E
exnihilo
Guest
What is a sensible gun regulation that we don’t already have? We’ve got background checks. We’ve got limits on the types of weapons you can own. What more do you want?
Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival
- Status
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
Gun owners carry liability insurance for the potential harm their weapons can do. I figure this fellow, if subjected to lawsuits, would have had claims in the hundreds of millions against him. If he is going to own these weapons, he should carry the insurance to cover this cost of their potential harm.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
A lot more.
Here are a few:
A limit on the number of guns one may own. There’s no reason on earth why this man in Las Vegas should have been allowed to accumulate the insane number of guns (and the amount of ammunition) that he had.
Restrictions on the type of weapons one may own. Shotguns and non-automatic rifles for hunting are fine.
I’d like to see a near-total ban on handguns. I’d like to see a permit required for handgun ownership and carrying, and I’d like to see a requirement that the applicant demonstrate a compelling need to possess and carry a handgun.
I’d like to see all gun owners be required to register all their firearms with local, state and federal authorities. I’d also like to see a requirement that they insure all their weapons, including liability insurance.
I’d like to see gun manufacturers be required to demonstrate that they have not put more guns into the market than the legal market can absorb.
Silencers? Forget it. Ban them. Extra-large capacity magazines? Same. The sale of parts that allow the conversion of semi-autos to full autos? Banned. Kits that increase the rate of fire of a weapon, like the “bump-stocks” mentioned in connection with the Las Vegas shooting? Banned.
That’s just a start.
Here are a few:
A limit on the number of guns one may own. There’s no reason on earth why this man in Las Vegas should have been allowed to accumulate the insane number of guns (and the amount of ammunition) that he had.
Restrictions on the type of weapons one may own. Shotguns and non-automatic rifles for hunting are fine.
I’d like to see a near-total ban on handguns. I’d like to see a permit required for handgun ownership and carrying, and I’d like to see a requirement that the applicant demonstrate a compelling need to possess and carry a handgun.
I’d like to see all gun owners be required to register all their firearms with local, state and federal authorities. I’d also like to see a requirement that they insure all their weapons, including liability insurance.
I’d like to see gun manufacturers be required to demonstrate that they have not put more guns into the market than the legal market can absorb.
Silencers? Forget it. Ban them. Extra-large capacity magazines? Same. The sale of parts that allow the conversion of semi-autos to full autos? Banned. Kits that increase the rate of fire of a weapon, like the “bump-stocks” mentioned in connection with the Las Vegas shooting? Banned.
That’s just a start.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Interesting. Wouldn’t this be burdensome on poor people who have a right to own a gun?
So for you sensible gun regulation just mean something banning them.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
We seem to be pretty cool with it when we’re talking about cars.
Are you opposed to requiring liability insurance for automobiles?
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
Shouldn’t gun owners take full responsibility for their weapons?
E
exnihilo
Guest
I oppose it for cars. It is a joke anyway. The illegals in my state and most criminals drive around without insurance all the time.
They already do. What you are proposing is making it so they’d can handle a certain amount of financial liability. A better proposal would be to bring back debtors prison for all debts across the board. You’d solve more problems than just gun violence responsibility.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I don’t know about your jurisdiction, but where I live my insurance covers me even if the guy in the other car wasn’t insured. So there’s considerable value to car insurance. I actually once got hit by someone driving an uninsured car and without a valid drivers license (both against the law where I live), and my insurance covered the damage for my vehicle. I presume my insurance company then went after the person who hit me.Inisfallen:
I oppose it for cars. It is a joke anyway. The illegals in my state and most criminals drive around without insurance all the time.
[quote[
They already do. What you are proposing is making it so they’d can handle a certain amount of financial liability. A better proposal would be to bring back debtors prison for all debts across the board. You’d solve more problems than just gun violence responsibility.
[/quote]
And replace them with the horrible social ills that debtors prisons created.
To see someone on a Catholic forum advocating for debtors prisons is mind boggling.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Nice deflect. When cornered, always go to “the illegals.” Among a certain crowd, that will work every time. The rest of us see it for what it is.
As to insurance, yes, I want gun owners to take financial responsibility. I also think it’s entirely possible that giving insurance companies a financial interest in the business of guns and their regulations wouldn’t be an entirely bad thing. They might be an effective counterweight to the NRA.
As to insurance, yes, I want gun owners to take financial responsibility. I also think it’s entirely possible that giving insurance companies a financial interest in the business of guns and their regulations wouldn’t be an entirely bad thing. They might be an effective counterweight to the NRA.
