10 round clip controversy

[sgtmac_46]

With the gun control debate it is similar (imo). I agree that some limitations are required to keep the country form turning into a wild west where stray bullets and ricochets kill people on a daily basis. Imo (again) full automatic assault rifles like miniguns have no place in a crowded city, because the risk to other people is too big. And if people can legally own them, then bad guys wil also own them and the violence problem is bad enough already that adding miniguns is not going to do much good in a place which suffers from gang warfare.

Well, first of all, miniguns aren't 'assault rifles'.........they aren't rifles at all.

Second of all, even so called 'assault rifles' are used in less than 1% of homicides......and that's the actually accessible ones like SKS's and AK-47's and their variants, which aren't real assault rifles either, as they are semi-automatic.

3rd, even if you legalized mini-guns, you wouldn't have any homicides with them, because they cost in excess of $60,000.00 plus apiece........and, you may not be aware of this, you can purchase them.........but the price alone makes them unlikely to ever get in the hands of some deranged nit-wit. http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/mar/minigun.html

 

[Steve]

The same could be argued for the speed limits. But ultimately, there is always going to be less killings, the further the speed limit decreases. That doesn't mean it should be done. No matter what you do, there is always going to be a risk of injury or death. A meteorite can kill you outdoors, but you are not wearing a kevlar helmet for going to the grocery store.

I'm not arguing that guns be banned or even that clips (or magazines) be limited to 10 or whatever rounds. It's funny you bring up cars. Drivers are required by law to carry liability insurance. That's exactly what led me to wonder if it would be a good idea for gun owners to do the same.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm not arguing that guns be banned or even that clips (or magazines) be limited to 10 or whatever rounds. It's funny you bring up cars. Drivers are required by law to carry liability insurance. That's exactly what led me to wonder if it would be a good idea for gun owners to do the same.

It's not.......and car owners are not required to have liability insurance, anyway......they are required to do so when driving on public roads.......you can buy as many cars as you want, and never buy insurance, if you want to park them in the garage.

So, now we've limited the analogy to valid CCW carriers........not even hunters, except those who hunt on public lands, which most don't.

So now we have to look at the actual numbers of CCW carriers inflicting harm on others.........which, I suspect, is statistically non-existent.

So where is the justification?

 

[Steve]

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns.php


The reality is that the 'gun' risk in America is overplayed for political reasons, and that vastly more mundane risks are what threaten Americans every day.........yet we fixate on guns because when those deaths do occur, they are sensational.

But what it reveals about those who fixate on them, is that those people utilize poor risk assessment.........for example, a parents terrified response to learn that the neighbor, who's child their child plays with, has a gun in the house.......despite the fact that their own swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill their child or the neighbors child than a gun in the home. Poor risk assessment.

Personally, I think that it's interesting that every source you quote uses only deaths, completely ignoring injuries related to guns. Once again. There were a total of about 80 gun related deaths per day in 2007. Of those, about 78 of them were intentional.

But, there were also around 60,000 gun related injuries last year, a third of which were unintentional.

If you look at the stats for drownings, there are more deaths, but fewer than half the number of incidents overall. And that's not limited to pools. That's ALL drowning/near-drowning incidents. Statistically, you're actually about twice as likely to be shot on accident than to drown or be in a near drowning situation.

From my perspective, it sounds like you guys don't like the idea, but have no real reason for it. Creuntus didn't back his statements up, and so far, you guys are putting up stats that just don't make sense. Once again, if it's a bad idea, I'm okay with that, but I'd like to see some numbers to support your claim. Either some stats from a credible source that dispute the CDC stats, or even some support for your allegations.

For example, you allege that "nearly all but a handful of gun related unintentional injuries are self-inflicted." Prove it. I looked and couldn't find anything to support or discount your statement.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Personally, I think that it's interesting that every source you quote uses only deaths, completely ignoring injuries related to guns. Once again. There were a total of about 80 gun related deaths per day in 2007. Of those, about 78 of them were intentional.

But, there were also around 60,000 gun related injuries last year, a third of which were unintentional.

Okay, so there are 20,000 UNINTENTIONAL gun related injuries a year?

The number of injuries from automobiles in 2.9 MILLION! http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

If you look at the stats for drownings, there are more deaths, but fewer than half the number of incidents overall. And that's not limited to pools. That's ALL drowning/near-drowning incidents. Statistically, you're actually about twice as likely to be shot on accident than to drown or be in a near drowning situation.

You can't remotely support that........you want to compare drowning DEATHS to gun injuries so you can come up with different numbers........sorry, that doesn't fly.







But, if you'd like to compare apples to apples...........

"Last year, an estimated 56,000 persons required hospital emergency room treatment for injuries associated with swimming pools, swimming pool slides, and diving boards." http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml76/76029.html

"In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents" http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

From my perspective, it sounds like you guys don't like the idea, but have no real reason for it. Creuntus didn't back his statements up, and so far, you guys are putting up stats that just don't make sense. Once again, if it's a bad idea, I'm okay with that, but I'd like to see some numbers to support your claim. Either some stats from a credible source that dispute the CDC stats, or even some support for your allegations.

No reason for what? To dispute the fact that your numbers don't support a gun problem in America?

How about this.......the homicide rate in the US is double the rate for Europe.......want to guess why? One reason, SOLELY..........inner-city violence rates.

For the rest of the country, the homicide rates are nearly identical to Europe, despite hundreds of millions of guns........there IS no gun threat. There is irrational fear, but no actual threat.

For example, you allege that "nearly all but a handful of gun related unintentional injuries are self-inflicted." Prove it. I looked and couldn't find anything to support or discount your statement.

Let me know if you find something that supports or disputes it, and we'll discuss it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Lets simplify this discussion........i've already demonstrated that death and injury rates for gun related incidents in the US are on par with our love of swimming........and both are far below the death and injury rates involved with our love of the automobile......

So let me ask you this.......what do you think the problem really is? And what do you think the solution is? In clear, concise terms.

 

[Steve]

Okay, so there are 20,000 UNINTENTIONAL gun related injuries a year?

Yes. According to the CDC. Not including fatalities.

The number of injuries from automobiles in 2.9 MILLION! http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

Ah. Drownings wasn't working out, so you go with something else. Our exposure to cars is pervasive. Every single person in the USA, from baby to adult, is exposed to motor vehicles multiple times. Walking, driving, riding our bikes, we are in or around cars and trucks. There are over 250 million registered passenger vehicles in America representing just about every household. We see them literally everywhere, and even if you don't own one, you are almost guaranteed to be in or on one during the course of your day. Also, remember that bikes and public transportation are often included in the stats.

In contrast, according to lklawson, there are about 52 million households with guns, and the vast majority of US citizens go weeks, months or even years without seeing a firearm drawn.

If you consider context and the degree of exposure, I'd argue that it's at least comparable. Either way, it's interpretation. You're definitely entitled to yours.

You can't remotely support that........you want to compare drowning DEATHS to gun injuries so you can come up with different numbers........sorry, that doesn't fly.

Nope. You guys brought up drowning. The link wasn't even to statistics. Rather, it was an op/ed piece on pools verses guns. I'm simply pointing out that if you compare drownings and near drownings to gun fatalities and injuries, you're actually twice as likely to get shot as to be involved in a drowning or near drowning incident. I'm trying to go out of my way, in other words, to put the statistics you bring up into something approximating equivalent context.

But, if you'd like to compare apples to apples...........

Thanks for that. But come on. Your report from the CPSC was from 1976. As a result of reports like that one most homes can't get homeowners insurance unless the pool has been built safely. New homes with pools have specific materials involved, no longer have diving boards, no longer have "deep" ends, and conform to a laundry list of specifications designed to significantly reduce the number of drownings and near drownings. And they've worked.

But whether they worked or not, this actually supports my point considering that a person's pool IS insured under their homeowners policy.

No reason for what? To dispute the fact that your numbers don't support a gun problem in America?

Gun problem? Don't overstate my case here. I'm not suggesting that we have a gun problem. I'm just suggesting that, if a lawful gun owner carried liability insurance, if someone is injured they wouldn't have to sue to try and receive compensation to pay for the expenses related to, you know, getting shot.

How about this.......the homicide rate in the US is double the rate for Europe.......want to guess why? One reason, SOLELY..........inner-city violence rates.

Very interesting, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject.

For the rest of the country, the homicide rates are nearly identical to Europe, despite hundreds of millions of guns........there IS no gun threat. There is irrational fear, but no actual threat.

Let me know if you find something that supports or disputes it, and we'll discuss it.

And it may just come down to this. You have a strongly held opinion. To be honest, I don't. I have an idea... a thought that occurred to me a few years ago. I've seen actual statistical information that supports it, and you have yet to show me anything that leads me to believe otherwise.

 

[Archangel M]

I'm just suggesting that, if a lawful gun owner carried liability insurance, if someone is injured they wouldn't have to sue to try and receive compensation to pay for the expenses related to, you know, getting shot.

Right. There would be tons MORE lawsuits because there would be deeper pockets (insurance companies) to dip into. Why do you think auto accident attorneys breed like locusts?

 

[Steve]

Lets simplify this discussion........i've already demonstrated that death and injury rates for gun related incidents in the US are on par with our love of swimming........and both are far below the death and injury rates involved with our love of the automobile......

So let me ask you this.......what do you think the problem really is? And what do you think the solution is? In clear, concise terms.

Post 15. Post 33 was a response to Kirk.

 

[sgtmac_46]

In contrast, according to lklawson, there are about 52 million households with guns, and the vast majority of US citizens go weeks, months or even years without seeing a firearm drawn.

If you consider context and the degree of exposure, I'd argue that it's at least comparable. Either way, it's interpretation. You're definitely entitled to yours.Nope. You guys brought up drowning. The link wasn't even to statistics. Rather, it was an op/ed piece on pools verses guns. I'm simply pointing out that if you compare drownings and near drownings to gun fatalities and injuries, you're actually twice as likely to get shot as to be involved in a drowning or near drowning incident. I'm trying to go out of my way, in other words, to put the statistics you bring up into something approximating equivalent context.

I said 'drownings'? Really?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns.php


The reality is that the 'gun' risk in America is overplayed for political reasons, and that vastly more mundane risks are what threaten Americans every day.........yet we fixate on guns because when those deaths do occur, they are sensational.

But what it reveals about those who fixate on them, is that those people utilize poor risk assessment.........for example, a parents terrified response to learn that the neighbor, who's child their child plays with, has a gun in the house.......despite the fact that their own swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill their child or the neighbors child than a gun in the home. Poor risk assessment.

Also, that statistic was specifically about the idiotic assertion that is often made about handguns in the homes killing children......the FACTS are that a swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun.

You inserted the word 'drowning' and then restricted it to that.....then attempt to reprimand me for not sticking to YOUR interpretation of what I said.....we call that a 'strawman'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Post 15. Post 33 was a response to Kirk.

Pointing to other posts is not an answer, it's a dodge.

Simple questions..........do you have an answer?

It's not that hard, or shouldn't be.

And in response to your notion of mandatory gun insurance being analogous to car insurance, the difference is that car accidents aren't measured in thousands, but in the millions.

And as the vast majority of injuries and deaths resulting from firearms are intentional, financially punishing the vast majority of citizens who lawfully possess them without incident is not really about mitigating financial losses, as those who use them illegally won't purchase it.......but about attempting to punish lawful gun owners and make gun ownership less and less attractive to the average American........In fact it is designed to financially punish the MOST responsible gun owners........in other words, it's a thinly veiled gun control ploy and canard.

 

[Steve]

I said 'drownings'? Really?



Also, that statistic was specifically about the idiotic assertion that is often made about handguns in the homes killing children......the FACTS are that a swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun.

You inserted the word 'drowning' and then restricted it to that.....then attempt to reprimand me for not sticking to YOUR interpretation of what I said.....we call that a 'strawman'.

The point was that your statistic was from 1976. I apologize if I unintentionally restricted the statistic to drownings. I used drownings/near drownings because those were the stats I could find. Unlike you, I guess I didn't go far enough in the wayback machine.

Posting the post numbers wasn't intended to be a dodge. It was intended to get you to the post where I specifically answered your question. I can give you a direct link if you want.

And as the vast majority of injuries and deaths resulting from firearms are intentional, financially punishing the vast majority of citizens who lawfully possess them without incident is not really about mitigating financial losses, as those who use them illegally won't purchase it.......but about attempting to punish lawful gun owners and make gun ownership less and less attractive to the average American........In fact it is designed to financially punish the MOST responsible gun owners........in other words, it's a thinly veiled gun control ploy and canard.

as I said before, if you don't see it as a problem, that's your legitimate opinion and there's likely nothing I could do to sway you. I've never been at fault in an auto accident. Am I being unfairly punished financially? I don't believe so.

And, if you read post 15, I actually acknowledge that, while it would in no way restrict gun ownership, pro gun advocates would allege it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Posting the post numbers wasn't intended to be a dodge. It was intended to get you to the post where I specifically answered your question. I can give you a direct link if you want.as I said before, if you don't see it as a problem, that's your legitimate opinion and there's likely nothing I could do to sway you. I've never been at fault in an auto accident. Am I being unfairly punished financially? I don't believe so.

And, if you read post 15, I actually acknowledge that, while it would in no way restrict gun ownership, pro gun advocates would allege it.

Sure it would restrict it.........a restriction isn't a ban, it's a limitation, and it would be a financial limitation purposely designed to make it far more difficult to own a firearm. That's a restriction.


And there is a vast difference between automobile insurance, and what you propose, which is designed to be intentionally punitive.............when you drive a vehicle on the roadways, you can apply the safety rules of the road, the odds of having some sort of collision at sometime in the near future are still high because of a variety of variables arising from operating a vehicle on the roadway.

One can apply the rules of firearms safety and reduce the lifetime odds of a negligent discharge of a firearm to almost nill..........meaning that the folks having negligent discharges are the folks who would not have insurance, and those that would have insurance aren't going to have negligent discharges.

Moreover, you would argue, 'what about if someone steals your gun?' What if someone steals your car? You're not require to have insurance against theft, and having your car parked on your property and stolen doesn't make you responsible if you don't have insurance.

Hence, we're back to only wanting to insure CCW carriers, if we're applying the car analogy.........and there is no financial justification for that.





But it's never going to happen anyway.........because unlike the more successful ruses utilized by the gun-grabbing lobby, this one can't be divided up to only attack and marginalize part of the gun-grabbing public..........and anything targeted against all gun-owners is doomed to legislative failure.

Of course even the strategy of divide and marginalize went a bridge too far on the recent shooting.........as the Gun-Grabbers attempt to spin the Glock as some sort of 'Assault Handgun' different from every other semi-automatic handgun, and 'uniquely deadly'!

 

[Steve]

Sure it would restrict it.........a restriction isn't a ban, it's a limitation, and it would be a financial limitation purposely designed to make it far more difficult to own a firearm. That's a restriction.

And there is a vast difference between automobile insurance, and what you propose, which is designed to be intentionally punitive.............when you drive a vehicle on the roadways, you can apply the safety rules of the road, the odds of having some sort of collision at sometime in the near future are still high because of a variety of variables arising from operating a vehicle on the roadway.

This actually made me laugh out loud. Once again, this is an idea I've never seen anywhere else. Is it a bad idea? Maybe. I put it out for discussion. But it's laughable (literally) that you're telling me what my motives are. Intentionally punitive? Really? I know I can't convince you otherwise, but I can tell you that my motives aren't punitive.

I guess you can call it a limitation, but I don't see it as any more or less of a limitation than the onus of purchasing liability insurance for your car. Millions of people who own cars seem to manage without too much of a hassle.

And you can't tell me that accidents with guns never happen. People who are applying every safety rule still sometimes get shot (or shot at) while hunting. Accidents, by definition, are not on purpose. Unforeseen.

One can apply the rules of firearms safety and reduce the lifetime odds of a negligent discharge of a firearm to almost nill..........meaning that the folks having negligent discharges are the folks who would not have insurance, and those that would have insurance aren't going to have negligent discharges.

Were that the case, we wouldn't see over 18k injuries per year. If you drive defensively and follow all of the rules of the road, your chance of being involved at fault in an accident are also reduced to almost nil.

You've alleged several times that 'almost all' unintentional, firearm injuries are self inflicted, but haven't backed that up. If that's true, you're probably right and there wouldn't be a real need. But so far, I get the impression that this is just a commonly held belief among the gun advocate crowd that's never been statistically supported. As I said before, I looked for something on this and couldn't find anything.

Moreover, you would argue, 'what about if someone steals your gun?' What if someone steals your car? You're not require to have insurance against theft, and having your car parked on your property and stolen doesn't make you responsible if you don't have insurance.

Now you're ascribing arguments to me that I've never made. Where did I mention theft?

Hence, we're back to only wanting to insure CCW carriers, if we're applying the car analogy.........and there is no financial justification for that.

If this is the case, back it up with something that makes sense.

So far, the opposition amounts to: it's not fair. It would cost me money. Pools were exceedingly dangerous in 1976. It smacks of gun control (to you).

But it's never going to happen anyway.........because unlike the more successful ruses utilized by the gun-grabbing lobby, this one can't be divided up to only attack and marginalize part of the gun-grabbing public..........and anything targeted against all gun-owners is doomed to legislative failure.

Of course even the strategy of divide and marginalize went a bridge too far on the recent shooting.........as the Gun-Grabbers attempt to spin the Glock as some sort of 'Assault Handgun' different from every other semi-automatic handgun, and 'uniquely deadly'!

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It sounds now like you're lumping me into some kind of anti-gun conspiracy. Is that where we're headed now?

 

[Grenadier]

With the gun control debate it is similar (imo). I agree that some limitations are required to keep the country form turning into a wild west where stray bullets and ricochets kill people on a daily basis. Imo (again) full automatic assault rifles like miniguns have no place in a crowded city, because the risk to other people is too big. And if people can legally own them

Many people lawfully own fully automatic assault rifles. For that matter, many people in crowded cities lawfully own fully automatic weapons in accordance to NFA34 / GCA68 / GCA86.

Again, there has been only one documented case of a lawful owner having used his full auto weapon in the commission of a crime. He happened to be a rogue police officer who could have easily used any number of his duty weapons.

In addition to this, there are quite a few individuals who lawfully own miniguns. None of them have used them in crimes.

Given those statistics, I certainly trust lawful owners of fully automatic weapons.

, then bad guys wil also own them and the violence problem is bad enough already that adding miniguns is not going to do much good in a place which suffers from gang warfare.

The bad guys already get theirs illegally, much how they get most of their "standard" one-shot per trigger pull firearms. They buy them from illegal arms dealers, they steal them, etc. They're also able to get fully automatic weapons illegally, since they don't obey the laws.

The Hollywood shootout from the last decade is a prime example of how the bad guys will get whatever munitions they want.

But things like the 10 bullet magazine limitation will have zero positive impact, even IF bad people would abide by that limitation (which they won't). The only people who would be impacted are the well meaning people who do abide by the law.

Agreed, whole-heartedly.

In the end, it's better to deal with the cause of the problem, rather than to cover-up the symptoms.

 

[Grenadier]

On the insurance issue, requiring law-abiding folks who wish to own / carry firearms to buy it is a restriction that leaves too many things open for abuse. Once such restrictions are in place, it becomes much easier for a partisan politician to screw over the law-abiding folks.

For example, if you take a look at the City of New York, they crafted a bizarre, twisted network of laws that made it all but impossible for ordinary law-abiding citizens to own firearms (currently being whittled away by the DC v. Heller and MacDonald v Chicago rulings).

The crafters of such legislation assured the populace that such restrictions weren't going to affect the law-abiding, but in the end, look at how things were badly twisted. These days, the authorities there don't issue permits, even though courts have repeatedly ordered them to issue them.



As for accidents, you're trying to impose a law that only affects a minute amount of the population. If we look at the National Safety Council's 1998 statistics on deaths:

Heart disease 737,563
Cancer 538,455
Stroke (cerebrovascular disease) 157,991
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 102,899
Doctor's negligence 93,329
Motor-vehicle 43,363
Firearms (Total) 35,673

and out of that Firearms total...

Suicides 18,503
Homicides 15,551

and of course...

Accidents 1,125


1,125 accidental deaths is a paltry amount, when you look at basically screwing over the entire law-abiding populace. If you want to play numbers with other accidents...

Falls 13,986
Poison 8,461
Drowning 4,350
Fires, burns 3,761

and, of course...

Firearms 1,125

For those who claim to be neutral on the gun-grabbing argument, you'd see that 1,125 is a lot smaller than any of the above, yet why aren't you calling for buying liability insurance for insecticides, cleaning agents, and other toxins? You'd certainly have over 6 times the impact...

Or, why not making a swimming license and insurance? You'd save over 3 times as many in that case.



In the end, you'd give me the same answer I gave you, proving my point, that such mandates would have no real effect on the law-abiding populace, nor would it discourage criminal behavior.

Remember, we don't force people to eat healthier, to exercise more, to get regular checkups with their doctor, take EKG measurements, etc. If you're not going to force hundreds of millions of people to take such measures, even if it would help close to a million people (from the heart disease and pulmonary obstruction categories) to do so, why would you propose something that would have only affected 1,125 people?

 

[Steve]

On the insurance issue, requiring law-abiding folks who wish to own / carry firearms to buy it is a restriction that leaves too many things open for abuse. Once such restrictions are in place, it becomes much easier for a partisan politician to screw over the law-abiding folks.

For example, if you take a look at the City of New York, they crafted a bizarre, twisted network of laws that made it all but impossible for ordinary law-abiding citizens to own firearms (currently being whittled away by the DC v. Heller and MacDonald v Chicago rulings).

The crafters of such legislation assured the populace that such restrictions weren't going to affect the law-abiding, but in the end, look at how things were badly twisted. These days, the authorities there don't issue permits, even though courts have repeatedly ordered them to issue them.



As for accidents, you're trying to impose a law that only affects a minute amount of the population. If we look at the National Safety Council's 1998 statistics on deaths:

Heart disease 737,563
Cancer 538,455
Stroke (cerebrovascular disease) 157,991
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 102,899
Doctor's negligence 93,329
Motor-vehicle 43,363
Firearms (Total) 35,673

and out of that Firearms total...

Suicides 18,503
Homicides 15,551

and of course...

Accidents 1,125


1,125 accidental deaths is a paltry amount, when you look at basically screwing over the entire law-abiding populace. If you want to play numbers with other accidents...

Falls 13,986
Poison 8,461
Drowning 4,350
Fires, burns 3,761

and, of course...

Firearms 1,125

For those who claim to be neutral on the gun-grabbing argument, you'd see that 1,125 is a lot smaller than any of the above, yet why aren't you calling for buying liability insurance for insecticides, cleaning agents, and other toxins? You'd certainly have over 6 times the impact...

Or, why not making a swimming license and insurance? You'd save over 3 times as many in that case.



In the end, you'd give me the same answer I gave you, proving my point, that such mandates would have no real effect on the law-abiding populace, nor would it discourage criminal behavior.

Remember, we don't force people to eat healthier, to exercise more, to get regular checkups with their doctor, take EKG measurements, etc. If you're not going to force hundreds of millions of people to take such measures, even if it would help close to a million people (from the heart disease and pulmonary obstruction categories) to do so, why would you propose something that would have only affected 1,125 people?

Grenadier, with respect, I've gone out of my way to be clear about the number of accidental deaths vs the number of accidental injuries. In other words, including only deaths is misleading. Depending on where you get your numbers there are 2 to 4 accidental fatalities each day. In contrast, there are 18 to 20,000 gun related injuries that are accidental.

I've also addressed that swimming pools DO carry insurance. Public pools are insured by whomever owns them, and private pools are insured under the homeowner's policy. Also, there are a total of 20,000 or so accidental firearm incidents each year (death and/or injury). In contrast, there were about 11,000 drowning/near drowning incidents total, including beaches, lakes, rivers, as well as public and private pools. So, when you open the discussion up to include non-fatal incidents, firearms are actually involved in quite a few more.

Once again, the point I originally brought up (and frankly regret as it took a terrible tangent to the OP), was that it would give people who are the victims a venue for compensation that would be independent of the gun owner's ability to pay and avoid unnecessary litigation. I've said repeatedly that it wouldn't address crime. But in the case in AZ, the gun was lawfully owned, which is what brought this idea back to mind in the first place.

And I'll say again, I've tried to be up front that this is just an idea that I've had. I don't have an agenda that involves punishing or limiting a person's ability to own a gun. I'm also not married to the idea. I put it out for discussion. I'm defending it as I can. But really, I'm interested to see if there are any substantial, reasonable arguments against it.

Scope seems to be as close as I've seen, but I think we just disagree (which is okay.) If you think that 1000 or so deaths and 18 to 20,000 injuries is small potatoes, that's a legitimate position. I disagree and I think that's about as far as it goes.

 

[Hudson69]

10 rounds, 20 rounds, a 100 rounds. The point is you could take every gun away from every person in America and within a week they would show back up again. If someone is off their rocker and wants to hurt people and either cannot or will not use a gun then how many other ways are out there, commonly available, that can be used to cause mass pain and panic?

And the 10 rnd mag thing; how many serious shooters out there cannot carry multiple mags and swap out new/fresh ones in under a second....?

 

[Hudson69]

Grenadier, with respect, I've gone out of my way to be clear about the number of accidental deaths vs the number of accidental injuries. In other words, including only deaths is misleading. Depending on where you get your numbers there are 2 to 4 accidental fatalities each day. In contrast, there are 18 to 20,000 gun related injuries that are accidental.

I've also addressed that swimming pools DO carry insurance. Public pools are insured by whomever owns them, and private pools are insured under the homeowner's policy. Also, there are a total of 20,000 or so accidental firearm incidents each year (death and/or injury). In contrast, there were about 11,000 drowning/near drowning incidents total, including beaches, lakes, rivers, as well as public and private pools. So, when you open the discussion up to include non-fatal incidents, firearms are actually involved in quite a few more.

Once again, the point I originally brought up (and frankly regret as it took a terrible tangent to the OP), was that it would give people who are the victims a venue for compensation that would be independent of the gun owner's ability to pay and avoid unnecessary litigation. I've said repeatedly that it wouldn't address crime. But in the case in AZ, the gun was lawfully owned, which is what brought this idea back to mind in the first place.

And I'll say again, I've tried to be up front that this is just an idea that I've had. I don't have an agenda that involves punishing or limiting a person's ability to own a gun. I'm also not married to the idea. I put it out for discussion. I'm defending it as I can. But really, I'm interested to see if there are any substantial, reasonable arguments against it.

Scope seems to be as close as I've seen, but I think we just disagree (which is okay.) If you think that 1000 or so deaths and 18 to 20,000 injuries is small potatoes, that's a legitimate position. I disagree and I think that's about as far as it goes.

I am no good at percentages. If there are 385 million people in the US (legally, according to census) then what percentage is 20K people? That is what I want to know.

 

[lklawson]

I have been deliberately avoiding this thread on the basis that I've pretty much stated my case and you can accept it or not. No use arguing or making enemies.

That and I've been sitting my daughter who had strep.

But I just gotta jump in here.

I guess you can call it a limitation, but I don't see it as any more or less of a limitation than the onus of purchasing liability insurance for your car. Millions of people who own cars seem to manage without too much of a hassle.

I'm afraid this isn't the case. Insurance is a significant factor in cost of ownership for most folks and is always a major line-item in household budgets. I defy you to find a household budget worksheet that does not include "auto insurance."

Especially in today's economy more and more households are being stretched to meet auto insurance requirements to such a point that there are significant numbers of advertisements targeting people specifically on lowest possible price. There's also a large number of tickets and impounds quarterly based on failure to hold insurance. The people being so ticketed aren't failing to acquire insurance because they simply don't want to, it's because it is, frankly, too expensive for their limited budgets.

There is another issue at work, and that is the fact that firearms ownership is a SCOTUS ruled Right whereas auto ownership is not. The Right of Free Travel is, but not the mechanism thereof. The reason that SCOTUS ruled that firearms ownership is a Right is because of a case contesting D.C.'s restrictions. SCOTUS ruled that their restrictions effectively barred ownership.

Now, I understand that you believe you have a good argument for requiring insurance. OK, that's fine, but it is indisputable that requiring insurance would effectively bar ownership from a significant number of low-income individuals. SCOTUS has ruled decisively that the exercise of a basic Right may not be restricted based on income. The same reason that it is ruled unconstitutional to enact a Poll Tax.

All arguments of whether or not a case can be made for requiring firearms ownership liability insurance based on statistical "probable threat" aside (and I've already stated that I reject those and why), it is simply not going to happen because it sets a financial restriction on the exercise of a Right.

And, to be fair, this is not the first time I've heard the idea of required liability insurance (or Bonding) floated. In fact, I've looked into it myself. MANY CCW & owners have voluntarily looked into it simply because if one is forced to use a firearm in self defense, there is a decent chance that the one may be forced additionally to defend oneself from Criminal proceedings and/or (more often, I believe) Civil proceedings. As you can imagine, these can be extremely expensive to the individual. It's not uncommon for folks who are required to engage in these defenses to spend their life-savings, sell everything they own, loose their homes, and become destitute. So, yeah, I've looked into various forms of insurance. The cheapest I've found yet has been about $50/month. Which isn't bad but is still $600 a year. Every year. Probably increasing in rates with inflation.

Would you be willing to spend $600 a year to exercise your Right to vote?

Well, anyway, I'm going to drop back out of this conversation. I'm not seeing it go anyplace good and I want to stay friends.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk