The point that at least I have tried to make is that nothing is ever stolen by the owner’s negligence. It was stolen intentionally by the thief.
To follow up: Let’s put these things in equipoise. What issue are we trying to solve with cars?
I drive my car and so do you. They are very convenient. But they are heavy and go very fast. And I’m driving down the road one day and my wife just bitched at me because I didn’t take out the trash, even though Monday was a holiday and the trash wasn’t even collected that day, but she still handed me the garbage and asked why I didn’t get off my lazy ass…BAM! I just ran a red light.
I hit you and your car. I damaged your car and you had to go to the hospital to get checked out. Jesus, I’m sorry. Stupid me for not paying attention.
So we recognize that is a human issue. You might have done the same to me in a different circumstance. To partially alleviate that, we require auto insurance. In case I don’t have any money in the bank, you get your car repaired and your hospital bill paid. I also don’t lose my house if I can’t pay. Win-win (partially) for everyone. We deal with it the best we can.
But this is the critical part I see in these debates. We correctly identified the issue in the car context. It is my dumb ass negligently hurting you. That’s the end all/be all of it. That is the sole issue. We don’t ban “assault cars” or require that cars be fitted to only go a certain speed.
In the gun context, the issue is intentional crimes. A guy kills his wife, knocks off a convenience store, shoots up a school. That is what we want to prevent. Agreed?
So, if we are agreed, why do we treat guns like cars? The issue is one of intent vs. negligence. You are moving the focus from the proximate cause of the issue (intent) to a remote cause (I left my gun on the table).
And I dare say that it causes some of us (me) on this side to start to believe that as this is a special thing being proposed for guns, it is not a reasonable and neutral proposal. It is one with special animus for guns which I will recoil (hehe) at.
So, convince me I am wrong, if you would like, and how this is just a neutral thing like we do for anything else.
In a free nation, laws do NOT exist to control the minds of others.
That’s inapt wording. Laws are not instruments for controlling the minds but for regulating the conduct that affects other individuals and society collectively.
Nobody should need to spend anything. The ordinance is illegal under Californias pre-emption law. The State Attorney General should do their job and issue an opinion declaring that the law is contrary to state statute, hence illegal and unenforceable.
The end.
That would be great. But I bet some gun group will have to spend $ on a lawsuit.
Which as you said is one of their goals. As is the goal of keeping anyone from possessing arms.
The left perpetrates the delusion that setting up draconian hoops for people to lawfully acquire and own firearms will somehow prevent criminals from acquiring them. Unfortunately a number of inhabitants of our country actually believe that fallacy even though none of them have ever been proven effective.
I’m at a loss here so maybe someone can help me out. Let’s assume the premise that “Guns cause a societal cost that must be reimbursed.”
OK, so fine people that illegally use a gun $500 to be paid to some state fund? Apparently not because it is the gun that is the problem. Ummmm … OK? Ignoring that the gun is an inanimate object, then you are saying that gun manufacturers should pay into the fund. I’m guessing no because reasons? So the societal cost should be borne by people who own guns legally and use them responsibly. Why is that? Why not the gun manufacturers or the criminals? Why make the guy in the middle pay for it?
The tax seems like a back door to what San Jose really wants - confiscation. Have a gun and didn’t pay your tax? Say bye-bye to your gun. What’s to stop them from making the tax an unreasonable $1000 / yr / gun? And the mayor acts like anyone can run out and get “gun liability insurance”
The current state of gun liability
Personal insurance: Insurers rarely offer any separate gun liability insurance policy. Most individuals have some property and liability coverage for firearms in their standard homeowners’ policy. Additional liability coverage is available through a personal umbrella policy. A few policies cover losses from accidental shootings in excess of the homeowners’ coverage.
When there is liability insurance, it only covers accidental shootings and in some cases, acts of self-defense. There is no coverage for criminal or other intentional shootings.
Although every insurance company adopts its own policy, many companies use standard homeowners and personal umbrella policies written by Insurance Services Office (ISO). The standard homeowners policy is known as an HO-3. That policy specifically mentions firearms once, as property that is covered if stolen. Firearms are not mentioned in the liability section of the policy, implying that firearm liability would be covered. A homeowners’ policy covers all liabilities that are not specifically excluded.
