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

[thaiboxerken]

What is the child threatening me with? A gun? Yep. A stick? Most likely not. I try not to do absolutes for this type of scenario, or really many self defense situations, as many factors come into play.

No sir, that's not what I said at all. I'm noticing a trend with you.....

You most certainly did. The first quote affirms what you mean. It's not the child that is the danger, but the weapon the child is using.

 

[uk_dave]

Apparently the anti-gun argument is so lacking in substance that it must rely on hyperbole, dysphemism, and bizarre hypothetical gotchyas, often coming from a position of little vested interest in reducing gun violence in the USA. This exchange demonstrates, as we so often see, that the reasonable arguments for restrictions are not coming from a position of opposition to gun ownership or favoring extreme restrictions, but from the gun owners themselves.

Really?

The pro-gun argument appears to believe that:

1. Gun control = government gonna come and confiscate your weapons
2. Gun control = banning all guns
3. Gun control = punishing gun owners but doing nothing about criminals
4. Gun Control = Infringing your rights
and
5. Gun Control Advocates = Libruls who want to feel superior to ordinary americans

No hyperbole from your side of the fence?

 

[Nessie]

It was asked if a gun would be used as a tool for defense if a particular situation came about which put one's life in danger. The response above was affirmative. The follow up argument was an attack against the person responding reasonably.

I do not think it is reasonable at all to say that a 6 year old trained in martial arts can pose a serious deadly threat, such that an adult may need to arm themselves, let alone even consider using a gun against them. It is perfectly reasonable to express surprise at that.

Who is more reasonable, an adult who would consider using a gun against a martial arts 6 year old, or an adult who would at most restrain them and would really expect the child's mummy to deal with them?

Apparently the anti-gun argument is so lacking in substance that it must rely on hyperbole, dysphemism, and bizarre hypothetical gotchyas, often coming from a position of little vested interest in reducing gun violence in the USA. This exchange demonstrates, as we so often see, that the reasonable arguments for restrictions are not coming from a position of opposition to gun ownership or favoring extreme restrictions, but from the gun owners themselves.

The extreme reactions and comments made by the pro/anti gun lobby causes extreme reactions and comments to be made by the anti/pro gun lobby and then both sides just feed off each other.

Meanwhile the reasonable middle ground has been lost, hence little to nothing positive and constructive is done in the USA to deal with its gun problem. Existing laws have failed/are not properly enforced and new laws are bickered over with both sides prone to extremism.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Bwahahahahaha!! This is hilarious!

Your ignorance, along with ThaiBoxer's over there, could fill an Olympic sized swimming pool.

Sorry, I spent years at the local martial arts studio. My post is based on that experience, not ignorance. You irrational fear of the training necessary for a child to get a black belt, especially when combined with your complete dismissal of size and fighting experience, is hilarious.

Keep taking the stand that a child black belt is so dangerous. I think it really adds to your credibility.

 

[bynmdsue]

Really?

The pro-gun argument appears to believe that:

1. Gun control = government gonna come and confiscate your weapons
2. Gun control = banning all guns
3. Gun control = punishing gun owners but doing nothing about criminals
4. Gun Control = Infringing your rights
and
5. Gun Control Advocates = Libruls who want to feel superior to ordinary americans

No hyperbole from your side of the fence?

Sure but statements like this don't help...

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." - Senator Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) 5 February 1995

She seems awful interested in confiscation.

 

[Sabretooth]

Sure but statements like this don't help...

She seems awful interested in confiscation.

NY Governor Cuomo was initially talking about complete bans and confiscation as well just before introducing his NY SAFE Act.

 

[Dr. Keith]

NY Governor Cuomo was initially talking about complete bans and confiscation as well just before introducing his NY SAFE Act.

And Tri is a grown man who is scared of kindergarten martial artists.

See there is lots of silliness going around. Let's deal with the silliness that actually impacts us.

 

[GeeMack]

I do not think it is reasonable at all to say that a 6 year old trained in martial arts can pose a serious deadly threat, such that an adult may need to arm themselves, let alone even consider using a gun against them. It is perfectly reasonable to express surprise at that.

