Does the NRA have a stupid pill problem?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 821 - 840 of total 880 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 4, 2013 - 01:54pm PT
What do you suggest happen, Mechrist?
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
So what, let me be ignorant and say;

"Like who is going to buy a gun to shoot anyone?"


So if I paid insurance, it'd stop me from wanting to shoot anyone in the face? How does that add up...

---------------------


A prosecutor can build a case off anything. That post is nothing.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
Wes,

The issue for me is one of transition. We could pass all kinds of laws making firearm ownership more restrictive, and law-abiding citizens will follow them. What about those who won't? How will that change the balance in an otherwise free society?

In a way, it's like those problems where you have a two-person canoe and a group of cannibals and missionaries that need to cross a stream. If there are more cannibals than missionaries on either shore, the missionaries become meals. How do you get them across? If at some point between our current 300,000,000 or so firearms and the desired distributions of firearms, violent criminals have a much greater percentage of the weapons in circulation than they do now, what happens?

It's that issue that leads to the slogans about criminals and guns, and it's that issue that I seldom see advocates of stricter controls address. I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion without addressing that issue.

Now your insurance point, on the other hand, is a good one, and well within existing tort reality. If I am negligent, and my negligence is the proximate cause of injury of another, I am liable. If I engage in an ultrahazardous activity, and that activity is the proximate cause of another's injury, I am liable. If firearms owners can't get insurance, or if (much more likely) any insurer starts to require certain conditions for the insurance to be in effect (e.g., that the insured meet certain educational or competency requirements, and that the firearms be stored in a locked safe, etc.) and charge a premium commensurate with the likely financial risk, this may provide the most effective means to optimize gun ownership in the U.S.

John
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:27pm PT
If I want to shoot you in the face and don't care about the consequences, why would I pay insurance?

That's not the point. You clearly aren't an idiot, so stop pretending to be one. There are plenty uninsured motorists out there who don't give a fuk. If they get busted, there are consequences. Insurance is for accidents... like if you "accidentally" leave your guns where your mentally unstable son can get them and kill dozens of innocent people... or if you "accidentally" lose a gun that is then used in a crime. Currently there is nothing in place to promote responsible gun ownership and it is left entirely up to the individual... imagine if driving had the same standards and all those guys I knew from college who "actually drive better when drunk" were allowed to do so at their discretion.
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:29pm PT
Insurance wouldn't help. You get in deep sh*t if you don't report a gun stolen, or "lost". It's your fault. You should store it safely.

Your gun vault should be your insurance.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:31pm PT
No, you don't get in deep sh#t if you don't report a gun stolen. There are places where it is illegal to even have a record of who owns guns... so how the fuk would you get in trouble for it?

YES it is YOUR fault, but OTHERS have to deal with the consequences.


"Federal law does not require individual gun owners or other lawful possessors of firearms to report the loss or theft of a firearm to law enforcement."

"Seven states and the District of Columbia require firearm owners to report the loss or theft of their firearms to law enforcement. New Jersey has also adopted a relevant law, as described below."

http://smartgunlaws.org/reporting-lost-or-stolen-firearms-policy-summary/

The NRA is actively involved in stopping ANY laws that require individual gun owners to report lost of stolen guns.
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:33pm PT
Maybe some states.

In CA, if I lose my rifle or handgun,

and for some reason the ATF comes knocking, looking for them, (Yeah right)

or my gun is found on a dead gang member, or dropped at a robbery,

they can trace the serial number back to me.


Then yes, I'd be in deep sh*t.

michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:36pm PT
I must be. Explain it to me, how paying month to month insurance would help anything in the case of a mass shooting.


Go.
jstan

climber
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:51pm PT
If firearms owners can't get insurance, or if (much more likely) any insurer starts to require certain conditions for the insurance to be in effect (e.g., that the insured meet certain educational or competency requirements, and that the firearms be stored in a locked safe, etc.) and charge a premium commensurate with the likely financial risk, this may provide the most effective means to optimize gun ownership in the U.S.

If you are not law abiding or do not have anything someone can sue you for, you won't get insurance. This condition fails the same test gun regulation fails.

As I understand it in the UK any crime committed which involved firearms, the legal penalties are much more severe. What logical test does this fail?
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
None. They should be more severe. It's a joke now days you go to prison for 3 years for having a pound of pot in TX, but in CA, you go to jail for 6 months for armed robbery.

Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jan 4, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
Just a couple thoughts...


It's about political freedom Jingy.

Not hunting.

Not defense.


This:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Hope that helps.


 Couch, you say its not for defence, yet you cite Jefferson who clearly states the right to "keep and bear arms is to protact themselves against tyranny in government".... If that is not plainly a statement that points to "defense" than I don't know what is? In order for the protection against tyranny there would have to be tyranny.... and so far only republicons are all in favor of that, but it ain't happened yet.

Another thing, "political freedom"? Really? Just parcing those words would get us to a funny place if we go by dictionary definitions, but that's yet another thing. The right to keep and bear is not a political statement, its a right (and I'm certainly not trying to take that from anyone)... just trying to get people to think about what they are doing when they hold up the "I'm gonna protect myself with my sidearm" and how it can be prooven to have no effect on the holder of the sidearm in the end.


Unless you plan on doing something the gun is useless or only helpful after the fact, after the first shots have been fired.
Hell, you might not even plan to do something and end up harming people (how many pharmicutical adds do we have to see mentioning possible side-effects of depression and anxiety before we see the connection....) there may be no control of ones brain at some point, and having a gun on hand may resuilt in unnecessary deaths.



just sayin....
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
Infinite recursion detected

kill -9 thisthread
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:10pm PT
As far as I can tell, there are no laws in the state of California that require an individual to report a gun lost or stolen. Also no requirements to register rifles or shotguns you bring from another state.

Let me know if you can find otherwise: http://oag.ca.gov/firearms
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:13pm PT
MEMEMEME said:
"I really am trying to figure out why people who love guns are so against ANY further regulation."

My response to Memememe"
Go back and read my posts. If you are still confused why I will go in depth.



When it comes down to it what is the number 1 reason we should not have stricter requirements to get guns?

A blah blah blah
B blah blah blah

blah

Refer to my first reply. I can keep repeating it. Apparently I will have too as there must be literacy issues here. Do they let you vote Mechrist?
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:14pm PT
Jingy, I was referring to self defense at the mall or grocery store kind of thing. Wonder if MEMEME will bother to read your post which indicates you could answer his question and have read what I posted.

Nice Jingy. Thanks. BTW, I didn't have any guns for @30 years till the last kid left the home, but my thoughts have remained steady on the reason for their ownership the entire time. That we do not need them for that purpose is a relief, and I hope they are never needed or used in that regard.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:22pm PT
jstan,

The argument for reducing the population of guns in America is that if there were fewer legal firearms in circulation, it would be harder for those who can only obtain them illegally. In addition, insurance and tort liability create a financial incentive for legal gun owners to store and use their weapons with optimal care.

I'm not sure the effect on the margins will be as great as I hope, but I don't see how it could hurt. If nothing else, it should make the cost of maintaining a personal arsenal more in line with the societal cost, and it doesn't require any change to existing Second Amendment jurisprudence.

John
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:23pm PT
Yeah, go back through 1300+ posts to find couchmaster's words of wisdom... the same person who uses Mexico's gun regulations to illustrate why more gun regulation in the US would never work. ha.
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:40pm PT
EXEMPLARY LOCAL LAW


Sacramento, California21


In 2007, the City of Sacramento, California joined the rising number of California localities that have enacted ordinances requiring firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms. Sacramento’s ordinance makes it unlawful for any person who owns or possesses a firearm to “knowingly or negligently” fail to report such loss or theft. The person must report this information to the Sacramento Police Department within 48 hours of when the person “knew or should have known” that the firearm was lost or stolen. This requirement applies when the owner or possessor resides in the City, or the theft or loss of the firearm occurred in the City. A violation of this requirement is a misdemeanor.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:44pm PT
insurance for guns?? right after insurance on ROPES....

speaking of "pathetic"

I have insurance both on guns from theft and also liability insurance in case I shoot someone and they or their family sue me and win

This is offered through the NRA, among other organizations

The NRA strongly supports gun owners having such insurance

most people know this, especially those that have killed or might kill a person

duh
michaeld

Sport climber
Sacramento
Jan 4, 2013 - 03:47pm PT
Will they cover your legal fees in case you shoot someone breaking into your house who poses great bodily harm and or death to you?
Messages 821 - 840 of total 880 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews