America's Gun Violence

1195196198200201602

Comments

  • RiotZactRiotZact Posts: 6,201
    I think it's totally fine to own these types of items for a personal collection. It's a lot different than wearing them on a shirt or flying the flag on your front porch or using it as your license plate holder. 
  • mace1229 said:
    Responsible gun owners until they're not seem to contribute to a large percentage of illegal gun possession that results in gun crime. But yea, don't hold them responsible.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime

    Guess this wasn't one of your 10 sources you looked at?
     
    Unclear on what your point is? The title of the article and the opening line compeltely agree with what I've been saying. The article starts with "Lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes, according to a novel analysis released this week by the University of Pittsburgh." And continues to defend the fact that gun crimes are committed by those who illegally possess guns.
    Not sure what I was supposed to take from that article, or how it disagrees with what I said? States exactly what I already said.
    It a nutshell, only 18% of guns used in a crime were used by the person who purchased it. Exactly what I said. And my comment was simply gun laws should target that. 

    How exactly does your source disagree or disprove anything I've said? It actually agrees with all of it.

    I would also add that your article doesn't go further into that 18%, but a portion of that 18% cannot legally own guns (the guns were purchased prior to an offense), or have some other criminal record. So again, target unlawful gun owners, and strict requirements for those with any criminal record.

    Thank you for another great resource backing my point.

    "All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands. "As a public-health person, I'd like to be able to figure out that path," he added.

    More than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to Fabio's research. But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.

    One of the more concerning findings in the study was that for the majority of guns recovered (62 percent), "the place where the owner lost possession of the firearm was unknown."

    You keep claiming that the focus shouldn't be on "legal, responsible" gun owners, that they're somehow immune from being responsible for gun violence. Maybe they shoudl be held accountable when their "legal" gun is used in a crime when they didn't report it stolen or even know where the fuck the gun was.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    RiotZact said:
    I think it's totally fine to own these types of items for a personal collection. It's a lot different than wearing them on a shirt or flying the flag on your front porch or using it as your license plate holder. 
    Yeah, I agree,but I don't even care if they wear them on their shirts or fly them from their homes. Nazis and rednecks can fly whatever flags make them comfortable. My issue with government sanctioned memorials to treasonous traitors located in town squares and city centers. Keep the Nazi and Confederate bullshit out of public buildings and squares. It is none of my business (or any of yours) if people want to collect memorabilia.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    mace1229 said:
    Responsible gun owners until they're not seem to contribute to a large percentage of illegal gun possession that results in gun crime. But yea, don't hold them responsible.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime

    Guess this wasn't one of your 10 sources you looked at?
     
    Unclear on what your point is? The title of the article and the opening line compeltely agree with what I've been saying. The article starts with "Lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes, according to a novel analysis released this week by the University of Pittsburgh." And continues to defend the fact that gun crimes are committed by those who illegally possess guns.
    Not sure what I was supposed to take from that article, or how it disagrees with what I said? States exactly what I already said.
    It a nutshell, only 18% of guns used in a crime were used by the person who purchased it. Exactly what I said. And my comment was simply gun laws should target that. 

    How exactly does your source disagree or disprove anything I've said? It actually agrees with all of it.

    I would also add that your article doesn't go further into that 18%, but a portion of that 18% cannot legally own guns (the guns were purchased prior to an offense), or have some other criminal record. So again, target unlawful gun owners, and strict requirements for those with any criminal record.

    Thank you for another great resource backing my point.

    "All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands. "As a public-health person, I'd like to be able to figure out that path," he added.

    More than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to Fabio's research. But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.

    One of the more concerning findings in the study was that for the majority of guns recovered (62 percent), "the place where the owner lost possession of the firearm was unknown."

    You keep claiming that the focus shouldn't be on "legal, responsible" gun owners, that they're somehow immune from being responsible for gun violence. Maybe they shoudl be held accountable when their "legal" gun is used in a crime when they didn't report it stolen or even know where the fuck the gun was.
    Okay, so make laws that address those issues.
    I never said anything that would disagree with that last sentence. In fact, I would agree with it. That has been my point actually. 
    Making a gun illegal because it has a forward pistol grip doesn't address that.
    Require better monitoring of guns. Before purchasing another gun, require proof that you are in possession of all other previous gun purchases. Require proper storage for guns.  Have more strict penalties for selling or being in the possession of stolen guns.  I'm not certain of this, but I believe possession of a stolen gun can just be probation in some states. If you are in possession of a stolen gun you either stole it yourself, or knowingly purchased it from someone who did. Minimum 2 years then, no probation. 
    Those rules make sense to me, they address the issue at hand. I don't see what is wrong with using gun laws to target the problem with gun crime. Blanket gun laws and restrictions don't have an impact on the root of the problem. Limit the mag capacity to 8 instead of 12, people are still going to steal and illegally sell firearms and fail to report it stolen. Target the root of the problem.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    It all boils down to a gun registry and the extremists winning out against having one.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    gun restrictions
    gun registry
    gun insurance

