Another start to the school year, another shooting; nothing will change

[C-south]

Why?

Your right to own a gun is not abridged. You just have to pay for insurance if you buy one. Just because you buy insurance for a car doesn't mean your right, if you will, to own one is abridged. Now, it may make you think twice about buying one, or buying a particular model, as the cost of insurance is higher.

And it for sure will make you think twice about buying a car for a teenager, and for good reason. As here.

Won’t this disproportionately affect minorities?

 

[Wireless1]

If the gun were $200 and insurance was $600 a year, maybe he would not buy the gun.

Any guns I might own and the liability associated are covered under my home owners and umbrella.
While your idea on the surface seems sound it also seems ripe for states to use it to make gun ownership impossible. I could see California using the “gun insurance” premiums to be taxed for reparations so that the premiums are in the thousands of dollars each year

 

[LouderVol]

If you stop paying the gun is confiscated. Easy peasy.

And if you cannot produce it, that's a crime and you face potential jail time.

There is nothing wrong with requiring people to be responsible gun owners. Its about time we started doing so.

there is absolutely something wrong with it. its a right. rights don't require insurance. unless you are arguing you are responsible for your votes and need insurance for that? Need insurance to speak in public? need insurance to hire a lawyer, I am sure you would love that. Its easy to say its not taking away someone's right when you don't use it or care about it.

how does insurance require people to be responsible? in your mind, us gun owners aren't scared of going to jail for our actions, but will be scared straight by an insurance premium?

what happens when insurance rates become absurdly racist due to inner city crime?

when we had problems with new drivers getting hurt in car wrecks, we didn't go through and require insurance to keep the bad ones off the road. we introduced drivers ed.

when teen pregnancy started becoming an issue, we didn't require insurance to make having a kid unaffordable. we started teaching sex ed.

when drugs/alcohol became issues in schools, we didn't require people to get insurance to drink, smoke, or do drugs. we taught the dangers of all.

instead of trying anything that wouldn't be an intrusion on rights, you just want to go straight after the right.

 

[LouderVol]

I see where you are confused. I said it's asinine to even debate that the people problem can be fixed.
We all agree that it cannot be fixed - which means it would be asinine to debate it.
That in no way means there should not be a debate on ways to improve the people problem.

It was obviously a direct response to this type of comment which is common in the PF........
"Fix the people problem and there will be no school shootings."

you don't have to cure people 100% to decrease school shootings. even nations with full gun bans still have gun crimes, so surely you can admit its just as asinine to argue that we can fix ALL the gun issues.

if school shootings are on the rise, that means they were lower, maybe to a more "acceptable" level previously. instead of just going back to what was working relatively well before, your response is that there is no reasonable way to have an impact on people enough to cut down violence. while our very recent history says otherwise.

I know you want progress so much you don't care about the consequences. but surely you can admit there are some things from the past that were better than they are now.

 

[CAPTAIN--VOL CAVALRY]

do pencils misspell words?

do flys cause garbage?

its not the guns fault.

I was eating today and overheard a big mouth woman behind me saying to a bunch of fat retired types that no one on earth could give her a reason a person would need an AR 15.

I turned around and said "I wonder if you asked any mother of children in any bombed city in Ukraine would agree with her. As her jaw hit the table I asked her kindly to keep that wingnut rant down to a dull roar while I finished my breakfast.

I enjoyed the rest of my meal in peace, and on the way out I found out a guy two tables over had paid my tab.

just my .02 cents after not reading most of this thread, lol

 

[luthervol]

you don't have to cure people 100% to decrease school shootings. even nations with full gun bans still have gun crimes, so surely you can admit its just as asinine to argue that we can fix ALL the gun issues.

if school shootings are on the rise, that means they were lower, maybe to a more "acceptable" level previously. instead of just going back to what was working relatively well before, your response is that there is no reasonable way to have an impact on people enough to cut down violence. while our very recent history says otherwise.

