SkyDekker 1,465 #26 August 20, 2008 QuoteInsurance isn't a point of the discussion - nice strawman, though. NONE of the above is applicable to purchase for home defense - only for carry in public. Insurance is a requirement to operate a car on public roads (and on quite a few private lands as well), so I don't see how that would not be part of a discussion on treating guns and cars equally. certainly not a strawman. I agree that none of that has to do with purchase for home defense. Never said it did either. Just saying that if you do treat them the same most people would not be able to afford to carry in public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 August 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteInsurance isn't a point of the discussion - nice strawman, though. NONE of the above is applicable to purchase for home defense - only for carry in public. Insurance is a requirement to operate a car on public roads (and on quite a few private lands as well), so I don't see how that would not be part of a discussion on treating guns and cars equally. certainly not a strawman. I agree that none of that has to do with purchase for home defense. Never said it did either. Just saying that if you do treat them the same most people would not be able to afford to carry in public. I understand your point, but I don't necessarily agree. The cost of insurance is what it is due to the amount of damage caused by vehicle accidents. The number of firearms accidents is vanishingly small in comparison.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #28 August 20, 2008 QuoteJust saying that if you do treat them the same most people would not be able to afford to carry in public. Average people can afford car insurance. So why don't you think average people would be able to afford gun insurance?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #29 August 20, 2008 People generally cost far more to fix than cars.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #30 August 20, 2008 QuotePeople generally cost far more to fix than cars. Car insurance isn't just to fix the cars."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #31 August 20, 2008 Well I guess your right about that (bodily injury coverage and all). That being the case.......what the fuck are we talking about?Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #32 August 20, 2008 > Alcohol and drunk driving causes way more death than guns but no >one is screaming for alcohol restrictions. Where do you live? If you live in a place with no alcohol restrictions, it's not in the US. But OK, let's go with "guns shouldn't be regulated any more than alcohol." Then - No driving with a loaded gun No driving after shooting No gun sales to minors State-by-state caliber limits State-by-state limits on how much you can buy at once Licensing for anyone who wants to sell a gun at any time State tracking for tax purposes No carrying of a loaded gun in most public areas No reloading without a license ID required for all purchases Anyone who gets pulled over automatically consents to a search for guns or ammunition. You OK with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #33 August 20, 2008 QuoteAverage people can afford car insurance. So why don't you think average people would be able to afford gun insurance? Because I speculate that gun insurance would be significantly higher. Risk of significantly higher pay outs and probably a smaller base to recoup the costs. probably a much higher risk of lengthy litigation as well, as I am sure somebody will stand up and go after the insurers for non-insured guns as well. But, like I said, that's just speculation. I personally like the idea of treating them the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #34 August 20, 2008 Quote> Alcohol and drunk driving causes way more death than guns but no >one is screaming for alcohol restrictions. Where do you live? If you live in a place with no alcohol restrictions, it's not in the US. But OK, let's go with "guns shouldn't be regulated any more than alcohol." Then - No driving with a loaded gun No driving after shooting No gun sales to minors State-by-state caliber limits State-by-state limits on how much you can buy at once Licensing for anyone who wants to sell a gun at any time State tracking for tax purposes No carrying of a loaded gun in most public areas No reloading without a license ID required for all purchases Anyone who gets pulled over automatically consents to a search for guns or ammunition. You OK with that? My point is alcohol related deaths cause far more deaths than firearms. Any joe that meets a minimum age requirement can go and buy a beverage that makes you act like an idiot if abused. But no one wants to limit the sale of alcohol? Why not?The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #35 August 20, 2008 >But no one wants to limit the sale of alcohol? Why not? The sale of alcohol IS limited a great deal. You can't sell it without a liquor license. You have to proof people. You can't sell it at all in many areas. There are limits on what you can sell, when you can sell it, how much you can sell and what condition it has to be in when you sell it. There are laws concerning what you can do with it once you buy it, who you can give it to and where you can and can't have it. And people are always trying to limit it more. I am sure you've heard of MADD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #36 August 20, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good. So what do you propose that would have a prayer of successfully ending this? Mind you, it has to pass constitutional muster. And if your ideas run to "confiscate all the guns" please remember that the last guns that will remain to be confiscated will most certainly be those belonging to violent criminals. And if you confiscate property, the Constitution mandates that you give fair compensation to those from whom it is taken. Let's see, 300,000,000 guns... assume an average of $500 per gun... (Some are about $100, and then again, some cost thousands!) We're a cash-strapped nation right now, so where are you gonna get $150,000,000,000 to do this? A search of the archives will reveal my suggestion, and it is NOT confiscation so your rant is wasted. No, I still had fun. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #37 August 20, 2008 Quote>Pity that if today is typical, some 112 people will be killed in >automobile accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good. Good point, in that both guns and cars are potentially dangerous, and can injure both the user and other people if they are used carelessly (or even maliciously.) The risk that cars pose is partially mitigated by requiring licensing, registration and basic safety features on all cars (seatbelts, brakes, taillights etc.) Would you oppose such an approach to guns? Licensing CLEARLY allows incompetents on the road, and simply has no power to prevent those who have no licenses to get out on the road and drive anyway. And law enforcement efforts don't nab but a fraction of those. And then, why do you think we have a term "habitual offender"? Because even those unlicensed drivers we do catch still go out and drive again and again, even after being repeatedly caught and..."punished." Registration of vehicles is purely for revenue purposes, and has no bearing on safety whatsoever. If you want us to put seatbelts, brake lights and tail lights on guns, I would be obligated to ask why.