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

[Courier]

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

Complain to the Department of Justice.

 

[Mudcat]

Can you source this?

I looked at the information so generously provided by the Census Bureau, and other official sources. Unless you can provide evidence that they're in some kind of high conspiracy to cover up 'the truth', that should be accurate enough.

Incidences involving cars and guns are way down since the nineties. What ever it is that brought that down we should keep on doing it, obviously.

But yeah, traffic fatalities and gun fatalities aren't very far apart from each other at all. There were 35,000 traffic fatalities and 30,000 gun fatalities in 2009, without accounting for such things as suicides.

Something like 80% of the country's population are licensed car owners. Think about it! Over three hundred million Americans operating cars on the road day after day, sometimes for hours on in each and every day! Despite this there are only about five million accidents each year and a mere fraction of that in fatalities.

How many licensed gun owners are there in comparison? My most accurate research seems to put it somewhere between 30-45% of the population and only a small portion of that population are CCW holders. Most gun owners own more than just the one gun but only spend an hour or two using their guns a week at best.

The conclusion is quite clear, isn't it?

 

[Mudcat]

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

Can you cite your numbers for this?

Post #582.

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.

And he didn't do that because... Why? Who elected you arbiter of whether this person could or could not have the ability to handle the firearm safely, and also the ability to pass a local, state, and federal background check? And what if you are wrong?

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

It looks like an excuse, it sounds like an excuse, therefore it's probably not a dog.

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.

Does not have any bearing on the facts, sorry. For the purposes of this discussion whether one is a right or one is a privilege is nothing more than semantics.

 

[AlBell]

We will simply have to remove the problem, that is, the Second Amendment.

That would be a legal method of restricting gun ownership, depending on how our idiots in the legislature word a new amendment and how courts interpret it.

I wish you, Mudcat, etal the worst of luck in this endeavor.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Complain to the Department of Justice.

Does the proposal make a distinction between rifles and handguns as far as insurance goes?

 

[Mudcat]

I wish you, Mudcat, etal the worst of luck in this endeavor.

Don't look at me. I agree that there's plenty that can be done outside of banning guns, or rewriting the Constitution to fix our ills.

I also agree with some of your objections against this potential new law in New York. For example, if you refuse to buy the insurance, what are they going to do? March into your house and take your guns by force? Will they arrest you? Rescind your gun licenses? It would make far more sense to make the law voluntary instead of compulsory and provide incentives for complying with it.

Getting insurance for you weapons, be they firearms or not, is simply a smart thing to do.

I just think the other objections are complete rubbish.

 

[Courier]

Does the proposal make a distinction between rifles and handguns as far as insurance goes?

None whatsoever.

Which is stupid and illogical.

Its like a car insurance company requiring the same premiums for a blue Civic as you would a red Lamborghini.

 

[thaiboxerken]

None whatsoever.

Then why did you say that it did?

 

[Courier]

Then why did you say that it did?

I never said that.

I said that New York makes legal distinctions between different types of knives.

 

[triforcharity]

Post #582.

Thank you. Now, include injuries by vehicles, and while in vehicles. Do the same thing for firearms.

And he didn't do that because... Why?

1- Not required by law.
2- Nobody would do that upon request.

Who elected you arbiter of whether this person could or could not have the ability to handle the firearm safely, and also the ability to pass a local, state, and federal background check? And what if you are wrong?

1- I know him, and his history in detail. I know that the most legal trouble he's ever been in, was a speeding ticket. I've known him, literally, my entire life. Since I was about 8 I have known him.
2- I am the one who taught him everything he knows about firearms. We shoot regularly, and is my spotter for long distance shooting.
3- If I am wrong (which I am not) then he's damn good at hiding things, from everyone I know. I'm not worried about it though.

It looks like an excuse, it sounds like an excuse, therefore it's probably not a dog.

Opinion noted.

Does not have any bearing on the facts, sorry. For the purposes of this discussion whether one is a right or one is a privilege is nothing more than semantics.

So, facts are semantics. Major differences in words, which mean two completely different things, is semantics. Gotcha.

 

[Mudcat]

Thank you. Now, include injuries by vehicles, and while in vehicles. Do the same thing for firearms.

Is there a particular reason why I should? You want to split hairs, go do it yourself.

So, facts are semantics. Major differences in words, which mean two completely different things, is semantics. Gotcha.

Except you really don't get it, not in the least.

You gun lovers, non of you get just why pointing out one is a right and one is privilege is mere semantics.

When people point out that guns are dangerous you point out that cars are dangerous are too. When people point out the facts you then turn around and say that owning a car is a privilege not a right.

