Printable View
That is the point of that particular tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
As a former Marine, I'm under no delusion that they ultimately serve any other purpose. It does bother me a little when pro-2a folks won't admit that and dance around the subject.
Unfortunately, if you dig a little deeper into the statistics, the "children" include a good amount of 16-18 y/o gang members. It generally includes people who will most likely never make a net contribution towards society. It is sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
And yes, a population in a specific location making poor behavioral decisions that reduce the chance of their progeny and kin passing on their genes to the next generation is the very definition of natural selection.
So the security guard was related to the student?
It might be anecdotal, but most of Trish's cases referred to very young children, and if their deaths/injuries have any statistical significance it surely demands at the very least a commitment by gun owners to be a lot more responsible than some of them seem to be with their weapons in the home.Quote:
Originally Posted by zulusierra
And as a corollary a ban on weapons being kept in any home where a gun accident, fatal or otherwise, is shown to have been caused by negligence.
You come across a thoughtful man with a good heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
The world needs more people like that. I disagree with your conclusion on arms but respect your opinion.
Even accicental shoting today in six States. Again Tennesee wins the most dangerous State award. In today's mix we have one robber accidentally shooting a fellow henchman. We also have one police officer shooting another police officer in the shoulder. The only thing that can stop a good guy with a gun is another good guy with a gun.
http://accidentalgunshots.tumblr.com/
Posted this on my Instagram...
Man I hate autocorrect. That was supposed to be "Seven accidental shootings..." I'm on the road this week. I'll be poking at the virtual keyboard on my iPad and responding to fewer posts.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ngs/?mobile=wt
G.W. Bush was for assault rifle ban & closing gun show loophole:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7M3rLWLoVY
http://news.yahoo.com/funeral-held-n...183033409.html
Unless a person does something to really piss someone off, a thief would more than likely use a gun for material gain, not to shoot a six year old. People with children, are generally safer, keeping weapons secured. curiousity is natural in children. So is anger and conflict, in their teenage years. Compared to the likeliness of such things happening, a home invasion is very remote. How likely is it, that a bored child will look in their parents, drawers and closets, while they are away? How many teens will have a phylsical fight with peers? How many are bullied? introducing the possiblily of access to guns, to immature youth, is a greater danger, than being robbed at gunpoint. Didn't the teen who killed at Newtown, use they gun purchased by his parents to kill one of them? It's not about confiscating guns, it's about rethinking what is safety.
My link was one of the incidents mentioned in Trish's last link.
I still say the answer is for people to have to insure their guns they same way they'd insure their car.
Proper gun safes and such would create lower rates, while assault weapons would carry a higher premium.
It would create a whole new revenue stream for big finance and big finance is a lobby that can take on gun manufacturers and the NRA.
This would infringe on the right to bear arms, only require that owners provide financial responsibility in cases where their fire arms are misused and the owner has a true liability.
This would change the conversation in the US radically IMHO. And it would do a service for victims. If one parent does not secure his weapon and his child hurts or kills another child, the parents of the victim could be compensated.
It is a win-win IMHO and if I need to register my car and insure it, why not my guns? The 2nd Amendment does not say the right is without any regulation or financial responsibility for misuse after all.
I don't like mandatory insurance or any other form of privatized taxation. It never works because rates can't be controlled. Adding another layer of control by the phantom "marketplace" won't do anything but piss off a whole bunch of people who are all armed. It won't take long for gun folks to get hep to the scam & start refusing to pay. Then what? Gonna make the paranoia behind this thread into reality?
There's no "right", enumerated or in common law, to drive a car on the public roads. Over & over, courts have upheld the States' contention that driving is a privilege, granted by State authority. Until that mindset gets shot down, we're syuck with the private tax that keeps going up, due to supernatural forces in the phantom marketplace. It's bogus & needs to go. I'm not holding my breath. The 2nd Amendment makes the insurance comparison bogus. The last major ruling by SCOTUS doubles down on the "right" to keep & bear arms. None of this is going away. Regulation isn't illegal, but it has to be approached from workable angles. Not even the vociferous gun enthusiasts want them in the hands of assholes or crazies who shoot up schools, theaters, churches, political meet & greets, etc. That's the common ground to get started.
