The Best And Most Responsible Plan For Gun Law Is So Simple It's Not Funny

[daveman]

More jailtime only works in the minds of the childlike. That's a nonsensical and not to mention, emotional response.

No criminal is thinking, "I wonder how much time will I get for this?" during the act of any crime.

You'd be wise to stop saying that claptrap.

No criminal is thinking, "Oh, wait...this is a gun-free zone. I guess I'd better not shoot it up."

Where am I, or anyone else in this thread, making the argument you think you're bashing?

Criminals don't obey gun laws. Nor will they suddenly start obeying gun laws that require them to buy insurance.

Your proposal would affect ONLY those people who will obey the law...and those are the people you don't need to worry about.

 

[MarcATL]

The PRIVATE insurance companies will determine the prices for individual insurance of gun-owners.

Exactly. It puts private companies in charge of deciding who has rights and who doesn't. You don't see how fucked up that is? Should freedom of speech be handled the same way? Should everyone be required to carry insurance in case they libel others?

I mean, the car-model works perfectly.

It doesn't infringe.

It absolutely does infringe. It infringes on the rights of anyone who can't get insurance.

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

 

[dblack]

It adds much needed accountability to the equation.

When people start getting hefty fines and/or doing jail-time for being careless with their guns and/or guns that were registered to them the People THEMSELVES will regulate themselves.

Before speeding laws, lots of people died from speeding, once they got fines and/or jail time for it...it severely cut it down.

Same thing for seatbelts.

Same thing for guns.

No one needs to take your guns away, but we can damn sure try to make you a bit more responsible for your guns.

They are not toys, they can kill people...very easily.

Be responsible.

Insure them.

Insurance is not responsibility. That makes a nice sales pitch, but it's untrue.

Responsibility is being accountable for the consequences of your actions and choices. Insurance is the opposite. It's paying for the privilege of avoiding those consequences.

Me paying Geico to insure my Honda doesn't make me a better, nor more responsible, nor less responsible, for that matter, driver Bucko.

Nice try.

It allows you to drive irresponsibly and avoid the consequences.

 

[OnePercenter]

It adds much needed accountability to the equation.

When people start getting hefty fines and/or doing jail-time for being careless with their guns and/or guns that were registered to them the People THEMSELVES will regulate themselves.

Before speeding laws, lots of people died from speeding, once they got fines and/or jail time for it...it severely cut it down.

Same thing for seatbelts.

Same thing for guns.

No one needs to take your guns away, but we can damn sure try to make you a bit more responsible for your guns.

They are not toys, they can kill people...very easily.

Be responsible.

Insure them.

Insurance is not responsibility. That makes a nice sales pitch, but it's untrue.

Responsibility is being accountable for the consequences of your actions and choices. Insurance is the opposite. It's paying for the privilege of avoiding those consequences.

Insurance helps make someone whole when you're an idiot.

 

[dblack]

The PRIVATE insurance companies will determine the prices for individual insurance of gun-owners.

Exactly. It puts private companies in charge of deciding who has rights and who doesn't. You don't see how fucked up that is? Should freedom of speech be handled the same way? Should everyone be required to carry insurance in case they libel others?

I mean, the car-model works perfectly.

It doesn't infringe.

It absolutely does infringe. It infringes on the rights of anyone who can't get insurance.

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

I'm sure you can. That's a moronic argument. The right isn't to have someone provide you with a gun, it's the freedom to own and use one. (I'll bet you think 'healthcare' is a right, eh?). I guess that's really the problem. You just don't understand the basic concept of rights in the first place, so the fact that your pissing them away doesn't even register with you.

 

[MarcATL]

Insurance is not responsibility. That makes a nice sales pitch, but it's untrue.

Responsibility is being accountable for the consequences of your actions and choices. Insurance is the opposite. It's paying for the privilege of avoiding those consequences.

Me paying Geico to insure my Honda doesn't make me a better, nor more responsible, nor less responsible, for that matter, driver Bucko.

Nice try.

It allows you to drive irresponsibly and avoid the consequences.

No it doesn't.

Explain how it does.

If I, as an insured driver, drive drunk and kill someone as a result of it, my A$$ is still going to jail. The insurance only covers the damages. Then my, and perhaps others, insurance goes up.

I have just faced the consequences.

I mean, are you that ignorant or are you just that dense...which one?