    3 pronged approach targeting the 'root of the problem'
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,195
    rgambs said:
    It all boils down to a gun registry and the extremists winning out against having one.
    So insane that we can't get a fucking gun registry established. Again, every car has 2 forms of tracking and there is a mass database, but not for something used to commit crime on a daily basis. We can track phones, computers, emails and every other thing in the world, but god forbid we have a comprehensive gun registry because you know, the 2nd amendment. Doesn't even make sense. 
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 8,956
    I think better registration is a good place to start.
    What would gun insurance do?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    tbergs said:
    rgambs said:
    It all boils down to a gun registry and the extremists winning out against having one.
    So insane that we can't get a fucking gun registry established. Again, every car has 2 forms of tracking and there is a mass database, but not for something used to commit crime on a daily basis. We can track phones, computers, emails and every other thing in the world, but god forbid we have a comprehensive gun registry because you know, the 2nd amendment. Doesn't even make sense. 
    Yeah, I think that this is why there are attempts to put forward laws restricting gun types, magazine size, etc - it's an attempt to at least do something to stem the tide of gun violence, knowing that the thing that would actually make a huge impact will be blocked at every turn by the pro-gun folks. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    We have gun registration here in New Jersey and believe it or not, we still have crimes. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    But I do agree it would be an excellent place to start.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,588
    mcgruff10 said:
    We have gun registration here in New Jersey and believe it or not, we still have crimes. 
    And a very low gun death rate. 
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    mace1229 said:
    I think better registration is a good place to start.
    What would gun insurance do?
    It acknowledges the actual societal cost of gun ownership:

    The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

    You would need it to buy a gun, and the policy would have to include liability coverage in case that gun injures someone. If a gun owner has no accidents, his premiums go down. Someone who wants to "open carry" his weapon would pay more than someone who keeps it locked at home. Assault weapons would be more expensive to insure than hunting rifles because they they have a greater capacity to do harm. 

    Because money is always a great motivator, one immediate benefit of insuring guns is that it would change the behavior of some less than vigilant gun owners. People who leave loaded guns in the bedside table or in the glove compartment might reconsider that habit, since they are on the hook for a sizable deductible if someone gets hold of their gun and hurts someone else. Insurance companies would no doubt give policy discounts for gun owners who buy trigger locks or gun safes. Premiums would reflect the gun owners’ risk factors, like arrest and psychiatric histories. The more guns you own, the more it will cost.

    The insurance companies will do a lot of the archiving of ballistic information we don’t allow police to do. Insurance companies would want ballistic signatures from every gun they insure. They would need it to verify, in the event a claim is filed, that it was indeed the gun they insure that caused the damage. While it is hardly a substitute for a national ballistics registry that would allow investigators to trace the gun that fired any bullet they recovered, police could subpoena ballistics information from insurance companies, helping in investigations and prosecutions, without ever having to build their own database.
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo Face Posts: 6,499
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I think better registration is a good place to start.
    What would gun insurance do?
    It acknowledges the actual societal cost of gun ownership:

    The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

    You would need it to buy a gun, and the policy would have to include liability coverage in case that gun injures someone. If a gun owner has no accidents, his premiums go down. Someone who wants to "open carry" his weapon would pay more than someone who keeps it locked at home. Assault weapons would be more expensive to insure than hunting rifles because they they have a greater capacity to do harm. 

    Because money is always a great motivator, one immediate benefit of insuring guns is that it would change the behavior of some less than vigilant gun owners. People who leave loaded guns in the bedside table or in the glove compartment might reconsider that habit, since they are on the hook for a sizable deductible if someone gets hold of their gun and hurts someone else. Insurance companies would no doubt give policy discounts for gun owners who buy trigger locks or gun safes. Premiums would reflect the gun owners’ risk factors, like arrest and psychiatric histories. The more guns you own, the more it will cost.

    The insurance companies will do a lot of the archiving of ballistic information we don’t allow police to do. Insurance companies would want ballistic signatures from every gun they insure. They would need it to verify, in the event a claim is filed, that it was indeed the gun they insure that caused the damage. While it is hardly a substitute for a national ballistics registry that would allow investigators to trace the gun that fired any bullet they recovered, police could subpoena ballistics information from insurance companies, helping in investigations and prosecutions, without ever having to build their own database.
    I see a couple issues with this:
    The whole "ballistics signature" idea just would not work.  I don't want to get too technical, but much of it comes down to "what is a gun".  Is a barrel a gun, is a lower/receiver by itself a gun?  The thing about firearms is that they are like legos to the extent that most every part (including the barrel) is interchangeable in most firearms.  Many of the barrels are custom made by the owner themselves.  Not due to decisiveness, but mostly for better performance.  It would impossible to keep accurate ballistic information for any firearm after the original sale at your local Academy Sports.  
    Secondly, who is this extra tax (let's call it what it is) going to impact the most?  It would be an annoyance to hunters and hobbyists, but low income people are always the ones that are most effected by costly insurance.  A person living in poverty that has one firearm to protect their house would probably just find a way to skirt any kind of insurance if they could not pay it just like they do with car insurance.  Then there is the possibility that adding extra costs would just increase the lucrative black market or incentives for criminals to try and get their hands on them...I'm not sure that would decrease the gun violence at all.  It may help the 3D printer sales though...
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    edited September 2017
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I think better registration is a good place to start.
    What would gun insurance do?
    It acknowledges the actual societal cost of gun ownership:

    The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

    You would need it to buy a gun, and the policy would have to include liability coverage in case that gun injures someone. If a gun owner has no accidents, his premiums go down. Someone who wants to "open carry" his weapon would pay more than someone who keeps it locked at home. Assault weapons would be more expensive to insure than hunting rifles because they they have a greater capacity to do harm. 

    Because money is always a great motivator, one immediate benefit of insuring guns is that it would change the behavior of some less than vigilant gun owners. People who leave loaded guns in the bedside table or in the glove compartment might reconsider that habit, since they are on the hook for a sizable deductible if someone gets hold of their gun and hurts someone else. Insurance companies would no doubt give policy discounts for gun owners who buy trigger locks or gun safes. Premiums would reflect the gun owners’ risk factors, like arrest and psychiatric histories. The more guns you own, the more it will cost.

    The insurance companies will do a lot of the archiving of ballistic information we don’t allow police to do. Insurance companies would want ballistic signatures from every gun they insure. They would need it to verify, in the event a claim is filed, that it was indeed the gun they insure that caused the damage. While it is hardly a substitute for a national ballistics registry that would allow investigators to trace the gun that fired any bullet they recovered, police could subpoena ballistics information from insurance companies, helping in investigations and prosecutions, without ever having to build their own database.
    I see a couple issues with this:
    The whole "ballistics signature" idea just would not work.  I don't want to get too technical, but much of it comes down to "what is a gun".  Is a barrel a gun, is a lower/receiver by itself a gun?  The thing about firearms is that they are like legos to the extent that most every part (including the barrel) is interchangeable in most firearms.  Many of the barrels are custom made by the owner themselves.  Not due to decisiveness, but mostly for better performance.  It would impossible to keep accurate ballistic information for any firearm after the original sale at your local Academy Sports.  
    Secondly, who is this extra tax (let's call it what it is) going to impact the most?  It would be an annoyance to hunters and hobbyists, but low income people are always the ones that are most effected by costly insurance.  A person living in poverty that has one firearm to protect their house would probably just find a way to skirt any kind of insurance if they could not pay it just like they do with car insurance.  Then there is the possibility that adding extra costs would just increase the lucrative black market or incentives for criminals to try and get their hands on them...I'm not sure that would decrease the gun violence at all.  It may help the 3D printer sales though...
    Using gun parts not listed on the policy would void the insurance policy. Have 2 barrels for 1 gun? They would all be listed in the policy.

     As for the cost - how is this any different than today? Do you consider the purchase cost of the gun or ammunition to be a tax as well? Guns are already only a 'right' for people who can afford them.

     Incidentally, this is where I feel the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment breaks with the rest of the Constitution. All the Amendments are endowed by 'their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'. I can step out of the womb with the right to free speech, privacy, vote, etc; with no accessories needed. I don't need to go out an purchase or acquire anything to exercise my rights.

     With the exception of 2A - for some reason that is the only 'right' people can exercise if they can afford it. All men are created equal, as long as they can afford to buy a gun.

     Perhaps the government could subsidize gun ownership for people who qualify. They would offer funds to purchase arms, training, maybe even a uniform. A sort of well-regulated militia, if you will....
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo Face Posts: 6,499
    edited September 2017
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I think better registration is a good place to start.
    What would gun insurance do?
    It acknowledges the actual societal cost of gun ownership:

    The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

    You would need it to buy a gun, and the policy would have to include liability coverage in case that gun injures someone. If a gun owner has no accidents, his premiums go down. Someone who wants to "open carry" his weapon would pay more than someone who keeps it locked at home. Assault weapons would be more expensive to insure than hunting rifles because they they have a greater capacity to do harm. 