The hypothetical scenario appeared to be the framework for a strawman, the setup for a gotchya, -- "Yes or no, do you still beat your wife?" -- and notably not initially posed by a gun owner. I expect we're all familiar with the "Ask a stupid question..." trope.

Who is more reasonable, an adult who would consider using a gun against a martial arts 6 year old, or an adult who would at most restrain them and would really expect the child's mummy to deal with them?

The response was to the hypothetical scenario that something or someone "somehow was putting my life in danger". Whether the particular scenario may be a nearly non-existent possibility does not nullify the reasonable affirmative response. Misrepresenting the exchange also does not make the reasonable response unreasonable.

Meanwhile the reasonable middle ground has been lost, hence little to nothing positive and constructive is done in the USA to deal with its gun problem.

The fear of some mechanical devices appears to drive an argument to reduce their availability to law abiding citizens while ignoring the many greater risks we all readily accept and live with everyday. Germane to this thread, that fear drives an argument to hold a select group of law abiding citizens responsible for acts committed by other people who violate the law.

The reasonable middle ground, when objectively compared to the risks we are exposed to as we go about our normal lives, is very near where we are now. The impediments to gun ownership and use are already generally greater than the impediments to ownership, possession, and use of other things that cause more accidental deaths than guns or which are also regularly used as instruments to injure and kill other people.

The argument that law abiding gun owners should be required to have insurance against damage caused by the non-law-abiding is just as silly as an argument that all owners of hands and feet, or knives, or tire irons, or baseball bats, should be required to have insurance against those instruments being used to injure or kill another person. The argument that one group of those implements used to commit homicides should be treated differently than the others is not rational and clearly does not seek to arrive at some kind of middle ground.

Existing laws have failed/are not properly enforced and new laws are bickered over with both sides prone to extremism.

The onus is not on the gun owners. The current situation is as it is. The responsibility to make a rational case is on those who seek to modify the situation. The hyperbole, strawman arguments, misrepresentations, and dishonest gotchyas from the opposition to gun ownership and/or support for increased restrictions are not helping make a rational case.

 

[Polaris]

And Tri is a grown man who is scared of kindergarten martial artists.

See there is lots of silliness going around. Let's deal with the silliness that actually impacts us.

One is a poster on a skeptics' forum, the other is a governor of a very important state and has presidential ambitions IIRC. Whether Cuomo can actually do it is irrelevant - just the fact that he openly considers outright bans makes him unfit to hold the highest office as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Nessie]

The hypothetical scenario appeared to be the framework for a strawman, the setup for a gotchya, -- "Yes or no, do you still beat your wife?" -- and notably not initially posed by a gun owner. I expect we're all familiar with the "Ask a stupid question..." trope.

There had been a lengthy conversation about martial arts and guns and compulsory insurance. Triforcharity then made what appears to be a startling confession that he can envisage a deadly threat from a 6 year old martial arts kid. There was no gotcha, just reaction to that comment.

The response was to the hypothetical scenario that something or someone "somehow was putting my life in danger". Whether the particular scenario may be a nearly non-existent possibility does not nullify the reasonable affirmative response. Misrepresenting the exchange also does not make the reasonable response unreasonable.

Verbiage to avoid dealing with the issue that a gun owner, who claims to be responsible could envisage shooting a child.

The fear of some mechanical devices appears to drive an argument to reduce their availability to law abiding citizens while ignoring the many greater risks we all readily accept and live with everyday. Germane to this thread, that fear drives an argument to hold a select group of law abiding citizens responsible for acts committed by other people who violate the law.

It is reasonable to at least be concerned about a believed law abiding responsible gun owner who envisions shooting children because they know a martial art. Add that to the crimes committed by the law abiding reasonable gun owners which have resulted in many threads on this forum, plus the studies of claimed DGUs and sorry, but reasonable law abiding gun owner does not guarantee they will not make a mistake or turn and kill. There should be insurance against that paid for by the gun owners.

The reasonable middle ground, when objectively compared to the risks we are exposed to as we go about our normal lives, is very near where we are now. The impediments to gun ownership and use are already generally greater than the impediments to ownership, possession, and use of other things that cause more accidental deaths than guns or which are also regularly used as instruments to injure and kill other people.

False equivalence.

