Insurance requirement for gun ownership

[MrSquished]

LOL my main position is that the most immediate and successful thing we can do to reduce gun violence is to end the war on drugs and divert money to treatment and rehabilitation instead of punishment. I was unaware that the Republican party was in support of defunding police/prisons but it seems like you are declaring I'm on their team now for no actual reason other that I don't think your solution will be very effective. Look, we can do your registration and insurance thing but don't come back surprised when it doesn't accomplish anything. Wanna accomplish something or not?

Will ending some of the war on drugs help with gun violence? Sure. But that is certainly not the main thing we can do. It should still be criminal to distribute large amounts of certain drugs. Also, why isn't there so much gun violence in many other first world countries where many drugs are still illegal? Could it be the way that regressives think guns should be sold like candy? Yes or no?

You propose absolutely nothing to stem the insane amount of guns circulating in our society. Making it so guns can't be sold like candy, so there is responsibility and tracking in the supply chain, that people can't just buy guns with the intent to sell them or anonymously, there is some responsibility with purchasing a gun, from how you store it, to making sure it doesn't get into the wrong hands, or is insured, are big steps in letting legal gun owners have their toys so they can feel like they have big dicks, while making it much harder to traffic them from backwards unevolved redneck states that cater only to the profits of the gun manufacturers and the gun lobbies.

You are part of the problem.

 

[MadRat]

Typical binary nonsense, "You are part of the problem."

Not at all reality. But people that simply repeat talking points love it.

 

[Lanyap]

Here we go... Firearms insurance and an annual tax.

San Jose Will Force Gun Owners to Cover Costs of Gun Violence After Mass Shooting

It’s a national first, just weeks after the Valley Transportation Authority mass shooting left nine dead in the Bay Area’s deadliest massacre.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[pcgeek11]

Here we go... Firearms insurance and an annual tax.

San Jose Will Force Gun Owners to Cover Costs of Gun Violence After Mass Shooting

It’s a national first, just weeks after the Valley Transportation Authority mass shooting left nine dead in the Bay Area’s deadliest massacre.

www.thedailybeast.com

Regardless of how you feel about guns and the 2nd amendment this will never pass the appeals process.

 

[Greenman]

I didn't think government could tax a constitutional right.
The insurance requirement will assure that only people with money will buy legal guns. Poor people will have to buy stolen weapons.

 

[herm0016]

I didn't think government could tax a constitutional right.
The insurance requirement will assure that only people with money will buy legal guns. Poor people will have to buy stolen weapons.

you mean more government regulations don't stop people from doing something?? i don't understand....

 

[MrSquished]

I didn't think government could tax a constitutional right.
The insurance requirement will assure that only people with money will buy legal guns. Poor people will have to buy stolen weapons.

So most poor people buy stolen cars now because of all the fees to do it legally?

Fascinating logic.

What happened to well regulated? Should their be any regulation on guns?

 

[MrSquished]

you mean more government regulations don't stop people from doing something?? i don't understand....

So we should have no regulations since they are pointless?

Or just the ones you like.

 

[MrSquished]

Conservatives really suck at critical thinking I've noticed

 

[herm0016]

So we should have no regulations since they are pointless?
Or just the ones you like.

yes, a lot of regulations are pointless and harmful to society. the war on drugs, all this bull shit voting stuff being pushed though, regulations on who can own guns, regulations that restrict zoning to keep rich people from having to deal with Poors ex: only so many unrelated people in a house, no rental properties in a certain zone, restrictions on short term rentals that may allow people to increase their net worth by having people rent a room from them, density restrictions, restrictions on accessory dwelling units. building permit costs designed to restrict property improvements to rich people …. I can go on and on and on. . . do you want to start listing racist regulations like those minimum sentencing laws on crack vs coke?

stolen guns is a bad analogy.
driving without insurance is good though though.

As the cost of insurance has risen, more people already with cars stop paying, and the cost continues to rise because of it.

looking up some stats.
san jose has about 1 million people and 1 of 7 people in CA own a gun according to UC davis.
so 143 0000 of those residents may own a gun.
CA says gun violence costs them 1.5 billion. 39million people in CA
so it ends up 38 million dollars per million people in cost. that will work for this, but I would guess maybe 80% of that cost occurs in the urban centers.
..... math.....
265 dollars per gun owner. that's actually a lot lower than I thought it would be. Say half of people actually comply and you have ~ 550 per complying gun owner per year. plus some profit margin and risk factor applied by a private company.

someone check my math??

I still disagree with a person having to buy something from a private company to exercise a constitutional right. should I have to buy insurance from a private company to vote/ have free speech/ be part of a religion/ not quarter troops in my home/ expect a fair and timely trial if suspected of a crime/ etc.?

I propose a different solution:

consider a mill levy on property taxes specifically for gun violence cost/prevention if a city votes on it in the normal way.
that's how democracy works. That's why i'm moving to a property 5 times as big and going to pay half the taxes and insurance at the new place vs the old place that are roughly equivalent in value.

 

[MrSquished]

yes, a lot of regulations are pointless and harmful to society. the war on drugs, all this bull shit voting stuff being pushed though, regulations on who can own guns, regulations that restrict zoning to keep rich people from having to deal with Poors ex: only so many unrelated people in a house, no rental properties in a certain zone, restrictions on short term rentals that may allow people to increase their net worth by having people rent a room from them, density restrictions, restrictions on accessory dwelling units. building permit costs designed to restrict property improvements to rich people …. I can go on and on and on. . . do you want to start listing racist regulations like those minimum sentencing laws on crack vs coke?

stolen guns is a bad analogy.
driving without insurance is good though though.

As the cost of insurance has risen, more people already with cars stop paying, and the cost continues to rise because of it.

looking up some stats.
san jose has about 1 million people and 1 of 7 people in CA own a gun according to UC davis.
so 143 0000 of those residents may own a gun.
CA says gun violence costs them 1.5 billion. 39million people in CA
so it ends up 38 million dollars per million people in cost. that will work for this, but I would guess maybe 80% of that cost occurs in the urban centers.
..... math.....
265 dollars per gun owner. that's actually a lot lower than I thought it would be. Say half of people actually comply and you have ~ 550 per complying gun owner per year. plus some profit margin and risk factor applied by a private company.

someone check my math??

I still disagree with a person having to buy something from a private company to exercise a constitutional right. should I have to buy insurance from a private company to vote/ have free speech/ be part of a religion/ not quarter troops in my home/ expect a fair and timely trial if suspected of a crime/ etc.?

I propose a different solution:

consider a mill levy on property taxes specifically for gun violence cost/prevention if a city votes on it in the normal way.
that's how democracy works. That's why i'm moving to a property 5 times as big and going to pay half the taxes and insurance at the new place vs the old place that are roughly equivalent in value.

I was just wondering if any government rules and laws were ok with you, or just ones you disagree with, since your point was a general statement like, well, people don't listen to rules anyway.

It seems folks that love guns being sold like candy have conveniently forgotten that the 2nd amendment contains the context of guns being a right in the context of a WELL-REGULATED militia. Seems like a very convenient thing to forget. They also forget the constitution was written and it codified slavery, sexism and classism in it in horrible ways. It was also 250 years ago. The times are a changing.

 

[herm0016]

how about addressing my proposed solution, or my math or something instead of parroting the same old lines.

how about the same question to you, do you only like the laws you agree with? its a false question. of course I don't like the things i disagree with, if i agreed with them, i would like them. duh? seems like that's the only way to answer that question if you hold any opinions on anything.

real questions:
do you agree that any law the government makes is just? No, I don't believe that all laws/regulations are just.
do you support the government having some laws to regulate guns? yes. minimally.
do you support the government having laws at all? yes, absolutely.
do you support the government having a way to enforce those laws: yes.

I was just wondering if any government rules and laws were ok with you, or just ones you disagree with, since your point was a general statement like, well, people don't listen to rules anyway.

It seems folks that love guns being sold like candy have conveniently forgotten that the 2nd amendment contains the context of guns being a right in the context of a WELL-REGULATED militia. Seems like a very convenient thing to forget. They also forget the constitution was written and it codified slavery, sexism and classism in it in horrible ways. It was also 250 years ago. The times are a changing.

yep, and those things were changed through the process laid out in the constitution. if you want to get rid of the 2nd, do that, make an amendment, get it ratified. that's how this works.

 

[MrSquished]

how about addressing my proposed solution, or my math or something instead of parroting the same old lines.

how about the same question to you, do you only like the laws you agree with? its a false question. of course I don't like the things i disagree with, if i agreed with them, i would like them. duh? seems like that's the only way to answer that question if you hold any opinions on anything.

real questions:
do you agree that any law the government makes is just? No, I don't believe that all laws/regulations are just.
do you support the government having some laws to regulate guns? yes. minimally.
do you support the government having laws at all? yes, absolutely.
do you support the government having a way to enforce those laws: yes.



yep, and those things were changed through the process laid out in the constitution. if you want to get rid of the 2nd, do that, make an amendment, get it ratified. that's how this works.

I haven't even broached getting rid of the 2nd amendment, I'm still trying to get gun nuts to understand the one that already exists. Unfortunately most of them want guns to be just slightly harder to buy than a snickers bar. They are also proud of America's leading role in gun violence among all first world countries. It's a tough mentality to deal with.

 

[pcgeek11]

So most poor people buy stolen cars now because of all the fees to do it legally?

Fascinating logic.

What happened to well regulated? Should their be any regulation on guns?

Apples and oranges.

Owning a car is a privilege.
Owning a gun is a right.

That being said I do agree with honest and meaningful gun regulations such as extensive background investigations and training.

I do not agree with rules that make gun ownership available to only people with enough money to afford extreme charges for insurance and fees.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Apples and oranges.

Owning a car is a privilege.
Owning a gun is a right.

That being said I do agree with honest and meaningful gun regulations such as extensive background investigations and training.

I do not agree with rules that make gun ownership available to only people with enough money to afford extreme charges for insurance and fees.

Generally yes, but I also added earlier that it seems that the assumption is insurance would be very costly. Do we have any numbers to look at ?

 

[pcgeek11]

Generally yes, but I also added earlier that it seems that the assumption is insurance would be very costly. Do we have any numbers to look at ?

As long as it is reasonable I would be fine with it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

As long as it is reasonable I would be fine with it.

If it worked like insurance now, would probably vary by state, risk, and incidents on your record. So who knows, could be less costly is states with low gun deaths per Capita. Which could encourage some of those items like background checks and training, pushed from voters instead. Or may not, who knows rn.

 

[MrSquished]

Apples and oranges.

Owning a car is a privilege.
Owning a gun is a right.

That being said I do agree with honest and meaningful gun regulations such as extensive background investigations and training.

I do not agree with rules that make gun ownership available to only people with enough money to afford extreme charges for insurance and fees.

Who said extreme charges? The dollar amounts haven't even been discussed but you automatically label them extreme. Just propaganda.

No it's not apples and oranges. You are saying any financial obstacle to owning a gun will prevent poor people to own them. A car is a good example and in fact necessary for many people to function on the daily. And cars require far more maintenance to run so yes, some poor people don't have them, they are constant upkeep.

 

[pcgeek11]

Who said extreme charges? The dollar amounts haven't even been discussed but you automatically label them extreme. Just propaganda.

No it's not apples and oranges. You are saying any financial obstacle to owning a gun will prevent poor people to own them. A car is a good example and in fact necessary for many people to function on the daily. And cars require far more maintenance to run so yes, some poor people don't have them, they are constant upkeep.

No, I didn't label them anything. I only stated that I would be against extreme charges. Such as the suggestion some have made to Tax Bullets to the point of being unaffordable as a workaround to the 2nd amendment.

I also see you don't know the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

 

[pcgeek11]

If it worked like insurance now, would probably vary by state, risk, and incidents on your record. So who knows, could be less costly is states with low gun deaths per Capita. Which could encourage some of those items like background checks and training, pushed from voters instead. Or may not, who knows rn.

I agree with you as strange as that seems.

 

[cytg111]

Isn't gunpowder not technically an explosive? It doesn't actually detonate. Is my gasoline car propelled by explosives?

Yes? The sterling construction is a clever way of harnessing all the momentum/energy from the reaction mass of that explosion.

 

[SMOGZINN]

yes, a lot of regulations are pointless and harmful to society.

Yes, but as you point out in a different post just because it is a regulation does not mean it is harmful to society. So the argument against gun regulations because 'only law abiding people obey the law' is bunk. Obviously we have laws because they work. Maybe not always, and maybe they can have unintended consequences, but then we make adjustments. We do not have to solve this problem in one go.

someone check my math??

The problem with the math is that, IIRC, the stats show that if a person owns a gun, they on average own three. So the question is do you insure the owner, or the gun? If the gun, then we need to adjust that number by the number of guns owned, if the person then the number of guns must certainly increase the insurance cost.

I still disagree with a person having to buy something from a private company to exercise a constitutional right.

I agree with this part. How about we instead make it a federal insurance, like flood insurance which is done through FEMA.

consider a mill levy on property taxes specifically for gun violence cost/prevention if a city votes on it in the normal way.
that's how democracy works. That's why i'm moving to a property 5 times as big and going to pay half the taxes and insurance at the new place vs the old place that are roughly equivalent in value.

That sort of thing is already a part of city budgets, so in essence you already have that tax. I think the idea behind gun insurance is to find ways to make individuals more responsible for owning guns, especially in regards to securing them appropriately. After having thought about this idea for awhile I'm not sure it would work, but I am for trying things. The worst thing we can do is nothing.

 

[woolfe9998]

Story today about a Chicago police officer, a young woman, gunned down by two brothers.

Brothers charged in connection with weekend shooting of 2 Chicago officers are denied bail | CNN

Prosecutors on Tuesday outlined the cases against two brothers charged in connection with the slaying of a Chicago police officer and the shooting of her partner after a traffic stop Saturday night.

www.cnn.com

The part of the story which is relevant here:

The Department of Justice has charged Jamel Danzy, 29, of Indiana, with conducting a straw purchase to obtain the semi-automatic handgun used in Saturday's shooting, according to a news release from the department. Danzy bought the gun in Hammond, Indiana, from a federal firearms dealer in March and is accused of "knowingly making a false written statement to acquire a firearm," according to the criminal complaint filed in the US District Court in Chicago.

When are these idiots who criticize Chicago for having strict gun control and high gun violence at the same time going to get a clue?

 

[soundforbjt]

Story today about a Chicago police officer, a young woman, gunned down by two brothers.

Brothers charged in connection with weekend shooting of 2 Chicago officers are denied bail | CNN

Prosecutors on Tuesday outlined the cases against two brothers charged in connection with the slaying of a Chicago police officer and the shooting of her partner after a traffic stop Saturday night.

www.cnn.com

The part of the story which is relevant here:



When are these idiots who criticize Chicago for having strict gun control and high gun violence at the same time going to get a clue?

Never enters their minds that if you can’t get a gun easily in your state/city and you’re right next to a “freedom “ state that guns will be easily available.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yes? The sterling construction is a clever way of harnessing all the momentum/energy from the reaction mass of that explosion.

Sterling as in sterling engine?