    Because money is always a great motivator, one immediate benefit of insuring guns is that it would change the behavior of some less than vigilant gun owners. People who leave loaded guns in the bedside table or in the glove compartment might reconsider that habit, since they are on the hook for a sizable deductible if someone gets hold of their gun and hurts someone else. Insurance companies would no doubt give policy discounts for gun owners who buy trigger locks or gun safes. Premiums would reflect the gun owners’ risk factors, like arrest and psychiatric histories. The more guns you own, the more it will cost.

    The insurance companies will do a lot of the archiving of ballistic information we don’t allow police to do. Insurance companies would want ballistic signatures from every gun they insure. They would need it to verify, in the event a claim is filed, that it was indeed the gun they insure that caused the damage. While it is hardly a substitute for a national ballistics registry that would allow investigators to trace the gun that fired any bullet they recovered, police could subpoena ballistics information from insurance companies, helping in investigations and prosecutions, without ever having to build their own database.
    I see a couple issues with this:
    The whole "ballistics signature" idea just would not work.  I don't want to get too technical, but much of it comes down to "what is a gun".  Is a barrel a gun, is a lower/receiver by itself a gun?  The thing about firearms is that they are like legos to the extent that most every part (including the barrel) is interchangeable in most firearms.  Many of the barrels are custom made by the owner themselves.  Not due to decisiveness, but mostly for better performance.  It would impossible to keep accurate ballistic information for any firearm after the original sale at your local Academy Sports.  
    Secondly, who is this extra tax (let's call it what it is) going to impact the most?  It would be an annoyance to hunters and hobbyists, but low income people are always the ones that are most effected by costly insurance.  A person living in poverty that has one firearm to protect their house would probably just find a way to skirt any kind of insurance if they could not pay it just like they do with car insurance.  Then there is the possibility that adding extra costs would just increase the lucrative black market or incentives for criminals to try and get their hands on them...I'm not sure that would decrease the gun violence at all.  It may help the 3D printer sales though...
    Using gun parts not listed on the policy would void the insurance policy. Have 2 barrels for 1 gun? They would all be listed in the policy.

     As for the cost - how is this any different than today? Do you consider the purchase cost of the gun or ammunition to be a tax as well? Guns are already only a 'right' for people who can afford them.

     Incidentally, this is where I feel the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment breaks with the rest of the Constitution. All the Amendments are endowed by 'their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'. I can step out of the womb with the right to free speech, privacy, vote, etc; with no accessories needed. I don't need to go out an purchase or acquire anything to exercise my rights.

     With the exception of 2A - for some reason that is the only 'right' people can exercise if they can afford it. All men are created equal, as long as they can afford to buy a gun.

     Perhaps the government could subsidize gun ownership for people who qualify. They would offer funds to purchase arms, training, maybe even a uniform. A sort of well-regulated militia, if you will....
    I get what you are saying about the insurance, but it is just not something that could be realistically done.  Technically, all a gun barrel is...is a metal pipe.  You would have to start by broadly changing the definition of a firearm to include pipes that could potentially pass a bullet through them.  There is no possible way that an insurance policy could get a list of all metal pipes a person owns, let alone all of the other components on a firearm.  So let's say then that you are actually able to get records on a lower receiver...and someone steals it and destroys any traceability on that receiver and sticks their own unregistered "metal pipe" on it...how are you going to trace any ballistic information back to the previous owner?  I appreciate your outside-the-box thinking, but it is just simply another unrealistic approach to curbing gun violence by someone that obviously knows fairly little about firearms themselves.  One could say "let's just make firearms disappear and then there would be no guns to hurt people"...While true, how exactly would that happen?  That may be an exaggeration, but you get my point?  Mitigating the factors that effect gun violence is a better approach in my opinion.  Reducing the mental health stigmas so people will get help without strings attached, cleaning up metropolitan gang-ridden areas, providing better education are areas that need to be cleaned up well before any realistic "change you can believe in" could happen.  
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    edited September 2017
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I think better registration is a good place to start.
    What would gun insurance do?
    It acknowledges the actual societal cost of gun ownership:

    The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

    You would need it to buy a gun, and the policy would have to include liability coverage in case that gun injures someone. If a gun owner has no accidents, his premiums go down. Someone who wants to "open carry" his weapon would pay more than someone who keeps it locked at home. Assault weapons would be more expensive to insure than hunting rifles because they they have a greater capacity to do harm. 

    Because money is always a great motivator, one immediate benefit of insuring guns is that it would change the behavior of some less than vigilant gun owners. People who leave loaded guns in the bedside table or in the glove compartment might reconsider that habit, since they are on the hook for a sizable deductible if someone gets hold of their gun and hurts someone else. Insurance companies would no doubt give policy discounts for gun owners who buy trigger locks or gun safes. Premiums would reflect the gun owners’ risk factors, like arrest and psychiatric histories. The more guns you own, the more it will cost.

