Prayer shaming, stopping mass shootings

[Revoltingest]

You can only drive one car at a time, yet still pay your monthly premium for multiple vehicles, right? (I'm assuming an aged business man has a multi-car policy.)

Insurance companies can give discounts in cases where only one vehicle will be driven at one time.
This will vary though.
What matters is the cost associated with the risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, but killing someone with a steak knife is a whole different degree of difficulty. A person isn't likely to try to rob a store at knife point.

Agreed....especially with the cheapsh** serrated things typically called "steak knife".

But I am all for doing more about mental health issues. I just don't see it as the fix. There is no real 'fix'. But there are things we can do to affect small changes incrementally.

There is no singular fix.
There is only doing what is worth doing to improve things.

 

[Underhill]

Insurance companies can give discounts in cases where only one vehicle will be driven at one time.
This will vary though.
What matters is the cost associated with the risk.

Don't get me started on car insurance companies. We have 2 newish cars (2014 and 2010) and a third old car that I enjoy driving occasionally (an old 81' GTI) that we added recently. The GTI cost 1/10 as much as the new cars, is dirt cheap to work on and has less power than a modern R/C car, but it raised my insurance by a grand with only 2 drivers on the plan... *boggle

 

[Revoltingest]

GTI.....sounds sporty.
Boring cars are cheaper to insure.

If we had to buy liability insurance for handguns,
I bet my Glock would be cheaper than one of those ridiculous Desert Eagles.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I just bought a new Nissan Titan that is $60 cheaper per month because my old car was a ragged out 2002 Saab 95 Turbo... go figure.

 

[Draka]

The older the vehicle the less safety features it usually has to it. Thus, it costs sometimes more to cover an older, less "safe" vehicle than a newer one with all the extra safety bells and whistles. The type of vehicle itself has a lot to do with it as well. When comparing a 2 door sports coup to a minivan the little vehicle may just cost more simply due to stats. A single person is more likely to own the car, vs the family in the minivan. The car is more likely to be driven more erratically than the van.

Couldn't this same logic be put towards gun laws as well? If they are to be insured then, based on crime stats and the likelihood of how much damage a gun could do, rates would be formed to cover appropriately.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ironically, I have been called unpatriotic by people who love their guns and spout the 2nd, yet have never served.

I wish that surprised me, but it just doesn't.

 

[Underhill]

GTI.....sounds sporty.
Boring cars are cheaper to insure.

If we had to buy liability insurance for handguns,
I bet my Glock would be cheaper than one of those ridiculous Desert Eagles.

It's a 100 hp hatchback. The only sporty thing about it is the handling.

But yeah, that's the excuse they give.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ironically, I have been called unpatriotic by people who love their guns and spout the 2nd, yet have never served.

The extremes are just nuts.

To oppose the 2nd Amendment

It's a 100 hp hatchback. The only sporty thing about it is the handling.

But yeah, that's the excuse they give.

If it is really just an excuse, & not a correlation between this model & greater liability, then you could shop around for a better rate.
I find that different insurance companies have different price & policy strategies.
If one company overcharges for a particular service, others will see opportunity.

 

[Underhill]

To oppose the 2nd Amendment

If it is really just an excuse, & not a correlation between this model & greater liability, then you could shop around for a better rate.
I find that different insurance companies have different price & policy strategies.
If one company overcharges for a particular service, others will see opportunity.

The problem is that this car used to be the teenagers ditch witch. In other words, most of them ended up in pieces.

But now, 30 years later, they are hard to find at all and they aren't exactly comparable to a modern boy racer. But the insurance rates still are. Now they are owned mostly by middle aged fatties who remember how good they were for the 20 minutes before we drove them into a tree.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is that this car used to be the teenagers ditch witch. In other words, most of them ended up in pieces.

But now, 30 years later, they are hard to find at all and they aren't exactly comparable to a modern boy racer. But the insurance rates still are. Now they are owned mostly by middle aged fatties who remember how good they were for the 20 minutes before we drove them into a tree.

