OT: Chaos

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 11, 2013 - 8:43pm.

KIBU wrote:
More shootings and death in Santa Monica, close to the college:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tw...

It seems like everyday, there are plenty of the so called "isolated" deaths by guns all over the cuountry.

KIBU: Again, a red herring. There are thousands of gun deaths around the country. I never disputed that. My point was specific to mass killings, and a specific rebuttal to your assertion that mass killings were commonplace. Which, they are not.

Let's try this another way, since you clearly skipped your Logic 101 course in undergrad.

What do you favor as the answer to this intractable problem?

A complete ban on all firearms?

A partial ban on some firearms?

Some specific limits?

Instead of being sarcastic, and without a plan, how's about you take a stand and tell us your SPECIFIC PLAN WITH DETAILS.

You up for that? Or, are you simply content to spew bullshit talking points without actually addressing a problem you clearly feel so strongly about?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 11, 2013 - 9:20pm.

ocrenter wrote:

No one is looking at removal of guns, simply better and more effective restrictions in place. I dont think that is unconstitutional.

OCR: Sake of argument, what sort of restrictions would you propose? Who would implement them? Who would enforce them?

I'm being genuinely serious here. With a poster like KIBU, one is confronted with "argument" that's long on propaganda, but utterly devoid of any meaningful proposals on how to solve the problem.

So, I'm curious to hear what you think.

Submitted by ocrenter on June 11, 2013 - 10:01pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
ocrenter wrote:

No one is looking at removal of guns, simply better and more effective restrictions in place. I dont think that is unconstitutional.

OCR: Sake of argument, what sort of restrictions would you propose? Who would implement them? Who would enforce them?

I'm being genuinely serious here. With a poster like KIBU, one is confronted with "argument" that's long on propaganda, but utterly devoid of any meaningful proposals on how to solve the problem.

So, I'm curious to hear what you think.

#1. Mandated gun liability insurance.
#2. Mandatory registration of all guns.
#3. Background check on all purchases of guns and ammo.
#4. Ban all internet sales
#5. Some type of assault weapons ban

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 11, 2013 - 10:26pm.

OCR: Thanks.

#1. Agree.
#2. Disagree. None of the gubment's business. Plus, the BATF Form 4473 establishes, under threat of perjury and criminal penalty, that one is legally fit at time of purchase.
#3. Agree, with the caveat that all records are destroyed within 90 days and there is no federal registry.
#4. Agree.
#5. Gotta ask why on this. Assault weapons are responsible for a statistically small percentage of gun deaths annually. Why target this specific group/type of weapon?

Submitted by dumbrenter on June 11, 2013 - 10:38pm.

We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on June 11, 2013 - 11:07pm.

dumbrenter wrote:
We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.

OH Oh... and parenting... Parenting too...

I think more lives have been screwed up from bad parents than any other single items so lets throw them into the arguement as well...

CE

Submitted by ocrenter on June 12, 2013 - 6:24am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
OCR: Thanks.

#1. Agree.
#2. Disagree. None of the gubment's business. Plus, the BATF Form 4473 establishes, under threat of perjury and criminal penalty, that one is legally fit at time of purchase.
#3. Agree, with the caveat that all records are destroyed within 90 days and there is no federal registry.
#4. Agree.
#5. Gotta ask why on this. Assault weapons are responsible for a statistically small percentage of gun deaths annually. Why target this specific group/type of weapon?

#2. This is so the firearms are traceable. Someone can be a front, clears the background checks, then hands the gun to someone else. Also, without a registration, how can you mandate the liability insurance.

#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?

Submitted by dumbrenter on June 12, 2013 - 7:13am.

CDMA ENG wrote:
dumbrenter wrote:
We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.

OH Oh... and parenting... Parenting too...

I think more lives have been screwed up from bad parents than any other single items so lets throw them into the arguement as well...

CE

Parents! how could I have forgotten the biggest item for mandatory registration?
Thanks for pointing it out.
Every parent should get a license from government before having kids since these kids turn out to be future users of the future banned weapons.
What good will all these guns be if nobody is around to shoot them?

