h a l f b a k e r yTrying to contain nuts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
US Law to require proof of insurance to buy ammunition:
Avoiding conflict with the 2nd Amendment right to "keep
and bear arms," anyone who wishes to buy ammunition
or ammunition making supplies must show at point-of-
sale that they have a valid Firearms Liability Insurance
policy. They may
possess as many firearms as they wish
and use them for any lawful purpose, but convicted
felons and persons determined by a psychiatrist and/or a
judge to be mentally incompetent to possess or use
firearms, or anyone having been served with a
restraining order for violence, shall be excluded from
acquiring said insurance. A policy shall be void during
such time as the policyholder is under such restraining
order; it shall be at the insurers discretion to reinstate
such insurance once a restraining order is cancelled or
expires.
The issuing insurance company would have the authority
to investigate the policyholder's background including
criminal or mental health history, and to keep track of
the policyholder's firearms and ammunition purchase
history, determine limits of ammunition purchase type
and amounts, and approve or deny an application for
insurance based on results of the applicant's background
checks.
The policyholder would be protected from lawsuits
arising from shooting incidents or accidents, as well as
being protected from lawsuits arising from misuse of his
weapons if they fall into the wrong hands, provided the
theft or loss of said firearms are reported to law
enforcement and the insured's insurance provider in a
reasonable timeframe (30 days or as required by local
laws and insurance company rules). If (s)he wants to buy
additional insurance to cover loss of firearms, that would
be optional additional coverage for an additional fee.
edited 16 January 2016
NRA insurance
http://www.locktonr...m/nrains/Excess.htm
Description of NRA insurance [whlanteigne, Apr 15 2013]
[link]
|
| |
//keep track of the policyholder's ammunition purchase history// You had me up until there. |
|
| |
The other reason this won't work is that it does infringe on 2nd amendment rights, because many people may be able to afford the one time expense of a gun but not a monthly insurance payment for it. If I stop paying the insurance does somebody come take my G3 and 5000 rounds of armor-piercing ammo away? |
|
| |
umm.... didn't we do this last month or something ? |
|
| |
"many people may be able to afford the one time
expense of a gun but not a monthly insurance
payment for it." |
|
| |
Tough. The Second Amendment isn't charity. If
you can afford the weapon, you still have to pay
for the ammunition and supplies that you use (like
cleaning supplies). You have the right to purchase
firearms, but it isn't an entitlement. |
|
| |
"If I stop paying the insurance does somebody
come take my G3 and 5000 rounds of armor-
piercing ammo away?" |
|
| |
No, of course not. You simply can't buy any more
until you purchase another insurance policy. |
|
| |
//The Second Amendment isn't charity.// |
|
| |
How much did you pay for your First Amendment
right to say that? |
|
| |
//How much did you pay for your First Amendment
right to say that?// |
|
| |
Irrelevant to the discussion, of course. You'll have to
do better, because the Second Amendment can be
repealed. It takes 34 states to propose an
amendment via an Article V convention, and 38 to
ratify. I'd rather not see that happen, but the NRA is
driving the discussion that way. |
|
| |
This is where the NRA has fallen down on the job:
they could be offering said liability insurance with
their annual membership dues, and would make it
harder for maniacs and criminals to commit crimes
with guns. |
|
| |
Firearms liability insurance, whether mandatory or voluntary, requires a pre-existing law in place that makes owners responsible for their firearms' actions. |
|
| |
You could also include anything which prime purpose is, or could conceivably be, a weapon: knives, tasers, baseball bats... but you'd have to have them serial #'d first for identification. |
|
| |
How would this work anyways ? If a gun is stolen, is the original owner responsible for everything it does, or is there a time period, or a dollar amount, or what. |
|
| |
You're right, the Second Amendment can be
repealed. The First, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh
have already been declared of no effect; in each
case, it has not generated a whole lot of publicity.
