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

[WildCat]

All of those things, including the 'don't touch guns, go tell an adult' can easily be handled by teachers.

As is the "Eddie Eagle" program, the NRA just supplies the materials.

It's interesting that the one example you gave happened to be one you felt a worthy example because 'anti-gun people opposed it'.

Could it be that parents didn't want a pro-gun pressure group inside kindergartens?

Nothing about the program is pro-gun. And it beats the hell out of suspending kids because they bit a pastry into the shape of a gun.

Could it be that teaching gun safety to a captive audience of pre-schoolers was considered 1. letting the parents off the hook for leaving guns around in the first place, and 2. merely a publicity stunt by the NRA.

How does it let the parents off the hook? That doesn't even make sense. And you can't complain that the NRA has no gun safety programs, then say it's just a publicity stunt when you discover that they do.

I wonder how many incidents of children being injured by finding loaded guns there had to be before this proposal was put forward by the NRA.

The NRA whose inception was in 1871.

Isn't one of the things repeatedly cited by anti-gun people the problem of accidental shootings by kids who find guns? I have no idea what the relevance is of the year the NRA was founded to this.

Yes, they do offer training. But no one makes the gun owners take advantage of it.

Many states require safety courses prior to issuing a hunting license. It gets dicey Constitutionally to require it of gun owners.

Maybe a certificate of competence issued by the NRA could help to keep the insurance premiums down.

It's already been pointed out that accidents aren't what would drive up this proposed insurance, but rather that it requires it to cover intentional harm and criminal use.

ETA:

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

Just an FYI

Which makes it no less effective than "stranger danger" education, or "assault weapon" bans.

 

[uk_dave]

As is the "Eddie Eagle" program, the NRA just supplies the materials.

Prop guns and videos apparently.
Well, maybe I just have aversion to having to impose this upon pre-schoolers simply so that a society can indulge it's desire for virtually unregulated gun ownership.
We don't have that problem here.

Nothing about the program is pro-gun. And it beats the hell out of suspending kids because they bit a pastry into the shape of a gun.

ermmm...I ... ummmm .... ahem... I don't... even... wtf?!

How does it let the parents off the hook? That doesn't even make sense. And you can't complain that the NRA has no gun safety programs, then say it's just a publicity stunt when you discover that they do.

Of course it makes sense.

They're basically saying, yeah we know gun owners are gonna leave loaded weapons laying around where kids can get to them (the program was started because of such incidents) but instead of grabbing every new gun owner by the scruff of the neck and forcing them to take a course in safe gun ownership, we'll just try to get to the children instead. Make it their responsibility for not touching a loaded weapon.

And we can look good in the process.

Isn't one of the things repeatedly cited by anti-gun people the problem of accidental shootings by kids who find guns? I have no idea what the relevance is of the year the NRA was founded to this.

Yeah, so teach adults to keep the damned guns away from kids.
The relevance was in highlighting how long the NRA had been in existence before they decided it was time to teach the kiddies not to mess with dad's revolver
(to be fair, the NRA probably considered it to be common sense.... but what with all those irresponsible gun owners out there...)

Many states require safety courses prior to issuing a hunting license. It gets dicey Constitutionally to require it of gun owners.

Yeah. Once again some states try to implement some kind of regulation of gun use because it's needed, but they have to go by the back door because otherwise it gets a bit iffy.

Perhaps if people got off the kick that ownership can have no more restrictions than it already does (background checks, licences etc) and agreed to a proper form of regulation similar to the hunting licences, there wouldn't be anyone calling for mandatory public liability insurance.

It's already been pointed out that accidents aren't what would drive up this proposed insurance, but rather that it requires it to cover intentional harm and criminal use.

Just like drink driving. An intentional criminal act which can cause harm to a third party.
Or even speeding, for that matter.
Sounds like insurance in the US only covers people when they are acting within the law.

Which makes it no less effective than "stranger danger" education, or "assault weapon" bans.

