christmas Card Numbnut Politico Family Sends: Fully Armed 


http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2015/12/06/this-is-the-christmas-card-numb...

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
...To paraphrase you own a car.  To drive the car to work you need a licence and insurance. It's illegal to  drive without those...   

Yes, and every car is registered, not just here, but in every jurisdiction in the world. You can literally track a car anywhere in the world. For a small fee anyone can get the history of a car, who's owned it, how many times it's been in the shop, where in the world it has been, in fact all the information about the car and previous owners.

I like that angle. Cars have vin numbers and all cars can be tracked. If we could register every firearm in the world that would be pretty awesome.

 

Quote:
And in most jurisdictions, insurance is compulsory. So why can't we ask the same for firearm owners? I know one thing for sure. If firearm owners were required to buy liability insurance for their weapons, It would be private enterprise that forced the weapons to be registered. It would also force the owners to take proper care of their firearms.

Owners are already forced to take proper car of their firearms, it's a criminal offence to violate Canada's storage laws (grey area if you're a cop) and being found guilty of it can lead to serious fines, serious lawyer costs and even jail time.

I don't really understand how insurence would work. Would I pay $100 a month for insurance so if shoot someones window by accident then insurance will pay for it?

 

NorthReport wrote:

Today is December 6

But why do we need incidents like what happened in Montreal 25 years ago for common sense to ruule? It boggles the mind what bullshit the gun nuts spew out, whereas anyone with half a brain knows that the more guns you have the more violence you will get. Our goal should be to reduce the violence in our society which clearly means get rid of all the guns as quickly as possible. 

 

In Quebec firearm registration seems to be synomyous with the shooting in montreal 25 years ago. Marc Lepine got a firearms licence then he bought the rifle he used in the murders legally. Do you have an idea how a firearms registry would have prevented those murders from taking place?

While were at it can you take a guess why a bunch of guns OTHER than what he used to murder the women were banned or made restricted after the shooting happened?

NorthReport wrote:

San Bernardino shooting: gun sales soar in familiar pattern of panic and profit

Share prices are up for Smith & Wesson, whose weapons were used in attack, as gun control advocates try to recast gun lobby fear-mongering as corporate greed

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/san-bernardino-shooting-g...

 

So everytime there is a mass shooting or mass killing the government talks about increasing gun control. This causes a lot of people to go out and buy new guys, ammo or firearms for the first time (like this recent apparent first time gun buyer record).

It's just a guess but if the government's automatic reaction wasn't going on TV and shouting MORE GUN CONTRO!L people wouldn't rush out and ironically buy more guns.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

 

Quote:
And in most jurisdictions, insurance is compulsory. So why can't we ask the same for firearm owners? I know one thing for sure. If firearm owners were required to buy liability insurance for their weapons, It would be private enterprise that forced the weapons to be registered. It would also force the owners to take proper care of their firearms.

Owners are already forced to take proper car of their firearms, it's a criminal offence to violate Canada's storage laws (grey area if you're a cop) and being found guilty of it can lead to serious fines, serious lawyer costs and even jail time.

I don't really understand how insurence would work. Would I pay $100 a month for insurance so if shoot someones window by accident then insurance will pay for it?

Actually a fund paid by gun owners that contributes to victims services is not a bad idea. Fault is not needed.

Some people drive drunk, some even use cars as a weapon. Not everyone. But a fund paid by all car owners pays out to victims of the misuse of cars as well as any accidents. I see no reason why not.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But a fund paid by all car owners pays out to victims of the misuse of cars as well as any accidents. I see no reason why not.

Are you referring to auto insurance?

I know that auto insurance covers accidents and such, but:

1.  if I intentionally drive my car into a group of people, does my auto insurance cover the inevitable injuries to them?

2.  if someone steals my car and drives it into a group of people, does my auto insurance cover the inevitable injuries to them?

3.  if I'm struck by a car in a "hit and run" and the driver is never found, whose auto insurance covers my injuries?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But a fund paid by all car owners pays out to victims of the misuse of cars as well as any accidents. I see no reason why not.

Are you referring to auto insurance?

I know that auto insurance covers accidents and such, but:

1.  if I intentionally drive my car into a group of people, does my auto insurance cover the inevitable injuries to them?