When you claim that guns are going to be made too expensive because of this law, that I agree will never pass because its too impractical, people rightfully point out that even with insurance that owning a gun is still no where as expensive as owning a car. Then you turn around and say that owning a car is a privilege not a right.

This is a double standard and mere semantics, and it has no bearings on the facts at hand. Does being a right negate the fact that guns are statistically more dangerous than cars? Does being a privilege negate the fact that owning a car is far more expensive than owning a gun?

 

[Nessie]

There is an important principle here. Since all guns start off lawfully owned but so many end up in the wrong hands and get used irresponsibly, the gun makers/dealers/owners have been, as a collective, not very responsible.

Liability insurance is a way of reminding the gun side of their responsibility. It is a way of the non gun owners to be able to say, you mucked up, you should pay, not us.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

There is an important principle here. Since all guns start off lawfully owned but so many end up in the wrong hands and get used irresponsibly, the gun makers/dealers/owners have been, as a collective, not very responsible.

*snip*

Hilited for sourcing?

 

[Nessie]

Hilited for sourcing?

The source of that is contained in all of the threads about guns. The USA has a massive amount of guns and many in the hands in criminals, the angry, nuts and youths who shoot each other more than any other Western country and many not Western countries. Then every year hundreds of thousands more guns are sold in the USA, making the problem even worse as US gun laws are lax and a mess.

 

[GeeMack]

Hilited for sourcing?

It's an opinion. The source of an opinion is whoever wrote it. It has, of course, no objective validity.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

The source of that is contained in all of the threads about guns. The USA has a massive amount of guns and many in the hands in criminals, the angry, nuts and youths who shoot each other more than any other Western country and many not Western countries. Then every year hundreds of thousands more guns are sold in the USA, making the problem even worse as US gun laws are lax and a mess.

So, no source, just assertion. AG 101.

 

[Nessie]

So, no source, just assertion. AG 101.

Read here about the number of guns in the USA, there are so many of them and its high gun death rate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

Then gun controls and how places like the UK manage to keep guns off unsuitable people, which the USA does not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

Here is the USA's high homicide rate compared to the rest of the Western World. Now unless all the deaths are down to lawfully held guns by decent people, its the criminals, angry people, nuts and youths who are doing the killing.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454


Here are the number of people who have been killed with guns since Sandy Hook (2189 at time of posting)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

and here is what has been done to deal with guns in the USA since then















.

 

[triforcharity]

Is there a particular reason why I should? You want to split hairs, go do it yourself.

You're the one who brought up the numbers of deaths between the two, not me. I just want you to understand WHY we insure vehicles. They're INCREDIBLY dangerous. More so that firearms. I guarantee that. More people are hurt and injured in or with cars, than firearms.

So attempting to compare the two, is flawed.

Except you really don't get it, not in the least.

No, I get it just fine. When faced with a fact that you cannot even BEGIN to rebut, you want to dismiss the argument as semantics. We call that dodging.

You gun lovers, non of you get just why pointing out one is a right and one is privilege is mere semantics.

Semantics.....fact that you cannot argue against, whatever. Call a duck a spaceship for all I care, it's still a damn duck.

When people point out that guns are dangerous you point out that cars are dangerous are too. When people point out the facts you then turn around and say that owning a car is a privilege not a right.

Right. Arguing facts is kinda....logical.

What's so funny about this argument, is that we've heard time and time again that comparing guns to cars is illogical, because guns are MADE to kill, and cars aren't. But yet, they kill about the SAME AMOUNT OF PEOPLE per year.

Imagine that. Double standard much?

When you claim that guns are going to be made too expensive because of this law, that I agree will never pass because its too impractical, people rightfully point out that even with insurance that owning a gun is still no where as expensive as owning a car.

What's the point? You think the cost of owning a gun compared to a car is relevant? It's not.

Then you turn around and say that owning a car is a privilege not a right.

It is. You're correct.

This is a double standard

No, that is a fact.

and mere semantics, and it has no bearings on the facts at hand.

You're right about it being irrelevant. That is true.

Does being a right negate the fact that guns are statistically more dangerous than cars?

No. It does negate the fact that you're bringing it up constantly.

Does being a privilege negate the fact that owning a car is far more expensive than owning a gun?

It's irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant.

 

[jimbob]

Read here about the number of guns in the USA, there are so many of them and its high gun death rate


Here is the USA's high homicide rate compared to the rest of the Western World. Now unless all the deaths are down to lawfully held guns by decent people, its the criminals, angry people, nuts and youths who are doing the killing.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

Just because I have already plotted this against national wealth, here is a chart:

Luxembourg has a small population so the rate is more subject to noise.

 

[Courier]

Yes, if you ignore about 6.3 billion people in other nations, the USA has a high murder rate.