What is "common sense" gun control....
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
You actually think the majority of weapons the cartel gets their hands on come from the US?
Well, Switzerland is a unique situation isn't it? Is that the country that's strictly regulated and everyone had a military-issue gun?
Fast and furious was a program being run by government trying to push US purchased weapons into criminal hands.
So basically, people who are careless are lazy are completely to blame for firearm injuries not caused by illegal guns?
Shocking.
1. No. Stupid question.
2. You just articulated why gun control doesn't work in any real world scenario.
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Australia? England? Austria? Sweden? Switzerland? Canada?
In which order do you need me to explain their total lack of direct comparability?
Hate America, maybe Oklahoma or wherever you live? Move. Chicago could use your dumb ass walking the streets telling everyone why liberals should not have guns.
I see you are on board with my idea.
Guns dont kill people, liberals with guns kill people.
Uh, ain't no liberal ever killed nobody, and if one accidentally did, damned sure not wit' one of dem dang dare far-arms. Probable cause: choking on liberal bile.
It was a sting operation to catch straw purchasers obtaining guns for the cartels in Mexico.
I'm still trying to figure out how the firearm liability insurance davidallen brought up (covers accidental damage and injury while hunting, shooting in competition, and shooting at private range) is going to change anything in the realm of suicides and homicides involving firearms. Can anybody explain it? Serious question.
If it was a requirement for all guns, in theory the price of gun ownership would go up and the number of gun owners would go down. In reality it would probably cause a spike in gun sales.
In theory, how would it solve any problems other than making it yet harder still for responsible, law-abiding citizens to protect their families? And, you do realize that guns don't expire or go bad right? New guns are a fraction of the guns in this country. I own about a dozen, and none are new or were bought new. Last gun I bought was 7 years ago, and it was used then. Works great. How does this reduce the number of gun owners? I would not be buying this bullshit "insurance," and I doubt many people would bother to. All it does is give the government a reason to audit private gun ownership and criminalize those who don't comply. It's a shit idea.
Hey man, I am a neutral observer. Just explaining to Medic how it is supposed to work.
So, the theory would be to "tax" legal gun owners and maybe price some folks out of legally buying and owning firearms while doing nothing about the real problems of gun violence? If that's the case, my question to anyone who supports that idea is how can that be considered "common sense?"
That question is not directed at you pilt, although that doesn't preclude you from answering if you so desire.
It's a way to trick people into registering their guns under false premises.
Frankly it sounds racist and elitist, ensuring that only people who can afford even more regulatory expense can afford to legally protect their families or even keep inherited family heirlooms.
In fairness to DA, I am pretty sure he was advocating insurance with a broader coverage that would give discounts for things like trigger locks, safes, and load indicators.
That is certainly a likely thing. I was hoping davidallen would return to the thread to explain what he thinks requiring insurance would do. The site he quoted doesn't seem to cover a kid accidentally or intentionally shooting himself or others, unless he is hunting, shooting competition, or shooting at a private range.
If it did start covering violence, wouldn't you create some perverse incentives based on who the pay out went to?
Good point. Wouldn't want to give some one a million dollar incentive to leave their guns lying around.
Now the paranoia arguement comes out...
In theory the mandated insurance would cover accidental and negligent use as well. As such irresonsible or high risk individuals would be priced out of the market reducing the exposure to others. This isn't rocket science - it is roughly analogous to automobile liability insurance...
Sorry fellas - busy weekend finishing up the trampoline install - and for those who remember the treehouse project - it is possible to jump from one to the other though I sure as hell hope my kids have a healthy enough respect for gravity not to try it...
How will this be enforced? Will I just get a ticket when something bad happens? Will I have to show proof once a year when I buy my new gun tags?
Just like with your car when you pay your registration fee you will have to show proof of insurance... (see what I did there).
Since we are designing this policy on the fly, I dictate that all ammo and new gun purchases would require proof of insurance.
Do you think the anti-gun crowd won't try everything to accomplish their goal? If they could accomplish it, it would have been done.
I genuinely don't understand how this will resolve the gang deaths and child suicide.
Oh, your boys will try it. You know you would have, I would have, nearly every male in his youth on this board would have. Can you jump from the tree house to the trampoline? They'll probably do that too. We didn't have trees so we used the house.
You really need to read up on terms like paranoia. It's not a mental illness if it's based in factual persecution. And it is.
Paul v. Virginia argues the opposite. Priviledges and Immunities Clause 14th Amendment and what not - you know the US Constitution of which the BOR are an addendum... that kinda does provide just this protection. Read up, then get back to us...
Last edited:
It's the grand daughter that worries me most... like her mother there isn't a bookcase, ladder, or cupboard that doesn't scream "climb me" to her...
