10 round clip controversy

[sgtmac_46]

Mandatory Gun Owner Insurance serves the same punitive purpose that one would find if a politician decided he didn't like martial artists, or a specific group of martial artists, and began attempting to regulate what was necessary to teach that martial art to the point it would be financially prohibitive to do so...........such as mandating that anyone teaching martial arts, even in their garage or basement, having to maintain a certain level of insurance, be 'licensed' by a state board, and pay for business licensing, even if he doesn't charge his students.

Such actions could technically be called a 'ban', but the actual practical results would be the same.

 

[Steve]

I believe that most of the "low cost" insurance companies exist to prey on irresponsible drivers with accidents and citations on their records. At some point, if your guns were involved in multiple claims against the insurance, I would guess that it might become onerous to keep up the insurance. Ultimately, it's about priorities. I hear people talk about how they can't afford martial arts tuition, but they manage to pay for the data plan on their droids and get the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirectTV.

But, lklawson, it's food for thought. I see your point. Certainly any additional expense in a budget could be considered a burden.

I've pretty much let this go, as well. I've said my piece, and happen to be at home with a sick daughter, too. Pneumonia in my case, although I think we've finally found an antibiotic that's working.

Hope your daughter gets well soon!

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Yes. According to the CDC. Not including fatalities. 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.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.
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.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.Very interesting, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject.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.

wait a minute your looking at that wrong.. I would be surprised if any American goes a day without being in the range of a firearm. You do not have to see a firearm to be killed by it. You dont have to even be in line of sight. A firearm can shoot through walls, through cars, and through other objects. The fact is 317 million Americans are exposed to multiple firearms every single day without knowing it and the reason is because the vast majority of fireaarms owners are responsible, regardless of whether they have a single shot firearm, or one equiped with a 100 round Cclip. I just got into this conversation and am working back to front, but your comment about peopel not seeing a firearm is not the same as them not being in the effective range of a firearm

 

[lklawson]

...and happen to be at home with a sick daughter, too. Pneumonia in my case, although I think we've finally found an antibiotic that's working.

I'm sorry to hear that. I'll pray for her quick and full recovery.

Hope your daughter gets well soon!

Thanks. 'Mox seems to have knocked it out. She's allowed, now, to return to Daycare and to Pre-School.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

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

I believe you are way off in this discussion.
forcing people to get an insurance for firearms amounts to nothing but a punative action.
There is no other item that a person can purchase that requires an ongoing fee, when that item does not require public services to operate.
Cars require public roads to operate, and I understand the great cost associated with vehicles and the damage they can cause and the need to make sure that people operating those vehicles can cover the costs associated with bad choices, unfortunte incidents, and purposeful violations.
To force an insurance on firearms, would also require an insurance on knives, clublike objects, fists, feet, and any other object that has an can be used as a weapon, and accidentally cause harm. and before you try to argue it, there have been incidents where a person accidently punched another person and caused massive damage, and accidentally tripped another person and caused massive damage.
I am not lumping you into an antigun conspiracy, but it seems obvious you have a personal opinion that firearms are huge accidents waiting to happen and that simply is not the case, there are more firearms then cars by millions in the united states, and cars cause millions more in injuries, and billions more in monetary damage then firearms. Firearms rarely do much in monetary damage, and then its rarely accidental. If I accidentally drop a quarter off a10th story building and it hits someone in the eye and blinds them for life It should not set precident for everyone to buy insurance for their quarters, it should set precidence to sue me for being an idiot with my quarter in the first place, and if I have nothing to take to pay for the person then what?
maybe we should force everyone to have a blanket insurance to cover any wierd incident that they might cause to another human being or human beings property for the sake of making sure that everyone can pay for their own stupidty or neglect... and if they can not afford the stupidity and neglect insurance, to go along with their mandatory obamacare insurance then maybe we need to start locking them up in a place to keep them and the rest of our society safe? Is that what your saying?
or do you just want firearms insured because you dont think they are safe?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I believe that most of the "low cost" insurance companies exist to prey on irresponsible drivers with accidents and citations on their records. At some point, if your guns were involved in multiple claims against the insurance, I would guess that it might become onerous to keep up the insurance. Ultimately, it's about priorities. I hear people talk about how they can't afford martial arts tuition, but they manage to pay for the data plan on their droids and get the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirectTV.

But, lklawson, it's food for thought. I see your point. Certainly any additional expense in a budget could be considered a burden.

I've pretty much let this go, as well. I've said my piece, and happen to be at home with a sick daughter, too. Pneumonia in my case, although I think we've finally found an antibiotic that's working.

Hope your daughter gets well soon!

Insurance companies exist to prey on ALL drivers........which is why they find new reason to justify rate increases not remotely directly related to actual operation of a motor vehicle, such as credit ratings.

The bottom line is that the notion of requiring mandatory gun insurance is a gun control scam, pure and simple.....perhaps not by you, but by those who originally conceived of the idea and passed it off as 'reasonable'....not even a particularly clever scam on their part as it's motive is obvious.......it's a purely financially punitive action by those who don't like private firearms ownership, and wish to regulate it at ever opportunity.........more than just financially, as 'mandatory' firearms insurance would require law enforcement to have some mechanism of verification, and would create entire new criminal offenses, whole clothe, out of previously lawful actions.



Hope your daughter is well by the time of this response.