So, if kids are taught 'stranger danger' and then secretly filmed afterwards we'd see them happily getting in to stranger's cars?
Not sure what the relevance of 'assault weapon bans' is.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I can imagine the NRA guns safety video for children now...


"Guns, protecting America and their citizens! While these weapons are a vital part of our society, children should not handle guns without the supervision of adults...."

 

[Giz]

I can imagine the NRA guns safety video for children now...


"Guns, protecting America and their citizens! While these weapons are a vital part of our society, children should not handle guns without the supervision of adults...."

Or, you could watch the actual video and have an informed opinion...

 

[GeeMack]

The hands and feet thing is absolutely stupid. However, if you want to consider them deadly weapons, then all people with hands and feet should pay the insurance.

Good, it looks like we're all beginning to agree that mandatory insurance for gun owners is stupid, and that if such a thing were to be implemented, it would only be reasonable to also apply it to everyone who has hands and feet.

 

[Ziggurat]

Or, you could watch the actual video and have an informed opinion...

thai? Get an informed opinion? That's crazy talk!

But you can see the video here:


The video is pretty offensive, actually. Offensively lame. But that's a different issue.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Good, it looks like we're all beginning to agree that mandatory insurance for gun owners is stupid, and that if such a thing were to be implemented, it would only be reasonable to also apply it to everyone who has hands and feet.

Not at all. Hands and feet are nothing like firearms. Neither are swimming pools, pillows or cars.

Try again.

 

[GeeMack]

Not at all. Hands and feet are nothing like firearms. Neither are swimming pools, pillows or cars.

Try again.

Hands and feet are the implements used to kill people in approximately 4% of homicides, as many as shotguns and more than rifles. To suggest hands and feet deserve some kind of exemption is not a reasonable argument.

 

[thaiboxerken]

thai? Get an informed opinion? That's crazy talk!

But you can see the video here:


The video is pretty offensive, actually. Offensively lame. But that's a different issue.

It is pretty lame, but, I don't see a problem with the video being shown to children.

 

[WildCat]

Everyone trained in martial arts should have to carry $1 million in insurance to compensate any people they harm, even intentionally and criminally. Nobody needs to learn ways to hurt people.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hands and feet are the implements used to kill people in approximately 4% of homicides, as many as shotguns and more than rifles. To suggest hands and feet deserve some kind of exemption is not a reasonable argument.

Hands and feet pale in comparison to the amount of homicides committed by people with guns. To suggest that hands and feet are even comparable is ridiculous.

How often are hands and feet stolen from people to use in crimes?

 

[WildCat]

Hands and feet pale in comparison to the amount of homicides committed by people with guns. To suggest that hands and feet are even comparable is ridiculous.

How often are hands and feet stolen from people to use in crimes?

The sole purpose of martial arts is to hurt other people. Every martial artist trains against other people, while gun owners train against clay pigeons and paper targets and such or put food on the table.

 

[uk_dave]

The sole purpose of martial arts is to hurt other people. Every martial artist trains against other people, while gun owners train against clay pigeons and paper targets and such or put food on the table.

Ahhhh but prove that the person used their martial arts to hurt someone and not just an ordinary kick or punch.

Hmmmm I see a whole new branch of forensics opening up.

Or maybe, let's all carry a million in public liability insurance. Those who pose little risk (non gun owners) will pay low premiums and those who pose high risk.... well, let the insurance companies decide.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The sole purpose of martial arts is to hurt other people.

Prove it.

In fact, feel free to start a thread on it, as martial arts is not the topic of this thread.

 

[GeeMack]

Hands and feet pale in comparison to the amount of homicides committed by people with guns. To suggest that hands and feet are even comparable is ridiculous.

No. It is ridiculous to argue that some weapons should be exempt from insurance regulations. Automobile insurance rates vary based on the type of vehicle. It would be ridiculous to argue that weapon insurance shouldn't vary based on the type of weapon. And since more homicides are committed with hands and feet than with rifles or shotguns, the rate for possessing hands and feet should be similar to that for shotguns and higher than for rifles.

