NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

[Courier]

You want me to lie to you or something? Less is more. Less guns in circulation is more safety. Less people owning guns is more quality control on gun safety. Less guns is more tragedies averted.

End of line.

There is no corrolation/causation relationship between the number of guns a society has and its crime rate.

Many nations that have much lower gun-ownership rates than the USA have MUCH higher murder rates.

 

[BenBurch]

Why do you want guns to become too expensive to own?

Should we make lawyers too expensive to hire?

Way too late on that second one.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Yes, but how will the perps get guns?

If they buy them from someone with insurance then the sale will be noted along with the failure to buy insurance and the police can just go pick them up.

If they buy them from someone who doesn't report the sale that person's insurance would be impacted when the gun is found on the perp.

So it should make it harder for a perp to get one.

Not as hard a full registration database and licenses to own, but that was different proposal, I'm sure.

Steal them, buy them from the black market, get them along with their next consignment of drugs from Mexico. The same way they get most of them now.
With 300 million legal guns in circulation and who knows how many more already on the black market (it would not be unreasonable to assume at least 10% more, and probably more like 25%), there are already enough firearms to keep criminals well supplied for many years. This does not even take into consideration how porous our borders are, or the proliferation of firearms in Mexico (where a virtual gun ban has done nothing but make the local narco-trafficante a robber baron in his own fiefdom). The same pipeline that is currently being used for drugs is also readily available for firearms.
The only people being affected by additional firearms restrictions are law abiding citizens. If you think any of this is going to affect criminal activity you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

Why did you ignore the part about the government imposing a cost to excercise a right, as opposed to the cost of voting or a gun or a printing press or any doodads required by your religion?

What? You don't pay state and federal sales tax when you buy a gun or bullets?

 

[Courier]

Way too late on that second one.

How about charging arrestees to have their Maranda Rights read to them?

Howe about charging arresteed to let out of jail after 72 hours if no charges have been pressed against them?

How about charging detainees for a fair trial?

 

[Upchurch]

Why do you want guns to become too expensive to own?

I never said I did. The intent of insurance isn't to make things too expensive. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[BenBurch]

Steal them, buy them from the black market, get them along with their next consignment of drugs from Mexico. The same way they get most of them now.
With 300 million legal guns in circulation and who knows how many more already on the black market (it would not be unreasonable to assume at least 10% more, and probably more like 25%), there are already enough firearms to keep criminals well supplied for many years. This does not even take into consideration how porous our borders are, or the proliferation of firearms in Mexico (where a virtual gun ban has done nothing but make the local narco-trafficante a robber baron in his own fiefdom). The same pipeline that is currently being used for drugs is also readily available for firearms.
The only people being affected by additional firearms restrictions are law abiding citizens. If you think any of this is going to affect criminal activity you couldn't be more wrong.

Bingo Sierra. Where they get them now is the same place you do; Retail.

 

[Courier]

I never said I did. The intent of insurance isn't to make things too expensive. Quite the opposite, actually.

Oh, that's bull **** and you know it.

The endgame here is to price folks out of being able to own fiearms.

If I was required to pay $100 or more in insurance every month for my firearms, I would give up my firearms. I can't afford to pay such insurance.

 

[Upchurch]

How about charging arrestees to have their Maranda Rights read to them?

Howe about charging arresteed to let out of jail after 72 hours if no charges have been pressed against them?

How about charging detainees for a fair trial?

Again, I don't understand your point with this. As I said before:

This is no different than taxing someone for using a court-appointed attorney.

Or charging someone for a fair-trial, or to be read their Maranda rights.


What, you want to plead the 5th Amendment and not possibly incriminate youself? That'll be $50, sir.

So... how is this relevant? Are you suggesting that people should have a court-appointed firearm so they can exercise their Second Amendment rights?

 

[Ranb]

....But I'm sure this would be accepted in San Francisco.

I'm sure it would. San Francisco tried to ban all handguns in the city limits. Actual exemptions in the bill included those owned by the police, secutiry guards and criminals. I posted about it here years ago, don't ask me to find a link for it now.

Ranb

 

[Courier]

I'm sure it would. San Francisco tried to ban all handguns in the city limits. Actual exemptions in the bill included those owned by the police, secutiry guards and criminals. I posted about it here years ago, don't ask me to find a link for it now.

Ranb

And they keep trying to keep the Navy from docking in any San Fran ports.

Such patriotic people.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, that's bull **** and you know it.

The endgame here is to price folks out of being able to own fiearms.

