New bailout plan has Treasury subsidizing refis

From Bloomberg:

Treasury Plan Would Cut Rates on Some Mortgages in Bonds

Some struggling homeowners left out of current U.S. government mortgage-aid programs because their home loans have been packaged into private securities could see their interest rates cut through a subsidy being considered by the Treasury Department.

Under the plan, the government would pay the difference between the new and original interest rates to the owners of the loans for five years in an effort to overcome investors’ objections to mortgage modifications, according to a person familiar with plan who asked not to be identified because the initiative is not final or public. Details on the cost of the program and how it would be paid for were not available.

The proposal is among efforts by the Obama administration to aid homeowners who remain under stress even as the housing market begins to recover. Borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth and who have mortgages that have been packaged into bonds issued by private securitizers have been unable to take advantage of existing government aid programs.

“It’s certainly beneficial to think about ways to help underwater borrowers,” said Tom Deutsch, executive director of the American Securitization Forum. “I’m just not sure anybody’s found the right solution yet.”

Borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments and who owe at least 25 percent more than the value of their properties would be eligible for the program, which would reset their loans to the average fixed rate as determined by a weekly survey by Freddie Mac.

About 930,000 homeowners with loans in so-called private- label securities are both underwater and current on their payments, according to data from JP Morgan Securities LLC.

The person familiar with the plan said the Obama administration would move forward with it only if officials become convinced that Congress won’t act first to expand aid for troubled borrowers. The rate-modification proposal is one of a number of concepts the administration is considering if legislative solutions aren’t available, said the person, who asked not to be named because the plans are not final and have not been made public.

Meanwhile, efforts are continuing in Congress to expand borrower aid.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, has introduced a bill that would allow borrowers with loans in private-label securities to refinance into mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration. Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon wrote a measure requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pay closing costs when borrowers refinance into a loan with a term of 20 years or less, allowing homeowners to rebuild equity more quickly.

Democrats Barbara Boxer of California and Robert Menendez of New Jersey are co-sponsoring a bill that would expand the government’s Home Affordable Refinancing Program for borrowers whose loans are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government-sponsored enterprises have refinanced 1.7 million loans through HARP since it began in 2009.

This entry was posted in Economics, Foreclosures, Mortgages, National Real Estate. Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to New bailout plan has Treasury subsidizing refis

  1. Mike says:

    Good Morning New Jersey

  2. Anon E. Moose says:

    Scribe [43, prev thread];

    He was able to get off lots of shots rapidly because of the assault gun.

    Scribe, he was able to fire one shot per pull of the trigger, just like any other semi-automatic weapon. The limiting factor on the rate of fire was the individual, not the gun. Just like the cause.

    You’re aware that automatic weapons (the kind that fire more than one bullet per pull of the trigger – whether fully automatic fire or burst fire) have been outlawed in this country since 1934? I ask because some prominent journalists apparently are not. I can give RM a pass, being as he’s a foreigner.

  3. Brian says:

    New bailout for homeowner eh? I’ll believe it when I see it.

  4. Brian says:

    Moose your argument is weak. What are you saying? That if he had a revolver or something he would have been able to do the same amount of harm? Cmon man.

  5. grim says:

    Potentially media sensationalization and the intentional spread of misinformation?

  6. Brian says:

    How hard is it for somebody to buy something like an AK-47 and convert it to full auto?

  7. Essex says:

    The weak link here were the parent(s) including mom and dad for failing parenthood, marriage, and a school staffed primarily by unarmed women. Want safer schools? How about a warrior-to-work program with two marines per school for hall duty.

  8. Anon E. Moose says:

    Brian [8];

    How hard is it for somebody to buy something like an AK-47 and convert it to full auto?

    That would be illegal. You’re not saying that laws are ineffective, are you?

  9. Essex says:

    I wouldn’t arm most of the mouthbreathers currently working in the schools, But since unemployment is so high among returning veterans, Let’s deploy them to protect another priceless asset: our kids.

  10. Anon E. Moose says:

    Brian [6];

    What are you saying? That if he had a revolver or something he would have been able to do the same amount of harm? Cmon man.

    If he has two revolvers, he’d have 12 opportunities to kill. Are you going to harp on the ‘one gun per person’ trope, or do you think that its not a tragedy until more than 12 people are killed?

  11. grim says:

    7 – Converting a gun to full auto operation is a felony. However, realize that these things are relatively simple mechanical devices. Anyone with a little know how about gun smithing and a mill can do it. Hell, anyone with a little skill can probably build their own gun.

  12. Anon E. Moose says:

    Sx [11];

    Since we’ll be reducing unemployment, does that mean we finally stop the never-ending string of “forever on the installment plan” unemployment extensions in order to pay for redeploying these troops?

  13. grim says:

    Revolver is essentially a semi-automatic weapon, the only real difference is that it’s the shooters own mechanical effort that readies the gun for the next shot, and not blowback.

    Either way, you can fire all 6 rounds in a revolver in under 2 seconds easily, you can also reload a revolver in 5-10 seconds or so.

    A revolver is not one bit of a “safer” weapon. These are all guns, these are all nothing but tubes with a trigger on the closer end. They may look different, they may be different sized, different colors, etc. It’s all irrelevant, these are all guns.

  14. Painhrtz - Not like you can dust for vomit says:

    Brian it is actually pretty hard without the requsite skills. That said a similarly trained individual with access to a mossberg 500 and two pistols could have inflicted much more damage maybe we should ban shotguns and buckshot? The ridiculousness of the banning arguments always fails to take into account the instability of the individuals who commit these acts with disregard for the MILLIONS of law abiding gun owners who would never do such a thing while owning similar weapons. I have had a bush master I’m adept at pulling the trigger and getting on target quickly. Accounting for muzzle jump, target acquisition and the sitting targets in the classroom. He did not have to be good he just had to be there with ill intent. The guns did not wake up that morning kill their owner and march over to a local school the lunatic did. If he did not have access to the weapons he could have easily used something else equally destructive. Like grabbing moms SUV and running them down at the bus stop while the qued up to go home.

  15. Brian says:

    Pain the difference between the SUV and the gun is their designed purpose. The SUV was designed to transport people. What is the gun designed to do? Tear holes in paper at a shooting range? Really?

    Look I’m all for freedom but guys, help me understand why would a person other than a policeman need a weapon to live your everday lives?

  16. grim says:

    I think the new discussion will be focused on the capacity of magazines, and not necessarily the gun type.

    However, the end result will be just as irrelevant as all previous discussions. Why?

    Even when the government limited magazine capacity, those limits did not apply to existing magazines in the public ownership. Trading in “pre-ban” magazines pretty much became an industry itself.

    So what is going to change here? Make it a felony to own an “over-capacity” magazine? Enact a 1 year grace period for owners to turn them in to be destroyed? Magazine buy-back programs?

  17. Juice Box says:

    retire at 53 and get a 174k pension. If I knew 25 years ago this was possible
    I would have gone for this too.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/highest-paid-california-trooper-chief-030402254.html

  18. joyce says:

    (16)

    Brian,
    Why does a police officer need a weapon?