Well, that does it.....I'll never buy one.
Who knows what happened in one?
Ew.

 

[Underhill]

Well, that does it.....I'll never buy one.
Who knows what happened in one?
Ew.

I don't know. Some of the most 'interesting' moments from those years I can remember happened in my parents big old boat of a car. I always found my small hatchback a bit cramped for recreational activities. That's not to say we didn't try....

 

[Draka]

To oppose the 2nd Amendment

To oppose not accepting that there is a problem that needs addressed with an attitude of compromise.

 

[girlchristian]

What's being shamed is the fact that the people that can actually do something about this problem don't, they just offer up prayers as if that means something. As if they are really doing something about this. That's like a firefighter sitting down on a curb and watching your house go up in flames and just saying "my prayers and thoughts are with you" as if that helps the people losing everything.

Or, they're choosing to offer prayers FIRST and acknowledge the victims rather than jump into a political discussion before doing so....IMO, the first tweets a politician does after a mass shooting should NOT be a political statement and, should instead, be an acknowledgement of the victims and their families.

 

[Draka]

Or, they're choosing to offer prayers FIRST and acknowledge the victims rather than jump into a political discussion before doing so....IMO, the first tweets a politician does after a mass shooting should NOT be a political statement and, should instead, be an acknowledgement of the victims and their families.

Oh bull. They have no intention of actually doing anything. Gun control/regulation bills hit Congress and Pubs shoot them down every time. Pun intended.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What I find funny about this part is that, due to my stance on gun control, I have been taken by some to be some hippie who has never so much as held a gun. When the fact is, not only have I, but I happen to be a crack shot (at least time I shot one ). I just don't see the need for the sheer amount, types, and ease of gun ownership for civilians. Honestly, I haven't held more than an air rifle since I got out of the military and it wasn't mine, and it was just for some target practice competition with a couple friends (I won btw ). So my "hippie" opinion is coming from a person who is militarily trained to use firearms but just can actually see the issues they cause and the safety risk inherent in them. Ironically, I have been called unpatriotic by people who love their guns and spout the 2nd, yet have never served. To many, you are either flat out pro-everything-guns or you are an anti-gun liberal who wants to ban them all and rip the guns out of people's hands. The extremes are just nuts.

Well said. It's rare to find anyone who is for rational, information-based regulations and controls from either side. Of course, when ideology takes hold, rational thought and discourse is generally impossible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have heard that and I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'prayer shaming' in this case. Why should someone be shamed for praying; i.e. sending out positive emotions.

Nobody's being shamed for prayer; they're being shamed for hypocrisy: expressing sympathy for victims while doing nothing for them (or future victims), or in some cases actively blocking positive actions by others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You call the right to bear arms "insane".
All this name calling & demonizing with labels & epithets doesn't serve civil discourse.
It's a matter of values & wants.
You prefer the security of expanding government's power in this manner.
I say the loss of this right is "dangerous" because it is to cede too much power to the state

I want to be as free possible. I recognize that sometimes, my armed neighbour can be more of a threat to my life or liberty than my government.

It's naive to believe that the only potential tyrants we need to worry about are people in our current government.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In law, particularly constitutional law, what matters is the intent behind it.
To apply a different definition from what was intended would be to subvert the law.
So again, I look to the Constitution's framers.
We citizens are the "militia", even if we have neither uniform nor arms.

The Second Amendment isn't the only reference to the "militia" in the Constitution. Are you arguing that the powers granted to Congress to regulate and "discipline" the militia should be applied to you? Are you comfortable with your rights being limited this way?

 

[George-ananda]

Nobody's being shamed for prayer; they're being shamed for hypocrisy: expressing sympathy for victims while doing nothing for them (or future victims), or in some cases actively blocking positive actions by others.

I understand. The term 'Prayer Shaming' in the OP title I was responded to is probably not a well-worded term. That was what I was trying to point out and clarify.