Today's shooting in America thread

[Barcon]

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????!

Yeah, the first thought I had was that it was just a money grab and a safety net for people getting sued for wrongful death. I'm sure all the crims will rush out to get insurance.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

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????!

To deter people from owning guns because of the cost of insurance and taxes?


Less guns = less gun violence.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

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!!!

Every time we hear the same thing. "Don't 'punish' law-abiding gun owners us with regulation and taxes! Criminals won't comply." There isn't a consumer product in the world that is taxed or regulated that you can't say that about. I've always thought it's a horseshit argument.

There's a reason that I've explained several times that guns need to be the most expensive, most taxed, most regulated consumer good. It's because they serve one purpose and one purpose only. They are utilitarian devices designed to HARM their target. That's their power as insurance to you, that's their power to the criminal element, to law enforcement, and anyone and everyone else who owns them, save a collector who might be interested in them for purely for aesthetic or historic value.

We tax cigarettes and alcohol prohibitively to get people to quit. We pass laws to prevent cigs from being smoked in buildings or in areas with high fire danger or on airplanes. You can't drive drunk; you can't drink in the stands at the Etihad. Do people still have a right to buy the products? Sure. Why do we do regulate/tax them? Because for the pleasure they provide (the social good) there are dangers to to the buyer and society at large if the product is misused, and the users of the products are the ones who can and should bear the cost and the responsibility.

It ain't called the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" for nothing, Cap'n.

Regressive tax complaints annoy me when it comes to products that aren't necessary. On food, clothing, shelter, things like bridge tolls, I might agree regressive taxes are unfair -- but not non-essential goods with social ills as a fall-out of their use. And in any case an aggressive tax or regulatory requirements don't have to be regressive beyond the first firearm, or can even be connected to the weapon you buy.

I will return to my oft-repeated Credo of The Responsible Gunowner: "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."

To me, thinking that you shouldn't have to pay more for the privilege of such cognitive dissonance is pretty insulting to the rest of us.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

To deter people from owning guns because of the cost of insurance and taxes?


Less guns = less gun violence.

Yep. But we keep playing these semantic games.

The correlation is about the same as "Hey, guess what? Every time I turn the steering wheel left, the car goes left!"

 

[ChicagoBlue]

To deter people from owning guns because of the cost of insurance and taxes?


Less guns = less gun violence.

It’s funny that you believe that.

It has Less = Less, but the logic lacks any substance or reality.

if I destroy my 3 guns, do you think there will be less gun violence?

Numpty logic!!

There’s LOTS of it on this issue, so you’re in good company on here!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Yep. But we keep playing these semantic games.

The correlation is about the same as "Hey, guess what? Every time I turn the steering wheel left, the car goes left!"

Do you mean like the one you just played….and lost? :-)

You were not an A student in the Logic class you didn’t take, were you?!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Every time we hear the same thing. "Don't 'punish' law-abiding gun owners us with regulation and taxes! Criminals won't comply." There isn't a consumer product in the world that is taxed or regulated that you can't say that about. I've always thought it's a horseshit argument.

There's a reason that I've explained several times that guns need to be the most expensive, most taxed, most regulated consumer good. It's because they serve one purpose and one purpose only. They are utilitarian devices designed to HARM their target. That's their power as insurance to you, that's their power to the criminal element, to law enforcement, and anyone and everyone else who owns them, save a collector who might be interested in them for purely for aesthetic or historic value.

We tax cigarettes and alcohol prohibitively to get people to quit. We pass laws to prevent cigs from being smoked in buildings or in areas with high fire danger or on airplanes. You can't drive drunk; you can't drink in the stands at the Etihad. Do people still have a right to buy the products? Sure. Why do we do regulate/tax them? Because for the pleasure they provide (the social good) there are dangers to to the buyer and society at large if the product is misused, and the users of the products are the ones who can and should bear the cost and the responsibility.

You appear to be the King of the Straw Man Argument tonight!

The ONLY reason for guns in America is 2A. Show me alcohol and tobacco in the Bill of Rights, please.

If you think there are not taxes on owning firearms, I can only ask you to do your research, because you’re wrong!

It ain't called the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" for nothing, Cap'n.

Regressive tax complaints annoy me when it comes to products that aren't necessary. On food, clothing, shelter, things like bridge tolls, I might agree regressive taxes are unfair -- but not non-essential goods with social ills as a fall-out of their use. And in any case an aggressive tax or regulatory requirements don't have to be regressive beyond the first firearm, or can even be connected to the weapon you buy.

More flawed logic. You’re in a roll tonight! Bravo!

I will return to my oft-repeated Credo of The Responsible Gunowner: "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."

To me, thinking that you shouldn't have to pay more for the privilege of such cognitive dissonance is pretty insulting to the rest of us.

If “YOU” is the person that threatens my life in some way, why on earth would I be expected to trust you?

Break in my house…do I have to trust you?

Run me off a rural road…do I have to trust you?

