Well, as I said several times now, if Oklahoma Cities were happening every year, you can bet your pretty penny that there would be more regulations around ammonium nitrate.McVeigh killed three times as many people with ammonium nitrate as Paddock killed with his rifle(s). I would call that a serious risk to public health. Tsarnaevs, of course, used gunpowder taken from fireworks.
I have no desire to deprive you of your property whatever, and my ownership of a firearm does not threaten your ownership in any manner. Why should I bear the cost of Paddock’s murderousness any more than you should bear the cost of McVeighs just because you eat food fertilized by ammonium nitrate, or of Tsarnaevs just because you watch fireworks displays?
Well, I am saying that gunowners should hold insurance that would cover these expenses.What if the gun owner is dead and has no money. Shouldn’t those owning guns be heavily taxed to pay reparations to all the victims killed or injured by guns?
Of course, guns should be tracked so we know who has them and they should be required to provide information that they have insurance or be in violation of the law, as it is with cars.Well, criminals won’t carry insurance for that any more than they’ll carry insurance for the damage they do selling drugs. So you’ll be selectively taxing the innocent to pay for the wrongdoing of the guilty.
Of course, I benefit from the taxes I pay. I’m saying that I shouldn’t have to pay more taxes because gun owners will not take responsibility for the ownership of their weapons.No, you were complaining about how the government spends your tax dollars. Are you suggesting that you have not benefited from the taxes you paid? If so, then why should you complain about the government spending your taxes on others? They know how to spend your money better than you do.
A really good machinist/guns specialist can make an automatic weapon from scratch. I know some guys who could easily do it. Besides, as I said before, if criminals can bring tons of heroin into this country undetected, they can bring in any kinds of guns they want as well.I understand that there are available tools and materials to convert a semi-automatic into an automatic machine gun. What about my rights to life and happiness. You say that the assailant has a right to own these weapons? But what about the right to life of the 59 people shot to death and the right to good health for the 500 wounded people in Las Vegas? Do they have any rights or is it only the gun lover who has rights in the USA?
So whose insurance going to pay for a killing in Chicago by an uninsured gang member? You can be certain he won’t have insurance. Or are you, instead, proposing a tax on the gun owners who actually comply with the law?Of course, I benefit from the taxes I pay. I’m saying that I shouldn’t have to pay more taxes because gun owners will not take responsibility for the ownership of their weapons.
Fortunately, we don’t have socialized medicine, so it reduces your tax burden from this.I should not have to pay more in taxes because some people refuse to take responsibility for their health.
Drunk drivers whose licenses have been revoked still drive, by the thousands. And they don’t have insurance because you can’t get auto liability insurance if you don’t have a license.Of course, guns should be tracked so we know who has them and they should be required to provide information that they have insurance or be in violation of the law, as it is with cars.
What financial responsibility do the 100 million or so legal firearms owners bear for the Las Vegas shooting?My solutions allow gun owners to continue owning their weapons without taking away my right to property. Why do you insist that gun owners bare no financial responsibilities to go along with their rights?
Of course, a lot of effort needs to go into getting illegal guns off the streets. That’s why a registry is so important.So whose insurance going to pay for a killing in Chicago by an uninsured gang member? You can be certain he won’t have insurance. Or are you, instead, proposing a tax on the gun owners who actually comply with the law?
So, I guess by your logic, we shouldn’t have laws against drunk driving because people are going to drive even after they have been convicted and no one should have to carry car insurance.Drunk drivers whose licenses have been revoked still drive, by the thousands. And they don’t have insurance because you can’t get auto liability insurance if you don’t have a license.
And neither will criminals carry “gun insurance” or even admit to having guns. So requiring insurance of the innocent is pointless. it’s just a way for those who hate guns to punish those who don’t.
You mean the government is making you be financially responsible so that you don’t pass on the burden of your health costs onto society as a whole. How dare they!Except for the fact that I have to buy insurance and buy it at certain levels otherwise I get taxed.
Until it does. A healthy man doesn’t add any additional costs either. Until he’s not.Mere possession of a gun does not cause any additional costs to society however. Nice try though.
Not at all. “By my logic” having laws against drunk driving don’t stop drunk driving by law-breakers. Having laws against gun ownership won’t prevent law-breakers from having them.So, I guess by your logic, we shouldn’t have laws against drunk driving because people are going to drive even after they have been convicted and no one should have to carry car insurance.