  19. joyce says:

    (headline article) & (4)

    Headline should read “New Bailout plan has Treasury subsidizing lenders toxic assets, again”

  20. Mike says:

    Juice 19 When I got at of high school cops were not making that much at all. Yes if I only knew than what I know now.

  21. joyce says:

    Well said. And what gives those words written by these honorable men & women so much power… is it because they’re backed by threat of force and violence (i.e. they have guns)?

    54.Ernest Money says:
    December 16, 2012 at 11:55 pm
    Then again, the biggest assault weapon available in this country is a pen and piece of paper in the hands of a politician.

  22. Brian says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if he didn’t? But he does. I bet the bullet proof vest does a better job of protecting him though.

    20.joyce says:
    December 17, 2012 at 9:31 am
    (16)

    Brian,
    Why does a police officer need a weapon?

  23. Lnixjrsd says:

    C1Z0Bv , UK Payday Loans, [url="http://hotellescolonnes2002.com"]UK Payday Loans[/url], http://hotellescolonnes2002.com UK Payday Loans, 029708,

  24. grim says:

    Lots of chatter about Nancy Lanza being a doomsday prepper.

  25. HouseWhineWine says:

    18. The news interviewed 4 of Mrs. Lanza’s friends this morning. They came off as intelligent and well-spoken. One of the friends said she wanted Adam to learn to shoot so that he could “have something” to focus on. Or words to that effect. They all insisted she was a caring mother, yadda, yadda, yadda. They painted her as not a gun nut, and not a survivalist. I don’t know. Maybe she was in denial about how crazed her son really was.

  26. joyce says:

    (24)
    Brian,

    It was a simple question. And of course it was meant to prove a self-evident point that a police officer needs a weapon for protection, correct? I would argue that is the exact same reason that any other person would want one (and should be able to carry openly/concealed whatever).

    If someone wants to claim that police have a better chance running into ‘bad guys’ on a daily basis than a non-police officer, I completely disagree. Criminals usually avoid the police and seek out victims… not the other way around.

  27. Painhrtz - Not like you can dust for vomit says:

    Thank you Joyce i was going to say the same thing. I think the more appropriate answer for me I need weapons to hunt and because the police have weapons. I view the cops as being complicit in the erosion of our freedoms in this country all in the name of safety.

    First people the Nazis retarded freedoms for when they came to power was the gun owners. Though they used existing Weimar Republic Laws and expanded them against their enemies and Jews and other undesirables. The playbook pretty much runs the same in all tyranies. In our own history battles of lexington and concord were basically started becasue the British wanted to disarm the poulace. It is a basic military playbook find the gun owners and neutralize them.

    I know wiki is a bas source but taken from there due to lack of time

    Switzerland is a noted example of a country in which, due to the country’s conscription and militia traditions, firearm possession is widespread. Owing to Switzerland’s history, all able-bodied male Swiss citizens aged between 21 and 50 (55 for officers) are issued assault rifles and ammunition in order to perform their annual military obligations. Because of this, Switzerland is one of the few nations in the world with a higher rate of firearm possession than the United States.[159] Also, Switzerland has a relatively low rate of gun crime.[159] The comparatively low level of violent crime, despite the liberal gun laws, is demonstrated by the fact that Swiss politicians rarely have the same level of police protection as their counterparts in the United States and other countries, as was noted following the fatal shooting of several government officials in the Swiss canton of Zug in September 2001.

    We should not be afraid of the government but the government should fear us. I read way to much Jefferson and Paine but in essence a man must be able to secure his natural rights by the means afforded to him.

  28. joyce says:

    (29)

    Pain,

    “fact that Swiss politicians rarely have the same level of police protection as their counterparts in the United States and other countries”

    Do you think Lord Bloomberg includes his personal armed bodyguards in the groups of people he wants to disarm?

  29. BearsFan says:

    28-29 (Joyce, Painhrtz) – Well said.

  30. Nomad says:

    If Switzerland has a higher rate of gun ownership but minimal gun crimes / issues.

    I want to know why and then do in the US what they do.

    Wonder what family life / life is like there:
    - do families have dinner more often together?
    - more respect for and adherence to rules?
    - more or less respect for authority in Switz than US?
    - smaller country with a very different history than the US?
    - different mores and culture than US?
    - a society that demands civil behavior and frowns on those that do not comply?

    How do they achieve what they do?

  31. Essex says:

    29. I would agree. But it is the peripheral damage usually kids that pay when something goes wrong.

  32. Essex says:

    (NEWTOWN, Conn.) — The nurse at Sandy Hook Elementary School says she and the school secretary stayed hidden in a supply closet for almost four hours after the Connecticut school massacre had ended, leaving 20 children and six adults dead.

    Sally Cox told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Monday that she knew “something terrible was happening” Friday morning when she heard loud popping sounds and the school secretary called out to her. She says she went under her computer desk, and the gunman entered her office. She says she could see his legs from the knees down, his boots facing her desk. He then left and closed the door.

    She says the secretary raced into her office and they called 911 and hid in the closet. Cox says they were “petrified” and “didn’t know how many there could have been.”

    The gunman was 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who killed himself at the school.

    By MATT APUZZO and PAT EATON-ROBB

    (PHOTOS: Connecticut Community Copes After School Shooting)

  33. Essex says:

    What if you saw him entering the school and you were carrying. Would you, could you have taken him out?

  34. Painhrtz - Not like you can dust for vomit says:

    SX without question, but I would have probably hesitated enough for him to get me first. the difference although I hunt it is not easy to take a life nutso on the other had no issue with it. Friends I hunt with have a child with Aspergers, and as much as it pains them to not share their love afield with the child, the nature of the disorder keeps them from training him how to use weapons. All guns are locked up in a safe and trigger locks. Ammo is locked up separately in ammo boxes. You have to be responsible when you own guns and have a kid with a mental disability. Unfortunately this woman wasn’t 26 people paid for it

  35. Comrade Nom Deplume says:

    [36] pain

    As did she. Whatever her failings, she was the first to pay.

  36. nwnj says:

    #32

    I would add the question of what they are doing with the mentally ill? Are they pumping them full of meds? Are they turning them out on society and pretending that they have the same capacity to handle an autonomous livestyle?

    Both of these wackos should have been bouncing around a rubber room and not playing Duke Nuke’m and hanging at the gun range.

  37. JJ's B.Se says:

    Dont worry his pension is not inflation adjusted in 20 years he will be licking the empty cat food cans at the dumpster to get by.

    Private mortgage is also problematic from a flood perspective. My neighbors block a minority couple bought one of the better houses on the block which is only around 150 feet from the open bay just last year. Since they did not qualify for a conforming mortgage they paid a higher rate and got one of those subprime or even a jumbo type mortgages that are privately held. Their house was around 500K so who knows. Anyhow their block got badly damaged in flood. Every mortgage on block with a conforming mortgage is required by law to have flood insurance. However, since it is a non-conforming mortgage there is no such requirement. This person did not purchase flood insurance so they are now stuck with a big mortgage payment on a unlivable house.

    My town 99% of people fall into the category, conforming mortgage which means you have flood insurance, or you have no mortgage and then you may have not had flood insurance like dummy me. Us dummies have a lot of out of pocket repairs, but since we own homes outright it helps. I can’t imagine having a $3,000 a month mortgage on a home bought last year, doing all that year one homeowner stuff and then taking on heavy damage. The $31,900 from fema max is for everything, hotels, repairs, medical etc. At least when I was paying out of pocket for a hotel I was not also paying a mortgage. Plus the folks without mortgage were generally older folks with modest capes or splits. For instance when I got estimates, they take out the tape measure and measure rooms and then add in materials and that is cost.

    Old lady with a 1,400 square foot house with downstairs destroyed and no basement has 700 square foot of repairs using base materials. This couple bought a high end 2,000 square foot hose so you are talking 1,000 square feet of high end stuff distroyed. Since house was mint when they bought it they paid a prem.

    I think every non-conforming mortgage house in the flood zones sold since 2003 that did not have flood insurance is a bk. Last straw. you can refinance, not eligible for harp or hamp and now you have heavy flood damage.
    Juice Box says:
    December 17, 2012 at 9:17 am

    retire at 53 and get a 174k pension. If I knew 25 years ago this was possible
    I would have gone for this too.

  38. Statler Waldorf says:

    Ever ridden a NY City subway?

    “I would add the question of what they are doing with the mentally ill? Are they pumping them full of meds? Are they turning them out on society and pretending that they have the same capacity to handle an autonomous lifestyle?”

  39. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    [8] Essex – I’ll give you half credit for that answer, but I’m a hard grader. All of these similar events since Columbine (VT, Gabby Gifford, Colorado Cinema) have a very common thread. Young ADULT with parents who had knowledge of their kid’s mental health problems. It just doesn’t make sense to me that we need to arm schools to the hilt and lie in wait for the mentally unhealthy to eventually appear. I do believe that the parents were the weak link in all these tragedies, maybe the changes necessary in the law should hold parents culpable? Mental illness and/or substance abuse is the cause and violence is the effect. There simply are not enough beds or an efficient process to deliver the right kids to those beds for either the proper treatment or perpetual housing. I guess the most efficient fix would be death panels for a certain group of high risk kids age 15-18.

    The weak link here were the parent(s) including mom and dad for failing parenthood, marriage, and a school staffed primarily by unarmed women. Want safer schools? How about a warrior-to-work program with two marines per school for hall duty.

  40. nwnj says:

    #40 We’re talking about the Swiss.

  41. Dissident HEHEHE says:

    re 32,

    Are you aware of a single country in the world that glorifies gun violence like the entertainment industry does in the United States? Video games, music, tv shows movies. I am not saying it is the cause of anybody’s behavior but I can’t help but think its cumulative effect doesn’t desensitize some of these people to the actual impact of pulling the trigger.

  42. Brian says:

    Maybe a good start would be to reform how we treat the mentally ill in this country and requiring gun owners to secure their weapons while not in use.

  43. 3B Buying says:

    We looked at the lsiting below in Saturday. As the Realtors say, “charm abounds” but it needs a new kitichen and new bathroom, on top of all the other work. No real place for a second bathroom on the main floor. Basement requires that I bend to my knees to actually walk down the staris; bringing laundery up and down would be a challenge, oh and my head literallu touches the ceiling. And so it will not work. But the main floor rooms are large, and so are two of the bedrooms. Once redone it will be nice for someone. It does not work for us.

    http://www.njmls.com/listings/index.cfm?action=dsp.info&mlsnum=1240764&dayssince=&countysearch=false

  44. 3B Buying says:

    So Mother and Father divorced, Father remarries, where was the Father in all of this?

  45. JJ's B.Se says:

    Still dont know why any individual needs more than a old fashioned six shooter cop gun, you have to pull trigger each time for six bullets and then reload gun. That gives us folk a chance to charge shooter. AKA like Colin Fergunson the nut who tried to kill everyone on LIRR many years ago, when he stopped to reload he got tackled.

    Originally they did not want to give cops 9mils as in a panic you shoot too many times and really how bad a shot are you.

    six shooters for protections, rifles for hunting, and also one per customer. this lady had multiple guns, why should anyone have multiple guns in the house

  46. Dissident HEHEHE says:

    “this lady had multiple guns, why should anyone have multiple guns in the house”

    Maybe because its perfectly legal and she liked them? How many cars do you have in your garage? Do you know around 90 people die each day in this country in automobile accidents? Why are these cars still allowed to be used?

  47. zieba says:

    pass the popcorn please…

  48. Libtard in the City says:

    The gun debate is fruitless. The NRA is a huge campaign contributor. Whomever, or should I say, whichever industry contributes the most will have the laws legislated in their favor. Meanwhile, the sheep will continue to debate like they fight over the few crumbs which satiate us. As long as nicotine is added to tobacco, rest assure that guns will remain legal, plentiful and available. Enjoy the show!!!

  49. DuckVader says:

    “Maybe because its perfectly legal and she liked them? How many cars do you have in your garage? Do you know around 90 people die each day in this country in automobile accidents? Why are these cars still allowed to be used?”

    And before you can drive you need to pass a written test and practical test; and before you can own a car, you have to buy insurance. So why not mandate insurance for gun owners, so that we can have a market-based risk assessment?

  50. Painhrtz - Not like you can dust for vomit says:

    JJ I’m pretty sure CF used semi auto pistols.

    Supporting your theory on why cops should only have revolvers

    http://www.philasun.com/news/3715/34/13-Cleveland-police-officers-who-fired-137-rounds-into-car-killing-two-expected-to-be-interviewed-by-investigators.html

    Lib as always your right but I love when Nannies like Feinstein come out and say assault weapons and the darn things are never evven close to that. the stupid things that they banned in the asault weapons ban were window dressing. If you do not have select fire it is a dressed up semi auto. Kind of like turning a fiero into a ferrari

  51. Dissident HEHEHE says:

    She apparently owned the guns legally in a state with some of the strictest gun laws – a safety course, background check etc. required before purchase. It’s not like she picked them off the rack at Seven Eleven after buying a Big Gulp and a lottery ticket.

  52. Anon E. Moose says:

    Brian [46];

    requiring gun owners to secure their weapons while not in use.

    They were secure, in her house. Its not like someone walked in off the street and took them, the perpetrator had unique access to her home. Unless you use ‘secure’ to mean locked up so tight that they are unavailable when needed, which is just a dodge to make ‘legal’ gun ownership worthless.

    Reminds me of MD state’s attempt to ‘reform’ handgun laws; handguns would be legal so long as they were equiped with electronic fingerprint anti-fire technology that doesn’t actually exist in the marketplace except in the statist politician’s sci-fi daydreams (not to mention required prospective gun owners to buy new and expensive technology-ladden guns, making gun ownership all but unaffordable). Even in prototype, the technology didn’t reliably work, meaning that a sweaty palm facing an intruder at night in their home might get to hear this as much as a shot fired.

  53. chicagofinance says:

    Over the weekend, I heard something to the effect that the guns were legal, but did have some modifications to skirt certain laws making them non-compliant. I do not know the source or the details, but it sounded as if something illegal may have occurred based on your definition.

    grim says:
    December 17, 2012 at 8:52 am
    7 – Converting a gun to full auto operation is a felony. However, realize that these things are relatively simple mechanical devices. Anyone with a little know how about gun smithing and a mill can do it. Hell, anyone with a little skill can probably build their own gun.