2.  if someone steals my car and drives it into a group of people, does my auto insurance cover the inevitable injuries to them?

3.  if I'm struck by a car in a "hit and run" and the driver is never found, whose auto insurance covers my injuries?

1 yes -- although it will go after you as well.

2 yes

3 your insurance will always pay you if you have a loss -- the other drive may be charged or face massive increases.

This is how it works in Ontario. You can check how the system works in other provinces but the basic covereage exists across the country for your question 1 and 2.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK.  I'm not sure what your sources are, but I got this from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) web site:

Quote:

  • Your insurance company is allowed to deny payment for loss or damage caused to the vehicle in an accident, if you or anyone you let drive your vehicle:

    •  

      • was unable to maintain proper control of the vehicle because you (or he and she) was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or
      • is convicted of one of the following Criminal Code offences (or any similar offences under any other law in Canada or the United States) relating to the use, care, or control of the vehicle:
        •  

          • causing death or injury by criminal negligence,
          • dangerous operation of a vehicle,
          • failure to stop at the scene of an accident,
          • driving a vehicle when impaired or with more than 80 mg of alcohol in the blood,
          • refusal to provide the police with a breath sample,
          • causing injury when driving a vehicle while impaired or with over 80 mg/100ml of alcohol in the blood, or
          • driving the vehicle while disqualified from doing so.

Except for certain accident benefits, there is no coverage for anyone, including passengers, if:  

  • Your vehicle is driven by a person without your consent, or by someone specifically excluded from your policy by the OPCF 28A (Excluded Driver Endorsement).

Which kind of makes it sound like if someone steals your vehicle, your insurance isn't obligated to cover anything, and if you intentionally drive in an unsafe manner -- e.g. plowing into a group of people -- then they're not obligated to cover anything.

As far as #3 goes, I'm not a driver, so I'm not referring to some fender-bender "hit and run".  I'm a pedestrian, with no auto insurance, so if a car hits me, drives off, and is never found, whose insurance covers my losses?

To be clear, I'm not asking any of this because I have some personal fetish about auto insurance.  But I would think that if "gun insurance" were to be of any benefit, it would need to cover situations in which:

1.  a gun owner intentionally shoots someone (see #1 above for analogy)

2.  someone steals my gun and shoot someone (see #2 above for analogy)

3.  someone shoots me, but is never caught (see #3 above for analogy)

 

Paladin1

What's the spirit of the insurance. Just to give victims money?  Like how bushmaster USA was sued ? 

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK.  I'm not sure what your sources are, but I got this from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) web site:

Quote:

  • Your insurance company is allowed to deny payment for loss or damage caused to the vehicle in an accident, if you or anyone you let drive your vehicle:

    •  

      • was unable to maintain proper control of the vehicle because you (or he and she) was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or
      • is convicted of one of the following Criminal Code offences (or any similar offences under any other law in Canada or the United States) relating to the use, care, or control of the vehicle:
        •  

          • causing death or injury by criminal negligence,
          • dangerous operation of a vehicle,
          • failure to stop at the scene of an accident,
          • driving a vehicle when impaired or with more than 80 mg of alcohol in the blood,
          • refusal to provide the police with a breath sample,
          • causing injury when driving a vehicle while impaired or with over 80 mg/100ml of alcohol in the blood, or
          • driving the vehicle while disqualified from doing so.

Except for certain accident benefits, there is no coverage for anyone, including passengers, if:  

  • Your vehicle is driven by a person without your consent, or by someone specifically excluded from your policy by the OPCF 28A (Excluded Driver Endorsement).

Which kind of makes it sound like if someone steals your vehicle, your insurance isn't obligated to cover anything, and if you intentionally drive in an unsafe manner -- e.g. plowing into a group of people -- then they're not obligated to cover anything.

As far as #3 goes, I'm not a driver, so I'm not referring to some fender-bender "hit and run".  I'm a pedestrian, with no auto insurance, so if a car hits me, drives off, and is never found, whose insurance covers my losses?

To be clear, I'm not asking any of this because I have some personal fetish about auto insurance.  But I would think that if "gun insurance" were to be of any benefit, it would need to cover situations in which:

1.  a gun owner intentionally shoots someone (see #1 above for analogy)

2.  someone steals my gun and shoot someone (see #2 above for analogy)

3.  someone shoots me, but is never caught (see #3 above for analogy)

 

Sorry you are misinterpreting what you are referencing -- please read more closely.

