FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Liability Insurance for guns as unfair, sneaky gun-control?





JoryRFerrell
It seems like this tax will make it harder for law-abiding, yet extremely poor, citizens to legally hold guns. Are bad guys going to pay such taxes? No. Will the bad guys still keep his gun? Yes.
Where does this leave law-abiding citizens who follow laws when they come up against the guy with no regard for the laws, and more importantly a loaded gun?
handfleisch
Any reasonable law that will slowly cut down on the number of guns in circulation is a good thing. People still have the right to the gun, they just have to pay for the insurance.
deanhills
JoryRFerrell wrote:
It seems like this tax will make it harder for law-abiding, yet extremely poor, citizens to legally hold guns. Are bad guys going to pay such taxes? No. Will the bad guys still keep his gun? Yes.
Where does this leave law-abiding citizens who follow laws when they come up against the guy with no regard for the laws, and more importantly a loaded gun?
What will those taxes be used for though? And does it end? Maybe people who have problems with obesity and are eating at places like Kentucky Fried Chicken should also be paying taxes? I believe heart disease and adult onset diabetes take more lives than guns do. Pretty ridiculous, but where does it end?
appsapps
The thing that bothers me about liability insurance on guns is that they are not like cars. When your car is stolen, it is generally assumed that if it doesn't turn up within a certain amount of time, it most likely never will. You are then allowed to drop your insurance on it. It's not too likely that a car will turn up 40 years later and be involved in an accident.

But a stolen gun could turn up many years later, perhaps decades, and end up involved in a crime. Would owners be required to keep the gun insured for the rest of their lives, keep making insurance payments, till it turns up or the original owner drops dead of old age?

I don't see the idea of making perpetual insurance payments on something you don't even have any more as being very fair.
JoryRFerrell
handfleisch wrote:
Any reasonable law that will slowly cut down on the number of guns in circulation is a good thing. People still have the right to the gun, they just have to pay for the insurance.

Wasn't the question. I asked what you do about folks who simply cannot afford to be paying insurance to own something that is fundamentally their right to own?

As for the whole idea of gun liability tax, there are far more automobile accidents in the United States
than weapons "damages", especially in terms of loss of life. So it makes sense to charge everyone automobile insurance, with millions of such accidents occurring each year. It makes NO sense to tax law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong, nor will EVER do anything wrong with their firearm.
around 300k crimes were committed with guns in 2010. Let's say the average is 500k. That's still far less than auto accidents. It's less than the number of citizens our government has killed with their guns and drones. And again, at only 300k crimes, that means more than the majority of gun owners are abiding by the law and will never be the cause of an "accident", which cannot be said of every driver.
So this difference means it is unfair to tax people for purposes of restricting their access to firearms. After all, law abiding citizens who would follow the law and avoid keeping a firearm in their possession, because they cannot afford to, are probably not the folks to pull a massacre. Whereas the folks who would murder, will most likely avoid turning their weapons in, or disregard US federal laws while shopping down in Mexico (not bashing mexico people, it's just easier to get an illegal firearm there :/), or buying firearms from the folks who are having weapons smuggled in from the border. In the end, this tax is actually unconstitutional, because it's an intentional disarming of citizens who have done nothing wrong, besides "be poor", and that is an infringement of their right o bear arms. Gun ownership should NOT be restricted to folks with money.

Even an insurance payment of $25/month would hurt many folks. Considering how our government deems it ok to hand money to corrupt politicians and contractors, bankers, etc., while continuing tax the populace unfairly, thereby helping to widen the disparity in finances in the first damned place, I don't think they should be allowed to succeed in passing laws which screw over the little person still further. This seems...oh...I don't know...corrupt and dirty? Yea...those are the words I'd use. Rolling Eyes

It seems to be a highly dishonest way of going about gun-control.
JoryRFerrell
deanhills wrote:
JoryRFerrell wrote:
It seems like this tax will make it harder for law-abiding, yet extremely poor, citizens to legally hold guns. Are bad guys going to pay such taxes? No. Will the bad guys still keep his gun? Yes.
Where does this leave law-abiding citizens who follow laws when they come up against the guy with no regard for the laws, and more importantly a loaded gun?
What will those taxes be used for though? And does it end? Maybe people who have problems with obesity and are eating at places like Kentucky Fried Chicken should also be paying taxes? I believe heart disease and adult onset diabetes take more lives than guns do. Pretty ridiculous, but where does it end?