  54. grim says:

    C’mon Stu – By that reasoning, Goldman Sachs, the Teachers Union, Citibank, and the Realtors are all more dangerous than the NRA.

  55. joyce says:

    Even with excruciatingly difficult driving test we have to pass as required by law, countless people still do so without license. Also, I spit my coffee out in laughter with your sentence that combined ‘govt mandates’ and ‘market-based risk assessments’.

    53.DuckVader says:
    December 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm
    “Maybe because its perfectly legal and she liked them? How many cars do you have in your garage? Do you know around 90 people die each day in this country in automobile accidents? Why are these cars still allowed to be used?”

    And before you can drive you need to pass a written test and practical test; and before you can own a car, you have to buy insurance. So why not mandate insurance for gun owners, so that we can have a market-based risk assessment?

  56. Brian says:

    57 – Lock the guns in a safe use trigger locks or whatever and sign up for a home alarm system if you’re that scared to sleep at night.

  57. Painhrtz - Not like you can dust for vomit says:

    Grim I would argue they are. The NRA doesn’t petition the government for largesse at our expense.

  58. grim says:

    55 – The problem is that it’s pretty much impossible to define what an “assault weapon” is.

    It’s not defined by the mechanical action of the gun, but by various components bolted on to what would essentially be an every day rifle.

    Things like pistol grips, tripods, detachable/collapsible stocks, utility rails, etc. All things that alter the way the gun looks, but leaves the mechanical action largely untouched.

    The legislation had more to do with banning how guns looked, versus how guns really functioned.

    Like Nom said, for all intents and purposes, a Ruger Mini-14 in hunting dress would have been equally as deadly in this situation.

    However, most would have looked at the gun and somehow thought it a bit more safe because it had a traditional wooden stock.

  59. joyce says:

    61

    Brian,

    It sounds like you’re the one who can’t sleep at night knowing your neighbor may have a weapon unlocked in your town.

  60. DuckVader says:

    “Even with excruciatingly difficult driving test we have to pass as required by law, countless people still do so without license. Also, I spit my coffee out in laughter with your sentence that combined ‘govt mandates’ and ‘market-based risk assessments’.

    So the better answer is to not require driving tests, since many people don’t drive without licenses. By that measure, since a lot of illegals come into the country, why not stop requiring passports for travel into the US?

    Why are you against insurance for gun owners, since it is one thing whose can be directly linked to some form of damage?

  61. Libtard in the City says:

    “C’mon Stu – By that reasoning, Goldman Sachs, the Teachers Union, Citibank, and the Realtors are all more dangerous than the NRA.”

    Some would argue that GS, the Teacher’s Union and Citibank are partially responsible for the massacre. Knowing that Corzine walks free sometimes gives me the urge to……

  62. grim says:

    To further confuse the issue… One of the most successful US military firearms of all time, the M1 Garand (that helped us win WW 2), would probably be indistinguishable by the average American from any other hunting rifle. Perfectly legal, collectible guns.

    How can you argue that this thing isn’t an assault rifle given it’s history? Yet, just about everything about it from a look and feel perspective is hunting rifle.

  63. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    Car insurance isn’t required in New Hampshire.

  64. grim says:

    Why are you against insurance for gun owners, since it is one thing whose can be directly linked to some form of damage?

    Is the hope here that the cost of insurance drives up the cost of owning a gun, and therefore makes it less desirable to some, ultimately reducing gun ownership? Or potentially eliminating it entirely?

    Is this a tax or is this insurance?

    Given the overall low probability of an incident occurring, I wouldn’t expect the insurance premium to be very high at all. We’re talking about real market driven risk-based pricing here, correct? Not some kind of penalty system?

    You’d probably be looking at premiums lower than a term life insurance policy for someone relatively healthy. Maybe $10 a month?

    Would that really dissuade anyone? Would it, indirectly, be more positive towards gun ownership since the individual liability in an accident scenario is reduced?

  65. Brian says:

    Sure it worries me but I sleep pretty well at night. The only thing that kept me up until recently was the baby but now she’s a pretty good sleeper too. Thank God…

    64.joyce says:
    December 17, 2012 at 1:35 pm
    61

    Brian,

    It sounds like you’re the one who can’t sleep at night knowing your neighbor may have a weapon unlocked in your town.

  66. DuckVader says:

    Grim,

    The problem is how can there be an effective risk assessment of a gun purchaser. Government will bungle it up. And the purchaser and the seller want to evade as much of that process as possible. Of all the things I’ve seen that somehow makes a determinatio of risk behavior, insurance is the closest I can find. And no, it’s not meant to be a penalty. As you said, the risk is low enough that the premium will probably be close to term insranc rates, but again that takes this debate out of the emotional and into the realm of the quantifiable.

  67. Dissident HEHEHE says:

    “The problem is that it’s pretty much impossible to define what an “assault weapon” is.”

    I thought is was whatever the airhead cable news anchor claims it is.

  68. DuckVader says:

    And as an addition grim, just like auto insurance, having guns in a house with a teenager drives up insurance, just like having a teenager driving. Insurance has worked for centuries as a risk assessment tool. There must be something in it.

  69. joyce says:

    73

    Until the bungles it up

  70. joyce says:

    Until the government bungles it up

  71. grim says:

    73 – It’s an interesting idea, but it will backfire.

    We’re talking about 270 million+ guns in the US in private ownership. The rate of firearms accidents is miniscule in comparison.

    In addition, it’s unlikely that a criminal would have their firearm ‘insured’. Therefore, there would be little to no market exposure to the largest single group of incidents that could cause payouts, and thus premiums, to rise.

    You’d essentially be insuring against hunting accidents and accidents at home while maintaining guns or otherwise.

    In addition, I know nothing about insurance law, but would insurance pay out on a claim where the insured had taken part in a crime?

    For example, if I crash my car while fleeing from a bank robbery, will NJM pay out my collision less deductible?

  72. 250K says:

    Where to begin?

    Com (#62 yesterday’s thread) [and this is not an attack on you]
    >> You’ve no idea what a PITA loading and reloading mags can be
    >> when there are a few of you taking turns with a rifle.

    I think we need to figure out where the right to “bear arms” collides up against the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and in your case, the PITA of having to reload. I agree, reloading is a real pain but if the ban on large clips stops one individual EVER from shooting up a school or at a minimum, allows the police to get there in time to stop him (or her) after he unloads the first clip and before the second one is loaded, then I am all for it.

    Com, perhaps you would not use such an argument in a public person-to-person discussion but you have to realize that someone who has to bury a child is going to think your comment is insensitive at best. Picking a small coffin for your dead son or daughter is a PITA.

    HEHEHE (#56)
    >> She apparently owned the guns legally in a state with some of the strictest gun
    >> laws – a safety course, background check etc. required before purchase.

    Can’t wait for the attacks about how I am an idiot for wanting to operate this country like its China, but, as someone who believes citizens have the right bear arms, I also believe the laws in place are ineffective. It is still too easy to legally own a firearm. The safety course and test is a joke. I would bet that the bottom 10% of students in any high school in the state could easily pass the gun safety exam but fail their drivers exam. Pull up the test for any state in the union and look at the sample questions yourself. Its absurd.

