▲ 618 ▼ Dog shoots woman with shotgun at Nebraska convenience store (www.theguardian.com) submitted 3 months ago by abacabadabacaba@infosec.pub to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world 221 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 22 points 3 months ago (4 children) Gun owners should have to carry liability insurance for things like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 27 points 3 months ago Yeah, if only there were an example of insuring and licensing for some other kind of common deadly consumer product. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bss03@infosec.pub 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) I agree. Certainly while in public (e.g. public roads). That said, I want to say that got proposed in the 90s and somehow the NRA not only defeated it at the federal level, but got congress to ban states from doing it. I could have just imagined that tho. EDIT: https://sclawreview.org/article/gun-insurance-mandates-and-the-second-amendment/ (summary: there's a couple of laws [one state; one local], that will probably get SCOTUS review eventually, but are on the books for now; it's questionable whether insurance will cut down gun violence.) I'd expect guns to be at least as regulated as vehicles, but I guess vehicles don't have their own amendment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) I'm not a gun person, but I wonder if some pool of funds from insurance premiums could be made available for victims who wish to apply for restitution( or something). This incident definitely will cost this woman money she would presumably only recover through a suit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Oh, insurance would probably help in this case. It would depend on the specifics of the law, and whether the gun owner was negligent / grossly negligent. The main reason it wouldn't help in general is because most gun violence is intentional, and you generally can't insure against intentional acts, only accidents. If the act was intentional or the result of (gross) negligence, the negligent/intentional person could (probably) be successfully sued for damages. Failing that, I doubt the victim will be able to recover her costs at all. IANAL; TINLA. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Car insurance still covers your victims if you’re intentionally speeding or drunk driving so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago Yeah you're definitely not a lawyer if that's your takeaway here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago Especially because this trash has no money to sue them. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 point 3 months ago (3 children) That would just discriminate against poor people and people that live in high crime areas. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 child) It would promote responsible gun ownership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of rich people are irresponsible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of poor people have driving licences and are insured too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn't even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don't vote. Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y'know, consistancy applied and all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bss03@infosec.pub 4 points 3 months ago It would do that, but it wouldn't just do that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 4 points 3 months ago What kind of idiot takes a gun into a high-crime area? Great way to end up mugged or killed for your gun. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 27 points 3 months ago Yeah, if only there were an example of insuring and licensing for some other kind of common deadly consumer product. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) I agree. Certainly while in public (e.g. public roads). That said, I want to say that got proposed in the 90s and somehow the NRA not only defeated it at the federal level, but got congress to ban states from doing it. I could have just imagined that tho. EDIT: https://sclawreview.org/article/gun-insurance-mandates-and-the-second-amendment/ (summary: there's a couple of laws [one state; one local], that will probably get SCOTUS review eventually, but are on the books for now; it's questionable whether insurance will cut down gun violence.) I'd expect guns to be at least as regulated as vehicles, but I guess vehicles don't have their own amendment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) I'm not a gun person, but I wonder if some pool of funds from insurance premiums could be made available for victims who wish to apply for restitution( or something). This incident definitely will cost this woman money she would presumably only recover through a suit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Oh, insurance would probably help in this case. It would depend on the specifics of the law, and whether the gun owner was negligent / grossly negligent. The main reason it wouldn't help in general is because most gun violence is intentional, and you generally can't insure against intentional acts, only accidents. If the act was intentional or the result of (gross) negligence, the negligent/intentional person could (probably) be successfully sued for damages. Failing that, I doubt the victim will be able to recover her costs at all. IANAL; TINLA. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Car insurance still covers your victims if you’re intentionally speeding or drunk driving so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago Yeah you're definitely not a lawyer if that's your takeaway here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) I'm not a gun person, but I wonder if some pool of funds from insurance premiums could be made available for victims who wish to apply for restitution( or something). This incident definitely will cost this woman money she would presumably only recover through a suit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Oh, insurance would probably help in this case. It would depend on the specifics of the law, and whether the gun owner was negligent / grossly negligent. The main reason it wouldn't help in general is because most gun violence is intentional, and you generally can't insure against intentional acts, only accidents. If the act was intentional or the result of (gross) negligence, the negligent/intentional person could (probably) be successfully sued for damages. Failing that, I doubt the victim will be able to recover her costs at all. IANAL; TINLA. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Car insurance still covers your victims if you’re intentionally speeding or drunk driving so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago Yeah you're definitely not a lawyer if that's your takeaway here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Oh, insurance would probably help in this case. It would depend on the specifics of the law, and whether the gun owner was negligent / grossly negligent. The main reason it wouldn't help in general is because most gun violence is intentional, and you generally can't insure against intentional acts, only accidents. If the act was intentional or the result of (gross) negligence, the negligent/intentional person could (probably) be successfully sued for damages. Failing that, I doubt the victim will be able to recover her costs at all. IANAL; TINLA. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Car insurance still covers your victims if you’re intentionally speeding or drunk driving so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago Yeah you're definitely not a lawyer if that's your takeaway here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 child) Car insurance still covers your victims if you’re intentionally speeding or drunk driving so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago Yeah you're definitely not a lawyer if that's your takeaway here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago Yeah you're definitely not a lawyer if that's your takeaway here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 3 months ago Yeah you're definitely not a lawyer if that's your takeaway here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago Especially because this trash has no money to sue them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 point 3 months ago (3 children) That would just discriminate against poor people and people that live in high crime areas. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 child) It would promote responsible gun ownership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of rich people are irresponsible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of poor people have driving licences and are insured too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn't even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don't vote. Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y'know, consistancy applied and all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bss03@infosec.pub 4 points 3 months ago It would do that, but it wouldn't just do that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 4 points 3 months ago What kind of idiot takes a gun into a high-crime area? Great way to end up mugged or killed for your gun. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 child) It would promote responsible gun ownership. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of rich people are irresponsible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of poor people have driving licences and are insured too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn't even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don't vote. Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y'know, consistancy applied and all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of rich people are irresponsible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of poor people have driving licences and are insured too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn't even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don't vote. Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y'know, consistancy applied and all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Plenty of poor people have driving licences and are insured too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn't even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don't vote. Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y'know, consistancy applied and all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn't even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don't vote. Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y'know, consistancy applied and all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 4 points 3 months ago It would do that, but it wouldn't just do that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 4 points 3 months ago What kind of idiot takes a gun into a high-crime area? Great way to end up mugged or killed for your gun. permalink fedilink source parent