    The insurance companies will do a lot of the archiving of ballistic information we don’t allow police to do. Insurance companies would want ballistic signatures from every gun they insure. They would need it to verify, in the event a claim is filed, that it was indeed the gun they insure that caused the damage. While it is hardly a substitute for a national ballistics registry that would allow investigators to trace the gun that fired any bullet they recovered, police could subpoena ballistics information from insurance companies, helping in investigations and prosecutions, without ever having to build their own database.
    I see a couple issues with this:
    The whole "ballistics signature" idea just would not work.  I don't want to get too technical, but much of it comes down to "what is a gun".  Is a barrel a gun, is a lower/receiver by itself a gun?  The thing about firearms is that they are like legos to the extent that most every part (including the barrel) is interchangeable in most firearms.  Many of the barrels are custom made by the owner themselves.  Not due to decisiveness, but mostly for better performance.  It would impossible to keep accurate ballistic information for any firearm after the original sale at your local Academy Sports.  
    Secondly, who is this extra tax (let's call it what it is) going to impact the most?  It would be an annoyance to hunters and hobbyists, but low income people are always the ones that are most effected by costly insurance.  A person living in poverty that has one firearm to protect their house would probably just find a way to skirt any kind of insurance if they could not pay it just like they do with car insurance.  Then there is the possibility that adding extra costs would just increase the lucrative black market or incentives for criminals to try and get their hands on them...I'm not sure that would decrease the gun violence at all.  It may help the 3D printer sales though...
    Using gun parts not listed on the policy would void the insurance policy. Have 2 barrels for 1 gun? They would all be listed in the policy.

     As for the cost - how is this any different than today? Do you consider the purchase cost of the gun or ammunition to be a tax as well? Guns are already only a 'right' for people who can afford them.

     Incidentally, this is where I feel the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment breaks with the rest of the Constitution. All the Amendments are endowed by 'their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'. I can step out of the womb with the right to free speech, privacy, vote, etc; with no accessories needed. I don't need to go out an purchase or acquire anything to exercise my rights.

     With the exception of 2A - for some reason that is the only 'right' people can exercise if they can afford it. All men are created equal, as long as they can afford to buy a gun.

     Perhaps the government could subsidize gun ownership for people who qualify. They would offer funds to purchase arms, training, maybe even a uniform. A sort of well-regulated militia, if you will....
    I get what you are saying about the insurance, but it is just not something that could be realistically done.  Technically, all a gun barrel is...is a metal pipe.  You would have to start by broadly changing the definition of a firearm to include pipes that could potentially pass a bullet through them.  There is no possible way that an insurance policy could get a list of all metal pipes a person owns, let alone all of the other components on a firearm.  So let's say then that you are actually able to get records on a lower receiver...and someone steals it and destroys any traceability on that receiver and sticks their own unregistered "metal pipe" on it...how are you going to trace any ballistic information back to the previous owner?  I appreciate your outside-the-box thinking, but it is just simply another unrealistic approach to curbing gun violence by someone that obviously knows fairly little about firearms themselves.  One could say "let's just make firearms disappear and then there would be no guns to hurt people"...While true, how exactly would that happen?  That may be an exaggeration, but you get my point?  Mitigating the factors that effect gun violence is a better approach in my opinion.  Reducing the mental health stigmas so people will get help without strings attached, cleaning up metropolitan gang-ridden areas, providing better education are areas that need to be cleaned up well before any realistic "change you can believe in" could happen.  
    "So let's say then that you are actually able to get records on a lower receiver...and someone steals it and destroys any traceability on that receiver and sticks their own unregistered "metal pipe" on it...how are you going to trace any ballistic information back to the previous owner?"

    This would be the exception, rather than the rule. As much as I hate the car analogy - how do they identify stolen cars with the serial numbers scratched off? For starters, the red VW hatchback was reported missing by the owner. It doesn't magically transform into a blue Ford conversion van after you change the tires on it.

    Second, liability insurance would encourage safer gun ownership. Your gun got stolen? Congratulations - you are no longer a responsible gun owner and your premiums are going up. Use a gun safe.

    "Reducing the mental health stigmas so people will get help without strings attached, cleaning up metropolitan gang-ridden areas, providing better education"

     These are all good solutions to mental health, gang violence and education. However, it does not directly address the gun problem. Any decrease in gun violence instituting these programs certainly would be a welcome side effect. First and foremost, let's provide mental health services because they need it; not as a solution to gun violence.

