Gun Insurance

@vivify said
You realize that support for more than one cause at a time is possible, right?

the cause is preventing death, you are only interested in one reason. You cant be against fentanyl because0 it is caused by bidens open borders. You can be a hypocrite all you want, but you cant hide.

@mott-the-hoople said
the cause is preventing death, you are only interested in one reason. You cant be against fentanyl because0 it is caused by bidens open borders. You can be a hypocrite all you want, but you cant hide.

Yawn

@techsouth said
I think then, you're argument may have been stated as follows:

If it were your child's murder that was avoided because a gun owner couldn't afford insurance and turned in his gun instead,...

Is that a fair characterization?

If so, shouldn't we just openly admit that the purpose and hope of this legislation is to chip away at gun ownership freedom?

What of the tremendous medical costs
wracked up, attributed directly to gun violence?

@jimm619 said
What of the tremendous medical costs
wracked up, attributed directly to gun violence?

The cool thing is that when a would be robber drives by your house, they likely don't know whether you're armed or not and have to consider the very real possibility that you may be armed and willing to shoot them.

So you are free from having to own a gun and you don't have to spend money purchasing one nor worry about liability of a gun you own being used badly, yet you still reap some of the benefits of living in a society where ordinary people can defend themselves.

I seriously doubt this San Jose law will reduce gun violence in any way because in general those involved in armed robbery and/or gang violence aren't going to purchase any liability insurance nor give up their guns.

@techsouth said
I seriously doubt this San Jose law will reduce gun violence in any way

That's not the purpose of the law. The purpose is to help victims of gun violence, just like car insurance is meant to help victims of car accidents.

@vivify said
That's not the stated purpose of the law, as shown by the Fox News link posted near the beginning of this thread. The stated purpose is to help victims or families of victims of gun violence.

That said, adding even more gun restrictions would is an added bonus.

Here is a suggestion to bolster your credibility. When a sentence begins with this phrase

"If so, shouldn't we just openly admit..."

Then the writer is postulating a difference between a stated, disingenuous, intent and a real, perhaps hidden intent. Merely restating the already stated purpose does nothing other than repeat an assertion to which it is already implied to be a point of disagreement.

Having insurance, by itself, would not reduce violence, but only provide deeper pockets who would be on the hook to pay legal settlements after the fact.

@vivify said
That's not the purpose of the law. The purpose is to help victims of gun violence, just like car insurance is meant to help victims of car accidents.

Quote from article: A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules.

@techsouth said
Quote from article: A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules.

Whoops. Missed that one line.

Still, even if doesn't reduce gun violence, it will still help victims of gun violence.

@vivify said
That said, adding even more gun restrictions would is an added bonus.

BTW: On a different thread where I was using satire about something entirely different, I mentioned that Democrats were trying to stop gun ownership. (Note: that this was satire and I was not stating a precise opinion about gun laws in that thread). But it is interesting how I was categorized by another leftist on that thread who treated my satire as plain text.

Quote from "SonHouse" on a different thread:

NOBODY is trying to stop people from having their hunting guns, pistols, shotguns, long rifles, so stop LYING.

Sonhouse seems to not be on this thread, which is fine since we all have to choose how much time we spend here. But note that I think this thread and especially this post proves I would not have been lying even if I were speaking plainly rather than using satire. At least vivify is openly admitting to want to take guns away.

@techsouth said
Here is a suggestion to bolster your credibility. When a sentence begins with this phrase

"If so, shouldn't we just openly admit..."

Then the writer is postulating a difference between a stated, disingenuous, intent and a real, perhaps hidden intent. Merely restating the already stated purpose does nothing other than repeat an assertion to which it is already impli ...[text shortened]... e, but only provide deeper pockets who would be on the hook to pay legal settlements after the fact.

Okay, then to answer your question:

Yes, it is to restrict gun ownership, which I'm fine with. It had the added benefit of helping victims of gun violence as well.

@techsouth said
BTW: On a different thread where I was using satire about something entirely different, I mentioned that Democrats were trying to stop gun ownership. (Note: that this was satire and I was not stating a precise opinion about gun laws in that thread). But it is interesting how I was categorized by another leftist on that thread who treated my satire as plain text.

Quote ...[text shortened]... ng plainly rather than using satire. At least vivify is openly admitting to want to take guns away.

Restricting gun ownership is not the same as banning them. No one is restricted from owning a car but there are restrictions (insurance requirements, age requirements, sight tests, criminal driving record, etc.).

@mott-the-hoople said
just shut up...now you are trying to say the constitution doesnt mean anything...blabbering fool

You should read the SCOTUS ruling you cited above.

Nowhere does it endorse the radical notion that ANY regulation of guns or gun ownership is unconstitutional as you claim.

@vivify said
Restricting gun ownership is not the same as banning them. No one is restricted from owning a car but there are restrictions (insurance requirements, age requirements, sight tests, criminal driving record, etc.).

True.

But in reality many ARE trying to ban guns and using "restrictions" as a pathway.

In this case they SAY they are trying to reduce violence, but that can only happen if it discourages someone from owning a gun because it cost too much and that gun's being removed from San Jose results in a crime not being committed.

As you've acknowledged, no gun violence is ended because the owner has liability insurance. It only, in theory COULD be reduced if the owner decides it's too expensive to buy liability insurance and chooses not to own a gun. (And that, of course is the eternal Internet debate. Whether one thinks the net results of the San Jose gun law will be good or bad, it cannot be seriously thought that insurance requirements are going to eliminate guns from gang members at the identical rate as it eliminates guns from typical suburban families).

@mott-the-hoople said
yes it does...

" "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

any gun law is unconstitutional.

and it is stupid beyond belief to think that a law will prevent criminals from having guns.

What do you think "regulated" means?!

@no1marauder said
That argument won't do as every able bodied white male between 18 and 45 was conscripted into local militias.

It's best to discuss what the Framers intended as the scope of the right.

Ooh maybe we can refuse to let old people have guns wouldn't that piss off dood