Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Bern80]

Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.

Most guns aren't involved in accidents either. Most aren't even used in violent crimes.

Guns are different exactly how?

They're not. It's the circumstances that are different. A few pages back I responded to you explaining this, but you may have missed it. You're saying people should carry liability insureance for guns like cars. I believe you said you wanted this in case the insured went and shot a bunch of people up with their gun, the victims could get money from the gun owner's insurance, right? That's a different scenario than the circumstances under which liability insurance kicks in on your car. There is a difference between being at fault for an act and intentionally commiting an act. Your liability insurance on your car kicked in because you were at fault in your accident, but just because you were at fault doesn't mean you intended to cause the accident. Taking a life has the same legal distinction where we have murder vs. manslaughter. Murder requires intent where manslaughter is usually about accidental negligence. Had you had intent to hurt someone with your vehicle like the person with the gun in your hypothetical, your liability insurance would have nothing to do with that. The only thing that would probably happen would be you getting dropped from your plan. Your auto liability doesn't pay out to the victim or victim's family if you intentionally run someone over. Compensation in that instance would be handled by the courts. This is why your liability insurance idea won't work, again, because that's not what liability insurance covers.

No...

If the insured's gun is used in a crime...yes as in Sandy Hook.

The effect is a win-win. The victims get some form of material compensation and the move retards gun ownership.

Again this is factually incorrect. It doesn't even hold true in auto liability insurance. That is if your car is stolen and someone uses it to intentionally hurt someone you likely aren't going to be liable for that. If you intend to and do hurt or kill someone whether it be with a gun or a car, your insurance is not going to pay out to your victims.

I know you will never see it this way, but less gun ownership is not a 'win'. If nothing else it's the same thing as saying liability insurance retards car ownership, thus reducing those deaths as well. Again I have to ask why are you not so passionatly fighting for that if you're so concerned about needless injury and death?

 

[Bern80]

Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated). Now what?

If John used your gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.

That depends how he got my gun. If I lent it to him, it could be. If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.


Irrelevant to the discussion.

In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question. Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.

Private charities that's fine. Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.

So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.

Do I have your stance right?

We all get the need and desire to place blame in times of tragedy and personal loss, but at the end of the day to hold an honest gun owner who does their due diligence in keeping their firearms safe, financially responsible for the victims of the person who stole their gun is simply immoral. It doesn't matter what other parties are dead or can't pay. That doesn't make the person the gun was stolen from responsible financially for the victims.

 

[Bern80]

No need for cussing.

Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns. They're infringing.

It's fucking frustrating trying to use logic with Liberals.

Remington is NOT the government, you fool. They have no obligation to provide me with free guns. The Constitution places limits on the powers of government, not corporations.

Nothing I suggested places the governemnt between you and Remington. Get a fucking clue.

Since your advocating that the LAW, which is government last I checked, require people to hold this liability insurance and putting heavy taxes on them, you are in fact putting government barriers between people and purchasing firearms. Just as you've repeatedly said you intend to do.

 

[Bern80]

No need for cussing.

Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns. They're infringing.

Hold on. A right is not an obligation on anyone. A right is something government cannot take away.

Remington is under no obligation to provide me with a rifle. The government cannot keep me from buying a rifle.

Do you see the difference?

Didn't ever suggest the government take anything away.

The government isn't keeping you from buying a rifle. I guess you mean sales taxes are unconstitutional...do explain.

The constitution deals solely with the FEDERAL government and there is no FEDERAL sales tax.

 

[Bern80]

[

Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.

And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.

 

[RKMBrown]

[

Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.

It's completely rational, Joe wants you to be disarmed and live in fear, only then will you submit to his massive all powerful government to keep you safe. Besides criminals need to feel they are safe when they rob a home and rape the women at gun point.

 

[editec]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

 

[MisterBeale]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

What if a person is too poor to pay for insurance and can only afford bullets?

After that, tell me what part of . . . .

" . . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Don't you understand?

Start up your petition to repeal the second Amendment post haste sir. Until then, your opinion really doesn't matter does it? It clearly IS an infringement if I cannot afford insurance on a gun.

If you are in poverty, you can afford a gun and bullets. You CANNOT afford something with no tangible immediate short term benefits. Sorry, that is the way the cookie crumbles. Bullets will get you meat for the winter. Insurance will not.

 

[RKMBrown]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

What part of the fact that everyone already has homeowners insurance and corporate insurance etc. is confusing you?

