Just because you can’t get insurance to cover risky behavior doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be held responsible for the consequences of that behavior.
He also said someone could steal his safe without him knowing for several months.
And so? People have vacation homes. People could go int there during the off season, and steal a axe and become a axe murderer. Or perhaps a vehicle is stored and they steal that and drive it into a parade, or whatever?
Axes, cars, strawmen. I’m done. If someone kills someone with your gun, I’m sure you will sleep just fine. Good for you.
None of my valuables are tools used for killing, but nice try.
You don’t own a motor vehicle?
But in at least with a vehicle, and you notice it stolen, the police could put out a BOLO, or at least (as is normal) red flag that license number.
However if your guns are stolen, and you report them a day or a year afterwards, it makes no difference. Although of course the PD does put out the serial numbers to pawn shops and such, they can’t find the gun by some tracing method.
The whole thing about having to report your gun theft quickly is a useless strawman, and a hijack. It is all part and parcel of banning guns for law abiding gun owners. Why on earth would anyone be help liable for crimes committed by your stolen property? No common law or tort law requires this. This is victim blaming at it’s worst, because not only is the victim being blamed, people want to hold them criminally and civilly liable, as they dared to own a evil firearm. “She wouldn’t have been raped if she hadn’t been dressed like that!”.
It is flat out wrong.
I do own a vehicle intended for transportation; that is not the same at all as a tool intended to accelerate bits of metal into other living beings at speeds sufficient to kill them. Certainly a car can be used to kill. But it isn’t designed for that, and it has other uses. But then, you already know this; this “bUt WhAt AbOuT cArS” hijack is tired and stale.
I think, if nothing else, that the OP’s point about the argument not being resolvable has been proven in the discussion to date: neither side is creating new arguments, and neither side feels the other is arguing in good faith.
So, given that, and the fact that as stated earlier, bipartisanship is now a dirty word, the ‘all-in’ option is likely just as much a non-starter as any other effort to date. It reminds me of a recent thread in which it was asked if posters had ‘given up’ on the environment - since we can’t all agree on the same information and motivations, we aren’t going to work together to solve perceived problems.
Seems this is going to be another of those issues.
It’s not everybody. Note that above we have stated above that the US cannot have a gun murder rate as low as other countries with similar economic status because of our gun culture. This is true. We cannot remove guns from the hands of criminals, make them impossible for murderers, muggers and thieves to use in crime, because of our gun culture.
Gun culture isn’t the Rocky Mountains, or the Mighty Mississippi River, it isn’t an inherent part of where we live. Gun culture is people. It is not required that Americans have a Gun Culture anymore than it’s required we have a Smoking Culture, or an Alcoholism Culture, we could have both or either of those, but we don’t.
We choose what Culture we want, and if we choose one that kills tens of thousands of people, the people who chose that Culture for us deserve the blame.
I really hate this argument. It’s obviously pure crap and it always causes these conversation to devolve. At most a gun is designed to eject a projectile a high speed to hit a target. Guns are used to do that job for a variety of purposes of which the vast minority kill anything and and even smaller percentage kill people.
We could never build another gun and destroy every gun that kills a person and most of the guns around today would still be around in 500 years.
So, you only want to ban guns, nothing else that can be used to kill should be limited? Special insurance that doesn’t exist and will never exist- just for guns? Victim blaming is fine, if the victim is a gun owner?
It is not a hijack.you want special rules for guns as they can be used to kill, but when I bring up other things that can be used to kill- you don’t want to hear it.
And of course few guns ever kill another human, some tiny, tiny %. Most are used for target shooting, and many guns are specifically designed just for that. Others ar e used for hunting and quite a few are made just to be collected.
Airport, BB, and paintball guns all do that if that’s what you’re looking for.
Nope, I’m fine with banning anything else that has no real use aside from killing people. For example, once self driving cars are safer than human drivers, I’d be totally fine with banning human driven cars. Until that point in time, cars provide a benefit that we cannot get in other ways.
If you want to have fun shooting targets, knock yourself out, so long as you are using guns that aren’t capable of killing someone outside of freak accident scenarios. But don’t pretend you need hot lead to do that - it’s disingenuous.
A car CAN be used to kill. A gun is DESIGNED to kill. I am all for banning mad max style cars with chainsaws on them or whatever, those would be designed for killing rather than simple transportation.
There are huge problems with the accuracy of bb guns and paint ball guns. I think you mean airsoft which are just a type of bb gun. Pellet guns work well too and many Olympic sports have replaced their guns with pellet guns.
Of course, none of those will work for distance shooting or trap or skeet so they aren’t a perfect replacement which is what you seem to be implying.
Yes, sorry, auto correct strikes again.
Oh no. Anyways…
So skeet, and trap aren’t allowed in your perfect world, how about distance shooting? Is 30 yds the longest you’re allowed to aim?
Nope, it doesn’t matter how many times you say it is just not true.
Well, as has been proven time and time again, guns have uses other than killing people, and in fact, statistics show they are very poor at that.
How many mass shootings a year are you cool with so you can go skeet shooting? How many armed robberies are with trap shooting?
If I invent a sport called Crockettball when you fire a Davy Crockett tactical nuke at a target would you insist that we all be free to arm ourselves with personal nuke launchers just to maintain the integrity of the great sport of Crockettball?