PopMyCop

61%, according to actuaries. It's the same reason that this law isn't all that great in making insurance companies the new gatekeeper for ownership: permit holders are among the lowest risk for firearm incidents. People who have guns and who won't be paying for this insurance are the real actuarial, financial risk. The suicidal and the homicidal will be nearly excluded from the policy risks because they won't be buying the policy. The title saying "gun owners" is incorrect, because this only applies to people who "wear or carry." Thus, the insurance cost will be low.

From driving_crooner's link: https://www.theactuarymagazine.org/firearm-risk/

As far as I'm aware (and I'm in a super gun happy place), it's nearly universal that the local law enforcement agency signs off on most things like this. The tax stamps for suppressors/machine guns/explosives and the carry permit all go to them. Whether your area is a 'shall issue' or a 'may issue' is where you have to dig to find out.

It will be low. Super low. $300k is pocket change when the incidence for gun carriers to use them is extremely low. It's why we can constantly mock the tacti-cool warriors for thinking they need a gun on them at all times. Plus, the insurance company has way more flexibility in proving their client was not at fault in the incident compared to the shenanigans they have to pull now for car wrecks.

There are places that mandate dog insurance if the dog has been aggressive in the past. It's at least a partial step in the right direction.

See, that one doesn't really seem to have the same impact. When I hear the name rafael, I think famous artist, or shelled low-level crime-fighter. Sounds great, doesn't it?

I didn't know donut or pho restaurants made their own dough. It probably varies by location, though. I've seen some donut places where the boxes of shipped ready to make product were stored where customers could see it. It blew my mind how much they had on hand in order to not run out.

Odd. I find it to be the exact opposite. If I want a real article, with thought put into it beside how to make it pop up as #1 in the search engine, I need to set the most recent date possible as prior to 2015 (sometimes even further back).

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. News articles obviously have to be recent, and it's relatively difficult to bullshit your way into an informative news piece. Advice or DIY instructions though? You better search waaaay far back.

And this is why you should block ads, sheeple! So the government don't get ya!

What an amusing way for the manhunt to play out. I'm sure the fella who came up with the idea received some praise.

I highly doubt the supreme court will care about breaking apart the way we think the legal system works. They'll just take another case that would have its handling changed, and declare that 'this particular instance works the old way, but that other one works the new way, (stick fingers in their ears) la la la la'

You forgot that before the Egypt thing, there was a Jewish-to-be man (Abraham) who randomly left his home (Ur) and extended family to go be a shepherd. Shenanigans ensue as he gets multiple wives (who hate each other), multiple kids (who hate each other), and does kooky shit with his new surrounding folks (and oh, they hate each other).

one of the few individuals who actually read through the bible

What just dumbfounds me is that about every other year, my religious family start talking about how they're going to do some group thing where they read through the entire bible. I know how that goes... Even while they're reading through it all, they still cherry pick what they are going to talk about each week because there is just so many gosh dang words in there. Then they forget 60% of what they even talked about. Then they spew off as if they know everything ever about christianity while never having read any of the apologetics or philosophical underpinnings of even their creed, much less any other. It's a symptom of the last few decades, I think, where we accept the barest minimum of understanding of a subject as being enough to confidently believe we are knowledgeable. Dunning-Kruger strikes again, I guess.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say no one knows. The folks who put the mask on the dude are probably not any sort of experts in masks, gas, or not being an ass, and everyone in this thread is speculating.