     I am curious as to your opinion regarding 2A as the only amendment that can not be exercised by the individual without the burden of having purchase or acquire a physical object.
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I think better registration is a good place to start.
    What would gun insurance do?
    It acknowledges the actual societal cost of gun ownership:

    The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

    You would need it to buy a gun, and the policy would have to include liability coverage in case that gun injures someone. If a gun owner has no accidents, his premiums go down. Someone who wants to "open carry" his weapon would pay more than someone who keeps it locked at home. Assault weapons would be more expensive to insure than hunting rifles because they they have a greater capacity to do harm. 

    Because money is always a great motivator, one immediate benefit of insuring guns is that it would change the behavior of some less than vigilant gun owners. People who leave loaded guns in the bedside table or in the glove compartment might reconsider that habit, since they are on the hook for a sizable deductible if someone gets hold of their gun and hurts someone else. Insurance companies would no doubt give policy discounts for gun owners who buy trigger locks or gun safes. Premiums would reflect the gun owners’ risk factors, like arrest and psychiatric histories. The more guns you own, the more it will cost.

    The insurance companies will do a lot of the archiving of ballistic information we don’t allow police to do. Insurance companies would want ballistic signatures from every gun they insure. They would need it to verify, in the event a claim is filed, that it was indeed the gun they insure that caused the damage. While it is hardly a substitute for a national ballistics registry that would allow investigators to trace the gun that fired any bullet they recovered, police could subpoena ballistics information from insurance companies, helping in investigations and prosecutions, without ever having to build their own database.
    I see a couple issues with this:
    The whole "ballistics signature" idea just would not work.  I don't want to get too technical, but much of it comes down to "what is a gun".  Is a barrel a gun, is a lower/receiver by itself a gun?  The thing about firearms is that they are like legos to the extent that most every part (including the barrel) is interchangeable in most firearms.  Many of the barrels are custom made by the owner themselves.  Not due to decisiveness, but mostly for better performance.  It would impossible to keep accurate ballistic information for any firearm after the original sale at your local Academy Sports.  
    Secondly, who is this extra tax (let's call it what it is) going to impact the most?  It would be an annoyance to hunters and hobbyists, but low income people are always the ones that are most effected by costly insurance.  A person living in poverty that has one firearm to protect their house would probably just find a way to skirt any kind of insurance if they could not pay it just like they do with car insurance.  Then there is the possibility that adding extra costs would just increase the lucrative black market or incentives for criminals to try and get their hands on them...I'm not sure that would decrease the gun violence at all.  It may help the 3D printer sales though...
    Using gun parts not listed on the policy would void the insurance policy. Have 2 barrels for 1 gun? They would all be listed in the policy.

     As for the cost - how is this any different than today? Do you consider the purchase cost of the gun or ammunition to be a tax as well? Guns are already only a 'right' for people who can afford them.

     Incidentally, this is where I feel the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment breaks with the rest of the Constitution. All the Amendments are endowed by 'their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'. I can step out of the womb with the right to free speech, privacy, vote, etc; with no accessories needed. I don't need to go out an purchase or acquire anything to exercise my rights.

     With the exception of 2A - for some reason that is the only 'right' people can exercise if they can afford it. All men are created equal, as long as they can afford to buy a gun.

     Perhaps the government could subsidize gun ownership for people who qualify. They would offer funds to purchase arms, training, maybe even a uniform. A sort of well-regulated militia, if you will....
    I get what you are saying about the insurance, but it is just not something that could be realistically done.  Technically, all a gun barrel is...is a metal pipe.  You would have to start by broadly changing the definition of a firearm to include pipes that could potentially pass a bullet through them.  There is no possible way that an insurance policy could get a list of all metal pipes a person owns, let alone all of the other components on a firearm.  So let's say then that you are actually able to get records on a lower receiver...and someone steals it and destroys any traceability on that receiver and sticks their own unregistered "metal pipe" on it...how are you going to trace any ballistic information back to the previous owner?  I appreciate your outside-the-box thinking, but it is just simply another unrealistic approach to curbing gun violence by someone that obviously knows fairly little about firearms themselves.  One could say "let's just make firearms disappear and then there would be no guns to hurt people"...While true, how exactly would that happen?  That may be an exaggeration, but you get my point?  Mitigating the factors that effect gun violence is a better approach in my opinion.  Reducing the mental health stigmas so people will get help without strings attached, cleaning up metropolitan gang-ridden areas, providing better education are areas that need to be cleaned up well before any realistic "change you can believe in" could happen.  
    Sorry, but this post is flat out ridiculous.
    You're suggesting that a system of firearm insurance is impossible to conceive because a pipe can be a gun barrel, but solving the biggest, most complicated problems in our society (problems which have persisted throughout the whole of human civilization) is easier?

