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

[Nessie]

Which are less than 1% of all homicides.

This is like trying to fight knife crime in Glasgow by banning claymores.

I do not share your hardly worth bothering about attitude.

 

[Nessie]

Only if you believe Mother Jones. Their definition of legally obtaining a firearm includes murder, theft of government property, felony perjury, purchasing a fully automatic weapon in violation of Federal law, and counts "unknown method" as a legal purchase.

If that is the case, can you link me to your evidence?

 

[Nessie]

I'm sure someone's already asked, but how about a US source, since that's what the topic is.

BTW, I just called my insurance agent to change and add some different coverages, and asked her if I left my door unlocked, would it cover theft from my house or vehicle, and she said yes. I think I'll go with you're wrong as a whole.

What, I and other British have done is show how UK policies work as an example of what can be done. If it is done differently in the USA that does not make me wrong.

If my door was unlocked and I was in the house, I would be covered. If I went away for a week and left the door unlocked, I would not be covered. The same with my car.

 

[Nessie]

And this right here is why insurance should not, and can not be a requirement of owning or possessing a firearm in the US. This is a HUGE violation of the 2nd Amendment. This is why foreigners, especially UK'ers, should just stick to facts,.

Or show how it is done in the UK as an example of what can be done. Bear in mind our gun problem is way lower than in the USA, so there are bound be things you can learn off us as to how to reduce your gun problem.

WRT the hilited: Doesn't matter, the authorities would need to place me at the scene before they could charge me with a crime. This is called probable cause, and without it, a charge cannot be filed against the car owner.

I let a friend of a friend borrow my truck a few weeks back. If he'd have used it in a crime, I'd be irritated, but would not be charged with any crime.

In the UK if it could be shown you were part of a criminal scheme whereby you lent the truck as a get away vehicle, you could be charged with conspiracy. Otherwise you would be fine.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

If that is the case, can you link me to your evidence?

No problem.I used your own source.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Apparently you just accepted the MJ article as the gospel without bothering to check out whether or not they were padding the count.
Here are a few of the "legal purchases" I found:

Seung Hi Cho: weapon obtained legally? Yes.
Truth: no. Cho lied on his application form (BATF 4473)

Patrick Henry Sherrill: weapon obtained legally? Yes.
Truth: No. Sherrill illegally removed them from the National Guard Armory.

Patrick Purdy: weapon obtained legally? Yes.
Truth: No. Purdy was a career criminal who had already been convicted of a violent felony. He lied on his application (BATF Form 4473).

Eduardo Sencion: weapon obtained legally? Yes.
Truth: No. The weapon involved was an illegally converted fully automatic weapon. Inasmuch as Sencion had no firearms training it is highly unlikely he purchased a legal weapon then converted it himself. Further, it was on the CA list of prohibited weapons and could not be legally transferred.

Adam Lanza: weapon obtained legally? Yes
Truth: No. Lanza murdered his mother to obtain the weapons used.
There are more, not to mention that the MJ article counts "unknown source" as a legal purchase even there is no way to determine if the firearm was legally purchased or not.

Don't you bother to do at least a little research before making your claims?

 

[Ziggurat]

You keep ignoring the point I make about rights and permissions. If either poses a deadly threat then it is the deadly threat part that needs to be regulated.

If it's a permission, then no, no deadly threat is required for regulation. And car insurance doesn't even regulate the deadly threat of cars, nor would gun insurance, so that's not a logical justification. But the deadly threat of guns is regulated: it's usually illegal to shoot someone, or even point a loaded gun at a person.

Loads of things are insured, from dancers legs to people's dogs to extremely rare and valuable paintings. Your claims that guns wouldn't work is non sense.

It's also a straw man. I never said that it's not possible to insure gun owners against damage caused by their guns (in fact, I pointed out that homeowner insurance already does this). What I said is that it would not accomplish the policy goals you hope it would accomplish.

People do indeed insure all sorts of things, like legs or pets or works of art. But they do so on an individual basis, because of their specific concerns and peculiar circumstances. But no legitimate public policy concern would be served by mandating leg or pet or art insurance.

In short, this response from you has no logical connection to anything I said.

Indeed if claims will be rare, it will be cheap, so if you are so worried you may be shot by criminals, how about adding insurance for that to your policy as an option?

That option is already available to anyone: it falls under health insurance, disability insurance, and life insurance. None of those are mandatory, but the're all available. But if you're insuring yourself against the harm that others do, that's a fundamentally opposite direction to address the problem than what you want to do by mandating insurance against the harm you do to others.

As for the exact expense, that has never been the point. A $10 poll tax is cheap, and very few voters would be unable to pay for it, but it's still not acceptable.

I am going to continue posting whether you like it or not.

Once again, you fail to understand my point (that seems to be a pattern now). I never suggested you stop posting. I do, however, suggest that you stop using assertions of opinion as part of your argument. Not all of your posts fall under that description, but some of them do.

 

[triforcharity]

If you had a criminal friend and lent them a gun which they then used in a robbery would that still be the same?

That's much different. Providing a gun to a criminal is already against the law, and rightfully so.

I'd have thought in such a situation you'd bear some responsibility and attempting to make you legally responsible would be a reasonable move by legislators.

No, not that I am aware of. Since I cannot control what other people do, why would it be reasonable to make me even partially responsible for their actions?

 

[triforcharity]

What, I and other British have done is show how UK policies work as an example of what can be done. If it is done differently in the USA that does not make me wrong.

Yes, and your example violates our freedoms and rights, so plain and simple, you're wrong. It WON'T work in the US.

If my door was unlocked and I was in the house, I would be covered. If I went away for a week and left the door unlocked, I would not be covered. The same with my car.

That sucks for you.

Or show how it is done in the UK as an example of what can be done. Bear in mind our gun problem is way lower than in the USA, so there are bound be things you can learn off us as to how to reduce your gun problem.

No, what is done in the UK, does not directly translate to what CAN be done here in the US. No matter how bad and terrible that is, the law stands.

I understand your "gun problem" isn't as bad as the US. You have less guns, and typically care more about each other than people in the US (IMO) I also bet that Iraq has much less drownings than the US. Go figure, less rivers and pools. Imagine that.....

In the UK if it could be shown you were part of a criminal scheme whereby you lent the truck as a get away vehicle, you could be charged with conspiracy. Otherwise you would be fine.

That's different. Giving your vehicle to a friend to use to commit a crime, is called conspiracy or accessory, depending on the state. That't would be a crime. However, if I had no idea of their intention, the state couldn't file any charges.

 

[Nessie]

No problem.I used your own source.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Apparently you just accepted the MJ article as the gospel without bothering to check out whether or not they were padding the count.
Here are a few of the "legal purchases" I found:

Seung Hi Cho: weapon obtained legally? Yes.
Truth: no. Cho lied on his application form (BATF 4473)

Patrick Henry Sherrill: weapon obtained legally? Yes.
Truth: No. Sherrill illegally removed them from the National Guard Armory.

Patrick Purdy: weapon obtained legally? Yes.
Truth: No. Purdy was a career criminal who had already been convicted of a violent felony. He lied on his application (BATF Form 4473).

Eduardo Sencion: weapon obtained legally? Yes.
Truth: No. The weapon involved was an illegally converted fully automatic weapon. Inasmuch as Sencion had no firearms training it is highly unlikely he purchased a legal weapon then converted it himself. Further, it was on the CA list of prohibited weapons and could not be legally transferred.

Adam Lanza: weapon obtained legally? Yes
Truth: No. Lanza murdered his mother to obtain the weapons used.
There are more, not to mention that the MJ article counts "unknown source" as a legal purchase even there is no way to determine if the firearm was legally purchased or not.

Don't you bother to do at least a little research before making your claims?

You have listed 5 instances where weapons were illegally obtained. MJ says that there have been 12 instances of illegal and 49 legal. In the further details it lists Adam Lanza as having stolen his gun, Sencion as having purchased his gun from an intermediary, Purdy from a dealer, Sherill as "issued by Oaklahoma"? and Cho as purchased variously. Can you show me where MJ lists the above in the legal purchases column as opposed to being in the 14 illegally obtained guns column?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

 

[Nessie]

If it's a permission, then no, no deadly threat is required for regulation. And car insurance doesn't even regulate the deadly threat of cars, nor would gun insurance, so that's not a logical justification. But the deadly threat of guns is regulated: it's usually illegal to shoot someone, or even point a loaded gun at a person.

