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

[AlBell]

...

The knives, sword, and other melee weapon problem isn't in the same league as the gun problem. Not even remotely.

IMO edged weapons and clubs will become so if and when guns aren't available due to 2nd amendment being re-adjudicated, or overturned by new amendment. Ymmv, but it's obvious to me we'll never agree on guns or on gun control.

 

[AlBell]

What gun owners are successfully doing is showing exactly why it needs to become a privilege and why having it a Right is toxic to Democracy.

What's being demonstrated is that it's a Right toxic to progressives, you being a prime example.

 

[triforcharity]

One could say the same about requiring people to buy car insurance. It doesn't prevent accidents, nor does it stop people from operating cars illegally or irresponsibly. What it does do is protect people when something unforeseen happens with their car.

That is the entire point of such insurance.

Ok, let's look at the amount of guns vs. gun deaths, injuries, etc and compare those numbers to car accident deaths, injuries, etc.

You tell me which one is more. Then that will explain why car insurance is required.

I doubt that very much.

Why? I can give you a perfect example of people who would not be able to exercise that right. My buddy. I have no doubt there are others.

No. Because pointing out that owning a car is a privilege is nothing more than a semantic word game gun lovers employ in order to avoid facts.

No, it's kind of a fact that makes your argument nil and void.

Food is taxed, though.

Sorry, meant to explain that many states do not tax food. Florida is one. There's some exceptions. Fast food, etc.

 

[Cleon]

I, for one, am highly skeptical of any "solutions" that involve insurance companies.

 

[Mudcat]

What's being demonstrated is that it's a Right toxic to progressives, you being a prime example.

I would like to hear your alternatives, really I would. In order to move forward I'm not certain it's at all possible to avoid treading on someone's rights what with certain politicians, special interest groups, and religious organizations blocking social maintenance.

 

[Mudcat]

Ok, let's look at the amount of guns vs. gun deaths, injuries, etc and compare those numbers to car accident deaths, injuries, etc.

Do I really need to explain this yet again? You seem like a reasonable person, despite your irrational fixation and devotion to an object you believe has magical properties to protect you (two definitions for the same word: Fetish) where nothing else can.

Despite the much higher fatalities associated with traffic, driving a car is statistically safer than owning a gun even when you remove the suicides from the equation.

There is no avoiding this fact.

You tell me which one is more. Then that will explain why car insurance is required.

It's an important protection against the unforeseen, because cars are undeniably expensive and undeniably dangerous.

Why? I can give you a perfect example of people who would not be able to exercise that right. My buddy.

This would be the one you gave a firearm to without checking their background and such on, yes?

I have no doubt there are others.

Could you at least try to not sound like you making very thin excuses?

No, it's kind of a fact that makes your argument nil and void.

How so? Or am I supposed to just take your word on that?

 

[thaiboxerken]

IMO edged weapons and clubs will become so if and when guns aren't available due to 2nd amendment being re-adjudicated, or overturned by new amendment. Ymmv, but it's obvious to me we'll never agree on guns or on gun control.

I doubt it. Firearms are deadlier.

 

[monty1]

Again, we ask you to show us some evidence for this belief. Why do you believe the hilited?

Think of it as an estimate tri. May I call you tri? When somebody comes up wth something more solid then i'll be willing to listen to it.

 

[Courier]

This bill won't pass, cause its dumb.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This bill won't pass, cause its dumb.

You've yet to show that it is dumb.

 

[Courier]

You've yet to show that it is dumb.

Its self-explanatory.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Its self-explanatory.

No, it's not. Why do you think it's dumb?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Despite the much higher fatalities associated with traffic, driving a car is statistically safer than owning a gun even when you remove the suicides from the equation.

There is no avoiding this fact.

Can you source this?

 

[Courier]

No, it's not. Why do you think it's dumb?

Blunt objects & knives kill more people in the USA than rifles & shotguns.

Why don't they require blunt objects and knives to come with liability insurance before rifles & shotguns?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Blunt objects & knives kill more people in the USA than rifles & shotguns.

Why don't they require blunt objects and knives to come with liability insurance before rifles & shotguns?

Let's factor in handguns as part of the "gun" problem.

Guns kill more people than all other weapons combined, in the USA.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

 

[Courier]

Let's factor in handguns as part of the "gun" problem.

Guns kill more people than all other weapons combined, in the USA.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

New York State law understands the serious distinctions, and makes serious distinctions between handguns & rifle/shotguns.

Why not also apply this to the need for liability insurance?

If knives and blunt objects kill more people than rifles & shotguns, there is no need to require liability insurance in order to own a rifle & shotgun.

 

[thaiboxerken]

New York State law understands the serious distinctions, and makes serious distinctions between handguns & rifle/shotguns.

Why not also apply this to the need for liability insurance?

If knives and blunt objects kill more people than rifles & shotguns, there is no need to require liability insurance in order to own a rifle & shotgun.

Well then, let's make distinctions between types of knives and blunt objects as well.

It also appears that the liability law proposal doesn't make a distinction. In the OP, it states all guns should be insured.

 

[Courier]

Well then, let's make distinctions between types of knives and blunt objects as well.

We already do.

 

[triforcharity]

Do I really need to explain this yet again?

There's nothing to explain sir. Do the comparison.

You seem like a reasonable person, despite your irrational fixation and devotion to an object you believe has magical properties to protect you (two definitions for the same word: Fetish) where nothing else can.

I am a very reasonable person. The rest is a strawman since I have claimed none of that. None.

Despite the much higher fatalities associated with traffic, driving a car is statistically safer than owning a gun even when you remove the suicides from the equation.

There is no avoiding this fact.

Can you cite your numbers for this?

It's an important protection against the unforeseen, because cars are undeniably expensive and undeniably dangerous.

Correct.

This would be the one you gave a firearm to without checking their background and such on, yes?

Correct. Your point is irrelevant, as I know his background in detail. I would, and do, trust him with my life, and have no question about his ability to handle the firearm safely, and also his ability to pass a local, state, and federal background check.

Could you at least try to not sound like you making very thin excuses?

Not an excuse at all. It's a perfectly valid reason.

How so? Or am I supposed to just take your word on that?

No need to take my word on the facts. You can read them here.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

You're welcome.

 

[thaiboxerken]

We already do.

As far as the murder statistics? I doubt that more people are killed with butter knives than shotguns.