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 August 20, 2008 QuoteA search of the archives will reveal my suggestion, and it is NOT confiscation so your rant is wasted. Are you willing to have the SAME restrictions placed on other rights, John?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #39 August 20, 2008 QuoteYeah, it was a rhetorical question - but outlines the danger behind the old cars to guns comparison. They're not all that equate-able. The "unequate-able-ness" of it typically is unfavorable to those suggesting car-like restrictions on guns. I am certain that JohnRich has given the treatement of, "Oh, so you want to license guns like cars, huh?" somewhere on this forum. Let's start with, "A gun license would then mean you could take your gun anywhere you can legally go," and work from there...Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #40 August 20, 2008 >Licensing CLEARLY allows incompetents on the road. Absolutely. It helps with, but does not solve, the problem. >and simply has no power to prevent those who have no licenses to get >out on the road and drive anyway. Actually, it does. It is difficult to drive when you are in jail. >Registration of vehicles is purely for revenue purposes, and has >no bearing on safety whatsoever. Registration allows regular inspections - and they DO have an impact on safety. They also allow enforcement of insurance laws, and those help victims of accidents. >If you want us to put seatbelts, brake lights and tail lights on guns, >I would be obligated to ask why. Think trigger locks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #41 August 20, 2008 >The "unequate-able-ness" of it typically is unfavorable to those >suggesting car-like restrictions on guns. It's unfavorable on both sides. Cars aren't like guns, guns aren't like alcohol, alcohol is not like a car. All have various restrictions applied to them, but since they are inherently different items, with different purposes, dangers and requirements, the restrictions are quite different in each case. >Let's start with, "A gun license would then mean you could take your >gun anywhere you can legally go," Are you comparing that to a driver's license? Then yes, you could take a gun anywhere you could take a car. (i.e a public road.) Of course, the analogy immediately breaks down, because few people have the problem of whether you can take your car into a movie theatre. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #42 August 20, 2008 Quote Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good. According to 2007 statistics, 60 people will be killed in Russia, which anti-weapon laws are very similar to those in D.C. (one could only own a long-barrel rifle, it must be stored in a special locked weapon safe, it must be discharged and the bullets must be stored separately, the police must approve you to buy it, and so on). As you see, people easily manage to kill other people without having to use pistols.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #43 August 20, 2008 Quote Quote Pity that if today is typical, some 33 people will be shot dead in the USA in homicides, plus another couple in accidents. Just collateral damage, it's all good. According to 2007 statistics, 60 people will be killed in Russia, which anti-weapon laws are very similar to those in D.C. (one could only own a long-barrel rifle, it must be stored in a special locked weapon safe, it must be discharged and the bullets must be stored separately, the police must approve you to buy it, and so on). As you see, people easily manage to kill other people without having to use pistols. You can't equate the US with Russia. The US would NEVER invade another sovereign nation on a trumped up pretext.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #44 August 20, 2008 Quote You can't equate the US with Russia. The US would NEVER invade another sovereign nation on a trumped up pretext. I acknowledge my lack of English, but could you please elaborate your point? I fail to see it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #45 August 20, 2008 Quote Quote You can't equate the US with Russia. The US would NEVER invade another sovereign nation on a trumped up pretext. I acknowledge my lack of English, but could you please elaborate your point? I fail to see it. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 August 20, 2008 Quote>If you want us to put seatbelts, brake lights and tail lights on guns, >I would be obligated to ask why. Think trigger locks. Wrong - seatbelts, brake lights and tail lights don't prevent you from using a car.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 August 20, 2008 Quote Quote You can't equate the US with Russia. The US would NEVER invade another sovereign nation on a trumped up pretext. I acknowledge my lack of English, but could you please elaborate your point? I fail to see it. He's trying to be witty.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #48 August 20, 2008 >Wrong - seatbelts, brake lights and tail lights don't prevent you from using >a car. Neither do trigger locks, any more than the ignition lock on your car "prevents you from using a car." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 August 20, 2008 Quote>Wrong - seatbelts, brake lights and tail lights don't prevent you from using >a car. Neither do trigger locks, any more than the ignition lock on your car "prevents you from using a car." Your comparison is flawed. A better anology would be a chain and lock on a fence. Of course, your life won't depend on unlocking a gate in less than a second - too bad the same thing can't be said for the pistol.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #50 August 20, 2008 QuoteQuote>Wrong - seatbelts, brake lights and tail lights don't prevent you from using >a car. Neither do trigger locks, any more than the ignition lock on your car "prevents you from using a car." Your comparison is flawed. A better anology would be a chain and lock on a fence. Of course, your life won't depend on unlocking a gate in less than a second - too bad the same thing can't be said for the pistol. My 63 year life (30 on the south side of Chicago) has depended on lots of things, but not either of those. Nor do I anticipate that it will. But to dispute your point, if a bull is charging you and your only way out is to unlock a gate... There are an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if some careless gun owner had used a trigger lock.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