I know you want progress so much you don't care about the consequences. but surely you can admit there are some things from the past that were better than they are now.

Again you are simply wrong in your interpretations of my positions. I'll take the blame for being unclear.

Of course you can decrease the number of school shootings by improving the "people problem" and that should be everyone's goal - it's certainly ONE of my goals.

I in no way have ever said or believed that violence cannot be reduced by addressing the "people problem". I believe the opposite.

My whole career can be pretty much summarized as "working on the people problem".
That in no way means that there is not also a gun problem.

 

[LouderVol]

Again you are simply wrong in your interpretations of my positions. I'll take the blame for being unclear.

Of course you can decrease the number of school shootings by improving the "people problem" and that should be everyone's goal - it's certainly ONE of my goals.

I in no way have ever said or believed that violence cannot be reduced by addressing the "people problem". I believe the opposite.

My whole career can be pretty much summarized as "working on the people problem".
That in no way means that there is not also a gun problem.

lets back up on this.

do you believe we have always had a gun issue in this nation? Aka we have always needed to reduce gun ownership and or place onerous restrictions on individual rights to reduce the level of gun violence?

Did it cross some critical line on the acceptability somewhat recently to become an issue we have to address now while we didn't before? aka the gun violence has gotten worse/more than it was before to become unacceptable and worthy of restrictions on individual rights?

do you think something has changed within the guns to make them unacceptable now while they were ok before? aka Do you think ARs (or something else) are some new phenomenon that changed guns to the point where the same number of gun violence cases causes more deaths now, or caused the same violence to be unacceptable?

or do you think the line moved on the acceptability of gun crime? aka we have the same amount of violence, but we are less willing to accept it, and now must restrict the rights of others to account for the line moving?

 

[C-south]

Again you are simply wrong in your interpretations of my positions. I'll take the blame for being unclear.

Of course you can decrease the number of school shootings by improving the "people problem" and that should be everyone's goal - it's certainly ONE of my goals.

I in no way have ever said or believed that violence cannot be reduced by addressing the "people problem". I believe the opposite.

My whole career can be pretty much summarized as "working on the people problem".
That in no way means that there is not also a gun problem.

A people problem “working on a people problem”. Pretty ironic.

 

[hog88]

If the gun were $200 and insurance was $600 a year, maybe he would not buy the gun.

A lawyers wet dream.

 

[Wireless1]

I admit it is an incidental effect of wanting to create a pool of money, taken from those who buy guns, to provide medical care to those injured by guns.

Same as car insurance.

In fact, who do you think pays the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, incurred by such an event? You an me, that's who, by our own health insurance premiums.

So make those who choose to have a gun get insurance and put it in a pool to be used to pay some of those expenses.

You mean a pool of money that lawyers would get 1/3 or more of?

 

[hog88]

If you stop paying the gun is confiscated. Easy peasy.

And if you cannot produce it, that's a crime and you face potential jail time.

There is nothing wrong with requiring people to be responsible gun owners. Its about time we started doing so.

So more hassle, expense and punishment for law abiding gun owners?

 

[hog88]

I see where you are confused. I said it's asinine to even debate that the people problem can be fixed.
We all agree that it cannot be fixed - which means it would be asinine to debate it.
That in no way means there should not be a debate on ways to improve the people problem.

It was obviously a direct response to this type of comment which is common in the PF........
"Fix the people problem and there will be no school shootings."

The people problem can be fixed.

 

[KB5252]

If you stop paying the gun is confiscated. Easy peasy.

And if you cannot produce it, that's a crime and you face potential jail time.

There is nothing wrong with requiring people to be responsible gun owners. Its about time we started doing so.

So now we are are going to violate the 2nd amendment taking personal property for not carrying insurance for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

Say that again out loud and see if it makes sense.

 

[hndog609]

So more hassle, expense and punishment for law abiding gun owners?