I disagree with your supposed logic. Driving a car recklessly or dangerously is illegal. Killing someone with a car is illegal. So cars and guns are the same that way. But for some illogical reason insurance need not apply to guns, even though they do damage costing the USA billions every year. ($174.1 billion according to this article)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...shot-wounds-medicaid-insurance-costs/1956445/

It's also a straw man. I never said that it's not possible to insure gun owners against damage caused by their guns (in fact, I pointed out that homeowner insurance already does this). What I said is that it would not accomplish the policy goals you hope it would accomplish.

I disagree and say insuring guns would mean gun owners would be able to pay when they and their gun do damage.

People do indeed insure all sorts of things, like legs or pets or works of art. But they do so on an individual basis, because of their specific concerns and peculiar circumstances. But no legitimate public policy concern would be served by mandating leg or pet or art insurance.

In short, this response from you has no logical connection to anything I said.

OK, so no public policy concern over dancers legs, so no compulsory insurance. But there is a major public policy concern about gun violence and that concern is a reason to insure because of the cost to society.

That option is already available to anyone: it falls under health insurance, disability insurance, and life insurance. None of those are mandatory, but the're all available. But if you're insuring yourself against the harm that others do, that's a fundamentally opposite direction to address the problem than what you want to do by mandating insurance against the harm you do to others.

I am asking for gun owners to have to insure their guns for any damage they do, like their cars.

As for the exact expense, that has never been the point. A $10 poll tax is cheap, and very few voters would be unable to pay for it, but it's still not acceptable.

Once again, you fail to understand my point (that seems to be a pattern now). I never suggested you stop posting. I do, however, suggest that you stop using assertions of opinion as part of your argument. Not all of your posts fall under that description, but some of them do.

Thanks for the advice, which is going to be ignored, no offence.

 

[Ziggurat]

I disagree with your supposed logic. Driving a car recklessly or dangerously is illegal. Killing someone with a car is illegal. So cars and guns are the same that way.

Both of those things are completely independent of insurance. Insurance doesn't make reckless driving illegal, it doesn't do anything to prevent reckless driving, and driving doesn't need to be reckless in order to impose an insurance requirement. So your response is, ironically, the part of this conversation which is lacking in logic.

But for some illogical reason insurance need not apply to guns, even though they do damage costing the USA billions every year. ($174.1 billion according to this article)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...shot-wounds-medicaid-insurance-costs/1956445/

Insurance doesn't need to apply to driving cars, either. We have chosen to make it a requirement because it accomplishes a useful purpose, and because the government has the power to do so because driving is not a right.

But your arguments for why we should impose this condition on gun ownership have repeatedly fallen flat. "Evidence" that you present, such as the article here, consistently fail to connect to any actual insurance requirement. It doesn't matter how much damage guns do if that damage isn't actually compensated by insurance, and you have never presented evidence to indicate how much damage insurance would actually compensate victims for which cannot be compensated without it.

OK, so no public policy concern over dancers legs, so no compulsory insurance. But there is a major public policy concern about gun violence and that concern is a reason to insure because of the cost to society.

But there is a major public policy concern about knife violence and that concern is a reason to insure because of the cost to society.

Do you see the problem? No, I suspect even now you still do not.

I am asking for gun owners to have to insure their guns for any damage they do, like their cars.

I don't care what you ask for. You will not get it.

Thanks for the advice, which is going to be ignored, no offence.

Of course you will ignore it. You have basically ignored anything which doesn't validate your own position.

 

[jimbob]

If you had a criminal friend and lent them a gun which they then used in a robbery would that still be the same?

That's much different. Providing a gun to a criminal is already against the law, and rightfully so.

I'd have thought in such a situation you'd bear some responsibility and attempting to make you legally responsible would be a reasonable move by legislators.

No, not that I am aware of. Since I cannot control what other people do, why would it be reasonable to make me even partially responsible for their actions?

I think we're talking at cross purposes here (or I am misunderstanding your post). I'm saying that if you lend a gun to a criminal (which is against the law), then you should bear some responsibility if they use that gun in committing a crime.

Are you saying

1) That if someone lends their gun to a non-criminal the owner shouldn't bear some responsibility?
or are you saying
2) That if someone lends their gun to a criminal, the owner shouldn't bear some responsibility?

I see the argument for 1 - I happen to disagree, but can see the reasoning.

Argument 2) I can't see any validity without unless one thinks that lending firearms to criminals should be legal.


What would the civil liability for situation #2 be at the moment?