Well, I'm sure that is the line the NRA is pushing.

If I was required to pay $100 or more in insurance every month for my firearms, I would give up my firearms. I can't afford to pay such insurance.

May I suggest that if your budget is that tight, you might want to re-consider your budgetary priorities?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yeah, but currently it is easier for a 20 year old felon to buy a gun than it for him to buy a keg of beer. The current laws ain't working.

If existing laws are violated with impunity, why would simply adding more laws change that? What would prevent the new laws from being violated with equal impunity?

The point is that there is no law that punishes those who supply to the criminal unless they KNOW that the criminal is a criminal. If a guy comes up to me at a guns show and asks to buy a gun that I just bought from a dealer there is no law that requires me to make sure he is not a felon. None. So even if he is an undercover cop and I sell it to him for cash without even asking his name, I can't be prosecuted. I have done nothing wrong.

Contrast that to the system that controls kegs of beer. The seller can expect to be fined and even sent to jail for selling a keg of beer to a minor. If a guy comes up to me outside of the beverage mart asking to buy the keg of beer I just bought I know that if he is an undercover cop I will likely be going to jail that night if I sell it to him and will have to at least pay a hefty fine. "**** that, dude, get your own beer." Is the only logical response unless the guy is offering a real premium for the beer and I'm pretty sure he isn't a cop. Even then it is a bit risky.

So, if we can make kegs of beer hard for minors to buy why can't we make guns hard for felons to buy?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Steal them, buy them from the black market, get them along with their next consignment of drugs from Mexico. The same way they get most of them now.
With 300 million legal guns in circulation and who knows how many more already on the black market (it would not be unreasonable to assume at least 10% more, and probably more like 25%), there are already enough firearms to keep criminals well supplied for many years. This does not even take into consideration how porous our borders are, or the proliferation of firearms in Mexico (where a virtual gun ban has done nothing but make the local narco-trafficante a robber baron in his own fiefdom). The same pipeline that is currently being used for drugs is also readily available for firearms.
The only people being affected by additional firearms restrictions are law abiding citizens. If you think any of this is going to affect criminal activity you couldn't be more wrong.

Or they could just go to a gun show and buy them, right?

You don't have to go all narco-trafficante rober baron to get a cup of coffee around here, much less a gun.

 

[Mudcat]

There is no corrolation/causation relationship between the number of guns a society has and its crime rate.

Many nations that have much lower gun-ownership rates than the USA have MUCH higher murder rates.

I know I heard it all before, education and all that.

Turns out I agree. There are hundreds areas in which we can improve as a society that would have a bigger impact on violence than any gun ban ever would.

What I propose is to treat gun ownership as a privilege not a right, not ban it outright. Might just help change people and how they view it and address it with the kind of respect it should have.

 

[Courier]

Well, I'm sure that is the line the NRA is pushing....

I don't support the NRA, so you can save your ad-hom attacks for a more appropriate target, bro.

 

[Courier]

I know I heard it all before, education and all that.

Turns out I agree. There are hundreds areas in which we can improve as a society that would have a bigger impact on violence than any gun ban ever would.

What I propose is to treat gun ownership as a privilege not a right, not ban it outright. Might just help change people and how they view it and address it with the kind of respect it should have.

Sure. Fine. Require permits that come with a thorough background check.

But don't come up with bull **** pricing schemes with the goal of pricing middle-class folks out of the ability to own a firearm.

The vast majority of folks who commit crimes with guns, don't acquire those guns legally. So all of these laws won't make a ******* difference.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth
How does forcing insurance do this, exactly?

I'm guessing you think criminals and nutjobs would gladly go out and hit up a local agent for a gun insurance policy...

No, I am guessing that they will not.

And then we have a status crime we can use to jail them and confiscate their guns.

Will make taking gang members off the street much easier.

No it won't

Catch 1. Felons can already be jailed if found in possession of a gun
Catch 22. Because of 1. they cannot be required to make any admission of possessing (like applying to insurance) - Fifth Amendment applies

 

[triforcharity]

The gun cost him nothing. That was too expensive for him?

To purchase what I gave him would have cost him over $400. So, yes, it would have been too expensive. SD ammo is about 30 bucks for 25, which fills the two magazines, and gives him a few extra.

 

[triforcharity]

So... how is this relevant? Are you suggesting that people should have a court-appointed firearm so they can exercise their Second Amendment rights?

No, but perhaps you should read the SCOTUS decision in Miranda.