In regard to the upcoming proposed gun-related legislation in Virginia, I am trying to understand the logic behind the proposals from differing sides. One group wants to limit access to high capacity magazines, ban silencers, etc. Another group recommends instead, more severe punishment for the shooter. I don’t understand the logic behind the latter approach. I doubt that a rampage shooter is thinking ahead, weighing in his mind if this act is worth life in prison. In fact, he/she is most likely considering suicide.

It seems logical to me that the process of limiting rampages like the Virginia Beach shooting should begin with legislation limiting access to these deadly weapons.

Ruby Lehman

Harrisonburg

(34) comments

LVW

I don't care if some gun legislation is passed, but I kind of doubt it will fix the problem.

DeftCurmudgeon

I've used a firearm twice in my life to stop bad things from happening. The tools I choose to secure the safety of myself and my family are my call. No one else gets a vote. Particularly not "Coonman".

Mike Muterspaugh

Holl-Once again holl you and Maloney have no idea what you are talking about. Liability insurance does not indemnify for an intentional felonious act. Example-I finally get tired of your rants and in a fit of rage shoot you. That is an intentional, criminal and malicious act and would not be covered under a liability policy. If I’m hunting and mistake you for a deer and “accidentally” shoot you then that would be covered. This coverage is already provided by a standard homeowner policy. As far as accidents are concerned, if I accidentally shoot someone who is a resident relative there is no coverage. Because a liability policy does not compensate someone who is a named insured or insured by definition in the policy. So, you and Maloney are in way over your heads. There is no liability policy that covers intentional acts or accidents to named insureds or resident relatives (who are insureds) in the household. Period. And no insurance company would ever produce such a policy. If they did, the price would be so prohibitive no one would buy it. What is adequate? Has liability coverage on autos stopped auto deaths? No. But seat belts and airbags have reduced them. And what a stupid analogy! A homeowner’s policy provides law abiding gun owners as much coverage that is possible under an insurance contract. And it does provide legal protection for the homeowner that uses reasonable force to protect him and his family from those intending to do bodily harm to them. Do really think most criminals have a homeowner’s policy? Do you really think that any criminal would buy a “liability” policy? Do you think a criminal is going to register his firearms? Keep digging that hole deeper holl. This fun.

bknjholl

Well Mike, we know a typical homeowners policy covers guns as personal property and limits the amount of liability coverage. The cap amount is usually too low to cover the costs of damages incurred. Not good enough. More protections need to be put in place that would shield the public from harm. This is the thrust of the proposed legislation. What insurance company would turn down the opportunity to insure 300 million plus guns? That's a huge new market. Insurers would use the power of the market place to require owners to store them securely and safely as well as learn to use them safely. It's an idea that seeks to ensure public safety without intruding on private rights. So we should ignore this because... criminals? That's an excuse not a reason. Background checks on purchasers, adequately enforced plus requiring insurance by the seller just might have an effect on straw purchases or illegal gun sales. Remember the point of this thread. The idea is to take steps to REDUCE the amount of gun violence as an issue of public safety.

Mike Muterspaugh

Well holl, I have never seen anyone so eager to put their ignorance on display. Coverage of firearms themselves is a property coverage and not pertinent to the conversation. "Cap Amount"? Again more ignorance. A homeowner's policy can have personal liability limits up to $1,000,000. And, you can add a personal umbrella policy for another $1,000,0000 (or more) for low cost. Do you think there is a liability policy that has unlimited indemnity payout? All liability policies have stated occurrence/accident limits. If it existed, the liability policy your fantastical mind envisions would insure the owner/handler of the firearms not the individual firearm; the firearm does not fire itself. LIABILITY policies DO NOT ensure public safety. More ignorance. How would an insurance company police how firearms are stored? How would they know if any operator has been "properly trained"? One more time, a liability policy will not indemnify for an intentional act. Liability coverage is based on negligence not malicious acts. You have absolutely no knowledge of tort liability, insurance contracts, insurance company operations or underwriting philosophy and quite frankly, no understanding of the real world. You lack common sense and comprehension. Your infantile posts are becoming more and more convoluted and irrational. They reek of desperation.

bknjholl

Once again... Nobody said this was easy. Baby steps. The sole point is to try and reduce gun violence in this country. This is not a binary problem. It is possible to be FOR gun rights and also FOR public safety. Continual rejection of policy, delays in enforcement of current laws, and lame excuses mean more people, innocent people die. Show some empathy. Contribute your expertise to the solution, not the continuation of the problem.