How often are hands and feet stolen from people to use in crimes?

Never. All homicides using hands and feet are committed by their original owners. Consequently their insurance should be higher, since any homicide using hands and feet will only be committed by the owner and not by another party.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No. It is ridiculous to argue that some weapons should be exempt from insurance regulations.

Hands and feet are not weapons. They are part of the human body.

Never. All homicides using hands and feet are committed by their original owners. Consequently their insurance should be higher, since any homicide using hands and feet will only be committed by the owner and not by another party.

Wrong. The fact that they can't be stolen places them in a different class of risk. Guns can be stolen, thus the risk of a gun being used in a crime is larger.

 

[uk_dave]

Wrong. The fact that they can't be stolen places them in a different class of risk. Guns can be stolen, thus the risk of a gun being used in a crime is larger.

[CT] MKULTRA, dude! [/CT]

 

[GeeMack]

Hands and feet are not weapons. They are part of the human body.

Special pleading noted. Hands and feet are the implements used to commit as many homicides as shotguns and more homicides than rifles. The number of people who die as a result of someone wielding a particular instrument does not change based on how one chooses to define the word "weapon". People kill other people with their hands and feet, more often than they kill them with rifles. "Assault weapons", as generally defined, are a sub-set of rifles, and as such, are less likely to be the instrument utilized in a homicide than hands and feet. Hands and feet are more dangerous, they present a higher risk, than assault weapons.

Wrong. The fact that they can't be stolen places them in a different class of risk. Guns can be stolen, thus the risk of a gun being used in a crime is larger.

Shotguns are often owned by several people over the lifetime of the gun. They are used to commit approximately the same number of homicides as hands and feet are. Hands and feet are pretty much a one owner set of implements which are used to commit 4% of homicides. A set of them used to commit a homicide is obviously used for that purpose more often per owner than shotguns are.

 

[uk_dave]

Utah duck hunter shot by his dog



Still trying to find the "Area man felled by vicious kung fu dog" video......

 

[jimbob]

Special pleading noted. Hands and feet are the implements used to commit as many homicides as shotguns and more homicides than rifles. The number of people who die as a result of someone wielding a particular instrument does not change based on how one chooses to define the word "weapon". People kill other people with their hands and feet, more often than they kill them with rifles. "Assault weapons", as generally defined, are a sub-set of rifles, and as such, are less likely to be the instrument utilized in a homicide than hands and feet. Hands and feet are more dangerous, they present a higher risk, than assault weapons.




Shotguns are often owned by several people over the lifetime of the gun. They are used to commit approximately the same number of homicides as hands and feet are. Hands and feet are pretty much a one owner set of implements which are used to commit 4% of homicides. A set of them used to commit a homicide is obviously used for that purpose more often per owner than shotguns are.

Why not break it down into even more types off firearms? I'm fairly sure that 1836 navy colt revolvers are not used in many homicides, nor maxim guns.

Or you could say that about 50% of homicides in the US are committed with firearms.

A significant minority of gun owners are not responsible.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Slightly more than half of all privately owned firearms were stored unlocked; 16 percent of firearms were stored unlocked and loaded.

Those who had been arrested for nontraffic offenses were more
likely to own firearms (37 percent compared to 25 percent in the general population).

Thefts. A major theme highlighted in a 1986 survey of incarcerated felons was that theft was an important means of obtaining firearms for those
with criminal intentions: 32 percent of surveyed felons had stolen their most recently acquired handgun.

Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households (269,000) experienced the theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About
211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are
subject to considerable sampling error but are consistent with earlier estimates of about half a million guns stolen annually.

Some correlates of gun carrying are worth noting. Males who carried guns in 1994 were about two and a half times as likely to have been arrested for a nontraffic offense as other men (15 percent versus 6 percent). And a disproportionate share of gun carriers resided in the South, where the prevalence of carrying guns was almost double that of the rest of the Nation.

It is quite interesting about defensive gun uses: suggesting that there might be over reporting, or inappropriate uses - one woman reported 52 DGUs in one year.