Not all accidents are covered, per the terms of the policy. For example, if a relative living at the same home were accidentally shot, the accident would not appear to be covered.
The policy explicitly says it will not cover “expected or intended injury.” The policy is designed to cover accidents, not intentional, criminal actions, such as a homicide or an attempted homicide. A mass shooting would not appear to be covered. A critical point is that covering an intentional, illegal act like armed assault would violate standard underwriting principles.
And that is assuming that that is their plan. It may be more nefarious in that they want the names of people with guns to actively confiscate guns. Why do people hate saying they are traveling with $10000 in cash. Because the government will steal it under civil asset forfeiture. Can you really trust the government telling them you have something they want to steal from you?
And think about this, whether or not you believe in gun control are you prepared to pay a tax to protect your constitutional rights? Should we repeal the 24th Amendment and bring back the poll tax? What if you were charged $50 per year to exercise your 1st Amendment rights because free speech causes societal costs? If a state felt abortion was a societal harm, are you ok with them taxing fertile women because they may get an abortion.
Let’s get back to proximity. Some guy breaks into your house and steals a baseball bat. They then take that baseball bat and kneecaps 30 people. The state fines you $1000 to pay for the societal harm your baseball bat caused.
“But your Honor, I didn’t commit that crime.”
“Doesn’t matter. You owned that bat and you’re responsible for the harm it caused.”
Explain how that makes sense because according to the Judge if you didn’t buy that bat, those innocents would not have been kneecapped. Based on this, the city passes a tax on baseball bats because “When baseball bats are used in crimes, baseball bat owners are the criminals.”
Seriously?
Supreme Court allowing restrictions on abortion since Roe v. Wade became law:
- Bellotti v. Baird (1979)
- Harris v. McRae (1980)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
- Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
- Gonzales v. Carhart (2006)
Since Roe v. Wade states have passed over 1,000 abortion restrictions.
And that pace seems to be getting faster lately. A third of those restrictions have been in the past 10 years.
- 41 states have tried to pass abortion restrictions this year, as Georgia votes on a new ban: Report
- Here’s Why The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Escalating
- The rising wave of abortion restrictions in America
- Report details wave of state legislative attempts to restrict abortion in 2021
From that last link in the list above:
Over 500 abortion restrictions have been introduced in 44 states this year, compared to around 300 at this time in 2019, according to the report, which Planned Parenthood produced with data compiled by the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research organization.
I am missing the Supreme Court decisions regularly limiting gun rights (or allowing states to limit them). Quite the opposite, in fact. I am missing anything like that wave of attempts by states to restrict gun rights.
I absolutely think the anti-abortion movement has shown the way here. Just churn out huge numbers of gun regulation bills. Keep them in court forever. See what sticks.
This is an excellent illustration of the issue, IMO
It’s also important to consider that guns last a long time if properly cared for. It’s tempting to think of anyone who owns a gun as having a basement full of AR-15s and Vektor Not-SMGs and other Tactical Black Scary Guns, and spending their days like a priapistic Gollum stroking and talking to “Their Precioussss” but most people with guns aren’t remotely like that - they’ve got a single-digit number (maybe only one or two) for specific purposes, such as hunting or competition shooting.
That duck gun DrDeth referred to is quite likely to be a 12ga shotgun that belonged to the owner’s father or even grandfather and probably has a lot of family history/sentimental value attached to it. The Deer rifle is probably a bolt-action rifle the owner has had since they were a teenager, and maybe even took on their first hunting trip with a parent or family member.
Proposals which essentially take people’s family heirlooms off them, especially in what appears to be a backhanded or stealthy way, rightly cause concern amongst law-abiding people - especially when they’re part of a group that’s traditionally kicked in the nuts whenever politicians want to be seen to be “doing something”.
Saying “We’re going to take that shotgun your grandad hunted with and passed to you when he died, and we’re going to melt it down because fuck you, redneck” is exactly how you end up bolstering the hardcore, no-compromise, Molon-Labe, Don’t-Tread-On-Me pro-2A groups, and then the debate on actually reasonable firearms law reform just grinds to a halt because those groups will (understandably) see any law reform as being the precursor to effective confiscation.