    Your last little attempt at a jab betrays your motivation, the pattern in your posts is unmistakable, you oppose everything you perceive to originate with liberals without an attempt at an unbiased appraisal.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    Are there actually people who don't call the police after their firearm has been stolen? Why would they do this?  Are they hiding something?
    i mean I don't be check my firearms for sometimes months at a time, maybe they just didn't notice it was missing?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    mcgruff10 said:
    Are there actually people who don't call the police after their firearm has been stolen? Why would they do this?  Are they hiding something?
    i mean I don't be check my firearms for sometimes months at a time, maybe they just didn't notice it was missing?
    Pretty common, gun in the closet, one day it isn't there because a teenager stole it and sold it.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo Face Posts: 6,499
    As much as I love your car analogy, you are most definitely comparing apples and oranges. It would be more like being able to convert it to a ford van if you switched out the barrel or upper receiver in its entirety.  And remember, upper receivers are not considered "guns" by any legal standard.  
    As far as the 2nd amendment being about acquiring or buying something...I think it is a moot point...and I would like to mention that the 5th Ammendment might have something to say to your contrary.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    The 5th?
    Nice deflecting!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mcgruff10 said:
    Are there actually people who don't call the police after their firearm has been stolen? Why would they do this?  Are they hiding something?
    i mean I don't be check my firearms for sometimes months at a time, maybe they just didn't notice it was missing?
    Responsible gun owners until they're not are part of the problem. Yea, responsible gun owners don't report them stolen or even remember the last place they possessed it.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    rgambs said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Are there actually people who don't call the police after their firearm has been stolen? Why would they do this?  Are they hiding something?
    i mean I don't be check my firearms for sometimes months at a time, maybe they just didn't notice it was missing?
    Pretty common, gun in the closet, one day it isn't there because a teenager stole it and sold it.
    So what are some of the reasons that they don't call the police?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    mcgruff10 said:
    rgambs said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Are there actually people who don't call the police after their firearm has been stolen? Why would they do this?  Are they hiding something?
    i mean I don't be check my firearms for sometimes months at a time, maybe they just didn't notice it was missing?
    Pretty common, gun in the closet, one day it isn't there because a teenager stole it and sold it.
    So what are some of the reasons that they don't call the police?
    Why bother?  It's not like there's any sort of likelihood of consequences.
    In many cases I'm sure people don't even know when it was stolen.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    CM189191 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I think better registration is a good place to start.
    What would gun insurance do?
    It acknowledges the actual societal cost of gun ownership:

    The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

    You would need it to buy a gun, and the policy would have to include liability coverage in case that gun injures someone. If a gun owner has no accidents, his premiums go down. Someone who wants to "open carry" his weapon would pay more than someone who keeps it locked at home. Assault weapons would be more expensive to insure than hunting rifles because they they have a greater capacity to do harm. 

    Because money is always a great motivator, one immediate benefit of insuring guns is that it would change the behavior of some less than vigilant gun owners. People who leave loaded guns in the bedside table or in the glove compartment might reconsider that habit, since they are on the hook for a sizable deductible if someone gets hold of their gun and hurts someone else. Insurance companies would no doubt give policy discounts for gun owners who buy trigger locks or gun safes. Premiums would reflect the gun owners’ risk factors, like arrest and psychiatric histories. The more guns you own, the more it will cost.

    The insurance companies will do a lot of the archiving of ballistic information we don’t allow police to do. Insurance companies would want ballistic signatures from every gun they insure. They would need it to verify, in the event a claim is filed, that it was indeed the gun they insure that caused the damage. While it is hardly a substitute for a national ballistics registry that would allow investigators to trace the gun that fired any bullet they recovered, police could subpoena ballistics information from insurance companies, helping in investigations and prosecutions, without ever having to build their own database.
    I see a couple issues with this:
    The whole "ballistics signature" idea just would not work.  I don't want to get too technical, but much of it comes down to "what is a gun".  Is a barrel a gun, is a lower/receiver by itself a gun?  The thing about firearms is that they are like legos to the extent that most every part (including the barrel) is interchangeable in most firearms.  Many of the barrels are custom made by the owner themselves.  Not due to decisiveness, but mostly for better performance.  It would impossible to keep accurate ballistic information for any firearm after the original sale at your local Academy Sports.  
    Secondly, who is this extra tax (let's call it what it is) going to impact the most?  It would be an annoyance to hunters and hobbyists, but low income people are always the ones that are most effected by costly insurance.  A person living in poverty that has one firearm to protect their house would probably just find a way to skirt any kind of insurance if they could not pay it just like they do with car insurance.  Then there is the possibility that adding extra costs would just increase the lucrative black market or incentives for criminals to try and get their hands on them...I'm not sure that would decrease the gun violence at all.  It may help the 3D printer sales though...
    Using gun parts not listed on the policy would void the insurance policy. Have 2 barrels for 1 gun? They would all be listed in the policy.

