Gun Insurance

@vivify said
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/us/san-jose-gun-law-wednesday/index.html

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

It would be great. Only people with money would have guns. I’d say $800/ month should be a good number, it probably should not be as much as a rent payment.
Only People With Money Would Have Guns.

@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.

Which article is this?

Never mind I see it in the OP

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/us/san-jose-gun-law-wednesday/index.html

That quote is not in this article.

This is what the article says:

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

@athousandyoung said
What do you think "regulated" means?!

organized

you people are making the case for militias, like the dems are prosecuting now.

This is illegal for them to do right?

@vivify said
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/us/san-jose-gun-law-wednesday/index.html

The San Jose, California, city council voted Tuesday night to adopt a first-in-the-nation ordinance requiring most gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance, measures aimed at reducing the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and easing taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

Had they lived in a civilised country, they wouldn't have needed it.

@mott-the-hoople said
organized

By who? How?

@mott-the-hoople said
well regulated

any gun law

Yeah, no. You contradict yourself - as you penis-replacements always do.

@techsouth said
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 e ...[text shortened]... guns from gang members at the identical rate as it eliminates guns from typical suburban families).

Whether this law reduces gun violence or not, who knows; it's at least a good possibility, especially if this law catches on nationwide.

Could there be people plotting to use restrictions to ban gun ownership outright? Sure. That possibility shouldn't prevent restrictions on guns, since they're sorely needed in America.

As far as your "gang members" arguments, it's not such people who are shooting up schools and committing mass murders. Most school shooters use legally obtained guns. The Las Vegas shooter, who committed the large mass-shooting in U.S. history, had no previous criminal record. Anyone can become the next mass shooter; that's why we tight restrictions on gun ownership are needed.

@athousandyoung said
By who? How?

LOL…can you not read for yourself?

@jimm619 said
This is moronic.....
What a maroon 😛

LOL.
Want to hear something far, far, far more moronic?

Believing that your government lawmakers actually care about your life and health. LOL. They couldn't give a sheit about your well being -- just like the 50 yr long fake wars on drugs and cancer. All these people and their masters care about is milking the stupid population for everything they can while maintaining the conditions for crime and disease. They have zero interest in truly curing such problems, which explains, for example, why authorities never divulge the true reason why someone killed innocent people.

@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 about the child that gets their spine severed by a bullet and has to spend the rest of their life in a wheelchair? I’d imagine that they would find an insurance payout quite useful, you know for ongoing medical and adapted housing stuff like that.
What about the child whose breadwinner parent is killed by a bullet? Is it ok if they get an insurance pay out or would that infringe a well ordered militias freedom to destroy as many lives as possible.

@mott-the-hoople said
"shall not infringe"

what part of that are you not getting?

because of a well regulated militia

what part of that are you not getting?

a well regulated militia being AT THE TIME being integral to the US existance ( because it didn't have a freakin army) you had to have people with guns. That became obsolete the moment you had a standing army, 200 years ago.

@zahlanzi said
because of a well regulated militia

what part of that are you not getting?

a well regulated militia being AT THE TIME being integral to the US existance ( because it didn't have a freakin army) you had to have people with guns. That became obsolete the moment you had a standing army, 200 years ago.

The sotus has ruled, basically they said people like you are dumb fuks

@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.

So then you are against lowering gun violence?

@mott-the-hoople said
The sotus has ruled, basically they said people like you are dumb fuks

no, scalia, the dumbest, corrupt ashole on the supreme court has ruled, with made up grammar rules, that the first sentence of a phrase doesn't actually matter and it is just there because the founding slavers wanted to pad up the word count like a dumb elementary school student who didn't read the assigned book for the essay

You believed him because you're dumber and just want to have more guns anyway

@mott-the-hoople said
The sotus has ruled, basically they said people like you are dumb fuks

A burning house, being a danger to nearby houses, the firefighters' usage of a high pressure water hose on a private property shall not be infringed.


Scalia says this phrase means firefighters can splash your house whenever the fuk they want.


You stupid sonovabitch