Of course, that’s not an actual issue plaguing our country. Gun violence is.
Not with deer rifles, it’s not.
That doesn’t matter. The issue has been framed as a gun violence problem rather than one of mental health or violent criminality. Guns are so foreign to these people that you’re viewed as a savage.
If only there weren’t a strong correlation between people who oppose gun control legislation and people who oppose expanding access to mental health treatment such as through universal healthcare, that wouldn’t be such an obvious red herring. Anti-gun control advocates, by and large, don’t give a crap about mental health.
Until of course they can try and blame the latest mass murder committed with a gun on… I won’t even say mental health so much as the mentally ill (thus further stigmatizing people with genuine mental health conditions who didn’t user their favorite toy to mass murder a bunch of people).
Sure, but if we try to ban handguns, are the deer rifle owners going to support it, or oppose it?
You know what else they do?
Store propane in a convenient container so people can cook or heat something.
In fact: that is precisely what they are designed to do.
You’ll notice the distinct lack of drive-by propane tanking and propane tank muggings. Even propane tank suicides seem to be dropping lately.
What the fuck is your point?
Y’know, we should have no problem admitting weapons are a special type of object that requires a special type of regulation. And that no constitutional liberty is absolutely exempt from rational limits of time, place and manner – but which must stop short of having it become altogether denied.
However, the thread title posits as the “resolved” that this is a positive first step to rational gun ownership. And in the first stage of this thread we pretty much stuck to “well, this law has some deficiencies that need addressing in trying to achieve that”.
But the latter stage at least one of the recent participants, from posts here and by reference to their posts elsewhere, would seem to take the position that the only acceptable state of (private, civilian) gun ownership is none, arguing that any such ownership is a direct clear and present danger to them. If I am misinterpreting that, correct me. And that therefore it’s a wonderful thing if this turns out to be a law that cannot be satisfactorily complied with because yay, keep people from having guns on them and punish them if they do. But the problem is, it is established in the case law likely to stand for the foreseeable future, that any firearms regulation cannot have the constructive effect of a total ban. So that is why we are arguing about details of enforcement.
And we do! Find me a state that doesn’t have a list of legally prohibited weapons.
Why too many have accepted that “arms” means guns and not bayonets, truncheons, knuckle-dusters, and swords (all found in the trenches of WWI, the first and last being issued to soldiers) is puzzling.
My point is that a sporting rifle isn’t any more of a threat than something like a propane cylinder. People hunt deer, feral hogs, elk, etc… with that type of rifle. They’re almost never used in crimes, they’re not cheap, and they’re not the sort of thing that is any more dangerous than a propane cylinder, and is every bit as functional for a lot of rural people.
The same thing is true for just about any long gun really, assault or otherwise. Handguns are far and away the category of firearm most used in criminal activities and suicides, etc… because they’re easily portable, easily concealable, and powerful enough for those purposes.
Ultimately this argument comes down to one side deciding that “guns = bad and nobody should own them” and everything else stems from there. There’s not any rational thought about say… deer rifles vs. cheap pistols; they’re all basically evil and need to be highly regulated, and anything that stands in that way gets ridiculed, condescended to, etc…
Is there any organization saying “We want to regulate handguns, but leave the rest alone?” I personally haven’t run across that- every one seems to be a little less discriminating than that.
We had specific regulation about handguns. You guys took it to the Supreme Court, and had those sort of regulations declared unconstitutional under Heller, a decision that is nearly universally lauded by gun advocates. So, no, there’s not a lot of energy to try to just regulate handguns. You all shut down that avenue pretty thoroughly.
I will be the first to acknowledge that there are plenty of legitimate use cases for many types of guns.
I’m just fed up with discussions about gun regulation inevitably talking about stepladders, booze, cars, pools or a myriad of other red herrings that are not guns.
Proponents of more gun control always jump in headfirst (Ha! let’s use this analogy to show off my flawless logic!) and then lose the plot after the 3rd tortured analogy.
Gun folks have become very good at this little trick.
At the end of the day it is nothing but a whataboutism.
No, most legislative proposals address safety in use, transportation and storage. That applies to all weapons. The two people I know who are serious gun owners are meticulous in this respect. Their weapons are very expensive machines that are kept in a special cases in locked gun rooms.
It’s not a matter of guns = bad. It’s a matter of responsibility and proper applicaiion.
And yet there is no end of people that will proclaim up and down that an AK is completely the same. In fact the idea that there are different categories of guns (military/civilian??) is dumb, wrong and just shows that nobody understands guns like they do.
One of those is a weapon designed to be produced cheaply and be used to kill people efficiently. The other is a farming implement as innocent as a bottle of propane.
And yet they are the same?
Guns are hard.
“You guys”?
While you have a point there, this discussion was supposed to be about the San Jose law, not yet another pointless gun control debate. And of course gun control proponents often bring up the old “You need to register your car, get insurance, and a license, so why not the same for guns”? Or “Denmark has a very low murder rate and strict gun control!”
So- analogies are common debate tactics.
It would be nice to make this thread just about the San Jose law, however.
Gun owners must now carry insurance in San Jose, California.
-
No U.S. insurance company offers separate, stand-alone gun liability coverage, the Insurance Information Institute (iii.org) states.
** Homeowner’s and renters insurance might cover claims from negligence and accidental discharge and loss.*
** Insurance industry experts stress no insurance policy will cover a criminal shooting —there are exclusions for illegal acts.*… No amount of insurance will buy coverage for criminal acts with firearms
However, insurance industry representatives have noted there are remedies within the system and that, in the vast majority of circumstances, no policy will be underwritten by actuaries to cover an illegal act
Even in a best-case scenario where gun liability insurance is widely available and the requirement is widely enforced, these insurance plans will cover only a miniscule fraction of gun deaths and injuries occurring inside San Jose.
*Most acts of gun violence involve [criminal or intentionally wrongful acts]
(Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America), which California law prohibits insurance companies from covering. Importantly, this would exclude coverage not just for homicide and assault, but also for gun suicides, which comprise 60% of all gun deaths.*
Additionally, while the new law purports to make gun owners responsible for any harm inflicted by lost or stolen firearms unless the guns were first reported as lost or stolen, homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies cover acts committed only by the insured person while on the insured property.
So regardless of who San Jose deems responsible, if the gun owner has a typical homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy, that policy simply wouldn’t cover, for example, harm inflicted by a thief who stole the gun or by the gun owner during an off-property hunting accident.
Nor do these policies cover harm inflicted on an insured party, as when a gunowner accidentally shoots himself or a household member while cleaning his gun.
This leaves coverage limited to the narrow circumstances in which an insured gun owner, while on his or her own property, accidentally or negligently harms a third party with a firearm.
Like I said- no insurance will cover what SJ has mandated.
And even if insurance were available, it would likely be very expensive, and thus the law would discriminate against poor people.
At any rate, there’s absolutely no way this law could pass a court challenge.
Maybe not frame your answer as if “gun control proponents” hijacked this thread. It is your side who does that. I’m reasonably certain I did not bring up propane tank (or cars) into this.
Now bring in booze or swimming pools for a hattrick.
That is not how any of that works.
“I can’t afford another beer! I’m being discriminated!”
My side? The side of the Rule of Law and the US Constitution? I have posted many times we need some new gun control laws. Good laws, that can pass and get through the courts. Most Americans want this- better background checks, etc.
Only 20% of American voters want to repeal the 2nd and ban guns.
Yeah, it does. Note the Poll Tax was thrown out by SCOTUS. You can’t tax a Constitutional Right so that the poor can’t exercise it.
In any case, my cites made it clear that the the insurance SJ wants is ILLEGAL in this state. General liability is fine, but not covering illegal acts, or acts after a gun has left your control. So, not only does that insurance not exist, that insurance is illegal in CA.
So, no state collects sales tax on gun purchases?
There’s no law that says I must buy a gun from a retailer. I can buy a gun from my neighbor with cash. I can also manufacture a gun for personal use. No taxes are paid in either scenario.
If the mere possession or ownership of a gun requires me to pay something to the government, an insurance company, or anything else, then it is no longer a right.