Today's shooting in America thread

Last edited:
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Interesting gun legislation currently under consideration in San Jose, CA:
www.cnn.com

This Silicon Valley city just voted to institute first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements | CNN

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...
Interesting quotes.

"Critics argued the ordinance punishes law-abiding gun owners and doesn't do enough to address root causes of gun violence."

"Lower premiums for those with gun safes, trigger locks and completed gun safety classes are expected to incentivize safer behavior. As to enforcement, police officers crossing paths with gun owners would ask for proof of insurance, much like they do with car insurance during traffic stops . . . "

In my view all of this is positive -- guns should be the most-heavily regulated consumer good available and the expense of owning and maintaining one should be dramatically higher. However, as usual, the "law-abiding" gun owners will feel "punished" by even the slightest attempt to protect non-gun-owners, or themselves.

The inherent contradiction is always the same: "You should trust me. I am a law-abiding gun owner. However, I am allowed not to trust YOU. Which is why I own a gun."
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Interesting quotes.

"Critics argued the ordinance punishes law-abiding gun owners and doesn't do enough to address root causes of gun violence."

"Lower premiums for those with gun safes, trigger locks and completed gun safety classes are expected to incentivize safer behavior. As to enforcement, police officers crossing paths with gun owners would ask for proof of insurance, much like they do with car insurance during traffic stops . . . "

In my view all of this is positive -- guns should be the most-heavily regulated consumer good available and the expense of owning and maintaining one should be dramatically higher. However, as usual, the "law-abiding" gun owners will feel "punished" by even the slightest attempt to protect non-gun-owners, or themselves.

The inherent contradiction is always the same: "You should trust me. I am a law-abiding gun owner. However, I am allowed not to trust YOU. Which is why I own a gun."
Click to expand...
Liberty above all else, including the safety and security of others. It's an incredibly selfish attitude.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Interesting quotes.

"Critics argued the ordinance punishes law-abiding gun owners and doesn't do enough to address root causes of gun violence."

"Lower premiums for those with gun safes, trigger locks and completed gun safety classes are expected to incentivize safer behavior. As to enforcement, police officers crossing paths with gun owners would ask for proof of insurance, much like they do with car insurance during traffic stops . . . "

In my view all of this is positive -- guns should be the most-heavily regulated consumer good available and the expense of owning and maintaining one should be dramatically higher. However, as usual, the "law-abiding" gun owners will feel "punished" by even the slightest attempt to protect non-gun-owners, or themselves.

The inherent contradiction is always the same: "You should trust me. I am a law-abiding gun owner. However, I am allowed not to trust YOU. Which is why I own a gun."
Click to expand...
Ive always thought the answer is regulations not bans. The 2nd amendement calls for regulation, so its much more legally solid.
 
Gaudion M said:
Ive always thought the answer is regulations not bans. The 2nd amendement calls for regulation, so its much more legally solid.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s necessarily an answer, but if we want to discourage gun ownership, regulate and tax the crap out of it. You can own; it’ll just cost you more. A lot more. It’s insurance, right? That’s why law abiding owners own — protection. Okay, well, when disasters occur, insurance rates should and do go up — globally. And if you are irresponsible, your particular insurance goes up. So why shouldn’t the cost of your gun rise?
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Liberty above all else, including the safety and security of others. It's an incredibly selfish attitude.
Click to expand...

There are very few true libertarians, even those that profess to be so realise how chaotic and unsafe such a society would be. Most of them are of the "absolute liberty for me" and tight controls on everyone outside of a closed group e.g. the sovereign individual.

Probably explains why white people have got uppity when minorities and their activist groups get guns.

If board members of the big gun manufacturers had to live with the increased threats to themselves or their children then I don't think they would pursue such aggressive policies in the domestic market.

But they can avoid all of the consequences of lax gun laws and aggressive capitalism in the gun market, because they live in their bubble of high society, exclusive gated communities or fenced private estates and private education.
 
It’s slightly amusing watching the little echo chamber solve the gun “problem” in America.

I guess the word “infringed” will become key to any such legislation.

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
 
ChicagoBlue said:
It’s slightly amusing watching the little echo chamber solve the gun “problem” in America.

I guess the word “infringed” will become key to any such legislation.

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
The fact you -- as a law-abiding gun owner -- think this is "amusing" is central to the problem.

You have already said you are in favor of more significant regulation on firearms if I recall correctly. Why wouldn't you be welcoming these relatively modest changes?
 
Last edited:
ChicagoBlue said:
It’s slightly amusing watching the little echo chamber solve the gun “problem” in America.

I guess the word “infringed” will become key to any such legislation.

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Click to expand...
I would suggest the word 'regulated' is fairly key also.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I would suggest the word 'regulated' is fairly key also.
Click to expand...
And the word "militia" if we really wanted to play games.

Everyone is allowed to own a gun with no restrictions -- hell, the US government could actually provide firearms for free even -- but no one is allowed to actually employ/use/carry it unless the US is involved in an official declaration of war. So the gun is a "break glass in case of emergency" thing, just like the fire alarm button.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
And the word "militia" if we really wanted to play games.

Everyone is allowed to own a gun with no restrictions -- hell, the US government could actually provide firearms for free even -- but no one is allowed to actually employ/use/carry it unless the US is involved in an official declaration of war. So the gun is a "break glass in case of emergency" thing, just like the fire alarm button.
Click to expand...
As it is in Switzerland
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I didn't know that. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Every male adult has to serve (I think) minimum one year in the Swiss Army.
They are then issued a gun and a box of ammo.
Once a year they have to take their gun and box of ammo to a specific place. The gun is checked to see if it has been fired (and I think given a bit of a service / check). The ammo counted to see if any missing. Big trouble if all is not as it should be.....
And off you go for a other year.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
The fact you -- as a law-abiding gun owner -- think this is "amusing" is central to the problem.

You have already said you are in favor of more significant regulation on firearms if I recall correctly. Why wouldn't you be welcoming these relatively modest changes?
Click to expand...
Who said I was opposed to anything said?

I just think it is funny to watch a handful of people on here, most of them not even living in the States or with any understanding of the broader issue, “solve” the 200+ year issue of 2A.

Additionally, what you see as “modest” creates a financial burden on law abiding owners that illegal gun owners couldn’t care less about! Do you think gangbangers are going to

A) “Register” their guns? That’s going to have to be a part of the issue, right, as if you are going to be required to get liability insurance for guns, the insurer is going to need to know what EXACTLY the liability is, right? In Congress, that’s a NON-STARTER!

B) Do you think that most gun owners have additional free income to even contemplate insuring them? So, no liability insurance makes you a criminal, right? Law abiding made illegal owner.

Good luck! We are all counting on you!

Clearly, with a seven figure umbrella liability insurance policy on top of my auto & home package, paying a few bucks to add this is not an issue to me, but how about the other tens of millions of gun owners?

Its just another of the many, many ways that people have tried to PRICE GUN OWNERS OUT OF BEING A GUN OWNER.

There have been numerous calls, even on here, that if guns are ubiquitous and cheap, then make it prohibitively expensive to buy ammunition. Clearly, those people don’t understand the process of making your own ammo, but regardless, the ONLY WAY to do it in a capitalistic society is to TAX IT. Do you think that plays out in America in 2022? No, me either! Maybe in SFO and Marin County, but you might hear something else coming from Humboldt!!!
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
And the word "militia" if we really wanted to play games.

Everyone is allowed to own a gun with no restrictions -- hell, the US government could actually provide firearms for free even -- but no one is allowed to actually employ/use/carry it unless the US is involved in an official declaration of war. So the gun is a "break glass in case of emergency" thing, just like the fire alarm button.
Click to expand...
If only you had 5 seats on SCOTUS, you could change the American understanding of 2A for the past 200+ years.

Sadly, life is not as we wish it, and these words have been argued over since they were written. It’s 2022. Face reality.
 
I just saw on the news that San Jose is going to start requiring all gun owners to have insurance.
Not sure if that's a good thing or not as I don't really understand the reason or it.
 
Barcon said:
I just saw on the news that San Jose is going to start requiring all gun owners to have insurance.
Not sure if that's a good thing or not as I don't really understand the reason or it.
Click to expand...
What’s Mexico got to do with this?
 
Barcon said:
I just saw on the news that San Jose is going to start requiring all gun owners to have insurance.
Not sure if that's a good thing or not as I don't really understand the reason or it.
Click to expand...
The Mayor who proposed it said, “Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to show their commitment to reducing gun violence.”

If you can tell me how liability insurance and a tax to own a gun does that, I’d appreciate it.

I’ve tried to decipher that platitude, but am struggling with the logic.

Oh well, it IS San Jose, after all! Maybe they will use the tax monies to clean the streets????!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top