About 40% of criminals obtain their guns from friends or relatives, so this could be somewhere that makes it harder for the criminals to get hold of guns.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

You have listed 5 instances where weapons were illegally obtained. MJ says that there have been 12 instances of illegal and 49 legal. In the further details it lists Adam Lanza as having stolen his gun, Sencion as having purchased his gun from an intermediary, Purdy from a dealer, Sherill as "issued by Oaklahoma"? and Cho as purchased variously. Can you show me where MJ lists the above in the legal purchases column as opposed to being in the 14 illegally obtained guns column?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

The instances I listed were in addition to the 12 that MJ claimed.

How do you come to the conclusion that just because Sencion purchased a firearm from a third party somehow makes it a legal purchase? You can't legally buy full auto weapons in the US anymore.

Purdy committed perjury to obtain the firearm, as did Cho. That's a serious felony here in the US, and I doubt if it's legal in the UK, either.

Sherrill took the firearms from a National Guard armory. Simply because you are working as an instructor doesn't mean you can take the firearms off base.
I was an Assistant RSO in the Army, and as such I had the ability to sign out any small arm in the armory. But that ability did not extend further than my duty station. The same applied to Sherrill.
The second he placed it into his POV, he was committing a courts martial offense, and violating federal law.

My mistake about Lanza. In compiling the list I had to go back and forth to the pop ups and hit William Beck whose "dot" overlaps Lanza's. Lanza is indeed listed in the 12 "illegals". Beck, OTOH, should be added to the "crystal ball" section along with the others where MJ listed them as legally obtained yet admitted they didn't know where the perps got the firearms.

As long as we're discussing the "Crystal Ball" technique for verifying that a firearm was legally transferred, perhaps you can explain how that works.
You don't know how the individual came into possession of a firearm,who he purchased it from, the circumstances of the transfer, or even where the firearm originated, but you do know he got it legally.
How do you do that? ESP? Tarot cards? Anthropomancy?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here (or I am misunderstanding your post). I'm saying that if you lend a gun to a criminal (which is against the law), then you should bear some responsibility if they use that gun in committing a crime.

Are you saying

1) That if someone lends their gun to a non-criminal the owner shouldn't bear some responsibility?
or are you saying
2) That if someone lends their gun to a criminal, the owner shouldn't bear some responsibility?

I see the argument for 1 - I happen to disagree, but can see the reasoning.

Argument 2) I can't see any validity without unless one thinks that lending firearms to criminals should be legal.

If you lend a firearm to another law abiding citizen who then, without your knowledge or consent, uses it in the furtherance of a criminal act, you cannot be held criminally liable as a co-conspirator or accomplice.
This is not just true of firearms but any other legally owned tool loaned to a law abiding citizen in good faith.
I'm willing to bet that you would object to criminal liability in cases where a firearm was not the tool loaned out. As example, if you loaned an ax to a friend, and he used it to chop up his neighbors instead of some kindling, I get the impression you'd claim no responsibility on the part of the lender (as long as he had no knowledge of the users intent).
Unless you hold all such loans, whether they be axes, chainsaws, screwdrivers, firearms, or anything else, to the same standard then you are making a case based on special pleading.

OTOH (case #2), if you lend a firearm to a person you know, or have reason to know, is a felon or other excluded person then you may be charged with an appropriate crime. The same applies to lending any tool, device, or material assistance to anyone you know, or have reason to know, intends to use it in the furtherance of a criminal act.

What would the civil liability for situation #2 be at the moment?

The same as for #1,#3, or #26.5. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason in this country. The bar is set extremely low, specifically it only prohibits the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Any justification, even the smallest one, exempts a plaintiff and his/her attorney(s) from sanctions. Worse, even if they lose the suit, they are not normally held responsible for the defendants expenses.
Not that it is germane to this debate, but it is one of the chief reasons that medical costs are so high in this country. It is estimated that one third of all premiums paid go to cover defensive medicine in the US.

About 40% of criminals obtain their guns from friends or relatives, so this could be somewhere that makes it harder for the criminals to get hold of guns.

How so? You are assuming the "friends and relatives" had acquired the firearms legally in the first place. What basis do you have for making that assumption?

 

[Nessie]

Both of those things are completely independent of insurance. Insurance doesn't make reckless driving illegal, it doesn't do anything to prevent reckless driving, and driving doesn't need to be reckless in order to impose an insurance requirement. So your response is, ironically, the part of this conversation which is lacking in logic.



Insurance doesn't need to apply to driving cars, either. We have chosen to make it a requirement because it accomplishes a useful purpose, and because the government has the power to do so because driving is not a right.