The exclusions are related to the car, driver and passengers of the person in control of the car.

You are extending this exclusion to third party liability which does not have such an exclusion.

The first part of your quote excluded coverage for your car -- not third parties.

The second part of your quote excludes driver and passengers but these are also not third parties.

BTW -- if the person took your car and did not have permission (and this can be hard to prove) the case may be treated as an uninsured motorist and the vehicle as stolen.

Note-- if you are a driver and you are hit by an uninsured motorist your insurance will pay as it always does. If you are a pedestrian and someone in your family has the Family protection endorsement then you are covered as well -- this is funded in part by all who have insurance.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

This is from TD Insurance -- perhaps other insurers are totally different:

Quote:
Third-Party Liability covers you if you are considered responsible for unintentionally injuring someone or damaging their property.

Seems to me that that would exclude any coverage for a thief, or any coverage for intentionally injuring someone.

I'm not asking this as some kind of challenge, or to "throw down", but if you have a link to any insurer who says "if someone steals your car and plows into a group of people, we pay them", could you post it?  Because I'd really like to read that for myself.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK.  I'm not sure what your sources are, but I got this from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) web site:

Quote:

  • Your insurance company is allowed to deny payment for loss or damage caused to the vehicle in an accident, if you or anyone you let drive your vehicle:

    •  

      • was unable to maintain proper control of the vehicle because you (or he and she) was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or
      • is convicted of one of the following Criminal Code offences (or any similar offences under any other law in Canada or the United States) relating to the use, care, or control of the vehicle:
        •  

          • causing death or injury by criminal negligence,
          • dangerous operation of a vehicle,
          • failure to stop at the scene of an accident,
          • driving a vehicle when impaired or with more than 80 mg of alcohol in the blood,
          • refusal to provide the police with a breath sample,
          • causing injury when driving a vehicle while impaired or with over 80 mg/100ml of alcohol in the blood, or
          • driving the vehicle while disqualified from doing so.

Except for certain accident benefits, there is no coverage for anyone, including passengers, if:  

  • Your vehicle is driven by a person without your consent, or by someone specifically excluded from your policy by the OPCF 28A (Excluded Driver Endorsement).

Which kind of makes it sound like if someone steals your vehicle, your insurance isn't obligated to cover anything, and if you intentionally drive in an unsafe manner -- e.g. plowing into a group of people -- then they're not obligated to cover anything.

As far as #3 goes, I'm not a driver, so I'm not referring to some fender-bender "hit and run".  I'm a pedestrian, with no auto insurance, so if a car hits me, drives off, and is never found, whose insurance covers my losses?

To be clear, I'm not asking any of this because I have some personal fetish about auto insurance.  But I would think that if "gun insurance" were to be of any benefit, it would need to cover situations in which:

1.  a gun owner intentionally shoots someone (see #1 above for analogy)

2.  someone steals my gun and shoot someone (see #2 above for analogy)

3.  someone shoots me, but is never caught (see #3 above for analogy)

 

As for your last three points I would agree and it should be possible for a policy fund to be set up publicly to cover all of these out of licensing fees (effectively insurance).

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

This is from TD Insurance -- perhaps other insurers are totally different:

Quote:
Third-Party Liability covers you if you are considered responsible for unintentionally injuring someone or damaging their property.

Seems to me that that would exclude any coverage for a thief, or any coverage for intentionally injuring someone.

I'm not asking this as some kind of challenge, or to "throw down", but if you have a link to any insurer who says "if someone steals your car and plows into a group of people, we pay them", could you post it?  Because I'd really like to read that for myself.

I explained in my post -- perhaps you did not see it becuase I edited right after posting it.

Ontario has a system where the insurance of the person who has the loss pays. This is the foundation of no-fault insurance.

So what this means is that it does not matter the status or covereage of the person hitting you -- if you are insured you are covered. So this is how it works for drivers.

For non-drivers it is a little different: if they are drivers that are at the moment pedestrians they are covered in the same manner.

If they are family members of drivers who have the Family Protection Endorsement then they are covered through that.

https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/autobulletins/archives/Documents/a-04...