Harm one of my family members while we are out enjoying our life in ANY way…do I have to trust you?

You act like LAW ABIDING CITIZENS are walking around WITH GUNS looking for people they don’t trust 100%, so they can use their guns against them.

I have 3 firearms. Do you think I look at everyone thinking “Do I trust you or should I shoot you?”???? It’s patently ridiculous!

The guns you don’t like are in the hands of people who couldn’t care less about ANY AND ALL LAWS WE HAVE OR HAVE EVER THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING!!!

And, build in even more financial hurdles and burdens, and you merely increase the underground market for firearms….thus turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into potential felons.

To use your analogy, it’s like turning your steering wheel to the left and the trunk opens! Neither the desired effect, nor one you don’t mind happening!

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It’s funny that you believe that.

It has Less = Less, but the logic lacks any substance or reality.

if I destroy my 3 guns, do you think there will be less gun violence?

Numpty logic!!

There’s LOTS of it on this issue, so you’re in good company on here!

I didn't actually express my view but was summarising what I thought their argument was.

However, there are numerous studies that have been linked countless times on this thread that show a pretty clear link between more guns and more gun violence and you can also find a link between jurisdictions with lax regulation of firearms and greater violence.

I'm glad you are playing nicely though, how long before you get your penis extension out and waving it about for the guys again?

 

[idahoblues]

Dick pics on BM?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I didn't actually express my view but was summarising what I thought their argument was.

However, there are numerous studies that have been linked countless times on this thread that show a pretty clear link between more guns and more gun violence and you can also find a link between jurisdictions with lax regulation of firearms and greater violence.

If an otherwise rational fellow flips out like Bigga when the comparatively minor issues of having to pay a bit more to own a firearm and show a license to a cop are raised, imagine how the more intransigent on this issue would behave.

I think we know how, which is the point.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

If an otherwise rational fellow flips out like Bigga when the comparatively minor issues of having to pay a bit more to own a firearm and show a license to a cop are raised, imagine how the more intransigent on this issue would behave.

I think we know how, which is the point.

There is already a premium on guns and ammo, and I have to carry a license to carry a gun already!

If that’s your “save us all from the horrors of gun violence” legislation, it’s already in place!

Glad we sorted that out.

Now, if ANYONE gets in a hissy over it, then one assumes they’re carrying ILLEGALLY, because they didn’t comply with the new law that turned them FROM law abiding TO illegal owner.

Wonder how that ends, and whether it reduced or increased the chance for gun violence? Arresting someone on an illegal weapons charge, when the weapon is in their possession is fraught with more danger than most interactions.

I’m just glad I’m complying with your new laws already. Phew!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Dick pics on BM?

It’s not a dick, only a dick extender…so I’m told!

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

You appear to be the King of the Straw Man Argument tonight!

The ONLY reason for guns in America is 2A. Show me alcohol and tobacco in the Bill of Rights, please.

If you think there are not taxes on owning firearms, I can only ask you to do your research, because you’re wrong!

More flawed logic. You’re in a roll tonight! Bravo!

If “YOU” is the person that threatens my life in some way, why on earth would I be expected to trust you?

Break in my house…do I have to trust you?

Run me off a rural road…do I have to trust you?

Harm one of my family members while we are out enjoying our life in ANY way…do I have to trust you?

You act like LAW ABIDING CITIZENS are walking around WITH GUNS looking for people they don’t trust 100%, so they can use their guns against them.

I have 3 firearms. Do you think I look at everyone thinking “Do I trust you or should I shoot you?”???? It’s patently ridiculous!

The guns you don’t like are in the hands of people who couldn’t care less about ANY AND ALL LAWS WE HAVE OR HAVE EVER THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING!!!

And, build in even more financial hurdles and burdens, and you merely increase the underground market for firearms….thus turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into potential felons.

To use your analogy, it’s like turning your steering wheel to the left and the trunk opens! Neither the desired effect, nor one you don’t mind happening!

One thing I will point out is that there are people that were once considered very 'responsible gun owners' who are now convicted felons because a series of unfortunate events led to a serious lapse in control that in turn led to a fatal shooting incident that would otherwise have been heated argument, or otherwise non-fatal altercation.

I guess you've seen the movie 'Falling Down' with Michael Douglas? Nobody thinks that is going to happen to them... until it does.

Just type 'Argument leads to fatal shooting' into your favoured search engine.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

One thing I will point out is that there are people that were once considered very 'responsible gun owners' who are now convicted felons because a series of unfortunate events led to a serious lapse in control that in turn led to a fatal shooting incident that would otherwise have been heated argument, or otherwise non-fatal altercation.

I guess you've seen the movie 'Falling Down' with Michael Douglas? Nobody thinks that is going to happen to them... until it does.

Just type 'Argument leads to fatal shooting' into your favoured search engine.

And anyone who “snaps” (as in “Falling Down”) will find a way.

Lest I let it go by, as if accepted, this lone crazy gunman meme CANNOT be legislated against.

