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

[Nessie]

You know, I respect your opinions from the AG side of things, but you keep using SH as some springboard. My problem is that this incident (as horrid as it was) is not the major issue here. You can't use this as your focus point. The real problems are elsewhere, and the politicos can't get their collective heads out of their asses long enough to make sure it's addressed properly.

Surely a primary school shooting would get heads out of asses.

I think Nessie is looking at it from a British perspective in the sense that a similar massacre happened at Dunblane in 1996 which led to strict gun laws. However, despite the massacre in Cumbria, AFAIK, gun laws weren't tightened.

Correct

After Cumbria there was nothing left to ban in knee-jerk fashion.

It was not a knee jerk reaction. It was decided that handguns serve little to no purpose for hunting and some handguns could remain which are single shot for targets, so society would manage fine without them. Considering it was legal gun owners who have committed all of the UK massacres, legal gun owners knew they were the ones who would have to make sacrifices. The UK has not taken guns from legal gun owners because of what illegal one shave done. I wish more Americans understood that and realised it is the way forward.

Cumbria did not result in any other ban because we have reached the end of what is achievable whilst still having guns in private hands. What is left allows UK to shooters to do all sorts of sports, hunting and targets.

So considered, reasonable action, not knee jerk.

 

[Sabretooth]

Surely a primary school shooting would get heads out of asses.

Perhaps you missed the laws imposed with the NY SAFE Act and the OP's proposal?

All they are doing is making more laws that have zero effect on the problem. It's a knee-jerk reaction "to do something! Anything! For the Children!"

You bring up SH. But, I believe you've mentioned it yourself, that these new laws...had they been in place prior to SH...would have done absolutely zero to stop that attack.

 

[Nessie]

Yep, this is a fairly good example of how worthless the insurance would be. The rightful owner would simply report that the weapon was stolen and take it off his insurance. This guy would have an uninsured gun and since he doesn't have insurance he has no incentive to store his gun properly.

Tragedy happens, insurance doesn't pay.

It also highlights why the rates would be low: most of the damage done by guns would be done by uninsured guns.

Exactly. Though I would like to see a percentage of gun insurance to go into a fund to help pay the costs of innocents who are shot. For example, an uninsured gun is used in a robbery and a passer by gets hit. They can claim from the fund towards medical costs.

Yep. We can all agree that this guy shouldn't have had a gun.

Now, how does the most powerful nation in the world get around to making sure people like this don't have guns.

Amazingly, I don't think it is within the power of the most powerful country in the world to do that.

 

[Nessie]

Perhaps you missed the laws imposed with the NY SAFE Act and the OP's proposal?

All they are doing is making more laws that have zero effect on the problem. It's a knee-jerk reaction "to do something! Anything! For the Children!"

You bring up SH. But, I believe you've mentioned it yourself, that these new laws...had they been in place prior to SH...would have done absolutely zero to stop that attack.

I didn't miss them, I listened to your objections and others and realised they were a knee jerk reaction that would have minimal if any effect. The only actions I can see making a difference are some of Obama's proposals. When are they likely to start?

 

[Sabretooth]

Exactly. Though I would like to see a percentage of gun insurance to go into a fund to help pay the costs of innocents who are shot. For example, an uninsured gun is used in a robbery and a passer by gets hit. They can claim from the fund towards medical costs.

I don't like this because you're asking the people who do nothing wrong to pay for the mistakes of people who don't follow the law.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

An FFL costs $200, I think that's a bit less than opening a McDonald's franchise.

I assumed it would take more than that. Legal fees and filing fees for the incorporation. Purchase or lease for the physical location, that sort of thing.

 

[Nessie]

I don't like this because you're asking the people who do nothing wrong to pay for the mistakes of people who don't follow the law.

Sorry but too many supposedly responsible gun owners have been found to be wanting and shot innocents and left their guns for idiots to get hold of. In any case all guns start off legal.

I know you want to say there are two distinct groups of illegal and legal guns, but there is a big cross over between the two.

 

[Sabretooth]

Sorry but too many supposedly responsible gun owners have been found to be wanting and shot innocents and left their guns for idiots to get hold of. In any case all guns start off legal.

We can't have a real discussion on this unless we can quantify this statement.

Meaning, how many legal guns get lost/stolen only to end up in the wrong hands?

You're also avoiding that a lot of illegal guns come in over the Mexican border. Guns that may have started off legal in the USA, but they pour in from Central and South America as well.

I'm trying to find the article that talks about caches of firearms being found on an abandoned boat on a Florida beach that was suspected to come from Cuba. I'll ETA if I can find the damn thing...

Point being...not all illegal guns are borne of a legal USA owner.

But, like I said, if we can quantify this number, I think you may have found the starting point we're all looking for.

 

[GeeMack]

We can't have a real discussion on this unless we can quantify this statement.

It's an opinion, not quantifiable. "Too many" isn't a number. It has no value in an objective discussion.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I didn't miss them, I listened to your objections and others and realised they were a knee jerk reaction that would have minimal if any effect. The only actions I can see making a difference are some of Obama's proposals. When are they likely to start?

Which of Pres. Obama's proposals are you talking about?