 

[MisterBeale]

You know, I was at a web blog this morning that raises awareness about government tyranny and police brutality, and it posted this poignant story a bar owner who sheltered peaceful protesters against the brutalization and unchecked authoritarian power of police in supposed a democracy in Europe, Spain. That was just a small fifteen second blurb in a longer section of a horrific video of unchecked State power on a civilian population.

Now this protest over austerity started out peaceful enough, but it started attracting such an overwhelmingly huge number of people, that the state decided to disburse the crowd, which was, as I am sure you all could guess, unwilling to be disbursed until their democratic government told them what it was going to do to redress their concerns.

I really don't know what the solution is here. How did it get so bad? One thing is sure, the US is slowly drifting in the same direction. What amazes me, is that protests like these don't make our MSM coverage. Only people who monitor alternative news will hear about them. Now, you want to know why our government wants our weapons? Here, here you go. How do you think an American crowd of this size would react if the government just decided to "disperse" the crowd and get aggressive on them?

As it stands, they won't dare try this in the United States. In fact, we have no need to protest, the American government won't let conditions get so bad that people would ever feel the need to hit the streets in this number. For if they did. . . . well, you all get the point. The riot police don't want to try to disperse a crowd this size. Because if they ever did, next time the crowd would bring their guns. In Spain? No one has any guns.

But here in the US, the government would only treat a crowd of protesters like this ONCE. It would only happen ONCE.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UDCRgqspmyU#t=259s]25S crónica 2 25 septiembre 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFnBDFjfOg0]Riots in Spain - September 25 2012 Spanish Protest the Proposed European Austerity - YouTube[/ame]

Remember the 25th of September in Spain of last year. That was easy in a nation with no guns. And they (the international elites) have been struggling with this in places like Spain, Greece, Crete, Italy and it will spread. Dealing with it is easy, (relatively,) if the population have no guns. But repressing the poor, and taking away their rights are far more difficult if they can defend their rights. This is what the bankers and corporatists are really worried about. They hate level playing fields.

So let's be honest. All these gun control debates aren't about trying to keep guns out of criminals hands, they are about making sure that the society, as a whole, is more docile, less willing to use violence to protest being abused by it's overlords.

 

[Bern80]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

Because, as you're aware, liability auto insurance isn't federal law. It's state law and not even in every state. If the a state wishes to require liability insurance on their firearms in the case of accidental injury or death, fine. But as with most liberal 'solutions' to this gun 'problem' it's like using a baseball bat to swat a fly. The gun deaths that are accidental are a mere fraction of that 31,000.

 

[Ernie S.]

[

Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

Well, except for that pesky 2nd Amendment. Why don't you run for Congress with a vow to repeal it? I'm certain you will get 6 or 7 votes.

 

[hunarcy]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

It's the same plan your forefathers came up with to keep poor whites and former slaves from voting. It's a "poll tax" on fire arms...You guys really don't have new ideas.

 

[Ernie S.]

While you're at it, you had better look to repeal the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments too.

 

[RKMBrown]

While you're at it, you had better look to repeal the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments too.

They already did. The 14th due process clause essentially repealed all of our rights. Made us slaves of the government.

The 16th amendment gives them the power to take all of our income.

The 17th amendment gives them the tyranny of the simple majority (51%).

 

[kaz]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

According to the CDC, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2012.

Why would you compare automobile ... accidents ... with intentional use of firearms?

And even if you do include intentional use of firearms, the point is there are 11,078 people who were limited by government in their ability to defend themselves. The point of the thread, read the op, is how do you keep guns from those 11,078 murderers? A point you don't address at all.

Basically your point is a complete zero.

There's

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[

Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

People want to protect their loved ones?

 

[Bern80]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

I'm getting pretty different numbers than you on the CDC report I'm looking at. This is their report from 2012 with most recent data being 2010 from page 91.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

Motor vehicle accidents were 35,332

Homicides by firearms were 11,078

Accidents from firearms were 606.

Only way i came up with similar number is if you count suicides by firearms in your stats which were about 19,000, while open for debate I don't think those should count.

 

[kaz]

[

Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'

No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.

People want to protect their loved ones?

So does Joe, he wants to protect government.

 

[kaz]

2012 stats:

Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles. We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.

I'm getting pretty different numbers than you on the CDC report I'm looking at. This is their report from 2012 with most recent data being 2010 from page 91.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

Motor vehicle accidents were 35,332

Homicides by firearms were 11,078

Accidents from firearms were 606.

Only way i came up with similar number is if you count suicides by firearms in your stats which were about 19,000, while open for debate I don't think those should count.

What! If they didn't have a gun, they would be alive now!