     As for the cost - how is this any different than today? Do you consider the purchase cost of the gun or ammunition to be a tax as well? Guns are already only a 'right' for people who can afford them.

     Incidentally, this is where I feel the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment breaks with the rest of the Constitution. All the Amendments are endowed by 'their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'. I can step out of the womb with the right to free speech, privacy, vote, etc; with no accessories needed. I don't need to go out an purchase or acquire anything to exercise my rights.

     With the exception of 2A - for some reason that is the only 'right' people can exercise if they can afford it. All men are created equal, as long as they can afford to buy a gun.

     Perhaps the government could subsidize gun ownership for people who qualify. They would offer funds to purchase arms, training, maybe even a uniform. A sort of well-regulated militia, if you will....
    I get what you are saying about the insurance, but it is just not something that could be realistically done.  Technically, all a gun barrel is...is a metal pipe.  You would have to start by broadly changing the definition of a firearm to include pipes that could potentially pass a bullet through them.  There is no possible way that an insurance policy could get a list of all metal pipes a person owns, let alone all of the other components on a firearm.  So let's say then that you are actually able to get records on a lower receiver...and someone steals it and destroys any traceability on that receiver and sticks their own unregistered "metal pipe" on it...how are you going to trace any ballistic information back to the previous owner?  I appreciate your outside-the-box thinking, but it is just simply another unrealistic approach to curbing gun violence by someone that obviously knows fairly little about firearms themselves.  One could say "let's just make firearms disappear and then there would be no guns to hurt people"...While true, how exactly would that happen?  That may be an exaggeration, but you get my point?  Mitigating the factors that effect gun violence is a better approach in my opinion.  Reducing the mental health stigmas so people will get help without strings attached, cleaning up metropolitan gang-ridden areas, providing better education are areas that need to be cleaned up well before any realistic "change you can believe in" could happen.  
    Better access to mental health treatment would be a wonderful thing for many reasons, but it would have a very minor impact on gun violence (separate from suicides), because mental illness has very little involvement with gun violence.  

    Tighter monitoring on how and to whom guns are sold and stored, and expecting people to be responsible enough to maintain that "right", would have a much larger impact. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    rgambs said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    rgambs said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Are there actually people who don't call the police after their firearm has been stolen? Why would they do this?  Are they hiding something?
    i mean I don't be check my firearms for sometimes months at a time, maybe they just didn't notice it was missing?
    Pretty common, gun in the closet, one day it isn't there because a teenager stole it and sold it.
    So what are some of the reasons that they don't call the police?
    Why bother?  It's not like there's any sort of likelihood of consequences.
    In many cases I'm sure people don't even know when it was stolen.
    Being responsible?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,588
    rgambs said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    Are there actually people who don't call the police after their firearm has been stolen? Why would they do this?  Are they hiding something?
    i mean I don't be check my firearms for sometimes months at a time, maybe they just didn't notice it was missing?
    Pretty common, gun in the closet, one day it isn't there because a teenager stole it and sold it.
    Having worked closely with criminals for many years, once they knew someone had a gun in their house, that house had way more burglary appeal. I don't think many gun owners consider this. 
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,786
    PJPOWER said:
    As much as I love your car analogy, you are most definitely comparing apples and oranges. It would be more like being able to convert it to a ford van if you switched out the barrel or upper receiver in its entirety.  And remember, upper receivers are not considered "guns" by any legal standard.  
    As far as the 2nd amendment being about acquiring or buying something...I think it is a moot point...and I would like to mention that the 5th Ammendment might have something to say to your contrary.
    We are not talking about a legal standard.  We are talking about definitions for insurance coverage.  

    Goddamm car analogy.  If you insure your car, that includes the tires, mirrors, seats, etc.  It doesn't just cover the engine.

    The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings.  In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination.  It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.  

    I am not required to purchase or acquire any physical possessions in order to exercise my 5th Amendment rights.  
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo Face Posts: 6,499
    CM189191 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    As much as I love your car analogy, you are most definitely comparing apples and oranges. It would be more like being able to convert it to a ford van if you switched out the barrel or upper receiver in its entirety.  And remember, upper receivers are not considered "guns" by any legal standard.  
    As far as the 2nd amendment being about acquiring or buying something...I think it is a moot point...and I would like to mention that the 5th Ammendment might have something to say to your contrary.
    We are not talking about a legal standard.  We are talking about definitions for insurance coverage.  

    Goddamm car analogy.  If you insure your car, that includes the tires, mirrors, seats, etc.  It doesn't just cover the engine.

    The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings.  In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination.  It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.  

    I am not required to purchase or acquire any physical possessions in order to exercise my 5th Amendment rights.  
    I still think it is a moot point...and you asked for my opinion.
This discussion has been closed.