The Second Amendment is going to be taken
away, forcibly, from all US citizens within the next
thirty months; and it seems to make many people
upset that some of us are uncomfortable with
that. |
|
| |
From the standpoint of pure logic, however, your
call of "irrelevant" makes little sense. If
Amendment #2 is subject to repeal, then
Amendment #1 is likewise. If #2 should require a
fee before its provisions may be enjoyed, then
why not #1? I did not choose that particular
comparitive at random - they are two sets of
rights, with their respective responsibilities,
granted in the same fashion, at the same time, by
the same document, in the same way - you
propose one should be paid for because it isn't a
"charity"? Then, sir, I ask you, is not the other a
"charity", or should First Amendment rights be
paid for as well? |
|
| |
It's irrelevant because it doesn't interfere with the
right to "keep and bear arms." You may own as
many as you like, and carry them lawfully wherever
it's appropriate. If you can't convince an insurance
company that you aren't crazy and that you aren't
a criminal, you simply wouldn't be able to buy
ammunition. |
|
| |
Yes, any part of the US Constitution is subject to
repeal, and if we don't come up with a strategy to
prevent maniacs and criminals from using guns, the
Second Amendment may well be. |
|
| |
Criminals have no problem sidestepping these regulations. It would be a blatant money-grab and nothing more. Serial numbers are the first thing to go when a firearm is stolen and this measure does nothing to stop the perpetrators. |
|
| |
Kindly piss off, and keep from shoving government hands any further down my pockets. |
|
| |
Money would be going to insurance companies,
not government. Try exercising the ability to read
before you disagree. |
|
| |
Yes, criminals would have to steal ammunition, or
buy it illegally. |
|
| |
I believe it's already illegal to possess a firearm
that has the serial number removed. |
|
| |
//criminals would have to steal ammunition, or buy it illegally.// |
|
| |
umm.... why wouldn't they just buy insurance ? |
|
| |
Or, for that matter, why would they bother buying ammunition at all ? considering that the firearm's usage is as a threatening device. Seriously, how many rounds per year does your average criminal use in the commission of illegal acts ? |
|
| |
The issuing insurance company would investigate the
policyholder's background and criminal or mental
health history, and approve or deny an application
for insurance. |
|
| |
Crooks and people with a history of mental instability
couldn't buy insurance, thus couldn't legally buy
ammunition. |
|
| |
Wouldn't insurance companies jump all over the chance to levy high premiums on somebody whom they assume might actually use a firearm to shoot people ? rather than refusing to insure them. |
|
| |
// If a gun is stolen, is the original owner
responsible for everything it does, or is there a
time period, or a dollar amount, or what.// |
|
| |
Some litigation lawyers believe the original owner
should be responsible, and would argue that they
should be sued for negligence. Firearms Liability
Insurance would shield them from that. |
|
| |
//Wouldn't insurance companies jump all over the
chance to levy high premiums on somebody whom
they assume might actually use a firearm to shoot
people ?// |
|
| |
Someone who might actually use a firearm to
shoot people isn't an insurable risk, so no. |
|
| |
Police officers would be issued ammunition by
their police departments. |
|
| |
//Money would be going to insurance companies, not government. Try exercising the ability to read before you disagree.// |
|
| |
Yes you're right, but insurance companies here 'are' all gov- run monopolies and they weasel out of paying as a matter of course. Extortion is extortion no matter what mask it wears. |
|
| |
Not sure where "here" is, but in the US it's the
opposite: it's insurance companies that pressure the
government- e.g., air bags and seatbelts, mandatory
car insurance, and have been behind the anti-
smoking campaign. |
|
| |
Well here is B.C. Canada and from what I've seen insurance companies, whether private or government run, seem to have a strict "stall for at least a year before paying out" policy because odds say that a certain percentage of claiments will either; (a) give up within that time-span, or (b) die within that time-span, and the almighty bottom-line is the only line that won't be crossed. |
|
| |
No more hands in my pockets, thankyouverymuch, go catch the bad guys like we already pay for.
Might want to start looking at some of those insurance CEO's and government officials for a start... |
|
| |
firstoff, except on a case-by-case basis, simply whitewashing all the "criminal" and "mental problemmed" types as being unsuitable for gun ownership is ridiculous; in effect you're simply trying to make sure individuals of the weaker elements in society stay that way. You're a bully. And it is in direct conflict with 2A. |
|
| |
secondoff, 2A dedicated activites would be exempt from mandatory insurance purchase, since the phrase is "shall not be infringed". This of course does not imply that you can't be sued for putting a hole in your neighbours car or that you can't voluntarily purchase insurance, just that having valid insurance can't be made a prerequisite to exercising 2A rights/obligations. |
|
| |
Thirdoff, I'd be suprised if you couldn't already voluntarily purchase firearms insurance; Lloyds if nothing else, and if legal liability ever extends to third parties, insurance for that as well. |
|
| |
It's only criminals who have a record of using firearms illegally that should be looked at. |
|
| |
Ditto nutcases: the only ones you need to weed out are the ones who think they're shooting daffodils instead of bullets, and the ones who are inclined towards violence out of proportion with provocation. |
|
| |
The one category unmentioned is the real one though: ensuring that a person can properly take care of a firearm: proper handling when in use, maintenance, secure storage, etc. |
|
| |
//simply whitewashing all the "criminal" and
"mental problemmed" types as being unsuitable for
gun ownership is ridiculous// |
|
| |
Convicted felons aren't supposed to have firearms
anyway, but I suppose that's ridiculous. |
|
| |
I believe I used the term "mentally unstable,"
which I think would include someone diagnosed
with uncontrolled bipolar disorder, severe
depression, or schizophrenia (key word being
"uncontrolled"); or an individual diagnosed as a
sociopath or psychopath. I guess that's ridiculous
too. |
|
| |
Insurance companies determine risk via the use of
actuarial tables based on actual real-world history,
not political rhetoric. If there is a statistical
correlation between getting into bar fights and
shooting people, those with a history of bar fights
might find it harder to get insurance; and if having
schizophrenia has a correlation with shooting
people, schizophrenics will have a hard time
getting firearms liability insurance. |
|
| |
// insurance companies, whether private or
government run, seem to have a strict "stall for at
least a year before paying out" policy// |
|
| |
Liability insurance doesn't "pay out," like life
insurance. The insurance company either hires
lawyers to defend you in a lawsuit so they don't
have to pay out, or they try to negotiate a
settlement; but you personally wouldn't stand to
profit from an accidental shooting, or if someone
uses your gun to commit a crime. |
|
| |
//I believe I used the term "mentally unstable," which I think would include someone diagnosed with [...]// |
|
| |
The term "people" would also "include someone diagnosed with [...]" as well, why didn't you say that ? less letters to type, easier to understand. |
|
| |
[for reference I'm not objecting to the post's terminology per se, but to a few annos back "crooks and those with mental instability"] |
|
| |
//keep track of the policyholder's ammunition purchase history// and why is that, exactly ? |
|
| |
Anyways, as I've previously mentioned, having a mandatory payment of insurance in order to buy ammunition conflicts with 2A in the case of 2A guns andor usage (including practice). And realistically any firearms usage: target, hunting, plinking, can be said to be (and is) a "firearms familiarity" 2A practice. |
|
| |
So, if you want to require guns to be insured (with the exception of 2A usage weaponry for which insurance is optional), that's a valid stance. Some people would even sign up voluntarily. |
|
| |
In the meanwhile you should really add to the post "Based on the assumption that 3rd person liability becomes law" or something like that. |
|
| |
So, to make a long story short, the concept of firearms insurance is baked, and the concept of requiring proof of insurance to purchase ammunition is unworkable since anybody who's too lazy to reach into their wallet can say "2A, gimme ammo". |
|
| |
//if you want to require guns to be insured// |
|
| |
Not at all. It's the gun owner who is insured.
Whether or not the insurance company wants to
know what kids of guns he has is up to the
insurance company. I just want to make sure the
gun user is an insurable, responsible person when
he buys ammunition. If he wants to buy additional
insurance to cover loss of his firearms, that's
another matter. |
|
| |
//"Based on the assumption that 3rd person
liability becomes law" or something like that.// |
|
| |
Okay, based on the assumption that the US
Congress adopts a law that firearms liability
insurance becomes mandatory for purchasing
ammunition or ammunition-making supplies, the
law would stipulate that convicted felons and
persons determined by a psychiatrist to be
mentally incompetent shall be excluded from
acquiring said insurance. |
|
| |
The Second Amendment mentions nothing about
ball and powder, nor does it mention purchasing
factory-made ammunition, it only mentions "keep
and bear arms," which means owning (keeping)
and carrying (bearing). |
|
| |
//keep track of the policyholder's ammunition
purchase history// and why is that, exactly ? // |
|
| |
To discourage illegal sales of ammunition to people
who can't legally get firearms liability insurance. |
|
| |
I think you mean reckless. Wreckless driving is the better sort. |
|
| |
//How would you feel about car owners not requiring 3rd party insurance ?// |
|
| |
Apples to oranges. We are already thouroughly screened in order to get a gun licence here in Canada and we don't interact daily with weapons the way we do with vehicles. |
|
| |
//but you personally wouldn't stand to profit from an accidental shooting, or if someone uses your gun to commit a crime.// |
|
| |
I would not expect to profit. I would expect my gun back once the 'bad guy' has been caught... just like we already pay through the nose for.
Forcing me to pay an additional monthly fee will protect neither my guns nor the public if they are stolen. It'd just be yet _another_ rip-off. |
|
| |
// We are already thouroughly screened in order
to get a gun licence here in Canada// |
|
| |
Gun license isn't required in the US, not is it likely
to be. Apparently, US "gun rights" enthusiasts
believe the "right to keep and bear arms" should
apply to convicted felons and mentally unstable
people. |
|
| |
//Forcing me to pay an additional monthly fee will
protect neither my guns nor the public if they are
stolen.// |
|
| |
The purpose of the insurance is twofold: to
protect the lawful gun owner from liability
lawsuits, and to provide proof of a comprehensive
background check without costing the taxpayers.
It wouldn't "protect your guns," that would be
additional optional coverage against theft or loss. |
|
| |
//The Second Amendment only mentions "keep and bear arms"// "shall not be infringed". Idiot. |
|
| |
//It's the gun owner who is insured. Whether or not the insurance company wants to know what kids of guns he has is up to the insurance company.// |
|
| |
So now you're saying that you don't want third-person liability ? ie: if the gun gets stolen and used in the commission of a crime, or to be more precise //if they fall into the wrong hands.// as you posted. |
|
| |
I'm through with this discussion. If you aren't actually trolling and are just either really drunk or temporarily mentally retarded then rewrite your post to say just what the hell you're going on about. |
|
| |
// "Canada’s National Firearms Association's
Liability Insurance program offers $5,000,000 in
coverage for only $9.95 per year for each NFA
member insured!"// |
|
| |
Yes, and the NRA offers similar coverage to its
members: $250,000 of liability coverage for
$67/year. Other options include insurance against
theft. |
|
| |
A bold and very good idea, I think. It passes the constitutionality test easily. It's interesting that very few see how this benefits the 'good guys', and just get out of joint noses over the fees and such. |
|
| |
I think you need to revisit this sentence, however: |
|
| |
// Someone who might actually use a firearm to shoot people isn't an insurable risk |
|
| |
... as that would seem to defeat the entire purpose. Any person with a gun is someone who might actually use it to shoot people. |
|
| |
Blimey, what does it take to get a discussion started
round here? C'mon, somebody should at least
express an opinion. |
|
| |
(Pauses. Sound of muted cough and the fristle of a
tumbleweed blowing past.) |
|
| |
//Any person with a gun is someone who might
actually use it to shoot people.// |
|
| |
Perhaps that should read "someone who might
actually use it to shoot people for no legitimate
purpose." |
|
| |
//Spur-of-the-moment crimes of passion happen
every day,// |
|
| |
Yes they do, and having easy access to firearms
compounds the problem, which is one of the reasons
cited for stricter gun control, and a compelling
argument for repealing the Second Amendment. |
|
| |
//compelling argument for repealing the Second
Amendment.// |
|
| |
most people being prosecuted are probably guilty
of something. Great argument for eliminating the
presumption of innocence. |
|
| |
most people cheat on their taxes. Great argument
for giving the IRS more powers. |
|
| |
most people do not appreciate how incredibly
difficult it is to gain rights, which for most of
human history we didn't have, and how incredibly
easy it is to lose them. Thankfully, it would take a
super majority for them to affect those of us that
do. |
|
| |
Anyone who has ever gone to traffic court
understands that "presumption of innocence"
doesn't exist. |
|
| |
The course of criminal prosecution is almost always
determined by the initial police investigation,
which takes the direction that anyone remotely
associated is suspect. |
|
| |
"Most people" these days don't make enough to be
able to cheat on their taxes. |
|
| |
Everybody's done something wrong on their taxes.
