Removing the means of effective self-defense from the law-abiding is not progress.
Even the CDC report commissioned by President Obama stated “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in
the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies” and “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3
million per year.”
Do we really want violent crime rates in the USA to climb to match the rates of gun-controlled European nations and Canada?
I’m not saying there aren’t things we can do in the USA to reduce violent crime, including crimes where firearms are used, but I am saying that building registries for future confiscations and otherwise disarming the law-abiding are not helpful.
Want fewer shooting deaths? Decriminalize drugs and you’ll cut criminal firearms homicides by 50% overnight.
That is a bad faith doomsday argument. Get over it, you’re being regulated.
removing… that is comical hyperbole. No real wonder you feel the need to defend yourself if you misapprehend (i assume you believe your right to self defense with a firearm is under threat of utter total loss, rather than a reality based modification) reality so badly.
I… I just do not understand the thought process for WHY someone would suggest this. Why? Can you just let me in on this? What are you hoping to achieve with mandatory insurance?
We have insurance on things like cars and homes for many reasons. Mainly we don’t OWN these items out right, and if they get destroyed we need to be able to pay off the bank.
Car accidents are very common, and insurance is prudent for not just medical bills, but just fixing your car.
What exactly do you we need to insure guns for? Accidents? Accidents are very rare, must rarer than cars. If you are involved in an accident your current health and/or home owners insurance should cover damages and health bills.
Suicides? No one insures against those.
Criminal use? Bwaahha. So somehow someone who probably shouldn’t own a gun in the first place, is going to buy insurance to pay for - what exactly? Someone is NOT going to commit a crime because, “Yo, man, I can’t rob that store with you, my gat insurance isn’t paid.” Just like that doesn’t stop thousands of people driving with out insurance either.
Funny thing is you do at least quantify it with “with premiums based on actuarial data of which guns are the most likely to be used badly” - so my AR-15 should be much lower than say my 1911. But at any rate, such a scheme would basically just burden the poor. I fail to see how it would stop any sort of violence nor really help fix anything.
But anyway, I do have gun insurance actually - against theft.
I was prepared. The alternative was spending two days in bad pain on insufficiently working NSAIDs. More pride-worthy thing than being regulations-abiding and going crazy with pain just because Some Bureaucrat wanted to protect me from myself. I did that and I will do it again, period.
Anything can get you killed. Let it at least be interesting.
Also, wide availability of ion mobility spectrometers will save lives, whether from bad alcohol or bad blackmarket drugs.
Do you have a less desperate argument, Mr. Insert Paperwork And Restrictions Into Everything?
Since there is only ONE RELEVANT FACT HERE, how could we possibly do anything else. Truly. We must solve that ONE PART of the problem, entirely, first, right?
Nothing to see over there with the assault weapons. Look at the .38s. Just look at them. They are the whole problem.
Max_Planke and ACE were arguing that straw purchases were a significant source of the guns used in homicides. If the straw purchasers were required to keep paying a tax on each purchase of a highly deadly firearm they made under their name, then that would create a disincentive for them to just hand them over to someone else without transferring ownership.
And there’s plenty of teenagers upset they can’t afford the insurance premiums for sportscars.
Is that true? A quick google shows this from 15 years ago, and only 2 of the 10 are sixguns. (and IMHO the only decent pieces on the list…haw haw).
But what about when you are interested, or prepared or whatever, and someone else dies. because you overestimated you that one time you were having fun on the edge?
Whatever, these laws were made by people just trying to steal your fun, not as the result of tragedies you would never be dumb enough to let happen.
That is a bad faith doomsday argument. Get over it, you’re being regulated.[/quote]
I smell sour grapes.
Obama’s Executive Actions are not new regulations, at most the president can instruct agencies to tighten down enforcement of existing laws and clarify some gray areas such as “engaged in the business” . And the changes are not all towards being more restrictive – one of the ATF rule changes President Obama is touting removes the ability for local law enforcement to block a law-abiding citizen from legally acquiring a machine gun.
Meanwhile, the states have been slowly making the means of effective self-defense more available to the law-abiding, removing “may issue” discretion from local political entities and overturning concealed carry bans, most recently in Illinois:
Lower chance than if you don’t do a mundane thing like deicing a pavement. That can kill too.
Low-probability things happen too. That’s not a reason to get my panties in a knot because of that, even if yours seem to bunch up in an eyeblink. I accept the risk of being at the receive end of such mishap too.
If the aim is to save lives and not to annoy people and take away their stuff, why there is no major crash effort to tackle medical errors, to do more research in cancer and cardiovascular diseases, the major mortality causes? Why no Manhattan Project style effort in regenerative medicine? You can do much MUCH more of The Good without imposing more restrictions on people who won’t obey them anyway.
…and hopefully they will one day pay me for the tools to not obey.
I’m not even going to weigh in on the gun control part of this argument.
But to me, at least an equally important part of the conversation should try to address the socioeconomic and political climate in which people are killing one another.
It’s not enough to medicalize the problem.
The killing, in addition to whatever else it may be, is a symptom of something that is fundamentally wrong with our society.
This isn’t the place for logic anymore, let the feelgood purge burn itself out. Not a damn thing introduced today would have stopped any of the shootings in the last few years.
Think about this as well. I can purchase NFA items even easier now thanks to today’s rulings. No local LE certification is needed when seeking a Form 1 or 4. Woohoo, don’t need to purchase via a trust anymore. Oh yea that whole trust loophole thing, any trust that has an NFA purchase within the last 2 years are exempt from the new background check/fingerprint stuff. I buy at least one NFA device a year so nothing changes.
Also, as I noted above to Rckt88edmo - an idea to patch the straw purchaser hole.
Thanks to Justice Roberts, we also now have to have insurance on our bodies so that we don’t become a drain on someone else’s health dollar.
We all have bodies - but we don’t all choose to have guns. But all of us have to pay the criminal and public health costs of our current gun culture. If straw purchasers are one of the main problems, how can we target that?
I’d be fine trying actuarial approaches. After all, we’re trying to reduce the most harm while infringing the least among others.
If some guns (e.g., glock 19s) pose great per-capita risk for being used badly, let’s target that. If there’s effectively no risk of a moisin-nagant being used badly, let’s account for that.
The very concept of “assault weapon” is a manufactured term with an ever-changing definition, used by anti-gun groups and the media to drive the perception that people are being murdered by evil black rifles on a daily basis.
Which the president freely pointed out. That was the point. He’s tried to pass comprehensive, strong gun control legislation that might have helped stop the shootings, but has been repeatedly blocked by the NRA-bought Congress. The measures introduced today are the most he’s legally allowed to do without Congress, and while they are very minor compared to what could be done, as he put it, “if it saves even one life, it’s worth doing”. Would you disagree?
I’m not sure where you pulled that random number out of, but I absolutely disagree. The chance to save one, ten, or a hundred lives by making it harder for people who shouldn’t have guns to get ahold of them is worth a very high price indeed. What price do you put on a child’s life?