Whalebroc

Mike., I think you will have to type s-l-o-w-e-r next time for BKHoll. From his answer, he did not pick up anything you were saying. I went on that train last week with him and it just seems to run in circles....over and over again. Good luck trying to get him to focus on the main issues. This site still stinks.....tookl 10 minutes to write this little bit.

bknjholl

Picked up, spit out, rejected. Wait.... make that p-i-c-k-e-d u-p, s-p-i-t o-u-t, r-e-j-e-c-t-e-d in defense of public safety and reduced gun violence. What's YOUR end game boys?

Whalebroc

Thanks, You just proved my point!

Mike Muterspaugh

Bob, typing.....slowly.....will.....not ......overcome .....ignorance......and....the .....unwillingness.....to.....accept....facts......or reason.

DANT

Amen....remember the old saying "you can't fix stupid"!

James Poplar

In his desperation to appease his shrinking “base,†Governor Northam is proposing a number of so-called “common sense†gun-control measures -none of which would have prevented the recent Virginia Beach shooting. The common denominator in most mass shootings in America is a shooter with untreated mental illness with access to a “gun free†zone. A focus on mental health is the real issue we need to address, not more laws that impinge on our rights and laws that criminals will never follow – this issue is not being addressed by Governor Northam’s latest proposals.

bknjholl

Let's be willing to propose, pass, and pay for policies that address the mental health issue. Baby steps, much more left to be done.

bknjholl

Sadly as you can see, Mass shootings are the smallest category in gun violence. And remember that mass shootings are not all done by the mentally ill unless we count radicalized domestic terrorists as mentally ill. Like I said, much more to do. Here are the numbers for the first 5 months of this year. •5,811 gun deaths •11,104 gun injuries •245 children (age 0-11) shot •1,094 teenagers (age 12-17) shot •721 armed home invasions •576 defensive gun use incidents •598 unintentional shootings •150 mass shootings

newshound

So what's your point? How many have died in car accidents? What auto laws ahould be passed to stop them?

bknjholl

Autos are highly regulated with mandatory safety features. Every Auto is registered and Liability insurance is required. All this was done to REDUCE the number of fatalities and injuries due to car accidents. Because these safety measure don't stop ALL auto accidents is NOT a good reason to quit taking them. Now, my point and the point of everyone who would like to reduce the amount of gun violence AND the number of injuries and deaths due to firearms is exactly that... to REDUCE the number of deaths, accidents, and injuries caused by gun violence. It's about saving lives. It's a public safety issue. Now please don't try the very dumb "hammers, knives, and forks" arguments.

DANT

I personally have not heard the argument we need severer punishments in mass shootings. I would like to know who said that. The problem of mass shooting incidents and firearm homicide, if approached honestly, would focus more on the mental health issue instead of gun control of law abiding citizens. Of the 30,000 avg. firearms deaths in the U.S. 60% to 70% are suicide and less than .001% are mass shootings with semi automatic rifles. The other 30% vary from accidental to justified homicide. The left is being disingenuous and much of the time are ought right lying about gun related issues....on purpose of course!

bknjholl

Two common threads in this debate and the mental health issue and the gun registration issue. There are laws on the books for both. Both issues are underfunded and in the case of background checks and registrating both underfunded and understaffed. A serious effort in either or both of these areas just might save lives. So would mandatory liability insurance on every firearm.