    We don’t know the full facts of the case yet (the NRA told me so) but it appears that Ms. Lanza was either unaware of just how dangerous her son was (which doesn’t jive with the reports from her drinking buddies who said she believed he was getting worse and she was fearful) or she did not have proper precautions in place to secure her guns and ammunition.

    I would advocate for a stronger testing procedure, a required hands-on training course (with some minimum hours of practice and education) and evidence that you have a way to securely store whatever weapons you have in your arsenal. All of these things should make the NRA and gun industry jump for joy as it would be money in their pockets.

    That being said, this seems to be much more an issue of mental health and how this country deals with the mentally ill than one of gun control, but I welcome the opportunity for real debate and change on the topic.

    I fully understand that a determined individual could have caused an equal amount of death and then some even if guns were 100% outlawed in any way shape or form, but that is no excuse to bury our heads in the sand and try to prevent some of these events from happening in the future.

  73. Carlito says:

    Tax gun ownership to the bejeezus

  74. DuckVader says:

    “Would that really dissuade anyone? Would it, indirectly, be more positive towards gun ownership since the individual liability in an accident scenario is reduced?”

    My gut sense is that it won’t have an effect initially on ownership levels because the financial cost is not punitive. But it will help price out different aspects of the risk — handgun vs. rifle (especially those that can be easily modified or take high capacity magazines), someone who has X hours of training vs. 3X (or some reasonable factor), being above the age of 50 (?), having kids, teenagers or other adults in the house? prior records, etc.

  75. The Original NJ ExPat says:

    [76] If you want all gun owners to be “insured”, just include the premium in the cost of ammo. If you want all drivers to be inusred, just include the the premium in the cost of fuel. Whoever shoots and drives the most, pays the most.

  76. DuckVader says:

    So maybe after 10 or 20 years, we’ll have a reasonable database of the risk factors, and not fuzzy stuff like — oh you look weird, oh you’re a loner, oh you play videogames. Unless it’s supported by data.

  77. Fabius Maximus says:

    “of these similar events since Columbine (VT, Gabby Gifford, Colorado Cinema) have a very common thread.”
    Young ADULT with easy access to high powered weaponry?
    “Either way, you can fire all 6 rounds in a revolver in under 2 seconds easily, you can also reload a revolver in 5-10 seconds or so.”
    Yes and you can empty the 30 round clip in the semi in the same time frame. Part of the discussion here is the need to slow the discharge rate. Shooting 90 rounds is 3 reloads on the semi vs 15 on the six shooter.
    There will be a lot of discussion over the next few weeks and the biggest crime will be if nothing gets done. Something has to happen even if it starts with small steps.
    For me I’m in the middle on the debate. I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership. I have friends that hunt, friends that are farmers, friends that shoot for competition. They all have guns that fit their purpose and they don’t have that many. They don’t quote personal protection as a reason for ownership. I think cartridge based ammo should be banned for all outside law enforcement and the Military. Is that realistic, probably not, how about 3 shot max clips on an exchange program.
    Add to that why not regulate the sale of body armor. While the guns might have been his mothers, I’m sure the body amour wasn’t

  78. joyce says:

    (77)

    250K,

    I happen to disagree fundamentally. Not with respect to gun ownership specifically, but with the idea of prior restraint. It’s this following line of thinking that I’m referring to:

    “That someone else might have done, or might do, something is sufficient warrant to assume you did – or are about to, or might. And/or to treat you as if you already had. If “someone” might do, or has done something… then certainly any of us could be that someone.”

    In other words, it’s the application of random, arbitrary aggressive violence against a peaceful person that I disagree with. There’s no end to it – because it’s open-ended to infinity.

  79. grim says:

    As someone who is mildly pro-gun, here are my recommendations. These are recommendations that most other moderate gun owners would be receptive to.

    Magazine capacity limits of approximately 10-15 rounds.
    Grandfather higher cap magazine ownership for 1 year
    Put in place a magazine buy-back program (buy back price needs to at market)
    Require the destruction of all higher capacity magazines
    Make the possession of high cap magazines a felony
    Anyone wishing to keep higher capacity magazines due to their historical value will need to have them altered in a manner to make them unusable and unrepairable.
    Mandatory training course for both long and short gun
    Refresher training course at 5 year intervals
    Demonstrated proficiency as a pre-requisite to permitting
    Make the modification of, or sale of components used to convert guns to full-auto use a felony, 15 year minimum.

    —————
    Here are a few others, these would be heresy to many gun collectors.

    Minimum barrel lengths for long guns
    Minimum gun weight
    Ban folding or collapsing stocks
    Ban pistol grips on long guns
    (essentially the 3-4 components necessary to use a long-gun in close quarters)

  80. joyce says:

    (82)
    Fabius,

    Is this comment serious? “Add to that why not regulate the sale of body armor.”

  81. JJ's B.Se says:

    pretty much I question the sanity of anyone who buys a gun.

  82. Ragnar says:

    Looks like Captain Hindsight has come to save the day.
    http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/360430/captain-hindsight

  83. joyce says:

    (82)
    Fabius,
    ” “of these similar events since Columbine (VT, Gabby Gifford, Colorado Cinema) have a very common thread.”
    Young ADULT with easy access to high powered weaponry? ”

    How many young adults have easy access same weapons all day everyday and do not commit crimes? I would guess the percentage is somewhere north of 99%

  84. chicagofinance says:

    The Lanzas were rolling in dough, so hopefully the combined 27 plaintiffs will manage to suck the life out of the mom’s estate…….hopefully she had a huge personal liability policy too……maybe somehow they will find a way to get at the father’s money too, but I don’t see how…….

  85. joyce says:

    I question the sanity of anyone who thinks they’re a wall-street BSD, lives near water, and doesn’t carry flood insurance.

    86.JJ’s B.Se says:
    December 17, 2012 at 2:32 pm
    pretty much I question the sanity of anyone who buys a gun.

  86. grim says:

    91 – Isn’t having flood insurance in a flood zone a better payout than Stu’s video poker?

  87. Essex says:

    Finally the USA has an act that perfectly expresses its true spirit as the horror show nation among nations: the random mass slaughter of little children by a maniac. Is it not so that the failure to protect little children from harm is the most shameful weakness an adult human can present?
    Next, of course, comes the empty ritual of pretending that we must make sure something like this never happens again. How? By some forensic inquiry into the psychology of the shooter, Mr. Lanza… his comings, goings, email musings, Netflix rentals, chemical composition of his fingernail clippings? We flatter ourselves with the technocratic conceit that if we can measure something enough, we can control it. Ban assault weapons or tighten up the background checks? The horse is out of the barn on that one. There are enough weapons loose in the USA to conduct a full-scale Civil War right now. And probably enough ill feeling. Just pick the flavor of the conflict you want: ideological? Religious? Racial? Regional?