The tax code is so voluminous it's not possible for
a person to know what they did wrong. The tax
code is created ex post facto (in violation of the
constitution), so even if you did nothing but read
tax code all day long, you can't follow this year's
tax law because it hasn't been written yet. |
|
| |
So it's not //"Most people" these days don't make
enough to be able to cheat on their taxes//, but
rather that most people don't make enough to
make them worth going after. The richest ones
have enough lawyer-power that they're not worth
going after. The IRS eats the people along the
bottom edge of the top, and the ones moving up
so they have money but don't yet have
protection. |
|
| |
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the
United States Constitution allows the Congress to
levy an income tax without apportioning it among
the states or basing it on Census results. |
|
| |
Federal courts have ruled that the Sixteenth
Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries,
commissions, etc. without apportionment. |
|
| |
Look up "ex post facto", because you cleanly missed
that particular point. |
|
| |
No, I didn't miss the point, I ignored it because it's
irrelevant, because a number of Federal judges said
so. Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution gives
Congress the power to tax. |
|
| |
No, that was a different (and irrelevant) question
that they answered. Timeliness of production of tax
code hasn't yet been adjudicated. |
|
| |
Right. Good luck in tax court with that argument. |
|
| |
//either really drunk or temporarily mentally
retarded// |
|
| |
You will note that the discussion was civil until the
remarks by — FlyingToaster, Apr 15 2013 |
|
| |
Classy. Toss in some insults when you're losing an
argument. And derail the discussion into LaLa Land
with specious arguments about income tax while
you're at it. This is what makes civilized
discussions about keeping dangerous weapons out
of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable
people impossible, and why the Second
Amendment is at risk. |
|
| |
Those three pointed back at yourself are the "everything I can't respond to, I'll call irrelevant". |
|
| |
Yes, you win this debate, because you get to define the terms and not actually engage with anything that exists outside the confines of your own skull. |
|
| |
Which kind of begs the question - why did you dump this crap here? |
|
| |
More insults from the wingnut right. |
|
| |
First irrelevant comment: "If I stop paying the
insurance does somebody come take my G3 and
5000 rounds of armor- piercing ammo away?" |
|
| |
There is no mention of confiscating anything. |
|
| |
Second irrelevant comment: "How much did you
pay for your First Amendment right to say that?" |
|
| |
Distraction from the discussion. |
|
| |
"you're simply trying to make sure individuals of
the weaker elements in society stay that way.
You're a bully." |
|
| |
That's simply too bizarre to respond to. |
|
| |
"...why did you dump this crap here?" |
|
| |
For the four positive votes? |
|
| |
To see if the pro-gun bunch are capable of civil
discussion? |
|
| |
To see if there is a reasonable approach that does
not require repeal of the Second Amendment? |
|
| |
So folks who don't like it don't like it a lot. |
|
| |
The only obstacle I see with this idea is the certainty of it never being made US law. Shame. |
|
| |
I think we may be at a tipping point. My concern is
that there won't be any reasonable regulation in
place without repealing the Second Amendment, and
the opposing comments seem to suggest that it's the
only way. It doesn't take an Act of Congress, just 34
states to convene and make the proposal, and 38 to
ratify. |
|
| |
This idea seems to contain two concepts: |
|
| |
1. Firearms liability insurance, and |
|
| |
2. Not selling ammunition to people deemed unsafe. |
|
| |
Why combine them like this? Wouldn't it be simpler, and more honest, just to require a license (either a special ammunition license, or a firearms license, as appropriate) for purchase of ammunition? |
|
| |
Yes, it would be simpler to require a firearms license
to buy guns and ammo, but that requires repealing
the Second Amendment. The insurance requirement
is a means to place the burden of background checks
on the gun user, through paying for insurance, rather
than having government (police) perform the
background checks at the taxpayer's expense, and
without repealing the Second Amendment. |
|
| |
I have said elsewhere that I would be willing to purchase insurance if it would allow me to carry. I live in California, which already does everything that is being proposed in the way of background checks, registration, etc. |
|
| |
As far as I can tell, in most states car ownership
isn't "infringed," although you do have to possess
some kind of documentation that you own it
(typically, a "title"), but that's as much for the
protection of the owner as convenient for the
state. |
|
| |
When you want to drive said car on public, tax-
supported roads, you're required to pay taxes (in
the form of license and registration)and, in most
states, provide a minimum amount of LIABILITY
insurance (or proof of financial responsibility). |
|
| |
Car ownership isn't restricted. Car use on public
roads is. |
|
| |
// The ability to defend one's family against a home invasion, or oneself against a mugging, is a need, and it shouldn't be available only to those with a steady source of income, or denied to those on a fixed income and a tight budget. |
|
| |
So free tae kwan do lessons for everyone! |
|
| |
//so if you WANT to drive and put others at risk,
then you should be prepared to pay for it.// In the
UK, it's illegal to drive without at least third-party
insurance, and it is not cheap. For a newly qualified
driver on a small, low-powered car, you're looking at
£1000 ($1500) and upwards. |
|
| |
So, given that fatalities per gun are higher than
fatalities per car, it doesn't seem unreasonable to
require similar insurance. |
|
| |
//Is that an established fact, or an assumption based on possibly
flawed logic?// |
|
| |
Annual US shooting fatalities (2010): 31,076 |
|
| |
Annual US car fatalities (2010): 32,885 |
|
| |
Estimated number of privately owned guns (legal or otherwise) in
the US: up to 270 million (figure quoted by the FBI; estimates range
from 223 million to about 300 million). |
|
| |
Estimated number of cars (registered) in the US: 270 million. |
|
| |
Therefore, depending on which end of the broad spectrum of
estimates for gun numbers you choose, guns are either about as
dangerous as cars or slightly more so. Each causes about a 9/11
equivalent death per month. |
|
| |
To be fair to guns, those figures include suicides, and probably not
many people commit suicide using cars. |
|
| |
My place of employment is 22 miles away, and
there is no other option but driving there in my
private car (I've even tried starting a car pool). The
nearest stores are more than 2 miles away, the
doctor's office is 5 miles away, the nearest
hospital is 10 miles away, so I "NEED" a car. |
|
| |
I don't "need" firearms except for sport or hunting,
although I have been employed in occupations
that require a carry permit; the best home
defense is a well-trained medium-size dog. I'm not
going to be joining a "Militia." |
|
| |
// Will you have to provide proof of insurance to
purchase ammunition *parts*// |
|
| |
"...anyone who wishes to buy ammunition or
'ammunition making supplies' (that includes those
"parts") must show at point-of-sale that they have
a valid Firearms Liability Insurance policy." |
|
| |
//It's also completely unenforceable. Unless you're
suggesting stamping serial numbers on individual
cartridges, they're untraceable// |
|
| |
Microtaggants (microscopic color-coded chips) can
be used in the powder. They're nearly as good as
serial numbers, and they're already used in
explosives (lot number and date of manufacture),
and as far as I know may already be used in
ammunition. Or, yes, individual cartridges could be
stamped with serial numbers, if that's what it
takes. |
|
| |
There could be an exclusion from the insurance
requirement- if the purchaser is willing to submit
to a police background check and a waiting period
(7 to 14 days) to buy ammunition. That should
satisfy the "financial hardship" argument. |
|
| |
Of those 11.000 gun homicides, exactly how many
are due to (non-drug-related) "armed home
invasions?" 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000? Of those
11,000, I suspect you'll find the vast majority of
them are related to drug deals, domestic disputes,
or alcohol-related stupidity. I think you're more
likely to die in a car accident on the way to the
store to buy your ammunition than from armed
home invasions. |
|
| |
In fact, according to CDC and FBI statistics, you're
hundreds of times more likely to die of cancer,
kidney failure, or heart disease than armed home
invasions. |
|
| |
Your attitude toward working people is
disturbingly elitist- even us "po folks" can have
cars. I live in a medium-size "rust belt" city. The
vast majority of workers here drive to work, very
few ride the bus (in fact, despite the increase in
ridership due to the recession and higher gas
prices, the transit system has cut back on services
and discontinued some routes to save costs). |
|
| |
I'm not taking the bait about my personal home
security, which is, frankly, none of your business.
