Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[martybegan]

The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.

Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now against selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.

The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.

Oh okay; "it's wrong".

Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place. If you want to call it punative fine. Sounds justified to me.

Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc... Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon. The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct? His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.

Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.

As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy federal prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime). The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police. At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).

I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring. The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here. Dunno.

Thanks for the thoughful and civil response. I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.

Again, thanks for the debate.

Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.

 

[kaz]

YOU dont get to decide how I exercise my rights. The government doesnt get to decide how I excercise my rights

So they will just tax your rights, and Roberts will vote with them. He has a career to think of you know...

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.

Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.

Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.

We have 300 million guns out there now, guy.

And incidents of good samaritans stopping shooting rampages are so rare they are unicorn sightings.

In fact, one website listed 9 cases where this supposedly happened, and when dissected, 7 of them involved trained law enforcement or military people.

Mass shootings, concealed carry: 9 things wrong with BuzzFeed?s article about 9 potential mass shootings that were stopped by someone with a personally owned firearm.

First of all, five of the nine “potential mass shootings” that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say “allegedly” because there’s no evidence to corroborate the guard’s claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. It’s absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.

You sound like a Zimmerman wannabe.

 

[candycorn]

I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?

The few times I've been in car wrecks (my fault once), my insurance paid to have both of our cars fixed. So because I crashed into Mr. and Ms. Jones and had insurance; they didn't have to take me to court. Allstate took care of both of us.

No court was involved.

So your scenario is that the victim of a gunshot has to deal with their recovery--which ain't cheap by the way--then hire lawyers to go after the perp who likely is in custody. And when they win; gee...the get what exactly; the street value of the beretta that was used to shoot them?

are you really trying to compare an accident resulting in a civil action (all insurance is for is so the courts are not clogged) with a criminal act against a person?

In terms of what ends up in the injured person's wallet; yes.

If we removed auto insurance the court load would go up by millions. By forcing people unconsituionally to have firearm insurance, how many court cases are we eliminating?

Not so many I suppose. I really don't know.

But lets say there is an armed robbery at Burger King one evening. The criminal shoots the clerk and gets away with a whopping $300.00. The clerk is going to be okay and the cops catch the shooter.

The shooter is in jail. The clerk is in ICU. The shooter gets 3 hots and a cot. The clerk gets $10,000 a day in medical bills and no income from Burger King since she's not working.

If you force the guy to buy insurance when he bought the gun; then you have some financial remedy for the clerk.

Now the counter argument is that the shooter isn't going to buy insurance. You're probably right when you say that. But consider what happens; it's another thing you can charge the criminal with. It's also something you can throw at whomever sold the gun to the shooter. But if the shooter "borrowed" the gun from his parents to do this, it likely will have the proper insurance.

It's not perfect but it's something.

Also, what insurance can you get that covers criminal acts performed by yourself?

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[candycorn]

Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now against selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.

The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.

Oh okay; "it's wrong".

Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place. If you want to call it punative fine. Sounds justified to me.

Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc... Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon. The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct? His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.

Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.

As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy federal prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime). The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police. At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).

I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring. The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here. Dunno.

Thanks for the thoughful and civil response. I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.

Again, thanks for the debate.

Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.

I think it falls short of that. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap. Right?

But who knows with our whacky court system. Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin. He got like 20 years. Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less... sheesh.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I'm not sure what that means.

Of course you don't...

You say that liberals don't have an answer. Your answer to gun violence? Do nothing.

So you and liberals both have something in common

Wrong, we do have a plan. Its called keeping criminals locked up in prison and the mentally insane locked up in mental hospitals.

Its something this country used to do, which is why mass murders were non-existant. Now-a-days criminals get second chances, let loose on paroll, and mentally ill are just given some pills.

You're working on a fallacy. They don't really lock people up, anyone, and throw away the key.

 

[jon_berzerk]

[

Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".

Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.

But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.

Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.

WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.

WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis

his was used

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements.

What policies are those, guy?

You guys have been pushing austerity and cutting taxes for rich people as the key to getting more jobs for 30 years now.

So where are the ******* jobs?

Tax the rich, use that money to build roads and bridges and schools and guess what, we'll have jobs. Dump these idiotic trade treaties that enable the world's worst regimes at the expense of the American worker.

But let's be honest, the 1%ers don't want that. The closest they got full employment was under Clinton. They had to pay a little more in taxes, but they were making record profits! They just had to pay the wage slaves a little more.

What? Pay the Wage Slaves? **** that. Impeach that ****** bringing us prosperity and peace!!! He lied about a BLOW JOB!!!!

Nice to see you idiots have your priorities.

(Full disclosure, in 1999, I was one of these idiots screaming to impeach Clinton. Now I wish we had him back.)

Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.

 

[JoeB131]

The crazy people would get thier guns, just like crack addicts get thier crack.

If they had years of documented mental problems, someone should have had them mentally adjuicated. Its the failure of the State and the mental health system, and you want to punish the people for it.

Same old same old Joe.

Uh, sorry, I don't see not letting you have something you don't need to be a punishment.

You don't need a gun, and nothing good comes of you having one. your little meltdowns you have here on a daily basis already tell me that you are unsuitable to have one.

Point was, every one of those guys were mentally unstable, everyone in their lives knew it, and someone sold them a gun anyway.

Oh, and I've already stated my solution.

Gun Sellers and Manufacturers being held CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY liable for the damage done by their products.

Guess what, the first time Smith and Wesson has to pay out an 8 figure settlement will be the day they bend over backwards to make sure that a crazy person doesn't get their products.

YOU dont get to decide how I exercise my rights. The government doesnt get to decide how I excercise my rights. Only the people, when 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the states agree get to decide my rights (not even then).

Your solution is unconsitutional, and you sir are a ******* asshole.

**** the Constitution.

Scalia gets replaced by a non-asshole. Then the Second Amendment is about Militias.

You lose.

But, shit, we don't even have to wait for that.

Just repeal the law that immunizes gun sellers from the carnage their product causes.

Betcha they won't be so keen on your "rights" after theyve paid out 8 figures to the family of toddler shot at a pre-school.

 

[martybegan]

Oh okay; "it's wrong".

Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place. If you want to call it punative fine. Sounds justified to me.

Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc... Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon. The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct? His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.

Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.

As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy federal prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime). The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police. At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).

I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring. The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here. Dunno.

Thanks for the thoughful and civil response. I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.

Again, thanks for the debate.

Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.

I think it falls short of that. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap. Right?

But who knows with our whacky court system. Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin. He got like 20 years. Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less... sheesh.

If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.

If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?

Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.

What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?

EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.

EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.

EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.

We aren't doing it right.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.

I think it falls short of that. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap. Right?

But who knows with our whacky court system. Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin. He got like 20 years. Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less... sheesh.

If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.

If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?

Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?

that is exactly what the Saturday night special lawss did

it prevented the poor namely the black poor from buying affordable self protection

 

[martybegan]

Uh, sorry, I don't see not letting you have something you don't need to be a punishment.

You don't need a gun, and nothing good comes of you having one. your little meltdowns you have here on a daily basis already tell me that you are unsuitable to have one.

Point was, every one of those guys were mentally unstable, everyone in their lives knew it, and someone sold them a gun anyway.

Oh, and I've already stated my solution.

Gun Sellers and Manufacturers being held CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY liable for the damage done by their products.

Guess what, the first time Smith and Wesson has to pay out an 8 figure settlement will be the day they bend over backwards to make sure that a crazy person doesn't get their products.

YOU dont get to decide how I exercise my rights. The government doesnt get to decide how I excercise my rights. Only the people, when 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the states agree get to decide my rights (not even then).

Your solution is unconsitutional, and you sir are a ******* asshole.

**** the Constitution.

Scalia gets replaced by a non-asshole. Then the Second Amendment is about Militias.

You lose.

But, shit, we don't even have to wait for that.

Just repeal the law that immunizes gun sellers from the carnage their product causes.

Betcha they won't be so keen on your "rights" after theyve paid out 8 figures to the family of toddler shot at a pre-school.

Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.

If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?

Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?

If rich people were being killed by gun violence, we'd see gun control really quick.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[

Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.

What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?

Well, don't we? LMAOROFL

 

[JoeB131]

[

Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.

The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden". Everyone knew they caused cancer.

BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.

Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.

Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.

 

[martybegan]

[

If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.

If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?

Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?

If rich people were being killed by gun violence, we'd see gun control really quick.

The poor people being killed are either criminals themselves, or poor people in bad areas, most of which have stirct gun control laws. Keep being stupid.

 

[martybegan]

[

Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.

The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden". Everyone knew they caused cancer.

BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.

Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.

Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.

Rights are not up for popular vote, we've been through this before asshole.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[

Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.

The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden". Everyone knew they caused cancer.

BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.

Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.

Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.

Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. They wouldn't do anything to help keep the poor in perpetual states of poverty. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements. But in Joe's imaginary world, the rich are responsible for poverty and are the ones who should be punished for it.

He'd have a great time at Disneyland!