    For what it’s worth, the Newtown Massacre to me is largely about the failure of men in America, and in particular the failure of men to raise up male children into men. The tragic monster that Mr. Lanza grow up into lived with Mom and ended up parking four bullets in her brain. Imagine the tensions in that monster. It’s not an accident that the commercial fantasies represented in movies and television aimed at boys are populated by legions of super-heroes. This sort of grandiosity — the wish to project supernatural powers — is exactly what you get in boys who have not developed competence in any reality-based, meaningful realm of endeavor — and I wouldn’t necessarily include school, such as it is in our time, as a reality-based, meaningful realm of endeavor, since it is mostly a brutally boring accreditation process. Notice, Mr. Lanza’s chief instrument of death was the “Bushmaster.” His weapon made him a “master” of something, at least, even if it was just the systematic slaughter of six-year-old kids and the women in charge of them.

    History has its own arcs and particular moments in history have their own spirits of the time. This moment for us is the sum of the unintended consequences of countless bad choices we’ve made for many decades against the backdrop of enormous material riches. I’ve inveighed against these manifold fiascos enough for this audience. The net result is a nation that has turned men either into weaklings, fakes, or monsters. I think the greater tragedy is that we are past being able to teach ourselves how to act and now it is up to nature and history to provide the only kind of instruction we can understand.

    I used to crack a joke when showing a particular slide in my visiting college lectures that “we’re a wicked people who deserve to be punished.”

    It’s not so funny anymore. Look around at the squalid mess that America has made of its own terrain: the endless wastelands of free parking and slumping strip malls, the wilderness of tract housing subdivisions, the cities left cored, rotting, and stinking in the fall drizzle, the countless redundant roadways — and while you’re at it, take a good hard look at the depressing and disgraceful industrial boxes that school is conducted in, these euphemistically-named “facilities.”

    We live in physical surroundings that are the perfect growth medium for serial killers, mass murderers, psychopaths with no feeling, and sado-masochists preoccupied only with the ritual orchestration of their own shame and guilt in the service of inflicting pain.

    Let me remind you that there is a range of thought and feeling evinced in human culture that no longer exists in America. These things were called virtues. They are qualities in thought and action related to goodness and excellence, and they are in very short supply these days in the USA, though we are well-supplied with fakes and approximations of virtue — such as the moments of sham heroism witnessed yesterday afternoon and evening by men watching televised football. What matters now is that an epochal undertow of events is dragging this enormous nation into an economic convulsion that will inevitably turn political.

    I don’t think that our society can be redeemed in its current form. It has to pass through a tribulation that demands the reemergence of adult male humans who know how to be men in more than one dimension. And you who make it through to the other side will barely comprehend the monsters left behind, or how they made themselves that way.

  88. Essex says:

    93. Source: Business Insider

  89. Painhrtz - Not like you can dust for vomit says:

    SX whoever wrote that needs to spend some serious time in africa to understand true horror.

  90. Anon E. Moose says:

    Sx [93];

    Let me remind you that there is a range of thought and feeling evinced in human culture that no longer exists in America. These things were called virtues. They are qualities in thought and action related to goodness and excellence, and they are in very short supply these days in the USA, though we are well-supplied with fakes and approximations of virtue — such as the moments of sham heroism witnessed yesterday afternoon and evening by men watching televised football. What matters now is that an epochal undertow of events is dragging this enormous nation into an economic convulsion that will inevitably turn political.

    The burning bag of dog excrement that is the vacuum of values in culture lies squarely on the doorstep of the left, to whom the only more fearsome weapon than a gussied up .22 cal target rifle is a cross — and they are out to ban both kinds.

  91. Libtard in the City says:

    91 – Isn’t having flood insurance in a flood zone a better payout than Stu’s video poker?

    I doubt it Grim. Video Poker can offer returns that allow a knowledgeable player to beat the house since the average player is so clueless that the machine’s hold still ends up being between 4 and 10 percent on average based on strategy difficulty. Insurance companies set their rates so they can not lose. Ask Warren B. He pretty much made all of his honest money investing in insurance companies. Of course the knowledgeable insurance customer can attempt to use fraud to potentially beat the house. Fraud is not an option in the advantage video players’ tool kit. Unless you think you can obtain an advantage when dealing with the mob.

  92. grim says:

    maybe somehow they will find a way to get at the father’s money too, but I don’t see how…….

    Maybe something in the fact that the father had joint custody following the divorce.

    Did you see the alimony payments? $250k a year? Rolling in dough indeed.

  93. Libtard in the City says:

    “Did you see the alimony payments? $250k a year? Rolling in dough indeed.”

    Well, if some rich broad wants to marry and divorce me, I promise my son won’t shoot you!

  94. Essex says:

    96. Yeah cause only leftists get divorces –

  95. Anon E. Moose says:

    Sx [101];

    Where exactly did the piece you posted limit itself to divorce?

  96. grim says:

    Yes and you can empty the 30 round clip in the semi in the same time frame. Part of the discussion here is the need to slow the discharge rate. Shooting 90 rounds is 3 reloads on the semi vs 15 on the six shooter.

    I don’t know whether or not a mechanism exists whereby to reduce the potential firing rate of a semi-automatic handgun or rifle, but it certainly sounds complex. I’m sure there is some threshold or limit to maximum rate that is determined by the mechanical linkages of components within the gun, but in most cases, that threshold is likely to still be lower than the maximum rate at which one can pull a trigger.

    The only realistic approach I can come up with, given my limited knowledge of gun mechanics, is to lengthen the minimum trigger pull, and potentially establish a higher minimum trigger weight. Both of these would have an effect of slowing the maximum potential rate of fire that the person is capable of (but not necessarily the firearm itself).

    The problem with the approach is that these are both techniques used by disabled shooters in order to be able to shoot a firearm when a potential disability exists that impacts the range of motion or strength of their hand). Also very common techniques used in advanced target shooting, in order to reduce the transfer of motion of the trigger pull to the rifle itself).

    You can probably argue that the advanced target shooter should be able to compensate for trigger pull, in the same way they might compensate for bullet drop or wind, but the disabled case is a tough one, because you can’t go limiting access based on disability.

  97. Brian says:

    93 –
    Essex, whoever wrote that is a pessimistic coward.

    There has always been a dark side to human nature that is just part of the human condition.

    And what the h@ll is wrong with watching a football game once in a while? Jesus.

  98. Brian says:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanzas-former-babysitter-speaks-2012-12

    School Shooter’s Babysitter Said The Boy’s Mom Warned Him Never To Turn His Back

  99. nwnj says:

    #104

    Bingo. Before I consider restricting law abiders rights as an appropriate course of action, I think the notion that everyone can be rehabbed, and that certain individuals aren’t inheritely dangerous needs to be dispelled.

    Deal with that first. Otherwise it looks to me like more demagoguary and and another Washington power grab. We’ve will have only addressed the symptom and not the underlying illness.

  100. Ragnar says:

    If only the government would give crazy loner guys free hookers, shooting sprees would probably drop by 50%. The rest are probably determined enough to figure out how to kill people one way or the other.

  101. Ragnar says:

    SX, I like free parking and shopping malls.

  102. Dissident HEHEHE says:

    Guy who pushed that guy in front of the subway a few weeks ago is a case in point; all kinds of mental problems and a rap sheet as long as the subway train.

  103. BearsFan says:

    what else can we do but secure the schools better and arm the people inside the school?

