Oh, wait. Your the one that expects everyday folks to spend thousands
On safes, cameras, and alarm systems to protect a $500 piece of property or else you’re going to jail, fine, and civilly bankrupt them if they become the victim of a crime.
Meanwhile tens of millions of Americans keep guns in their home that never get stolen or used in a crime. Please, convince us of the reasonableness of your proposal.
From previous threads I thought criminals were getting their guns from gun shows and mandatory background checks were going to stop all that. What happened to that?
Well, yes, you asked me, so I gave you my answer. I’m surprised that you expected me to give somebody else’s answer.
That’s not the case at all. Maybe you should try responding to what I actually posted instead of what you imagine I would say. Again, I can only assume this misrepresentation of my position is due to error and not a malicious lie to make my position appear ridiculous.
Nothing, because your side keeps shutting down proposals to do anything about those problems either. Obviously we should close the gun show loophole and mandate background checks in all gun sales as well.
There is no such insurance. It does not exist. And why would just gun owners be liable for something that happens after the gun was stolen? Why not car owners? Dog Owners? Prescription drug owners? If you are held up, and you cash is stolen, and the perp uses that cash to buy a gun, and then kills someone, are you liable?
This is just victim blaming, and victim blaming is wrong. Time after time, thread after thread, the posters of the SDMB have reached consensus that victim blaming is not only wrong but reprehensible. How is this different?
It would? You could still be sued, leading to thousands of dollars of legal fees and lost time. And even if you gun was a secure as Fort Knox, there is always the possibility of the crime being so horrible that a sympathetic jury funds you liable just the same.
This idea is foolish and unworkable. There is no such insurance.
Yes, I realize this. But it would if a law was passed creating a cause of action against a gun owner for their negligent failure to secure their gun.
I’m not advocating for it. I was just trying to respond to the assertion that a gun owner would be criminally prosecuted for having their gun taken. As I understand it, the usual “free market” idea is to create civil liability, thereby incentivizing people to be more careful with how they store their weapons.
Plainly, it’s an idea met with much hostility. As are most gun proposals. That’s why, OP here, I tried to change the conversation to a more “progressive” approach, which doesn’t fight the inevitability of guns in America.
Not carry. Not even own. But educated about how to hold, unload, and render inoperable - yes.
…
Unfortunately, it seems that all gun conversations are doomed to devolve back into respective corners. There can be no trust that somebody can want to improve the safety of this country and respect the strongly held beliefs of adherents. It just ends up as “gun grabber” reactionaries v “pro death” zealots. This thread just confirms it.
Of course it does- but not if you steal your own gun or car.
Comprehensive insurance does not cover the acts performed by a car thief, after the car is stolen. (other than your collision coverage covering the damage done to your own car)
There is no need to, as Tort and common law says the owner is not responsible.
Right, that’s part of why people can be so irresponsible with their guns. Do you have a proposal for fixing the problem, or do you, like @Oredigger77, believe that the number of gun deaths in the US (much higher per capita than in any other developed country) isn’t worth wasting a second of thought over?
I have made, in this very thread proposals to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS.
Not proposals to criminalize law abiding gun owners.
The problem is not too many guns. The problem is too many guns in the hands of criminals. Your proposals do nothing but criminalize law abiding gun owners for the simple act of owning a gun, and do nothing at all to keep guns away from criminals.
Like I said before, I can only assume you are confused about the content of my posts and not intentionally lying about what I said, so I’d recommend you reread them.
I have shown UN stats that the USA is in the middle of all nations as regards homicide rate. I am not including suicides (gun deaths) nor excluding killing by bombs, machetes, axes, motor vehicles, knives and so forth, since to me, as senseless murder is a senseless murder.
Yes, if you compare the US - the richest country on Earth - to countries where the legal system has failed then the US does come out looking rosy.
For a whole host of reasons, crime is correlated with poverty. The US is the richest country in the world yet its murder rate matches that of nations ravaged by colonialism, where the rule of law is tenuous at best, and where the government is working with a fraction of the resources the US government has.
As long as the demographics on gun related deaths and injuries don’t significantly change, I doubt you’ll see much caring from the pro-gun side. They likely see it as a net benefit to society.
There is only one side that came into this debate with the attitude “the other people in this thread are not posting in good faith”. That seems rude to me, but it has, as I noted, shaped the thread by continually seeking to define terminology (and then dismissing the discussion).
And of course no insurance company would ever be willing to create such a product. They would just be collecting premiums month after month and never paying out because gun owners are so responsible. I’m assuming the insurance companies would be embarrassed to make such easy money.
What if we tied the debate about leaving guns unattended back to the original thesis: Americans should have all the guns they want, as long as they carry them on their person at all times.
Let us not be ridiculous. The most responsible gun owner in the world can still be burgled.
What is the purpose of fiscally and even criminally punishing victims of crimes? Do we punish the person who had their car stolen- even if they left if unlocked? Even with the keys in it, poorly hidden? No.