In this quote he's pretty much unambiguously asserting financial burden is an allowable onus to directly discourage participation in the 2A.

If the gun were $200 and insurance was $600 a year, maybe he would not buy the gun.

 

[volfanhill]

In this quote he's pretty much unambiguously asserting financial burden is an allowable onus to directly discourage participation in the 2A.

Its because he doesn't like the 2A. Its the same when the gun grabbers try to claim the 2A is about the National Guard. When that happens you know you are not dealing with an honest person. Merely someone who is agenda driven and knows they dont have the support to constitutionally change the 2A in a manner they deem acceptable. Lying dog faced pony soldiers

 

[luthervol]

lets back up on this.

do you believe we have always had a gun issue in this nation? Aka we have always needed to reduce gun ownership and or place onerous restrictions on individual rights to reduce the level of gun violence?

Our first gun law was in 1619 (over 400 years ago) so I guess it's been an issue.

Did it cross some critical line on the acceptability somewhat recently to become an issue we have to address now while we didn't before? aka the gun violence has gotten worse/more than it was before to become unacceptable and worthy of restrictions on individual rights?
Maybe 1934
do you think something has changed within the guns to make them unacceptable now while they were ok before? aka Do you think ARs (or something else) are some new phenomenon that changed guns to the point where the same number of gun violence cases causes more deaths now, or caused the same violence to be unacceptable?

They rightfully made machine guns illegal.

or do you think the line moved on the acceptability of gun crime? aka we have the same amount of violence, but we are less willing to accept it, and now must restrict the rights of others to account for the line moving?

I also believe the difference between 350 million and 20 million people is significant.

 

[luthervol]

The people problem can be fixed.

No it can't.
But we certainly can make it less severe.

 

[hog88]

Our first gun law was in 1619 (over 300 years ago) so I guess it's been an issue.

They rightfully made machine guns illegal.


I also believe the difference between 350 million and 20 million people is significant.

Umm there was no United States or Constitution in 1619 so no our first gun law was not 1619.

 

[hog88]

No it can't.
But we certainly can make it less severe.

Yes, the people problem can be fixed. First step undo most every liberal policy enacted in the past 60 years.

 

[luthervol]

Umm there was no United States or Constitution in 1619 so no our first gun law was not 1619.

A little AI for you:

The first gun law in the (yet to be created) United States was enacted in 1619 by the Jamestown colony's general assembly. The law prohibited the sale or gift of arms, powder, shot, or any other offensive or defensive weapons to Indians. Violators were to be considered traitors to the colony and hanged without redemption.

 

[C-south]

A little AI for you:

The first gun law in the (yet to be created) United States was enacted in 1619 by the Jamestown colony's general assembly. The law prohibited the sale or gift of arms, powder, shot, or any other offensive or defensive weapons to Indians. Violators were to be considered traitors to the colony and hanged without redemption.

Lol. So irrelevant. However, there was a time when being a “traitor” was a good thing.

 

[kiddiedoc]

So now we are are going to violate the 2nd amendment taking personal property for not carrying insurance for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

Say that again out loud and see if it makes sense.

So basically, those who can't afford "gun insurance" (a higher proportion being minorities/disadvantaged populations) should have their right to bear arms infringed?

Remember, these are the same people who think it's wrong to require voter ID, so that their right to vote isn't affected.

GTFO.

 

[kiddiedoc]

What a moronic statement.

The population should remain armed to be able to defend against a tyrannical government with 6-shooters?

Do the feds get 6-shooters, as well? Why do they need automatic rifles? Are they preparing to shoot up schools?

 

[kiddiedoc]

A lawyers wet dream.

More insurance and more attorneys to draw up the contracts.

Yeah, that will fix it!

 

[luthervol]

Yes, the people problem can be fixed. First step undo most every liberal policy enacted in the past 60 years.

Nope, the people problem can not be fixed.
Never has been, never will be........in the history of mankind.