The argument that law abiding gun owners should be required to have insurance against damage caused by the non-law-abiding is just as silly as an argument that all owners of hands and feet, or knives, or tire irons, or baseball bats, should be required to have insurance against those instruments being used to injure or kill another person. The argument that one group of those implements used to commit homicides should be treated differently than the others is not rational and clearly does not seek to arrive at some kind of middle ground.

That assumes there are two separate groups the always law abiding and the never. What happens when the law abiding make a mistake or go rogue? Who pays then? I say gun owners should.

I would not be so concerned about compulsory insurance if gun users legal or not who broke the law were full investigated prosecuted and punished. But enforcement seems poor and rather lenient towards gun users. The law appears to more forcefully applied to those who beat people up with bats and their fists than those who shoot, especially when the shooter is "law abiding and responsible".

The onus is not on the gun owners. The current situation is as it is. The responsibility to make a rational case is on those who seek to modify the situation. The hyperbole, strawman arguments, misrepresentations, and dishonest gotchyas from the opposition to gun ownership and/or support for increased restrictions are not helping make a rational case.

Agreed, but I see both sides at it, not just the non gun owners. You are blind to the rubbish gun owners are capable of coming out with.

 

[Nessie]

One is a poster on a skeptics' forum, the other is a governor of a very important state and has presidential ambitions IIRC. Whether Cuomo can actually do it is irrelevant - just the fact that he openly considers outright bans makes him unfit to hold the highest office as far as I'm concerned.

Can we have the same applied to those who support the NRAs policies? Get rid of the extremists and let the middle ground sort out the problem.

 

[Polaris]

Can we have the same applied to those who support the NRAs policies? Get rid of the extremists and let the middle ground sort out the problem.

I'm all for it! I've been bowing out of these threads for a while because all I've seen is lately.

 

[triforcharity]

Sorry, I spent years at the local martial arts studio. My post is based on that experience, not ignorance. You irrational fear of the training necessary for a child to get a black belt, especially when combined with your complete dismissal of size and fighting experience, is hilarious.

Keep taking the stand that a child black belt is so dangerous. I think it really adds to your credibility.

Apparently you're having difficulty understanding my entire point. At this point, you're not going to understand either from willful ignorance, or some other reason. Not sure which it is though.

 

[triforcharity]

And Tri is a grown man who is scared of kindergarten martial artists.

See there is lots of silliness going around. Let's deal with the silliness that actually impacts us.

Where did I ever say I was scared? You're making **** up and it's quite rude. You're better than that, at least I thought.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

It is reasonable to at least be concerned about a believed law abiding responsible gun owner who envisions shooting children because they know a martial art. Add that to the crimes committed by the law abiding reasonable gun owners which have resulted in many threads on this forum, plus the studies of claimed DGUs and sorry, but reasonable law abiding gun owner does not guarantee they will not make a mistake or turn and kill. There should be insurance against that paid for by the gun owners.

That assumes there are two separate groups the always law abiding and the never. What happens when the law abiding make a mistake or go rogue? Who pays then? I say gun owners should.

Using exactly the same logic, shouldn't automobile owners, homeowners, apartment renters (or possibly apartment owners who would pass that on to the renters) also have to purchase criminal intent insurance for the same reasons?

 

[jimbob]

Using exactly the same logic, shouldn't automobile owners, homeowners, apartment renters (or possibly apartment owners who would pass that on to the renters) also have to purchase criminal intent insurance for the same reasons?

I don't see how homes are used for criminal intent, unless you mean it is like this: (Not very safe for work but a bit silly - from the Chris Morris Series "Brass Eye")





Automobiles: if the number of criminal injuries caused by automobiles is significant them yes they should be.

 

[jimbob]

The hypothetical scenario appeared to be the framework for a strawman, the setup for a gotchya, -- "Yes or no, do you still beat your wife?" -- and notably not initially posed by a gun owner. I expect we're all familiar with the "Ask a stupid question..." trope.



The response was to the hypothetical scenario that something or someone "somehow was putting my life in danger". Whether the particular scenario may be a nearly non-existent possibility does not nullify the reasonable affirmative response. Misrepresenting the exchange also does not make the reasonable response unreasonable.

This is an aside, but I have quoted the entire exchange.