Your argument is both guns and driving are dangerous, so insurance is a useful purpose. But because guns are a right and driving is not guns cannot be insured. Illogical and a non sequitur.

But your arguments for why we should impose this condition on gun ownership have repeatedly fallen flat. "Evidence" that you present, such as the article here, consistently fail to connect to any actual insurance requirement. It doesn't matter how much damage guns do if that damage isn't actually compensated by insurance, and you have never presented evidence to indicate how much damage insurance would actually compensate victims for which cannot be compensated without it.

Even if it is low, are you saying a few deaths and injuries are not worth compensating or making financial provision for?

But there is a major public policy concern about knife violence and that concern is a reason to insure because of the cost to society.

Do you see the problem? No, I suspect even now you still do not.

False analogy.

I don't care what you ask for. You will not get it.



Of course you will ignore it. You have basically ignored anything which doesn't validate your own position.

I don't care that you don't care

 

[Nessie]

The instances I listed were in addition to the 12 that MJ claimed.

How do you come to the conclusion that just because Sencion purchased a firearm from a third party somehow makes it a legal purchase? You can't legally buy full auto weapons in the US anymore.

Purdy committed perjury to obtain the firearm, as did Cho. That's a serious felony here in the US, and I doubt if it's legal in the UK, either.

Sherrill took the firearms from a National Guard armory. Simply because you are working as an instructor doesn't mean you can take the firearms off base.
I was an Assistant RSO in the Army, and as such I had the ability to sign out any small arm in the armory. But that ability did not extend further than my duty station. The same applied to Sherrill.
The second he placed it into his POV, he was committing a courts martial offense, and violating federal law.

My mistake about Lanza. In compiling the list I had to go back and forth to the pop ups and hit William Beck whose "dot" overlaps Lanza's. Lanza is indeed listed in the 12 "illegals". Beck, OTOH, should be added to the "crystal ball" section along with the others where MJ listed them as legally obtained yet admitted they didn't know where the perps got the firearms.

Yes the data in the graphs is wrong. I make it 15 illegal, 14 unknown and 33 legal.

As long as we're discussing the "Crystal Ball" technique for verifying that a firearm was legally transferred, perhaps you can explain how that works.
You don't know how the individual came into possession of a firearm,who he purchased it from, the circumstances of the transfer, or even where the firearm originated, but you do know he got it legally.
How do you do that? ESP? Tarot cards? Anthropomancy?

I see a study that appears valid and post it showing my source. You then come along and show how it is not accurate. The MJ data may be out, but the point stands and legally obtained guns are used in the majority of mass shootings.

 

[triforcharity]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here (or I am misunderstanding your post). I'm saying that if you lend a gun to a criminal (which is against the law), then you should bear some responsibility if they use that gun in committing a crime.

Are you saying

1) That if someone lends their gun to a non-criminal the owner shouldn't bear some responsibility?
or are you saying
2) That if someone lends their gun to a criminal, the owner shouldn't bear some responsibility?

Ok, we're both misunderstanding each other. No problem, happens sometime.

If I lend my gun to a friend, and that friend uses that gun for a criminal purpose, unknown to me before hand, AFAIK, there wouldn't be any criminal charges filed against me, and most likely, bear no civil liability.

If I lend my gun to a friend, who I know to be a bad character, and he uses that gun in a crime, I would be an accessory to that crime, and also partially responsible civilly.

If I lend my gun to a known FELON, and he uses that gun in a crime, I am going to be charged with a felony, and held almost equally responsible civilly.

I see the argument for 1 - I happen to disagree, but can see the reasoning.

Argument 2) I can't see any validity without unless one thinks that lending firearms to criminals should be legal.

I used the truck analogy to help explain how the law is here.

Say you and I are friends, and I need to borrow your truck to move. I then use that truck to rob a convenience store, why would you be even remotely responsible? You had no idea my intentions, nor did you suspect I would do anything remotely like that.

What would the civil liability for situation #2 be at the moment?

Civil courts are a tricky topic, as the burden of proof is very low, and it's not something I am very knowledgeable of. I would suspect it would be at least partial responsibility, but IANAL.

About 40% of criminals obtain their guns from friends or relatives, so this could be somewhere that makes it harder for the criminals to get hold of guns.