  104. Essex says:

    109. We can rock baby! Cause we’re Americans!

  105. Essex says:

    107. I like woods and streams.

  106. Libtard in the City says:

    Arming the people inside the school is not a solution. Probably would end up with more meaningless deaths. We should all be happy that these massacres occur infrequently.

  107. raging bull jj says:

    when my chamber is empty I dont need a gun.

    The reason I did not have flood insurance is because insurance agents are crooks. I tried to buy it in past and always got quoted 2k a year. Way too much considering I could invest 2k a year. Turns out now I got a quote of only $425, meanwhile last summer I was researcing insurance and the agent tried to sell me homeowners, auto, excess, renters insurance and even llloyds of london flood insurance. So after flood fema gave me this quote when I bought it agent said oh year most agents if you push hard you get govt flood rate but I only make 20 bucks, we agents try to push you into private flood which has greater insurance. A. I am stupid for not researching more. B agents are crooks. Either way Flood would have got me 20K more than a FEMA pay out but then again I would have paid 12 years worth of prems so I am out 15k which is tax deductable. Not a great big deal. I have it now. But some folks near me whole house got ruined and that 31K was nothing.

    BTW got a mint black caddie CTS over weekend. A 2011 with 5k miles, mint. Cant wait to show it off next week at the FEMA center.

    Ragnar says:
    December 17, 2012 at 3:34 pm
    If only the government would give crazy loner guys free hookers, shooting sprees would probably drop by 50%. The rest are probably determined enough to figure out how to kill people one way or the other.

  108. Painhrtz - Not like you can dust for vomit says:

    Being that they are already prisons, short of moats filled with bity things and drawbridges, nothing. The world is neither safe or fair. while you can minimize the impact of having trouble walk into a classroom I’m more worried about my kids riding the bus than I am about them being gunned down in a sensless masacre. That is when they go to school but that is a long way off.

  109. Fabius Maximus says:

    #85 Joyce

    Yes, very serious. If you are Christiane Amanpour heading off to Gaza, not an issue. Gradon in Brigadoon, red flag.

    If we can sucessfully regulate the sale of medical devices, body armor should be easy. yes there will be a black market, but the pieces will be traceable.

  110. Fabius Maximus says:

    #89 joyce.

    And factor in the percentage of those that don’t have easy access to high power weapons.

    I found an interesting statistic. 32% of households own a firearm. 20% of gun owners own 65% of all guns in the US.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

  111. joyce says:

    What types of medical devices do we successfully regulate?

  112. BearsFan says:

    112 – “Arming the people inside the school is not a solution. Probably would end up with more meaningless deaths. ”

    ie, the farmer shouldn’t own a gun, cuz he might accidently shoot himself or someone else. Instead, let’s try to catch the fox and pull out his teeth before he comes around the henhouse.

  113. joyce says:

    (116)
    “And factor in the percentage of those that don’t have easy access to high power weapons.”

    ?

  114. BearsFan says:

    118 – Fabius – I almost wish you didn’t post that. Damn.

  115. NJGator says:

    Nom (37) – Not much comfort if you are a family member of the 26.

  116. Fabius Maximus says:

    #96 Moose

    Because those on the far right are so full of moral and family values.

  117. Fabius Maximus says:

    #117 joyce

    FDA regulates all medical devices. While it does not stop illegal trade, all devices are traceable to the distributor.

    Check eBay for this.
    FDA Disclaimer
    The following FDA Disclaimer is required for all eBay listing in Healthcare category and is included for REFERENCE:

    The sale of this item may be subject to regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state and local regulatory agencies. If so, do not bid on this item unless you are an authorized purchaser. If the item is subject to FDA regulation, We will verify your status as an authorized purchaser of this item before shipping of the item.

  118. nwnj says:

    #118 Tinfoil hat time. A website story over the weekend had Lanza’s father pegged as a CIA agent. I’m sure there will be more of these theories to follow.

  119. joyce says:

    124

    In my question, I was trying to emphasize the word ‘successfully’ and not the ‘what.’

  120. Essex says:

    113. Great car.

  121. Fabius Maximus says:

    Big round of aplause for all those responsible gun owners out there.

    http://newsok.com/3-year-old-dies-after-accidental-shooting-near-guthrie/article/3738015

  122. joyce says:

    (128)

    Hey apostle,

    Are you going to link to all the news stories of the people who have guns who did not shoot anyone in the last few days?

  123. Fabius Maximus says:

    #121 Bear.

    It shows the level of Media feeding frenzy there is in this case, and now we have the conspircy threorists getting into the mix. The only piece of relevent information was the fathers occupation, to answer the question on the fathers asset level.

  124. Fabius Maximus says:

    #129 Joyce

    I will point that one out for the main reason of “criminal charges will not be filed”. For me that situation should be a mandatory manslaughter charge for the gun owner.

    That is my big worry. My kid going to a play date with unsecured guns in the house.

  125. joyce says:

    131

    Bullsh*t. I don’t believe that for a second (that that’s the “only” reason you’re pointing it out).

    Considering the article was all of six sentences long, you have to assume a lot to fit your world view. Is it possible it was an accident? What if the child was seriously hurt or killed by something other than a gun? Falls off the outdoor jungle gym and broke his neck… manslaughter? Criminal charges for the manufacturer of the playground equipment…how about for the parent of the other child on this playdate wasn’t paying enough attention to your kid… how about the parent themself not feeding the child well enough so he wasn’t strong enough to keep his balance?

  126. Fabius Maximus says:

    #132 Joyce

    Should we put a law on the books for the parent that allows Diabetic Jimmy on the Jungle Gym in case he has low sugar and faints. Should that be a Class 1 misdemeanor to match the law on allwing a minor access to a firearm?

    This case was 100% preventable.

  127. Libtard at home says:

    Bearsfan:

    “ie, the farmer shouldn’t own a gun, cuz he might accidently shoot himself or someone else. Instead, let’s try to catch the fox and pull out his teeth before he comes around the henhouse.”

    So you are talking about arming multiple people in every public school in every town in the USA. Figure 3 armed workers in each school will bring the total to a mere 300,000. Add in private schools and this brings you to 400,000. All to stop these massacres which occur once every four years or so. You could probably spend your money a bit more wisely by ensuring school buses were inspected more frequently or installing more metal detectors. This would certainly save a lot more lives.

    I hate that there are lots of senseless deaths in automobiles, but I’m not going to advocate that everyone wear a crash helmet when they are in a moving vehicle. Or advocate that no one can drive over 15 miles per hour. Humans are such sensitive animals. But they so quickly forget.

    After 9/11, the line to get into the Path station at Christopher Street used to wrap around two city blocks. It would take an hour sometimes just to get to the turnstiles, yet no one dare complained. Today, I almost got pushed down the stairs at Penn Station because people behind me wanted to get one of the coveted seats in the quiet car. If I didn’t weigh over 200 pounds it would have been bad news.

    In another week or two, it will all blow by.

    Remember folks, you have a better chance of winning Megaball than you do at your child getting murdered in a school massacre. Yet, nine out of ten people I work with play the stupid mega lottery.