Mike Muterspaugh

Holl-Once again as you bob, weave and deflect holl, explain how liability insurance will save lives. MOG. As for firearm registration only Calf., Hawaii and DC require registration of all firearms https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/registration-state-by-state/ https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/registration-licensing/ Need to take a break holl. You looking more and more foolish. It's starting to be embarrassing.

bknjholl

Rep. Carolyn Maloney - “We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns, The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.” Maloney said auto insurance carriers incentivize drivers to take precautions to reduce accidents, but no such incentives exist for firearm owners. “An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” she said. “Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur." https://thehill.com/regulation/243425-house-bill-would-require-gun-owners-to-carry-insurance

bknjholl

Mike: There is a federal registration system in place. From the Violence Policy Center: What does registration of firearms add? (to licensing) Through registration, national, state, or local authorities record the ownership of a specific firearm. Several states have implemented such systems. There is also an existing federal registration system that now includes weapons such as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and shotguns, silencers, and hand grenades. This system could be expanded to include handguns. This would be the most cost-effective and efficient method of registering America's arsenal of more than 65 million handguns.

DeftCurmudgeon

Sorry, infringement. See also: poll tax.

bknjholl

Sorry, see also: The past 72 hours of gun violence in America: -77 deaths -176 injuries -198 total incidents with death and/or injury The answer to this public safety problem can not simply be no.

newshound

Another colassal waste of time proposed by yet another ignorant Democrat politician.

mattnamyj

There is no logic in limiting our rights, none! Mr. Franklin correctly wrote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Bill Murray correctly wrote "If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons make people fat." Address the real issues and leave the guns out of it!

bknjholl

None of our rights are absolute. Gun violence is a public safety problem. There are many guarantees in the market place that protect public safety. Gun safety is just as important and need regulation.

Chief601

Would your proposed "common sense" gun regulations work as well as they do in Chicago, Washington, DC, Baltimore, Detroit, New Your, etc.? Would we be like the unarmed in those hellholes and unable to defend ourselves? More socialistic nonsense from the liberal left "we are the only ones who know what's best for you" crowd who has no answers.

bknjholl

Chief, as a proud liberal pragmatist, I will support the development of public safety policies that seek to reduce the number of casualties related to gun violence. This will take research, study, and aggressive legislation, all of which are currently opposed by radical opposition. I also support current laws and regulations already on the books that are not being fully enforced. These laws and regulations, many of which are underfunded and lack manpower to fully implement, are also being opposed by radical opposition. I don’t claim to know what’s best for you other than to want for you and yours what I want for me and mine. I’d like to not have anyone I know or love become an innocent victim of gun violence. I don’t want any kids anywhere to become a statistic like this: Gun violence data in perspective: 2014: 2,926 children & teenagers shot 2015: 3,390 children & teenagers shot 2016: 3,810 children & teenagers shot 2017: 3,982 children & teenagers shot 2018: 3,514 children & teenagers shot

Chief601

bknjholl - For some reason I cannot reply to your post Never mind all the blather. Here's the question - Do the restrictive "common sense" gun laws make Chicago and the other cities safer - yes or no. Are they safer than, let's say. Harrisonburg. Please spare me your usual liberal OPINION and post some facts.

bknjholl

Chief, we love yes and no questions, so: Does Chicago share a long unsecured border with Indiana? Can a Chicagoan walk across the border and buy a gun (Good guys AND bad guys)? Are gun laws a little looser in Indiana than Chicago? Quiz: What is the capital of gun violence in America? Name four cities with a higher rate of gun violence than Chicago. Honest answer to the original question, no. Gun laws have been designed very carefully to be unenforceable, thanks to politicians beholden to the gun lobby. They therefore do not make cities like Chicago safer.

bknjholl

Go to your original JUne 13 comment and hit the reply button. Voila!

Driller

mattnamyj You're right is there is no logic in limiting our rights but doesn't a person have the right to go somewhere and not have to worry about getting shot. What about our right to life and the pursuit of happiness? I don't see where a background check or 3 day waiting list is going to infringe on any ones rights.

Whalebroc

Driller, your odds of getting shot are very slim......you ought to pray that someone around you has a gun in case there is a rare case of a shooting.

Driller

Whalebroc Maybe my odds of getting shot are slim but I had a brother that did get shot and he wasn't in the service when he got shot. That was the trouble someone around my brother did have a gun!! Another thoughtless argument, you have no idea how much I travel or where I have to go. Maybe if you "gun" people would have someone in your family shot you might see common sense gun laws in at a little different angle.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.