There are multiple corollaries, but waste our time discussing them.

Unless guns are banned, which ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE believes can of would happen in the US, bad guys will always have access to guns. THEY are your target IF, as you say, you want to remove most gun violence from society.

The lone gunman who has blown a fuse is certainly not nothing, but I’m hoping you’re not betting your legislative desires on trying to curb that cohort.

As I’ve said repeatedly, this is a masturbatory exercise. Nothing is seriously going to change negative gun culture in America without strictly enforcing the laws already in place first, and severely prosecuting and punishing those who use firearms in the commission of a crime.

In addition, a sea change in the service of mental health would go a long way towards helping many of those who turn to negative firearms use.

Lastly, I would drown gun violence hotspots in police and remove as many of the guns (and people illegally owning or using them) from society. I have no sympathy for those who attempt to use firearms to bolster their criminal lives, and wouldn’t care if they were permanently removed from society.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

And anyone who “snaps” (as in “Falling Down”) will find a way.

Lest I let it go by, as if accepted, this lone crazy gunman meme CANNOT be legislated against.

There are multiple corollaries, but waste our time discussing them.

Unless guns are banned, which ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE believes can of would happen in the US, bad guys will always have access to guns. THEY are your target IF, as you say, you want to remove most gun violence from society.

The lone gunman who has blown a fuse is certainly not nothing, but I’m hoping you’re not betting your legislative desires on trying to curb that cohort.

As I’ve said repeatedly, this is a masturbatory exercise. Nothing is seriously going to change negative gun culture in America without strictly enforcing the laws already in place first, and severely prosecuting and punishing those who use firearms in the commission of a crime.

In addition, a sea change in the service of mental health would go a long way towards helping many of those who turn to negative firearms use.

Lastly, I would drown gun violence hotspots in police and remove as many of the guns (and people illegally owning or using them) from society. I have no sympathy for those who attempt to use firearms to bolster their criminal lives, and wouldn’t care if they were permanently removed from society.

Nothing to do with 'bad guys' or crazy lone gunmen. I was really just trying to point out that (relatively) easy access to guns all too often turns a would be heated argument into a fatal shooting because of that 30 seconds of red mist.

I'm not sure there is any solution to this that doesn't involve an outright ban on firearms which ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE believes will happen.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Nothing to do with 'bad guys' or crazy lone gunmen. I was really just trying to point out that (relatively) easy access to guns all too often turns a would be heated argument into a fatal shooting because of that 30 seconds of red mist.

Most people do not have a gun within reach for those 30 seconds of red mist, especially if they’re a responsible owner. And, anyone whose first instinct is to reach for a gun has no business owning one.

I'm not sure there is any solution to this that doesn't involve an outright ban on firearms which ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE believes will happen.

I agree, hence my comment about most of this rather long thread is masturbatory “look at those idiots!” bullshit.

I’d gladly register my guns with the Police. I was happy to do the training needed to get my Illinois Concealed Carry Permit (expensive training and an additional large fee for the permit) to ensure I’m legal and know my rights and responsibilities.

I call that being responsible gun owner, but I also understand ALL the arguments about restrictions, taxes, creating more and more difficult hurdles.

The problem is that gun control is a left wing wet dream but a center right third rail issue. It is politically difficult to accomplish simply due to who controls the majority of the States! (28 Republican, 22 Democrat)

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I agree, hence my comment about most of this rather long thread is masturbatory “look at those idiots!” bullshit.

The problem is that gun control is a left wing wet dream but a center right third rail issue. It is politically difficult to accomplish simply due to who controls the majority of the States! (28 Republican, 22 Democrat)

I think what many onlookers struggle to grasp is the collective attitude of "It's TFD so we'll just bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine", rather than having a sensible grown up non-political debate about how to tackle the issues surrounding guns and gun control.

Every journey begins with a single step and maybe someone in 100 years time will look back and think how weird it was that gun ownership was considered as protected a right as the right to freedom of speech.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I think what many onlookers struggle to grasp is the collective attitude of "It's TFD so we'll just bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine", rather than having a sensible grown up non-political debate about how to tackle the issues surrounding guns and gun control.

Every journey begins with a single step and maybe someone in 100 years time will look back and think how weird it was that gun ownership was considered as protected a right as the right to freedom of speech.

On your last point, I think many people see it that way TODAY! The problem is the reality on the ground, the institutional resistance to change and the legal mechanisms for any change to the Constitution; the legal framework for which literally PROHIBITS any changes to 2A today due to the current Republican control in effect over the issue.

In a perfect world, there would be no 2A and no need for one, as there would be zero guns on the streets, other than with police, who rarely felt the need to ever use theirs, because they never felt like an almost invisible deadly threat was about to be used again at them.

 

[oldius]

No guns, no shootings.

 

[nellyonthewing]

Is retirement community a euphemism for trailer park?

Here in Central Florida outside our community we have Haitians, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Mexicans ,and Rednecks.