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.