Why is “Impossible Insurance” impossible?
They are already that way. The “Molon-Labe, Don’t-Tread-On-Me pro-2A groups” are already there.
Maybe you mint a few new ones like that but so what?
So they start working together and instead of only one pro-gun group to contend with, you’ve now got three or four, and most of them are considerably less ‘reasonable’ than the one group you had to begin with.
In more advanced cases, one of the new “much less reasonable” groups might end up displacing the original group as the major firearm community representative organisation, meaning whatever hope (generic) you had of getting even some concessions is now well and truly scuppered.
So? I seriously doubt those fringe cases were reasonable to begin with.
This might mean something if gun-rights groups had ever been willing to give “some concessions.” They have not been willing to do that for decades (See: NRA). Not losing anything.
We hear tell of the reasonable gun owner who thinks there should be some common sense gun laws but they haver never, ever, been able to make their presence known.
That’s because of the same issue you see in this thread, and pretty much 95% of all the other threads here, much less in the unmoderated forum that is the public opinion. If you, as a gun owner, start talking about maybe there is realm for common sense moderation, someone (generally a anti-gun type) starts shouting that it’s not enough and no one will be safe, and then the pro-gun side will seize it as proof that the other side cannot be trusted and is out to get the guns and both pile into the debate squashing the middle by volume and quantity of response.
The moderates realize neither side wants to talk, they are both (sincerely) fighting a ‘good’ war, and bow out and shrug with (often smug) superiority that ‘they’ tried. Of course, I generalize from a sample of one.
Just like anything else in America (or honestly, much of the world) the extremes are news, thus getting all the attention, and therefore get legislation promoted in their favor to secure their support. It can be this piece of proposed profiling, or it can be insane loosening of carry laws, either way it’s politicians appealing to their source of power.
Please see my post 119. No insurance will or can cover you for deliberate illegal acts. No insurance covers you for illegal acts performed by your property after it is stolen from you.
Sure. But there are 80 million gun owners in America, all of whom are old enough to vote, and is more voters than voted for either candidate in 2020, and many of whom vote Democratic. The NRA, which is by no means all "Molon-Labe, Don’t-Tread-On-Me pro-2A " members only has 5 million members.
Do you want to move those 80 million into the Molon-Labe, Don’t-Tread-On-Me pro-2A category? If so, no Democratic candidate will ever win.
Do you want to drive reasonable gun owners into the fringe?
I don’t care about gun rights groups, I care about the 70 million gun owners who are not part of such a group.
Many of them voted for Biden. I am in favor of common sense gun laws. Polls show that many gun owners support common sense gun laws. So this comment is totally wrong.
Do you have a cite for an example of these polls? I am curious as to which gun laws are supported by many gun owners.
Nonsense.
Every real world gun legislation has been vehemently opposed by the NRA. Pro-gun regulation types were not the ones working to defeat it unless (maybe) it was some feel-good legislation that everyone knew would not actually achieve anything.
The problem with these polls and other strongly felt issue related polls is the way that they are asked, and that is when they are done by neutral pollsters because one word here or there can influence the poll. And the push polls are even worse.
Also many people are simply not knowledgeable of basis facts. For instance, when we talk about gun registration, it is amazing how many people we think have that already. The attitude is mostly influenced by NYC cop shows where they do have gun registration
That shows that 42% of respondents own guns.
A study published in the American Journal of Public Health last week found that of 24 potential gun-control policies, gun owners and non-gun owners fell within a 10-point support gap on 16 of those policies — and previous studies have yielded similar results.
“Large majorities of both gun owners and non-gun owners strongly support measures to strengthen US gun laws,” the authors wrote. Given that gun issues are connected tightly to cultural and identity politics in America, it is noteworthy how much agreement we found in support for policies to regulate the way people acquire and carry guns."
I mean, it is simply math. So many Americans favor mild gun controls that if every one were against everything the polls would show vastly different numbers.