  128. BearsFan says:

    134 – Lib, I’m with you on showing restraint about how we react to this. But we’re talking about putting an officer or two in the building instead of sitting in the Dunkin Donuts parking lot/speed trap hideout. The police force in Woodbridge has ramped up prob 25% the last 5-7 years (mainly higher returning vets, which I don’t have a problem with), but I’m sure the force could figure out a way to rotate cops into buildings, or designate a certain number of officers to be within 1 minute of a school instead of out trying to generate revenue writing tickets. Protect and Serve, not observe and ticket, right? With over 200 cops in Woodbridge, and them asking for the job, I’m sure we could repurpose money we are already spending how we want it.

    Some investment in door security, camera system, and an administrator with access to a weapon in safe is not unrealistic, because as you incorrectly stated, these things are not just happening “once every 4 years”, and the resources are already available to assist with this. They are just being used in other ways.

  129. Libtard at home says:

    Bearsfan,

    There is frequently (about every other day) a policeman parked outside of my son’s elementary school at lineup and pick-up. So some of this is happening already. But I truly think that if you provide ironclad security in the schools, then these perps will just take out their evil in movie theaters, or at the malls, or at sporting events (high school football game). Someone else said it best.

    I know a ton of people who have a real fear of flying. Even though they are like 100 times more likely to get killed driving to the airport (the number is probably higher). I have a 2nd grader and these events sicken me. But like the dog and pony show we are put through at airport security, we ain’t stopping anything. Not as long as our government continues to behave reactively instead of proactively. I do not think our schools should be turned into prisons with armed guards when 1 out of 300 million people go looney every other year. Remember, I’m the one in support of death panels. I’m a numbers guy. I’ll take the current risk my son experiences versus him attending a school where his principal, the janitor and phys ed teacher are all carrying a handgun. And honestly, even if they did. It wouldn’t make a difference.

    All is IMO. I respect your opinion, but I don’t agree with it.

  130. Outofstater says:

    I keep thinking that somebody could have taken this guy out with a head shot. How do the Israelis handle this?

  131. 250k says:

    #137 OOS

    this is the supposed Israeli answer making the rounds on the net
    http://www.patriotthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HowIsraelAvoidsSchoolShootings1.jpg

  132. BearsFan says:

    Lib, I agree with you in that there is very little that can be done, but I tend to agree with that on the prevention side. Those that are claiming better mental health services, screenings, better parenting etc would have stopped this…that just passes by me as overly optimistic to say the least. There are just logistics, and in this matter, someone armed in the building is the easiest and most obvious way to prevent this kid from executing 25 kids. I do not know the timeline of what he did, or if that is even public, but I am going to assume this didn’t just all go down in under 30 seconds. All it would take is one gun, 1 bullet. If it saves one kid’s life, then it’s worth it. My town has a 200 million dollar school budget, so i say to them “figure it out”. What’s the worst case scenario, the school invests in a firearm, a safe, and some training? “Waste” is a tough word to use there. Jeez, The gun companies could get out in front of this and donate the weapon and a safe and some training to any school that wanted it for public relations. The guns are not going anywhere, so let’s focus our energies at the point of attack.

    Your point about him just taking it elsewhere is well taken and I agree. I accept the odds as well. My perspective is strictly focused on the schools, because they seem the most at risk logistically, and we pay for the services they provide. Our local taxes doubled (well, mine did) from 2005 to 2010 with no new schools, no large population delta, etc., so I say put some of that money into some easily available protection.

  133. Ragnar says:

    Libtard,
    I’m a numbers guy too, and generally agree with you. One more thing, something good investors learn. Don’t make new policies while emotions are dominating reason. It’s when decision making is most flawed. Instead people are being swept away by emotion and selective focus, losing perspective.

  134. Ben says:

    There’s no need to arm the teachers or employees within the building. Having a trained professional police officer on duty at the school is a much better option and more likely to yield better results. Not only is he trained to respond to such matters, but he’s got a radio that he can call in for backup at an instant.

  135. Ben says:

    Remember folks, you have a better chance of winning Megaball than you do at your child getting murdered in a school massacre. Yet, nine out of ten people I work with play the stupid mega lottery.

    This isn’t about who survives and who doesn’t. That event will have a lasting effect on the town for decades.

  136. chicagofinance says:

    Except at the point of the mass murders, the owner of the guns was dead.

    Fabius Maximus says:
    December 17, 2012 at 6:17 pm
    #129 Joyce
    I will point that one out for the main reason of “criminal charges will not be filed”. For me that situation should be a mandatory manslaughter charge for the gun owner.
    That is my big worry. My kid going to a play date with unsecured guns in the house.

  137. Comrade Nom Deplume says:

    Food for thought in the gun debate: two distributors of bushmasters told me that they have a six month long waiting list. And this has not appreciably increased in the last few days.

    This means that the wait for a bushmastper was long even before Lanza put it back on the map. And I think I figured out why. Apparently bushmasters are considered inexpensive yet reliable rifles. So they are in redibly popular. And now they are more so.

    Obama may just outdo his prior gun sales records.

  138. ???????? says:

    ?????7?????????????????

  139. Comrade Nom Deplume says:

    Sanchez, Ryan and Gangrene will be watching the playoffs on television.

    BOOYAH!!!!

  140. Punch My Ticket says:

    Let’s not forget Tim “Godzone” Tebow.

    Bwahahahaha.

  141. Libtard after an ice hockey game. says:

    Ragnar. Exactly!

  142. Ernest Money says:

    Worst possible outcome, dead ahead.

  143. Essex says:

    144. It looks like a nice piece of gear. Hard to not admire the workmanship on the gun.

  144. Anon E. Moose says:

    Re: putting a cop at every school

    There are about 100,000 public schools, another 33k private (or do we just say FU to the private schools… I’m sure the teacher’s union would love to do that — cops for me but not for thee). If, conservatively, a cop costs $150k/yr all in (salary, benefits, equipment), putting one cop at every school will cost at least $20 billion a year. What the hell, the money is being created out of thin air anyway, right?

  145. Painhrtz - Not like you can dust for vomit says:

    Nom and you convert the bushmaster to 50 cal pistol ammo for true urban interdiction. It is a lovely piece of machinery my BIL has one and I love to shoot it.

  146. Comrade Nom Deplume says:

    [153] pain,

    I’m not that skilled or hardcore. If I get one, it would be for range, mostly for the wife, and eventual SHTF defense.

  147. Yakov says:

    So the refi’s are meant to stabilize values so that the banks don’t become insolvent under the revised valuation schema. Well, it locks the owner in…forever. Here’s why:

    No personal savings means no accrued wealth to buy the home (or any of the shadow inventory – oh, there’s still so much of that! And no, the banks didn’t write them off, yet. The banks will do that over the years w/ some getting demolished and remainder getting gradually sold.)

    How fair is all this, you ask. Well, looking at a one home recently, I discovered 3 tax liens that were placed against due to tax underpayments (not fraud, mind you) in the 07, 08 & 09 years. So guess what the owners did. RIGHT! They got HAMP’ed, took some of that money to pay off the Treasury, which they still owed about $20,000, and now have the house back on the block for…wait for it…an extra $100k over the HAMP refinanced transaction amount.

    Congratulations! You get to subsidize not only your family’s profligate consumerism, but your neighbors’, too. What a country!

    Yakov