 

[dblack]

The PRIVATE insurance companies will determine the prices for individual insurance of gun-owners.

Exactly. It puts private companies in charge of deciding who has rights and who doesn't. You don't see how fucked up that is? Should freedom of speech be handled the same way? Should everyone be required to carry insurance in case they libel others?

I mean, the car-model works perfectly.

It doesn't infringe.

It absolutely does infringe. It infringes on the rights of anyone who can't get insurance.

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

Also, you didn't answer regarding libel insurance for free speakers. How is that different? Why shouldn't all of our freedoms depend on our ability to get insurance in case we use them to harm others?

 

[blackhawk]

I'm sorry but what is this idea put fourth by the Op supposed to accomplish?

It adds much needed accountability to the equation.

When people start getting hefty fines and/or doing jail-time for being careless with their guns and/or guns that were registered to them the People THEMSELVES will regulate themselves.

Before speeding laws, lots of people died from speeding, once they got fines and/or jail time for it...it severely cut it down.

Same thing for seatbelts.

Same thing for guns.

No one needs to take your guns away, but we can damn sure try to make you a bit more responsible for your guns.

They are not toys, they can kill people...very easily.

Be responsible.

Insure them.

And if your gun is used in a shooting, the gun owner is liable for civil suit.

Exactly. He gets it.

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

-Insurance is a good idea.

-If someone steals your unsecured gun you do jail time.

-Use a gun in the commission of a crime you go to jail for life.

-Use a gun in the commission of a crime and kill some one, automatic death penalty.

-Ten day waiting period for ALL gun sales.

Precisely!

If a person is irresponsible without insurance forcing them to get it won't make them anymore responsible.

 

[OnePercenter]

Insurance is not responsibility. That makes a nice sales pitch, but it's untrue.

Responsibility is being accountable for the consequences of your actions and choices. Insurance is the opposite. It's paying for the privilege of avoiding those consequences.

Me paying Geico to insure my Honda doesn't make me a better, nor more responsible, nor less responsible, for that matter, driver Bucko.

Nice try.

It allows you to drive irresponsibly and avoid the consequences.

Only those with a lack of personal responsibility.

 

[dblack]

Me paying Geico to insure my Honda doesn't make me a better, nor more responsible, nor less responsible, for that matter, driver Bucko.

Nice try.

It allows you to drive irresponsibly and avoid the consequences.

No it doesn't.

Explain how it does.

If I, as an insured driver, drive drunk and kill someone as a result of it, my A$$ is still going to jail. The insurance only covers the damages. Then my, and perhaps others, insurance goes up.

I have just faced the consequences.

They might go up, they might not. In any case, it's a small fraction of what you would have had to pay if you didn't have insurance. That's why we buy insurance, to avoid the buik of the consequences of our mistakes. I know you get this and are just being argumentative to defend your weak OP, but seriously - wake up.

 

[MarcATL]

Exactly. It puts private companies in charge of deciding who has rights and who doesn't. You don't see how fucked up that is? Should freedom of speech be handled the same way? Should everyone be required to carry insurance in case they libel others?



It absolutely does infringe. It infringes on the rights of anyone who can't get insurance.

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

Also, you didn't answer regarding libel insurance for free speakers. How is that different? Why shouldn't all of our freedoms depend on our ability to get insurance in case we use them to harm others?

Oh you were SERIOUS with that?

I guess if/when we have a problem with deaths due to people exercising their First Amendments rights we can have a serious look into that.

That's my answer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

Also, you didn't answer regarding libel insurance for free speakers. How is that different? Why shouldn't all of our freedoms depend on our ability to get insurance in case we use them to harm others?

Oh you were SERIOUS with that?

I guess if/when we have a problem with deaths due to people exercising their First Amendments rights we can have a serious look into that.

That's my answer.

If you want to know the truth, your answers suck, Marc.

 

[dblack]

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

Also, you didn't answer regarding libel insurance for free speakers. How is that different? Why shouldn't all of our freedoms depend on our ability to get insurance in case we use them to harm others?

Oh you were SERIOUS with that?

I guess if/when we have a problem with deaths due to people exercising their First Amendments rights we can have a serious look into that.

That's my answer.

You don't think abuse of free speech has ever caused harm or deaths? Never heard of the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example?