 

[monty1]

We can't have a real discussion on this unless we can quantify this statement.

Meaning, how many legal guns get lost/stolen only to end up in the wrong hands?

You're also avoiding that a lot of illegal guns come in over the Mexican border. Guns that may have started off legal in the USA, but they pour in from Central and South America as well.

I'm trying to find the article that talks about caches of firearms being found on an abandoned boat on a Florida beach that was suspected to come from Cuba. I'll ETA if I can find the damn thing...

Point being...not all illegal guns are borne of a legal USA owner.

But, like I said, if we can quantify this number, I think you may have found the starting point we're all looking for.

Point being, any guns that come back from Mexico are of your own making. Mexico wouldn't have a gun problem too if your guns didn't go there. But good for Mexico for getting rid of at least some of them and sending them back to kill people where they belong.

 

[Sabretooth]

Point being, any guns that come back from Mexico are of your own making. Mexico wouldn't have a gun problem too if your guns didn't go there. But good for Mexico for getting rid of at least some of them and sending them back to kill people where they belong.

Alright, I've had enough. <SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Point being, any guns that come back from Mexico are of your own making. Mexico wouldn't have a gun problem too if your guns didn't go there. But good for Mexico for getting rid of at least some of them and sending them back to kill people where they belong.

This one is a winner. You assume that the firearms coming from Mexico are all of US manufacture, when the bulk of the illegal firearms trade actually comes from China, N.Korea, and the former Soviet Union. Of the US made firearms most are sold to governments through the US State Department.
I understand you hate the United States, but this last statement is so preposterous that it pushes your credibility into the realm of the absurd.

 

[jimbob]

Alright, I've had enough. Ignorant Canadian is going on ignore.

A poster for whom "why do you hate America?" is actually a valid question.

Personally I admire much about American society, indeed prefer it to some of the aspects of British society. But I do think that in the US, guns - for perfectly valid historical reasons, have an oddly elevated position that is anachronistic and unhelpful in a modern society .

 

[monty1]

A poster for whom "why do you hate America?" is actually a valid question.

Personally I admire much about American society, indeed prefer it to some of the aspects of British society. But I do think that in the US, guns - for perfectly valid historical reasons, have an oddly elevated position that is anachronistic and unhelpful in a modern society .

It's never about why I hate America, it's always been about why I hate what America does to the rest of the world. And I try to stay on topic and speak to my grievances. If some people have to run away because they feel uncomfortable having to rebut the truth then that's no reflection on my character. Rather, it reflects badly on them.

 

[Dr. Keith]

A poster for whom "why do you hate America?" is actually a valid question.

Personally I admire much about American society, indeed prefer it to some of the aspects of British society. But I do think that in the US, guns - for perfectly valid historical reasons, have an oddly elevated position that is anachronistic and unhelpful in a modern society .

It's the cold beer and pickup trucks, right?

 

[monty1]

This one is a winner. You assume that the firearms coming from Mexico are all of US manufacture, when the bulk of the illegal firearms trade actually comes from China, N.Korea, and the former Soviet Union. Of the US made firearms most are sold to governments through the US State Department.
I understand you hate the United States, but this last statement is so preposterous that it pushes your credibility into the realm of the absurd.

I've never heard that claim before. I'm going to continue to maintain that the bulk of weapons in Mexico are of US origin until somebody proves otherwise.

 

[WildCat]

Now, how does the most powerful nation in the world get around to making sure people like this don't have guns.

So nuke them?

 

[Nessie]

We can't have a real discussion on this unless we can quantify this statement.

Meaning, how many legal guns get lost/stolen only to end up in the wrong hands?

You're also avoiding that a lot of illegal guns come in over the Mexican border. Guns that may have started off legal in the USA, but they pour in from Central and South America as well.

I'm trying to find the article that talks about caches of firearms being found on an abandoned boat on a Florida beach that was suspected to come from Cuba. I'll ETA if I can find the damn thing...

Point being...not all illegal guns are borne of a legal USA owner.

But, like I said, if we can quantify this number, I think you may have found the starting point we're all looking for.

I am assuming a gun starts life in a US factory and is then sold to a dealer and then to civilians. From those civilians the criminals get their guns by straw purchases, civilians selling to people they know/should know they should not be selling to, thefts and borrowing. Some guns will also go straight from dodgy dealers to criminals.

I can't give figures as no one appears to know. Articles such as.....

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/how-criminals-get-their-guns/60300/


...do confirm what I have said. As for guns from Mexico and Cuba, how many are American guns coming back into the USA? Again no one seems to know. I can find nothing to say if US gun makers have problems with their guns going straight to criminals.

So unless illegal gun makers are selling straight to criminals, I stand by my claim the guns start off legal.

 

[WildCat]

It baffles me that more gun owners don't see this as "protecting responsible gun owners".

Because many gun owners feel, and this is confirmed by what is said on this very forum by many posters, that registration is just the first step towards a ban and confiscation. That's how Australia did it after all, and it takes care of the whole "confiscation isn't practical because it would require a house-to-house search" argument. No need to search when you have a handy list of all the guns you want to confiscate. Except the ones held by criminals, of course.