if you wish to advertise to the world via the
internet that you possess valuable firearms in your
home, that's your business. |
|
| |
According to the Pedia of Wikis, "Gun-related
death rates in the United States are eight times
higher than they are in countries that are
economically and politically similar to it; however,
most countries similar to the United States have a
more secure social network. Higher gun-related
death rates can be found in developing countries
and countries with political instability.[29][33][34]
However, developed countries with strict gun laws
have essentially eliminated gun
violence.[35][36][37][38]" |
|
| |
I think the problem is that criminals in the US are
likely to be carrying a gun, and the general crime
rate is higher than in most of Europe, which
escalates things a little. If someone told me I had
to go and live in the 'states, I'd probably want a gun
too. Maybe it just takes a long period of history for
countries to settle down. |
|
| |
On the other hand, I am pretty sure it's "weasel"
rather than "weasle". |
|
| |
This thinly disguised rant marginally escapes my MFD
[-] |
|
| |
...because the LA subway system is awesome. |
|
| |
Maybe the time to revisit this debate is in a few
centuries. The US is a young country in which,
until fairly recently, the gun was the main form of
law. It has taken centuries for western Europe
and (I believe) Japan and a very few others to
achieve provisionally stable cultures with low
rates of gun crime and of homicide in general;
there's no reason to assume that the US should
mature more quickly in this respect. |
|
| |
And lagging not far behind the US are the dozens
of emerging and developing nations which, one
day, Americans will be able to look at in horror at
their level of violence. |
|
| |
In the meantime, if you put people in a violent
society and give them no opportunity to leave,
nor effective law enforcement to protect them,
they are forced to meet that level of violence
with violence. |
|
| |
Capital idea, m'lud. Actually it's fucking brilliant. |
|
| |
And furthermore, Rhinoceros. |
|
| |
I often duck questions like what happens if I get hit by a car as I'm sitting in a restaurant, because statistically, those odds aren't great enough for me to worry about, unless I'm wandering down the middle of the road. Neither is a home invasion. The question is statistically a strawman. |
|
| |
Well, there you would seem to have it. I knew the
US was a violent country, but hadn't appreciated
how grave the problem was. Perhaps the rest of us
ought to reflect on how lucky we are to have left
that phase of society (mostly) behind us, and leave
the Americans to ensure that the victims are as well-
armed as the perpetrators. Personally, I'd no longer
feel safe returning to the land of half of my parents,
even with personal vigilance equipment. |
|
| |
14 people were killed by a spree shooter in Serbia the
other day. As far as I'm aware it did not trigger a
nationwide media shitstorm. I think the USA's biggest gun
problem actually has very little to do with guns or gun
owners. |
|
| |
//14 people were killed by a spree shooter in
Serbia the other day. As far as I'm aware it did not
trigger a nationwide media shitstorm.// |
|
| |
Well, sadly I don't know because we don't get a lot
of Serbian TV here in East Anglia. But I agree -
there are some nations where the high level of
violence is just a fact of life, like the weather,
and ought to be accepted in the same way. |
|
| |
I think part of the problem is that people
somehow expect the US to be like Western
Europe, whereas they don't have such unrealistic
expectations of (for example) Serbia. |
|
| |
The only solution - whether for Serbia or the US -
is the slow advance of civilisation, which can't be
rushed. |
|
| |
////The US is a young country// ... as most
countries are ... now// |
|
| |
I disagree with the latter statement (either that
or I have misconstrued it). England (and, I
strongly suspect, France, Germany and the other
Western European countries) has of course
changed immensely, yet is still largely grounded in
the culture that it has evolved over several
centuries. |
|
| |
Yes, we have violence and gun crime here; but by
and large there is no culture of gun ownership and
gun usage - handguns in particular are considered
shocking, to the extent that people still comment
when they see armed police at some events. This
is a deeply ingrained attitude that has largely (not
entirely) survived the importation of a very
different culture from the US. |
|
| |
Restrictions on firearms in the UK are very, very
stringent indeed, but they were introduced into a
culture that had already largely foresworn guns
and no longer saw the need for them. |
|
| |
So to suggest that the US, which is still in an early
stage of development and still has a high level of
innate violence, should restrict gun ownership is
to look at it from the wrong perspective. In a few
centuries, an older and wiser US will (with a bit of
luck) have reached the point where most people
don't feel the need for firearms. At that point, it
will be both possible and desirable to restrict
their ownership, since the last people to
voluntarily give up their weapons will be those
who are most likely to use them badly. |
|
| |
Let me get back to you that one when I am less
inconvenienced by alcohol. But probably yes. |
|
| |
Yes, the home- as- armed- fortress- against-
armed- invaders scenario, which plays itself out in
the nightly news every evening. Hundreds, nay,
thousands of armed homeowners nightly beating
off hordes of skilled assassins bent only on rape
and plunder and chaos? |
|
| |
Since you asked politely: |
|
| |
The armed intruders will have to contend with my
motion-activated floodlights (4 sets, cost $20/set)
and the lack of any man-size concealing shrubbery
within 50 feet of the house, deadbolts on the
doors ($15 each), and a well-trained Airedale who
lets me know when something is up (adopted from
the Humane Society shelter, cost $40 for the
adoption fee and well worth a hundred times
that). Should someone breach the doors or
windows they would set off the (battery
operated) wireless alarm system which is
connected to a very loud siren (total system cost
$120). That's a reasonable level of security for less
than the cost of an inexpensive, reasonable
quality revolver. |
|
| |
I did mention that I only use firearms for sport or
hunting? That in my past I have had to have a carry
permit as a condition of my job? I'm not anti-
gunsport, nor am I anti-hunting, and in fact I go to
the pistol range weekly, and yes I load my own
practice rounds (+p FMJ). I'm also insured to the
teeth with liability insurance, all kinds, just in
case the deliveryman slips on my steps, or I'm
involved in an at-fault traffic accident, or a bullet
that leaves my weapon takes an erratic course and
strikes an unintended target, like livestock or a
person. |
|
| |
The reasons I am skeptical about your "armed
intruder/zombie invader" scenario are twofold:
The snub .38 in the special holster under the seat
of my taxi did no good when I was mugged while
taking a coffee break at a restaurant. Two rather
stupid young men accosted me as I was walking
toward my taxi, demanding money, one
brandishing a revolver and the other brandishing a
screwdriver. I had my nose broken when I was hit
in the face with the gun, the idiots took off
without my money when a bystander shouted.