In general, any freedom we have can be abused and can bring harm to others. Why wouldn't your insurance requirement apply to our other rights as well?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Me paying Geico to insure my Honda doesn't make me a better, nor more responsible, nor less responsible, for that matter, driver Bucko.

Nice try.

It allows you to drive irresponsibly and avoid the consequences.

Only those with a lack of personal responsibility.

Such as you and Marc, respectively.

 

[Amelia]

The PRIVATE insurance companies will determine the prices for individual insurance of gun-owners.

Exactly. It puts private companies in charge of deciding who has rights and who doesn't. You don't see how fucked up that is? Should freedom of speech be handled the same way? Should everyone be required to carry insurance in case they libel others?

I mean, the car-model works perfectly.

It doesn't infringe.

It absolutely does infringe. It infringes on the rights of anyone who can't get insurance.

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

Guns don't have to cost anything. They can be inherited. And then your plan would put the inheritor in danger of going to jail if he wasn't affluent enough.

 

[MarcATL]

Also, you didn't answer regarding libel insurance for free speakers. How is that different? Why shouldn't all of our freedoms depend on our ability to get insurance in case we use them to harm others?

Oh you were SERIOUS with that?

I guess if/when we have a problem with deaths due to people exercising their First Amendments rights we can have a serious look into that.

That's my answer.

You don't think abuse of free speech has ever caused harm or deaths? Never heard of the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example?

In general, any freedom we have can be abused and can bring harm to others. Why wouldn't your insurance requirement apply to our other rights as well?

What's the precedent of countless people dying as a direct result of someone exercising their First Amendment right?

How many people abused the 1st Amendment to cause many deaths?

Let's get real here.

 

[MarcATL]

Exactly. It puts private companies in charge of deciding who has rights and who doesn't. You don't see how fucked up that is? Should freedom of speech be handled the same way? Should everyone be required to carry insurance in case they libel others?



It absolutely does infringe. It infringes on the rights of anyone who can't get insurance.

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

Guns don't have to cost anything. They can be inherited. And then your plan would put the inheritor in danger of going to jail if he wasn't affluent enough.

Whats the likelihood of a person who can't afford the insurance of a Bently inheriting one?

It's like you people are just pulling shat out your A$$.

Are we living in the real world or some made up RW scenario world out in the ether somewhere?

 

[dblack]

Oh you were SERIOUS with that?

I guess if/when we have a problem with deaths due to people exercising their First Amendments rights we can have a serious look into that.

That's my answer.

You don't think abuse of free speech has ever caused harm or deaths? Never heard of the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example?

In general, any freedom we have can be abused and can bring harm to others. Why wouldn't your insurance requirement apply to our other rights as well?

What's the precedent of countless people dying as a direct result of someone exercising their First Amendment right?

How many people abused the 1st Amendment to cause many deaths?

Let's get real here.

Yes let's. If you think it's too dangerous to let people own guns, the grow a pair and speak out against the second amendment. Propose it be repealed, or otherwise pass laws limiting gun rights. At least then, we're protected by due process and the Constitution. What you're suggesting is outsourcing that job to the insurance companies.

I swear, I think some of you won't rest until we're all fucking owned by the insurance industry.

 

[dblack]

In general, any freedom we have can be abused and can bring harm to others. Why wouldn't your insurance requirement apply to our other rights as well?

You still haven't answered this, only offered vague notions of relative threat. There's no principled reason why your point of view wouldn't be used to threaten any inconvenient freedom by 'selling' it to the insurance industry.

 

[MarcATL]

You don't think abuse of free speech has ever caused harm or deaths? Never heard of the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example?

In general, any freedom we have can be abused and can bring harm to others. Why wouldn't your insurance requirement apply to our other rights as well?

What's the precedent of countless people dying as a direct result of someone exercising their First Amendment right?

How many people abused the 1st Amendment to cause many deaths?

Let's get real here.

Yes let's. If you think it's too dangerous to let people own guns, the grow a pair and speak out against the second amendment. Propose it be repealed, or otherwise pass laws limiting gun rights. At least then, we're protected by due process and the Constitution. What you're suggesting is outsourcing that job to the insurance companies.

I swear, I think some of you won't rest until we're all fucking owned by the insurance industry.

Please re-post where I've stated that it's too dangerous for people to own guns.

Thanks.