To me it went as follows (paraphrased):

TB: "Is a six year old black belt more dangerous at unarmed combat than an adult?"
Tri: "the child"
TB: "No, the adult"
Tri: "You have no idea what you are talking about"

Which is a bit silly.



ETA: actually Tri's response was clearer than that and more unequiviocally wrong:

Here is the quote in context:

More deadly? How so? Do you believe a 6 yr old black belt has deadlier hands and feet than an unskilled adult?

Um, yes. I absolutely do.

Then you need to go to a martial arts studio.

At your stated height and weight I think you would have no trouble pining most black belts under the age of 15, and a fair number of those under 18. I don't recommend choking them to death to prove the point.

The belts are given for skills, not actual fighting.

Bwahahahahaha!! This is hilarious! Your ignorance, along with ThaiBoxer's over there, could fill an Olympic sized swimming pool.

Back to the rest of your post:

The fear of some mechanical devices appears to drive an argument to reduce their availability to law abiding citizens while ignoring the many greater risks we all readily accept and live with everyday. Germane to this thread, that fear drives an argument to hold a select group of law abiding citizens responsible for acts committed by other people who violate the law.

I'd say the fear is mainly in a large proportion of the gun owners who have a gun for protection, as for the majority (not all of those) owning a gun increases their risk.

There is a cost to society due to the high level of gun ownership. That cost is real.

The reasonable middle ground, when objectively compared to the risks we are exposed to as we go about our normal lives, is very near where we are now. The impediments to gun ownership and use are already generally greater than the impediments to ownership, possession, and use of other things that cause more accidental deaths than guns or which are also regularly used as instruments to injure and kill other people.

The argument that law abiding gun owners should be required to have insurance against damage caused by the non-law-abiding is just as silly as an argument that all owners of hands and feet, or knives, or tire irons, or baseball bats, should be required to have insurance against those instruments being used to injure or kill another person. The argument that one group of those implements used to commit homicides should be treated differently than the others is not rational and clearly does not seek to arrive at some kind of middle ground.

Most of these other implements cause more unintentional injuries than intentional. Similarly, the majority of criminals obtain guns either from straw purchases or use stolen weapons. As only about half the country's firearms are stored locked-up, I'd say a lot of the thefts would be enabled by negligent security. Gun owning households have about a 9% per decade chance of having firearms stolen, which also implies a problem.

Liability for third-party criminal use would attack both negligent security, and straw purchases.

With appropriate security, the premiums should be low.

The onus is not on the gun owners. The current situation is as it is. The responsibility to make a rational case is on those who seek to modify the situation. The hyperbole, strawman arguments, misrepresentations, and dishonest gotchyas from the opposition to gun ownership and/or support for increased restrictions are not helping make a rational case

The only anti gun nut (who was guilty of all those) I have seen recently here has now been banned.

The other posters arguing for stricter gun control on this thread have posted substantive arguments.

 

[jimbob]

To reiterate, I am advocating insurance for third-party illegal use of guns based on the fact that a lot of criminals obtain guns through straw purchases, and that a lot of guns are stored with inadequate security.

If a mining company stored dynamite where bank robbers could easily steal it, and it was subsequently stolen and used in bank robberies shouldn't they be liable? In many jurisdictions (I don't know about the US) they would be liable for something, probably related to criminal negligence.

 

[Nessie]

Using exactly the same logic, shouldn't automobile owners, homeowners, apartment renters (or possibly apartment owners who would pass that on to the renters) also have to purchase criminal intent insurance for the same reasons?

False equivalence. Different things need to be treated differently depending on the different problems they cause.

If gun owners go rogue or fail to secure their gun so another can use it, I say the gun owner should pay up and considering the cost of damage a gun can do, they will need insurance to pay for it.

 

[Giz]

False equivalence. Different things need to be treated differently depending on the different problems they cause.

If gun owners go rogue or fail to secure their gun so another can use it, I say the gun owner should pay up and considering the cost of damage a gun can do, they will need insurance to pay for it.

Instead of punishing law abiding folks for getting burgled, why not take the money out of the estate of anyone convicted of a gun crime? You'll still get the compensation money but you'll be taking it from criminals instead of innocents...