A thirteen year was shot and killed in a household where several children ages one to thirteen were playing with a firearm. What happened to this child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It got trumped and throttled by the right to bare arms.
http://accidentalgunshots.tumblr.com/
I don't disagree with the sentiment, Trish, but I don't think sentiment is what'll carry this through. Sentiment draws attention to the issue. These last several acts of insanity &/or terrorism, coupled with the completely inane response of the NRA, has everybody's attention. Lots of sentimental support too. Calm deliberation will carry the day from here.
Anecdotal evidence is often selected to evoke a certain sentiment. A day by day report of gun accidents in the US is merely a sequential listing of the data as it comes in. If the data happens to evoke horror and depict the the risks to the innocent in graphic detail so be it. Guns are lethal and people are stupid. We need to make it difficult for the latter to obtain the former. We need to hold gun owners liable for the mayhem their weapon causes, even if that means each weapon must carry a license, be registered and insured against misuse.
I'm not so sure, I think it's best to have Sandy Hook survivors camped out in the halls of Congress if you want to get anything done. Reagan and Bush both were against military style arms, on film, but you know they will wait and let the Democats spend their political capital pushing through a ban. We had to have Brady in a wheel chair last time we passed a ban on this stuff. There are so many layers of BS, Republicans and Democratic, and the PEOPLE are even worse. Gore lost in 2000 because of MONICA LEWINSKI!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
And even if harsh measures are passed, for the most part, it won't effect the home grown terrorists, it will effect the guys who buy guns to run up to New York or down to Mexico.
Protecting Americans from themselves can also splash back on things like censorship, The Mothers of Prevention are out there agin video games, PORNO, even my right to drive drunk!!!(ha ha, I quit that) Nobody fights over whether or not we have schools or police, we fight over the positions that have so many layers and mixed feelings, like we're LOOKIN for something to fight about, just to make things interesting.
As I said before, I think Obama has had an eight year plan from Day One, and I don't think guns were any part of it. In one sense the President's only job is to sign bills and prevent WWIII, but in the opposite sense I guarantee you Obama is trying to shift the whole playing field on it's axis so the water naturally flows downhill towards the People, instead of the Rich. That's a lot more ambitious than a ban on People with nothing to live for except shooting things up, but it's actually a lot more practical. Kinda.
If Obama is going to pass the baton to Hillary in 2016, it is important that Americans have nothing big in their little heads to blame Obama on.
That is the kind of calm deliberation that counts. Error free football.
Auto Insurance is not a tax. It is providing proof of one's ability to pay damages in the case of liability. Owning a gun and being able to take financial responsibility for it if it is misused under your ownership are two separate things.
Of course there would be uninsured gun owners just as there are uninsured motorists and businesses that don't keep up current workers compensation insurance.
It seems at moments the best defense for doing nothing is that no solution will create a 100% solution. But the only thing we know for sure is that doing nothing assures nothing changes.
Mandatory "insurance" is a tax because it's mandatory. In the case of cars, it's a fluctuating continuous fee required to own a vehicle. Failure to pay is a criminal offense. Same goes for guns, except that the claim of "privilege" can't be used. You're talking about tacking a lease fee on a right. That won't work. You're just begging for mass civil disobedience, & shouldn't expect Thoreau's passive thoughtfulness. The mildest backlash to this proposal would be giving outfits like the NRA even more power than they've ever had. I'm not advocating doing nothing. I'm advocating a deliberate incremental approach that won't blow up & cause nothing getting done.
"Mandatory" is not a sufficient condition for being a tax or a fee. If insurance paid to a private entity to cover any liability accrued is a tax, then so is the price of the gun itself paid to a private dealer, and so is the price of the ammunition paid to a private dealer. All are costs (not taxes or fees) associated with acquiring and using a firearm. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you ownership of a gun; a very free reading of it might guarantee you the right to own one. There's a difference. The former is a privilege, the latter is perhaps a right depending on how one reads the amendment.
This "fast-approaching" gun ban is slower than an asthmatic snail on crutches.....
IMHO that right is not regardless of responsibility and responsibility for liability expressed either as a posted bond or more commonly an insurance policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
The NRA's power IMHO is almost entirely founded on political and industry money, not "Joe Six-Pack" and the membership fees. It was clearly expressed in 2012 when the NRA endorsed Romney who had signed tough gun laws as Gov. of Ma. , while Obama's primary executive action on guns in his first term was to allow firearms into National Parks, because after all you never know when a crazy person could attack you in your tent.
I am not saying it will happen as far as mandatory proof of insurance but IMHO it does not conflict at all with the right to bear arms. Since the manufactures aren't exposed to product liability, isn't a gun owner liable for the misuse of the product and should be able to show that he/she can pay for damages caused by negligent use of his/her weapon?
Too many guns is all I know for sure based on a vague passage in the Bill of Rights that was written by Patrick Henry, a slave owning non-conformist who distrusted any form of government and certainly had no comprehension of a nation with 100's of millions of people and tens of thousands of assault weapons.
The fact that we as a nation argue over this as though ownership of assault weapons was on a level playing field with equal rights and freedom of religion is just an embarrassment to this citizen.
"ASSAULT WEAPON" Misnomer
1) Assault weapons (a machinegun having selective-fire capability) were originally taxed ($200 or $3,448.28 in 2013 dollars per item) and required to be registered by National Firearms Act of 1934. This was essentially a de-facto ban.
2) Gun Control Act of 1968 imposes even stiffer regulations/penalties and there is a 1-month amnesty for unregistered assault weapons.
3)Due to blatant law-breaking by the ATF the congress passes Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986. Many positive restrictions upon law enforcement were in the bill but a "poison-pill" was inserted by Rep. Hughes.
This amendment banned the registration of any newly manufactured assault weapons to civilians after May, 1986.
Reagan, no friend to gun owners, signed it anyway.
4) Bush Sr. (NO friend to the 2a!!!) passes a bunch of gun laws in 1989 that mainly regulates parts from overseas and ammo.
5) in 1994, CLinton signs his "assault weapons ban". Since true assault weapons already been banned for a LONG time by this point all the law manages to do is change cosmetic features.
6) 2004.. AWB sunsets...blood in the streets...ded babbys errywhere...cops gittin killed left and right.
There is nowhere else left to go than to ban semi-auto since full-auto is already banned. That's why it wont happen.
I think regulation will be through health-care, ammo, or some other back door if they are successful. You and I will not be one bit safer if they succeed.
Although... I will probably stand to make a small fortune. A $700 m16 does not sell under $20,000 due to the fact that only the grandfathered ones can be transferred. A $150 MAC 11 goes for $5,000. Except for criminals. They don't do it legally so they get their M16's for $700 all day long.
Trusting the American government in 2013...there really is no excuse for that.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
MOST crime and accidents are committed with small-caliber handguns.
Kinda hard to conceal a 5 ft long rifle, lel. Also kind hard to shoot yourself by accident.
Umm... no.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
It got trumped by a chain of failure leading to a tragedy.
A house full of unattended kids playing with loaded weapons?
Sounds like a fine group of responsible citizens. I'm a tax-payer, not a fucking baby-sitter.
I am responsible for the safety of my son and wife, no-one else. I have decided to be armed. You have decided to be defenseless. I respect your decision. Respect mine.
Like you every gun owner claims to be a responsible citizen. Time to make it more difficult for "responsible" citizens to acquire guns and to take responsibility (I.e. assume liability) for the guns they have. Yes, more accidents involve small caliber handguns. Good argument for regulating those s well as higher caliber semi-automatics. Past regulations, thanks to the NRA, like current regulations were chocked full of loopholes. Today's ATF doesn't even have a director. If any organization is putting us at risk and encroaching on our lives it's the NRA and the manufacturers who support them...not government.
Fuck the NRA. Buncha country-club republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The ATF is a racist, criminal organization.
I actually have no problem with sensible regulation. Most of my weapons are registered and insured due to the fact that they are restricted (Title II, or Class 3) type anyway.
The problem is that errybody knows the endgame is trying to get them banned eventually through a death of 1,000 cuts. We know what is proposed A) will not reduce crime and B) is just another gradual step in thedirection of eventual banning.
Therefore, we can't give an inch. We know what you want and how you plan to get it.
I am in an interracial marriage with a mixed child in the deep south.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
There's a whole lot of folks whose worldview is stuck in 1935. Who is supposed to protect my family? The racist cops?
If something happens how much faith should I have in the justice system to rectify it?
I've already experienced discrimination from blacks and whites due to who I love. I don't trust the police or courts. Why would I not use the skills the military taught me to ensure our safety?
yeah, right. You just blew yor credibility.Quote:
The ATF is a racist, criminal organization.
Against what? Suicide? Accidental injury from handling a firearm? From your firearms? From sophistry? An automatic weapon is the last thing you'll need to protect your family.Quote:
I am in an interracial marriage...Who is supposed to protect my family?
I'm an African-Korean, transgender American and I don't need a firearm or any other form of lethal weapon as a security blanket. Neither do you.
Then why does Law Enforcement need the security blanket that is more likely to hurt them than save them? It doesn't work both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Should off-duty cops be allowed to have guns? Retired cops? Active military? Retired military?
It's not a matter of gunz/nogunz. It's whether or not certain groups have a monopoly on deadly force. I believe that is where we start to diverge. I don't believe in state monopoly of force. Period.
I do enjoy hearing other viewpoints such as yours. I may not agree, but then again, I may be presented with something I've never considered before. (And I enjoy learning)
Anywayz, we're just two random assholes OTI and this is all mental masturbation. Were I to meet you in real life I'd be happy to offer you the beverage of your choice and break bread. I'm sure the convo would be lively and worth the cost of admission.
Not necessarily your body we're talking about. You have a wife and a child and others also visit your home. It's not all about you.Quote:
Against what? Suicide?My body, my life, my choice, my right
They don't. Then of course unlike civilians who claim they need guns for protection, police officers don't use their firearms as security blankets.Quote:
Then why does Law Enforcement need the security blanket.
never said it was. It's a matter of making them harder to obtain. E.g. If you think you need a gun to protect yourself against the ATF you shouldn't have one.Quote:
It's not a matter of gunz/nogunz
Just as an aside police are are civvies.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
If you are not subject to the UCMJ (Courts Martial) you are a civilian.
Well, atm the only people getting maimed and killed due to the actions of the ATF are Mexican citizens, and as we know guns are illegal in Mexico so we don't need to worry about making it harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
So what? My post specified a subclass of civilians distinct from the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
They don't. Then of course unlike civilians who claim they need guns for protection, police officers don't use their firearms as security blankets.
Just as an aside police are are civvies.
If you are not subject to the UCMJ (Courts Martial) you are a civilian.
The Center for American Progress recently made a report that demonstrates that stronger gun regulation does make a difference or in this case that the absence of control of hand weapons increases homicides per 100,000 in population.
The ten states with the worst homicide rate per 100,000 were all states that did not require permits for hand guns. Louisiana came in as the worst with Hawaii the best. Just in case you thought that being a remote state like Hawaii is has something to do with Hawaii's positive ranking pristine Alaska came in second. And not shockingly the list is filled with red states like MS, MO, AL, GA, AR.
The source of the raw data used by the progressive think tank came from the NRA.
Probably the two single most dangerous fire arms today are hand weapons which are easily used in skirmishes and subject to home accidents and assault weapons which are by design able to kill at a fast rate.
Permits seem to create a solid decrease in violence via hand weapons. So why not require permits for hand guns though out the US and apply similar permits for assault weapons?
While people live in fear that gangs armed with automatic weapons, will invade their homes. Criminals are thinking of more efficient ways. This one was caught after getting over a million.
http://www.thestate.com/2013/04/16/2...to-prison.html
One more time:
There's NO "approaching gun ban", at any speed. This myth is a bunch of hyperbolic paranoia, just like it always is when it pops up, & it pops up every time somebody gets stupid with a gun.
I'm sure gun stores love this rhetoric as the gun sales always shoot through the rood when a dem is in the WH.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
You are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
I saw a poster in a gun store that had a picture of Obama that read "Gun Salesman of the Decade".