You are right there is a gap -- for those who are not drivers ANd not covered under any family protection endorsement. These people have to sue the person if identified. If that person has any insurance or assets you can claim against it but if they do not then you have no recourse.

So the bottom line is you need either insurance yourself or the driver needs insurance for you to recover something. But if you do something wrong -- the insurance company may not cover you but they will pay your liability -- and then probably refuse future coverage to you.

Back tot he original point -- if the owner or legal operator of the car has liability insurance you as a third party are covered no matter what they did. If they do not have insurance but you or a family members does covering you then you are insured.

Only if the driver had no insurance and you ahve no insurance are you high and dry.

 

 

NorthReport

Listening to el presidente I find it staggering that suspects on no fly lists are still allowed to purchase weapons.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Let's bring this back to "gun insurance" then.

I doubt that most non-gun-owners are going to purchase "victim insurance", and I have a tough time believing that criminals are going to pay for insurance for their illegal gun (or that any insurer is going to extend their coverage to cases in which a stolen/unregistered/illegal gun is used for crime -- after all, are they insuring the person or the gun itself?).  So, I've been shot and now I have expenses.  Who pays, and why?  Want to make it even plainer?  Let's assume I was shot with a sawed-off shotgun.  Who's going to insure that?

Quote:
Back tot he original point -- if the owner or legal operator of the car has liability insurance you as a third party are covered no matter what they did.

What if they didn't do anything?  What if their car was stolen at 1pm and the thief struck me (a pedestrian, with no auto insurance) at 1:15pm?  Does the owners insurer pay for my lifetime of bills?  I'm kind of guessing "no".

ed'd to add:  FWIW, there already exist funds for victims of crime.

 

NorthReport

In other words our governments should be taking about getting rid of all the killing guns every day so where somebody does go beserk citizens will understand it is the easy access to killing guns that is one of, if not the major contributing factor..

Paladin1 wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
...To paraphrase you own a car.  To drive the car to work you need a licence and insurance. It's illegal to  drive without those...   

Yes, and every car is registered, not just here, but in every jurisdiction in the world. You can literally track a car anywhere in the world. For a small fee anyone can get the history of a car, who's owned it, how many times it's been in the shop, where in the world it has been, in fact all the information about the car and previous owners.

I like that angle. Cars have vin numbers and all cars can be tracked. If we could register every firearm in the world that would be pretty awesome.

 

Quote:
And in most jurisdictions, insurance is compulsory. So why can't we ask the same for firearm owners? I know one thing for sure. If firearm owners were required to buy liability insurance for their weapons, It would be private enterprise that forced the weapons to be registered. It would also force the owners to take proper care of their firearms.

Owners are already forced to take proper car of their firearms, it's a criminal offence to violate Canada's storage laws (grey area if you're a cop) and being found guilty of it can lead to serious fines, serious lawyer costs and even jail time.

I don't really understand how insurence would work. Would I pay $100 a month for insurance so if shoot someones window by accident then insurance will pay for it?

 

NorthReport wrote:

Today is December 6

But why do we need incidents like what happened in Montreal 25 years ago for common sense to ruule? It boggles the mind what bullshit the gun nuts spew out, whereas anyone with half a brain knows that the more guns you have the more violence you will get. Our goal should be to reduce the violence in our society which clearly means get rid of all the guns as quickly as possible. 

 

In Quebec firearm registration seems to be synomyous with the shooting in montreal 25 years ago. Marc Lepine got a firearms licence then he bought the rifle he used in the murders legally. Do you have an idea how a firearms registry would have prevented those murders from taking place?

While were at it can you take a guess why a bunch of guns OTHER than what he used to murder the women were banned or made restricted after the shooting happened?

NorthReport wrote:

San Bernardino shooting: gun sales soar in familiar pattern of panic and profit

Share prices are up for Smith & Wesson, whose weapons were used in attack, as gun control advocates try to recast gun lobby fear-mongering as corporate greed

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/san-bernardino-shooting-g...

 

So everytime there is a mass shooting or mass killing the government talks about increasing gun control. This causes a lot of people to go out and buy new guys, ammo or firearms for the first time (like this recent apparent first time gun buyer record).

It's just a guess but if the government's automatic reaction wasn't going on TV and shouting MORE GUN CONTRO!L people wouldn't rush out and ironically buy more guns.

Pages