The police later said I was lucky they didn't shoot
me right off. This was in a well-lit place with lots
of people around- close to midnight, but not some
dark alleyway. Even having a gun on my person
wouldn't have made a difference, but being more
aware of the surroundings would have. |
|
| |
The other reason? Let me tell you what will
happen if you do manage to shoot an "armed
intruder": If you kill them, the police will
investigate every aspect of your life to see if you
have ever had any connection whatsoever with
the drug trade, or any aspect of organized crime.
They will search your house. They will question
your friends, your neighbors, the fellow you
borrowed a dollar from last month, they will ask
your employer if you have an attitude problem.
Let's assume the police clear you of premeditated
murder, and determine you had just cause to take
another's life.
The surviving family will sue you for "wrongful
death," and your resources will be drained
defending yourself. Forget "innocent until proven
guilty," the benchmark for evidence in civil trials is
"preponderance of evidence," which means if they
have three witnesses and you only have two, they
win. You will become better acquainted with more
lawyers than you can stomach. The police scenario
will be played out again, this time with lawyers, as
everyone who has ever known you will be asked to
make a deposition. You will probably receive
threats from friends and family of the deceased for
the rest of your life.
It's worse if they survive, especially if they have
disabling, permanent injuries. They'll definitely sue
you, but now you have an additional witness
against you. If your win but your lawyers make the
tiniest mistake, they'll appeal, and the nightmare
happens again. |
|
| |
Yes, it's a horrible notion that you might have to
protect yourself from the liability of shooting
someone by accident, or on purpose (but you may
have that already as a "personal liability" clause in
your homeowner's or renter's insurance, personally
I also have "legal coverage" option as part of my
employer-provided health insurance ($5/month
extra gives me $100.000 toward legal fees)). |
|
| |
It's even worse that lawyers might explore the
theory that you were negligent in allowing your
guns to be stolen, and hold you liable for their
misuse, but that Second Amendment protects
your right to set yourself up for a lawsuit. |
|
| |
[Maxwell], your statement reminds me of Larry Niven's wirehead Carlos Wu, who lived in a society where training in martial arts was illegal. |
|
| |
//[Maxwell], your statement reminds me of Larry
Niven's wirehead Carlos Wu// |
|
| |
Thank you; or damn you. (I'm not familiar with
the character or what a wirehead is, so I'm leaving
the options open here.) |
|
| |
[whla] From what you say, the problem is mainly
that the US has progressed somewhat beyond the
rule
of the gun towards the rule of law, but currently
has one foot on the shore and the other on the
boat. It seems to have the worst of both worlds:
a high level of innate violence; a wide availability
of personal firearms; and a legal system that feeds
from people who use those firearms to protect
themselves. All in all, it doesn't seem to have
worked out too well over there. |
|
| |
I always imagined George Takei in the role of Louis
Wu. |
|
| |
What would you do if your gun jammed? |
|
| |
Well, I think that settles it. Perhaps we Brits should remember that
we live in a more civilised society with good law enforcement and,
moreover, that we have the right to go and live in Paris or Rome if
things get really desperate. |
|
| |
Americans are stuck in a country still in the throes of widespread
violence, without adequate policing, and without the right to move to
another country. |
|
| |
Looked at that way, gun ownership and a willingness to use them
seems perfectly justified to me. The case for not footing the bill and
having arms in both hands doesn't have a leg to stand on. Indeed, if I
were ever forced to live there, I would probably want to arm myself to
the teeth. |
|
| |
//you might well get dragged out of your house by
the beard, then have said beard hacked off.// Yes, I
understand that violent beard removal is particularly
prevalent; apparently they also do it to the menfolk
in serious cases. |
|
| |
I suspect that violent crime against the Amish must
be quite common, which only goes to confirm that
firearms are not only justified but practically a
necessity in a violent country. |
|
| |
//before you move over.// Seriously, I have not
been to the States for over a decade. At first this
was purely due to circumstance; but now I don't
think I could be persuaded to go. |
|
| |
//Imagine the Amish with ....// |
|
| |
Ah, but imagine the Amish with proper weapons.
They could stop being wishy-washy Amish and
become fully Am. |
|
| |
//Leaving one's weapon in one's vehicle when one
exits the vehicle defeats the purpose of owning
the weapon.// |
|
| |
I guess you're smarter than the police who
responded to the call. They agreed that a weapon
wouldn't have been much use, but nineteen years
after the fact and hundreds of miles away from the
event, you're in a perfect position to assess the
event and pass judgement, aren't you? Carrying
your gun on your person makes you completely
invulnerable to attack, and gives you the insight
to know what's going to happen before the event?