Agreed, however, obtaining firearms doesn't really tell us HOW they actually got them. Were they stolen from friends or relatives? Or were they willfully given? Were they willfully given with the prior knowledge that a crime would be committed with the gun? I'm not sure, and the stat that I have seen cited, doesn't explain much about the details.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your argument is both guns and driving are dangerous, so insurance is a useful purpose. But because guns are a right and driving is not guns cannot be insured. Illogical and a non sequitur.

Your straw men are getting more and more pathetic. The fact that something is dangerous is not sufficient reason to require insurance for it. So that superficial similarity simply does not suffice.

One of the critical reasons the car insurance requirement works is because the likelihood that any driver who hits you will be insured is high. This is both because it's relatively easy to enforce the insurance requirement, and because non-criminal drivers still pose a significant risk. But the same is simply not true about gun insurance. It's almost impossible to police, and if you get shot, chances are that it would be from an uninsured criminal. The scheme simply cannot accomplish what you desire it to accomplish.

Furthermore, you continue to claim that it's illogical to treat cars and guns differently on the basis that one is a right and the other is not. But there's nothing illogical about that. You may believe that gun ownership shouldn't be a right, but 1) it is, and 2) your opinion doesn't matter. So given that it is, they SHOULD be treated differently. It's illogical to pretend that this makes no difference. But if you think you can just ignore the law in order to pursue your desired ends, I can promise you, that approach will not end well.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!​

Even if it is low, are you saying a few deaths and injuries are not worth compensating or making financial provision for?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The safety you aspire to obtain is meager indeed.

False analogy.

Mere assertion. How is it false? If it is a false analogy, surely you can explain why. And yet, you didn't. Your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker.

 

[Nessie]

Your straw men are getting more and more pathetic. The fact that something is dangerous is not sufficient reason to require insurance for it. So that superficial similarity simply does not suffice.

There is no strawman in the argument to have guns insured. It is a reasonable request that activities which are dangerous and cost a lot of money when they go wrong are insured.

One of the critical reasons the car insurance requirement works is because the likelihood that any driver who hits you will be insured is high. This is both because it's relatively easy to enforce the insurance requirement, and because non-criminal drivers still pose a significant risk.
But the same is simply not true about gun insurance. It's almost impossible to police, and if you get shot, chances are that it would be from an uninsured criminal. The scheme simply cannot accomplish what you desire it to accomplish.

That would be true if the present system of lax laws and lax enforcement with regards to gun control continues and there is widespread ignoring of the law.

Uninsured people would find themselves being punished, the same way as uninsured drivers are. It would be hard at first, but with some effort I am sure it can be done. Or are you admitting the USA has lost control of the situation and it is too late to do anything about it?

Furthermore, you continue to claim that it's illogical to treat cars and guns differently on the basis that one is a right and the other is not.

No I claim it is illogical to treat deaths and injuries caused by both as different because one is a right and the other is not.

But there's nothing illogical about that. You may believe that gun ownership shouldn't be a right, but 1) it is, and 2) your opinion doesn't matter. So given that it is, they SHOULD be treated differently. It's illogical to pretend that this makes no difference. But if you think you can just ignore the law in order to pursue your desired ends, I can promise you, that approach will not end well.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!​

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The safety you aspire to obtain is meager indeed.

So actions to stop criminals, nuts angry people and youths from getting hold of guns is blowing away the law? Insuring an activity that costs society a fortune because it is dangerous threatens your rights?

I think you are exaggerating.

Mere assertion. How is it false? If it is a false analogy, surely you can explain why. And yet, you didn't. Your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker.

Homicides with firearms 67.8%, knives or cutting instruments 13.4%. There are tons of guns in US society, but tons more knives and cutting instruments which perform a myriad of jobs which could be done with anything else. If you removed cars from society it would ground to a halt in days, the same is true of all knives and cutting instruments. It is not true of guns. All guns could vanish and society would manage with certain adaptation, but it would not ground to a halt. That is why it is a false analogy.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

 

[GeeMack]

There is no strawman in the argument to have guns insured. It is a reasonable request that activities which are dangerous and cost a lot of money when they go wrong are insured.

Of course if the argument does not include "activities which are dangerous and cost a lot of money when they go wrong" like kayaking, mountain climbing, hatchet sharpening, cave exploring, horse riding, tree trimming, surfing, kick-boxing, snow skiing, water skiing, furniture making, and eating fugu, then it's just more special pleading. And as always, special pleading piled on top of special pleading will never ever become a rational argument.