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Las Vegas shooting: Police probe possible links to ISIS
Investigators have refused to rule out a terrorist link in the Las Vegas massacre, as gunman Stephen Paddoc...
www.9news.com.au
Las Vegas shooting: Police probe possible links to ISIS
X
Xystus
Guest
tell me again who the “masters” are
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Again deflection. Planned Parenthood has exactly zero to do with this issue.
Wow. We heard about “the illegals,” and now Planned Parenthood. Someone will come along and mention Black Lives Matter, and then we’ll have hit the trifecta of right-wing bogeymen.
Wow. We heard about “the illegals,” and now Planned Parenthood. Someone will come along and mention Black Lives Matter, and then we’ll have hit the trifecta of right-wing bogeymen.
X
Xystus
Guest
i agree that planned parent hood has nothing to do with the issue, i was just pointing out that you calling the NRA the “masters” of those in congress is laughable when put into proper perspective.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The daily caller has got the wrong figures. The gun lobby in total donated 5.7 million to lobbying last year alone. Planned Parenthood is not a gun control organization, so their contribution is irrelevant in this debate. Daily caller got that figure wrong too. PP donated less than $700,000 last year.Inisfallen:
tell me again who the “masters” are
Last edited:
X
Xystus
Guest
the NRA money figure came from the Washington Post, not the daily caller.
If someone is going to claim the NRA is congress’ master, then i think what other lobbying organizations do is relevant, not to the actual shooting but to the insulation that the NRA owns congressmen
If someone is going to claim the NRA is congress’ master, then i think what other lobbying organizations do is relevant, not to the actual shooting but to the insulation that the NRA owns congressmen
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is not just the NRA. It is the NRA and 8 other pro-gun organizations who donated in 2016 a total of $10,571,025 according to public records.
With respect to gun rights, the gun lobby is the master. PP is not in this business, so their donation does not change the balance in the pro-gun vs. anti-gun debate. The 38 million is just wrong, and the daily caller did not link to the WoPo source, so I don’t know where they went wrong. But when I check for myself I don’t get numbers anywhere near that. But as I said, the confusion over PP is just a distraction. A more relevant figure would be the donations from Gun Control organizations. Care to offer a figure for that? Another consideration is that the figures for donations to members of congress do not tell the whole story. Even more money is spent on public advertising. This kind of spending does not show up in the political donation figures, but it can be just as effective in guiding legislation if not more so. Politicians read the sense of the people, and if the sense of the people is being led by a slick ad campaign, the politicians react accordingly. I sure seems like the gun lobby (not just the NRA) are the bosses right now.
X
Xystus
Guest
i am not claiming they are in the business. The charge was the NRA was the master of senators, congressmen and state legislators, which is pretty broad.
The sources were the tweets from the two guys the article was talking about, which were included in the article. it was the two guys that provided the figures, not the daily caller. I dont know where the 38M figure came from but i found this when i googled it: Planned Parenthood Arms Spend $38 Million for Democrats
apparently it is “From the 2012 election cycle through the 2016 cycle so far, the political action entities, employees, and families of employees of Planned Parenthood and its affiliates devoted $33.9 million to outside spending mostly related to electing Democrats, according to data compiled by the OpenSecrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics.”
R
rcwitness
Guest
The responsibility using a gun to murder? It’s not possible. I think that is the essence of their suicide. They know they will not be able to bear the responsibility of living past their actions. They already know this!exnihilo:
Shouldn’t gun owners take full responsibility for their weapons?
It’s truly a strange phenomenon. It’s misanthropic and sociopathic. And it is demonic.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, point taken. Can we limit the claim then to say that the gun lobby is the master of these officials with respect to just legislation relating to guns?LeafByNiggle:
i am not claiming they are in the business. The charge was the NRA was the master of senators, congressmen and state legislators, which is pretty broad.
OK, they are getting broad too by including not just donations from the organization itself, but PAC, employees, families of employees and its affiliates. And it is over a four year period. So that amounts to 8.5 million per year. As I said, the gun lobby contributes more than that per year, not that it matters since they are not comparable fields, and we have stipulated a more limited charge of being “masters.”
Last edited:
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
Actually they don’t. The enormous cost of this act will be placed on the taxpayers and those close to or the actual individuals that were murdered or wounded. If the shooter had been required to carry insurance on the weapons he had, it would have covered these costs.
- Status