Your dead-on accuracy and proficiency with a
pistol absolutely guarantees that a shot fired in
the direction of a busy freeway won't hit the
innocent occupant of a vehicle driving by? You're
so sure of your aim that you have no concern that
you may strike an innocent person in the group of
people nearby? |
|
| |
I didn't have a concealed carry permit at the time
because there was no concealed carry law in that
state. Having it in the car was legal (for the
purposes of "transport"). |
|
| |
The purpose of the weapon was to defend myself
from being robbed while inside the taxi, and it
was used quite effectively several times to that
effect. On the night in question, I was in a well-lit
area, in a public place, in the midst of many
people. The attack was brash and vicious and
reckless and sudden. Yes, I understand you would
have handled it so much better. |
|
| |
// if you don't know how to use a gun in self-
defense then you shouldn't be carrying one to
begin with.// |
|
| |
Wow, I can't believe you would take a position
that violates the Second Amendment. It's also the
opposite of what you've been saying. YOUR
position is that anyone whatsoever, with no
training or certification, no rules or licensing, a
person with a history of criminal convictions or
mental disability may possess whatever firearm
they can afford to purchase, stockpile all the
ammunition they want, with no restrictions
whatsoever, no accountability, no proof of
responsibility, because they might be called up by
the "militia." |
|
| |
You also seem to be actively entertaining the
delusion that the Second Amendment will protect
you from liability lawsuits. It won't, but don't let
that stop you. |
|
| |
If you really want to know what would happen to
someone who breaks into my house and kills my
dog, I've already provided you with all the
information you need, but if you still can't figure it
out you'll simply have to try it. Bring your
Superman suit. |
|
| |
What prompted your verbal abuse was my
statement that "the best home defense is a well-
trained medium size dog," and I stand by that. I
never said one shouldn't use firearms for any
legitimate purpose at all, that was your arrogance
and paranoia. I don't think every home needs or
should have firearms. |
|
| |
I have suggested that firearms owners should show
proof of responsibility by being required to show
proof of having a firearms liability insurance policy
to buy ammunition or ammunition-making
supplies; I have also conceded that it might be
acceptable to waive the liability insurance
requirement (for the financially strapped) in favor
of a reasonable waiting period for the police to
conduct a background check, and I suggested 7 to
14 days as a reasonable waiting period. |
|
| |
The bullshit is yours. The hypocrite is you. You
want the personal freedom and luxury of owning
and using firearms without "manning up" and
accepting the social responsibility by protecting
the public from your potential for negligence, in
the form of buying liability insurance as a
requirement for buying bullets. |
|
| |
Obviously you're ignorant of the "zone defense"
concept. That's what the lights, the alarms and
the dog are for. Lethal force is a last resort
measure, and your attitude toward and contempt
for non-lethal measures suggest an immaturity that
clearly illustrates the flaw in the Second
Amendment. With rights comes responsibility, and
clearly you lack that. |
|
| |
What I said was I don't "need" firearms except for
sport or hunting, although I have been employed
in occupations that require a carry permit; the
BEST home defense is a well-trained medium-size
dog. I'm not going to be joining a "Militia." |
|
| |
No, I don't think firearms are "necessary" for my
home defense. The system I have works. I'll stand
by the statement that a well-trained, medium size
dog is the BEST home defense. Lethal force is only
appropriate as a LAST, DESPERATE RESORT in any
case. I don't believe it's appropriate for everyone.
You, yourself, said "if you don't know how to use a
gun in self- defense then you shouldn't be carrying
one to begin with."
Elitist. The Second Amendment only applies to
you, then? People less qualified don't have the
same protection? Or are you arguing that
everyone, qualified or not, must have a firearm in
their home? This is confusing because you seem to
want it both ways. |
|
| |
//made it sound like you're betting your whole
paycheck on the dog to protect you.// |
|
| |
That's your bigotry showing, by assuming I meant
more than I said. |
|
| |
You demanded to know the intimate details of my
home security, which I pointed out are none of
your business- and, like the cowardly bigot you
are, didn't offer any examples of your own until
after I did. |
|
| |
I'm not an insurance underwriter, so I don't know
what the insurance company's policy would be for
someone who drops their policy after stockpiling
ammunition. Maybe they wouldn't be able to get
insurance from the same company, they'd
definitely not be able to file a liability claim.
Maybe they'd have to pay up the missing premiums
to be reinstated. Maybe the insurance industry
would decide you're not insurable if you buy more
than 500, or 1,000, or 5,000 rounds of ammunition
per month. Maybe buying ammunition for the
purpose of selling it to others and skirting the
liability insurance law would cause your policy to
be cancelled, or maybe it would simply be against
the law for a private citizen to sell ammunition to
someone who lacks insurance.
Deliberately or not, you've avoided discussing the
key purpose in requiring the insurance, which is
that the insurance company, not the government,
would conduct the background check and
determine if you are an insurable risk. |
|
| |
I don't carry a gun on my hip while I'm at home,
and I don't grab a shotgun whenever I hear a noise
outside. I can't say when I would determine if
lethal force is necessary, except that the intruder
would have to be armed, and present an
immediate threat. It's possible to take a man's
head off with an entrenching tool, so if that's the
best or the only option, that's what I'd use. |
|
| |
I think it boils down to you seem to be asking if I
would be willing to take a human life. |
|
| |
I've already answered that. You're an idiot. |
|
| |
Do you think [Jutta] will mind if I sell tickets for
this? |
|
| |
I was thinking more ringside seats. |
|
| |
[whlanteigne] I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. |
|
| |