Submitted by ocrenter on June 12, 2013 - 7:42am.

dumbrenter wrote:
We should have mandatory registration of all knives over 4 inches long, clubs, baseball bats and dog owners.
Any dog owner letting their dog off the leash in a public area should prosecuted by a government appointed panel.

GLad you brought up dogs. All dogs are mandated to be registered. If caught having an unlicensed dog, a fine is assessed. An unlicensed dog involved in an altercation you are now looking at charges of an at large dog and having a vicious dog. Dogs that exchange hands need to be re-licensed, and so on.

Great example dumbrenter, thanks!

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 12, 2013 - 9:15am.

Allan, as it stands right now, the law forbids the BATF form from being digitized or computerized. The gun dealer keeps the form in a manual system. BATF does not keep a copy. You can't even scan the form and keep it in searchable PDF for storage purposes.

tracing a gun is a painfully slow process that requires going back to the dealer and looking at his paper files.

As to taxes I was talking not about sales taxes but about an annual property tax.

There are plenty of ways to restrict guns and still abide by the constitution.

Submitted by NotCranky on June 12, 2013 - 9:24am.

We are registered, parents or not, and if there are kids they are registered too. That's just the SSN. Is that constitutional? What's the big deal with guns? Register them all. How are you going to have liability insurance without registration? That's a form of registration in itself and the gov. would be able to access all that. Who has died doesn't have much to do with it. We need to know who has guns and they need to jump through more damn hoops. That's obvious.

Submitted by FormerSanDiegan on June 12, 2013 - 9:57am.

We should just make killing people illegal.

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 12, 2013 - 10:15am.

Irony

Quote:
A 72-year-old grandmother who fired her .357 magnum revolver at a man allegedly trying to break into her Orange County home said Tuesday that she was trying to defend herself and her 85-year-old husband.

Meanwhile, Santa Monica College gunman had bomb materials in 2006 when Police searched due to violent threats

Yea, more laws will improve this issue.

Submitted by livinincali on June 12, 2013 - 10:48am.

ocrenter wrote:

#1. Mandated gun liability insurance.

If you put a little thought into this idea it might be the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Just think though some of these thought experiments.

1) Does a single crackhead mother of a gangbanger son who's been convicted of multiple crimes get a check for $2 million when her son gets killed?

2) Does a husband or wife get a reward of $2 million when they successfully get away with having their spouse killed.

3) Do you get a check for $100K when you accidentally get shot in the foot by your hunting buddy. Are you sure it was an accident, what if it was on purpose?

It would be good for for the insurance business. It's probably also good for your real purpose in proposing the idea. In essence you want to charge enough for people to own a weapon so they'll give up the ownership of that weapon. If I charge $2000 per year to drive a car I bet I fix a lot of the traffic problems.

Submitted by SK in CV on June 12, 2013 - 10:53am.

livinincali wrote:
ocrenter wrote:

#1. Mandated gun liability insurance.

If you put a little thought into this idea it might be the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Just think though some of these thought experiments.

1) Does a single crackhead mother of a gangbanger son who's been convicted of multiple crimes get a check for $2 million when her son gets killed?

2) Does a husband or wife get a reward of $2 million when they successfully get away with having their spouse killed.

3) Do you get a check for $100K when you accidentally get shot in the foot by your hunting buddy. Are you sure it was an accident, what if it was on purpose?

It would be good for for the insurance business. It's probably also good for your real purpose in proposing the idea. In essence you want to charge enough for people to own a weapon so they'll give up the ownership of that weapon. If I charge $2000 per year to drive a car I bet I fix a lot of the traffic problems.

I'm not sure what kind of liability insurance would pay those claims, unless there is a concurrent change to current liability laws. But is your argument really that we shouldn't require insurance because there would be insurance fraud?

Submitted by livinincali on June 12, 2013 - 11:12am.

SK in CV wrote:

I'm not sure what kind of liability insurance would pay those claims, unless there is a concurrent change to current liability laws. But is your argument really that we shouldn't require insurance because there would be insurance fraud?

What would be the requirements to get paid in a gun liability case. Does the weapon need to be recovered. Does the weapon need to have gun liability insurance on it. How many murders per year are committed by nice law abiding citizens that register their guns and pay gun liability insurance. What problems does mandatory insurance solve vs the ones it creates.

Let's take the Sandyhook case and apply what gun liability insurance would do. Presume Lanza's mother is paying her liability insurance. Does the liability insurance pay for the victims of of Sandyhook. The weapons were stolen. Lanza killed his mother at which point it's somewhat hard for her to be liable anymore. I would think the insurance company would fight pretty hard against paying off the claims and that's a pretty clean example where you've recovered the weapons and know exactly what took place.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 11:19am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

There are plenty of ways to restrict guns and still abide by the constitution.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads (second phrase): "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Out of curiosity, how do you square "plenty of ways to restrict" with "shall not be infringed"?

Submitted by spdrun on June 12, 2013 - 11:22am.

I think we need a wholesale change in gun culture and I have no idea how to accomplish that. Think about Vermont. Least strict gun laws in the nation, yet there's very little gun violence (even compared to other rural states). Difference between Vermont and many Western and Southern states is that, while they have unlimited carry, walking into a bar or restaurant while strapping would be seen as weird and unseemly unless you had a reason to go armed. The culture is reserved New England, not a bunch of wannabe "western" Midwesterners getting their rocks off.

Contrast that to rural AZ, where half the people in one diner I went into were wearing a "fashion accessory."

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 11:23am.

FormerSanDiegan wrote:
We should just make killing people illegal.

FSD: Winner. The heart of the argument rests with personal responsibility versus coercion from the Big Nanny State.

Liberty is freedom from coercion.

Submitted by SK in CV on June 12, 2013 - 11:32am.

livinincali wrote:

What would be the requirements to get paid in a gun liability case. Does the weapon need to be recovered. Does the weapon need to have gun liability insurance on it. How many murders per year are committed by nice law abiding citizens that register their guns and pay gun liability insurance. What problems does mandatory insurance solve vs the ones it creates.

Let's take the Sandyhook case and apply what gun liability insurance would do. Presume Lanza's mother is paying her liability insurance. Does the liability insurance pay for the victims of of Sandyhook. The weapons were stolen. Lanza killed his mother at which point it's somewhat hard for her to be liable anymore. I would think the insurance company would fight pretty hard against paying off the claims and that's a pretty clean example where you've recovered the weapons and know exactly what took place.

Requirements to get paid in a gun liability case? Pretty much the same as in a car liability case. If your car is stolen, no coverage (and probably no liability). If the gun is used by the insured in the commission of a crime, no coverage. If you accidentally shoot someone in the foot, there's coverage. If you intentionally shoot someone in the foot, no coverage.

Not being a gun owner, I don't know for sure, but I suspect that gun liability insurance already exists, and is probably steeped with those kinds of exclusions and requirements. Maybe more.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 11:35am.

ocrenter wrote:

#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?

OCR: So, what if we made your response above into an analogy, by replacing the phrase "excessive firepower" with the phrase "excessive horsepower"? Then we could repurpose your sentence, "Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?" to read, "Why do you need a Ferrari Enzo if the maximum speed limit (in California) is 70mph?"

Come to think of it, it doesn't even need to be a Ferrari Enzo. The latest Corvettes, Mustangs and Camaros all feature versions that are all capable of performance in excess of 150mph, which is double the maximum speed limit.

There are numerous street legal cars that possess well in excess of 500 horsepower and even from relatively staid manufacturers, like Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz. Isn't that "excessive horsepower"?

Submitted by livinincali on June 12, 2013 - 11:42am.

SK in CV wrote:

If your car is stolen, no coverage (and probably no liability). If the gun is used by the insured in the commission of a crime, no coverage.

So basically gun liability insurance never pays. These 2 stipulations pretty much exclude every instance in which somebody would make a claim. Better hurry up and mandate it be required, because clearly that would be effective.

Submitted by spdrun on June 12, 2013 - 11:49am.

If you intentionally shoot someone in the foot, no coverage.

If you shoot a burglar in the foot, he's convicted of burglary in criminal court, yet files a civil suit against you: damn right that the insurance co should pay for legal costs and damages if he manages to con a jury into awarding him.

Difference between a car and a gun is that a car isn't intended as a weapon. A gun is, but can be used for good as well as evil.

Submitted by SK in CV on June 12, 2013 - 11:53am.

livinincali wrote:
SK in CV wrote:

If your car is stolen, no coverage (and probably no liability). If the gun is used by the insured in the commission of a crime, no coverage.

So basically gun liability insurance never pays. These 2 stipulations pretty much exclude every instance in which somebody would make a claim. Better hurry up and mandate it be required, because clearly that would be effective.

Never is probably an exaggeration, but if the assertion was that gun owners should be required to have insurance covering every possible kind of damage done by a gun, then I suspect it would be pretty cost prohibitive. Standard homeowner policies and umbrella policies cover accidental gun discharge. I don't know whether they require prior disclosure or listing, I'm guessing not, at least for liability purposes. I know there is also concealed carry coverage available, though it excludes criminal acts.

Submitted by SK in CV on June 12, 2013 - 11:55am.

spdrun wrote:

If you intentionally shoot someone in the foot, no coverage.

If you shoot a burglar in the foot, he's convicted of burglary in criminal court, yet files a civil suit against you: damn right that the insurance co should pay for legal costs and damages if he manages to con a jury into awarding him.

Difference between a car and a gun is that a car isn't intended as a weapon. A gun is, but can be used for good as well as evil.

You're right. And there would be coverage. I was referring to the example given where someone intentionally shoots a friend in the foot to collect on insurance. Good catch.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 12:04pm.

spdrun wrote:

Difference between a car and a gun is that a car isn't intended as a weapon.

Huh. And yet cars are used as weapons every single day. Imagine that.

Submitted by spdrun on June 12, 2013 - 12:06pm.

I'd venture to say that a larger % of car-related injuries are accidents, whereas a larger % of injuries with guns involve an intent to wound or kill. This intent may or may not be justifiable, but it's there.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 12:12pm.

spdrun wrote:
I think we need a wholesale change in gun culture and I have no idea how to accomplish that. Think about Vermont. Least strict gun laws in the nation, yet there's very little gun violence (even compared to other rural states). Difference between Vermont and many Western and Southern states is that, while they have unlimited carry, walking into a bar or restaurant while strapping would be seen as weird and unseemly unless you had a reason to go armed. The culture is reserved New England, not a bunch of wannabe "western" Midwesterners getting their rocks off.

Contrast that to rural AZ, where half the people in one diner I went into were wearing a "fashion accessory."

Spdrun: WHY do we need a "wholesale change in gun culture"? That's like saying we need a wholesale change in America's "party culture". As long as someone is behaving responsibly (not climbing into a car drunk or shooting you at that diner with their "fashion accessory"), why do you give a shit?

This is America, and to each his (or her) own.

Completely absent from these discussions is the notion of personal responsibility. If I want to own an M2 Browning .50cal, and I meet all the legal requirements to do so, what business of it is yours, as long as I'm a responsible actor?

Jesus. We have turned into a friggin Big Nanny State.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on June 12, 2013 - 12:16pm.

spdrun wrote:
I'd venture to say that a larger % of car-related injuries are accidents, whereas a larger % of injuries with guns involve an intent to wound or kill. This intent may or may not be justifiable, but it's there.

Spdrun: Never opined as to intent. You should see how many auto-related deaths are a result of impairment due to alcohol and/or drugs and how many gun-related deaths are a result of accident or misadventure.

Might make your "venture" more correct, statistically speaking.

Submitted by spdrun on June 12, 2013 - 12:19pm.

Allan from Fallbrook - Because the problem is the culture of solving problems with guns, not the guns themselves. Many European countries have 40-50% the gun ownership rate of the US, yet the number of gun crimes is MUCH lower than 40-50% of the US level. The problem isn't the guns, it's idiots' and psychopaths' extreme willingness to use them here.

If you see a gun as something like a fire extinguisher (home protection) or a tool (hunting), then you'd be much less likely to abuse it than if you saw it as a shiny(!) new toy and extension of your manhood.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.