The taxes will go towards illegal drone strikes. And buying enormous quantities of ammo for the Department of Homeland Sec. Confused
ocalhoun
Ha, so they've finally found a regressive tax scheme that 'liberals' can embrace?

The liberals get to restrict guns like they want, the conservatives get to hurt poor people like they want. A perfect win/win in Washington terms.
JoryRFerrell
ocalhoun wrote:
Ha, so they've finally found a regressive tax scheme that 'liberals' can embrace?

The liberals get to restrict guns like they want, the conservatives get to hurt poor people like they want. A perfect win/win in Washington terms.


How disgustingly optimistic of you. lmfao Razz
handfleisch
JoryRFerrell wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Any reasonable law that will slowly cut down on the number of guns in circulation is a good thing. People still have the right to the gun, they just have to pay for the insurance.

Wasn't the question. I asked what you do about folks who simply cannot afford to be paying insurance to own something that is fundamentally their right to own?
What do you want, free guns? You want a gun, pay the insurance. Give us a break. If you can't afford the insurance, you can't afford the guns.

JoryRFerrell wrote:

As for the whole idea of gun liability tax, there are far more automobile accidents in the United States
than weapons "damages", especially in terms of loss of life. So it makes sense to charge everyone automobile insurance, with millions of such accidents occurring each year. It makes NO sense to tax law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong, nor will EVER do anything wrong with their firearm.
Um, we DO charge everyone automobile insurance. At least they do in my state and everywhere I know of in the USA. That's the point of insurance, really. Everyone chips in for financial protection from the irresponsible few.
JoryRFerrell
handfleisch wrote:
JoryRFerrell wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Any reasonable law that will slowly cut down on the number of guns in circulation is a good thing. People still have the right to the gun, they just have to pay for the insurance.

Wasn't the question. I asked what you do about folks who simply cannot afford to be paying insurance to own something that is fundamentally their right to own?
What do you want, free guns? You want a gun, pay the insurance. Give us a break. If you can't afford the insurance, you can't afford the guns.

JoryRFerrell wrote:

As for the whole idea of gun liability tax, there are far more automobile accidents in the United States
than weapons "damages", especially in terms of loss of life. So it makes sense to charge everyone automobile insurance, with millions of such accidents occurring each year. It makes NO sense to tax law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong, nor will EVER do anything wrong with their firearm.
Um, we DO charge everyone automobile insurance. At least they do in my state and everywhere I know of in the USA. That's the point of insurance, really. Everyone chips in for financial protection from the irresponsible few.


I know that we have auto insurance and that it is mandatory. I was stating that the reason we have auto insurance is that ANYONE may have a bad day and wreck their car. The same cannot really be said of guns. The majority of guns in this country will stay locked in their cabinets and harm no one besides pin-up targets in the likeness of the shooters choice of politician/animal (j/k....j/k Razz).
So is it really fair to add an extra tax to weapons that make make gun ownership an unnecessary burden? Before you start on about it being a privilege, I agree. It's a privilege. But it shouldn't be one which you have to have money to maintain.

That kind of thought is highly discriminatory against folks who are law abiding citizens, yet who are, nevertheless, poor. Should the 50-60 woman, who used a gun to kill a stalker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvggjYRbL0), have eschewed firearm ownership because she was to poor to do so? Would you rather she have been unable to afford self protection, and possibly been raped and murdered? The cops were to far away, and even the dispatcher told her to open fire if necessary (which did indeed end up being the case).

Also, what about this mother:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rj02JmKipk

I am not trying to tug at heart strings here. I am asking legitimate questions. Your policies would affect these families, potentially in a negative manner. How would you justify that? If your own children were in danger, would you want your government telling you you are to poor to own a gun in order that your wife might save their lives? Think about that before you advocate taking rights away from poor people who have done nothing besides be poor. Confused Rolling Eyes
Ankhanu
JoryRFerrell wrote:
I know that we have auto insurance and that it is mandatory. I was stating that the reason we have auto insurance is that ANYONE may have a bad day and wreck their car. The same cannot really be said of guns. The majority of guns in this country will stay locked in their cabinets and harm no one besides pin-up targets in the likeness of the shooters choice of politician/animal (j/k....j/k Razz).
So is it really fair to add an extra tax to weapons that make make gun ownership an unnecessary burden? Before you start on about it being a privilege, I agree. It's a privilege. But it shouldn't be one which you have to have money to maintain.

Sorry, but that's bullshit Razz
Both are dangerous tools with high chances of damage if used (im)properly. Your assumption that most guns in the USA are locked away is somewhat fallacious... and somewhat works against the "important for self-defence" argument. It's also fallacious to say that automobiles aren't likewise locked away... an automobile without a key is just as harmless as a gun in a locked cabinet without a key.

You need a license and insurance to drive a dangerous car (which is a tool with a non-dangerous function), so why not a license and insurance to handle a dangerous firearm (which is a tool with only destructive use)? Does licensing and insurance limit who can have a car? Yes, to an extent. Would it do likewise for firearms? Sure. Is this a problem? Not really, in reality; moreso in a fearmongering strawman reality.

JoryRFerrell wrote:
That kind of thought is highly discriminatory against folks who are law abiding citizens, yet who are, nevertheless, poor.

Just like every other form of insurance.

JoryRFerrell wrote:
Should the 50-60 woman, who used a gun to kill a stalker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvggjYRbL0), have eschewed firearm ownership because she was to poor to do so? Would you rather she have been unable to afford self protection, and possibly been raped and murdered? The cops were to far away, and even the dispatcher told her to open fire if necessary (which did indeed end up being the case).

Also, what about this mother:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rj02JmKipk

I am not trying to tug at heart strings here. I am asking legitimate questions. Your policies would affect these families, potentially in a negative manner. How would you justify that? If your own children were in danger, would you want your government telling you you are to poor to own a gun in order that your wife might save their lives? Think about that before you advocate taking rights away from poor people who have done nothing besides be poor. Confused Rolling Eyes

Firearms are not the only form of self-protection. In fact, citizens of many nations manage to defend themselves without firearms in modern times, let alone everyone before firearms were developed. Firearms don't guarantee safety when drawn for self-defence; in fact, I'd wager the average citizen is not well suited to handling a firearm under stress, nor prepared to handle the psychological consequences of shooting another person if they manage to reach that goal.

Simple fact, if there are fewer firearms available, there will be fewer criminals with firearms. Keep lots of guns around, lots of criminals will have guns.
Yes, reducing legally, responsibly owned guns will generate an artificially high ratio of armed criminals vs. unarmed non-criminals... in the short-term. Long-term will be a generally unarmed criminal sector as well, and a generally safer country.
handfleisch
Ankhanu answered for me very well. About this:
handfleisch wrote:
JoryRFerrell wrote:
Also, what about this mother:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rj02JmKipk
I could cite MORE examples of tragedies that happen because of gun ownership, like
Quote:
Boy, 4, shoots self in face with father's gunhttp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15885754-boy-4-shoots-self-in-face-with-fathers-gun?lite
Beside the issue of rights, please be aware for yourself, personally, of the reality of gun ownership:
Quote:
Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.
And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
So Jory, if you got one, you better get rid of that gun in your home. If it's ever used at all, chances are it will be used for really bad things. Suicide. Children's shooting themselves. Angry domestic violence.
Related topics
Friday evening, I will prove guns are not needed in todays
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Family of 4 murdered in Richmond, VA
Machinegun Ownership
America and guns,
Teach your kids these two things please
Another School Shooting
Recent attacks on Schools
Man Charged After Shooting His Foot
33 dead at Virginia Tech Shooting
Is it time the USA gave up its right to bear arms.
Teachers have guns in texas
Things only a Republican could believe
There must be something wrong with this statement?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.