Guns are the problem?

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is that the rate of loss is low enough that whether you engage in risky or safe practices will have no effect on your premium. Thus you're asking legal gun owners to pay the huge bill of gun crime.

Can I collect from you for the uninsured bastard that hit me? (Admittedly the statue of limitations is long expired.)

The uninsured bastard that shoots you didn't get his gun from a legal source: if he did, the fact it was no longer insured would mean that it would have been taken away.

The person who DID get that gun from a legal source would pay higher premiums on guns they claim to continue to own. Perhaps they would no longer be able to but guns at all depending on the circumstances. The seller's who sold those guns, especially when they sell many guns that end up falling out of visibility, would then ALSO pay higher premiums.

You are claiming the "loss rate" is low. It is not: it is high enough to account for ALL the illegal guns on the street, which accounts for MOST of gun crime.

Further, this assumes that the insurance company does not sue and recover from the straw seller's for breach of policy: that the owner is not still held liable; insurance doesn't cover criminal acts of the insured, including to give a gun to someone who does not hold proof of insurance or failure to disclose the transfer; if they fail to disclose, they get their gun taken away, and if they don't have it, they just committed a crime, have ruined their ability to pass a background check, and opened themselves up to personal liability.

Nobody wants that, so as a result, few people will continue allowing their guns to enter the black market, and the people who do own guns legally will be sure to properly secure them.

This is predicated on the notion that most illegal guns come from straw buyers and the like, not theft.

 

[Jarhyn]

The point is that the rate of loss is low enough that whether you engage in risky or safe practices will have no effect on your premium. Thus you're asking legal gun owners to pay the huge bill of gun crime.

Can I collect from you for the uninsured bastard that hit me? (Admittedly the statue of limitations is long expired.)

The uninsured bastard that shoots you didn't get his gun from a legal source: if he did, the fact it was no longer insured would mean that it would have been taken away.

The person who DID get that gun from a legal source would pay higher premiums on guns they claim to continue to own. Perhaps they would no longer be able to but guns at all depending on the circumstances. The seller's who sold those guns, especially when they sell many guns that end up falling out of visibility, would then ALSO pay higher premiums.

You are claiming the "loss rate" is low. It is not: it is high enough to account for ALL the illegal guns on the street, which accounts for MOST of gun crime.

Further, this assumes that the insurance company does not sue and recover from the straw seller's for breach of policy: that the owner is not still held liable; insurance doesn't cover criminal acts of the insured, including to give a gun to someone who does not hold proof of insurance or failure to disclose the transfer; if they fail to disclose, they get their gun taken away, and if they don't have it, they just committed a crime, have ruined their ability to pass a background check, and opened themselves up to personal liability.

Nobody wants that, so as a result, few people will continue allowing their guns to enter the black market, and the people who do own guns legally will be sure to properly secure them.

This is predicated on the notion that most illegal guns come from straw buyers and the like, not theft.

And... Surprise, surprise, they DO.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,"

So are you ready to accept the wisdom that guns ought be insured and this will impact, in particular, "the bad ones"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is predicated on the notion that most illegal guns come from straw buyers and the like, not theft.

And... Surprise, surprise, they DO.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,"

So are you ready to accept the wisdom that guns ought be insured and this will impact, in particular, "the bad ones"?

That's not the only place you can steal them.

 

[ZiprHead]

And... Surprise, surprise, they DO.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html



So are you ready to accept the wisdom that guns ought be insured and this will impact, in particular, "the bad ones"?

That's not the only place you can steal them.

 

[Jarhyn]

And... Surprise, surprise, they DO.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html



So are you ready to accept the wisdom that guns ought be insured and this will impact, in particular, "the bad ones"?

That's not the only place you can steal them.

Let me reiterate:

Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,

In fact, didn't someone already post a detailed breakdown of where crime guns come from? In this very thread? I don't see why you are willing to make this the hill you die on.

I'd expect this from Half-Life. Don't be like Halfie.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let me reiterate:

Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,

In fact, didn't someone already post a detailed breakdown of where crime guns come from? In this very thread? I don't see why you are willing to make this the hill you die on.

I'd expect this from Half-Life. Don't be like Halfie.

Note the line above the quote--he was discussing guns stolen from private gun owner's homes and cars. The statistic should be interpreted in this context.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let me reiterate:

Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,

In fact, didn't someone already post a detailed breakdown of where crime guns come from? In this very thread? I don't see why you are willing to make this the hill you die on.

I'd expect this from Half-Life. Don't be like Halfie.

Note the line above the quote--he was discussing guns stolen from private gun owner's homes and cars. The statistic should be interpreted in this context.

No, he and the other statistics make it clear: he was discussing the absolute reality that stolen guns are a minority of those used in crime, from the perspective of disabusing people who have warped perceptions of where guns used in crimes come from. He just used the most common misperception as a rhetorical launching point.

We have a few different sources that legal purchases are the source of guns used in crime here.

 

[atrib]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

While automobiles (or airplanes, or fertilizers having certain chemical compositions) can be used to kill people, that is not their intended use. Banning the use of automobiles (and airplanes and chemical fertilizers) would have far reaching economic implications, with crippling impacts to how modern society functions. The same cannot be said of gun ownership by the general population.

In the United States, we are guaranteed certain constitutional rights, like the ability to possess firearms, or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, such rights are not absolute. As the Supreme Court ruled on the use of DUI checkpoints in Michigan, while checkpoints violate the constitutional rights of those being stopped without reasonable suspicion, there is a greater benefit to the public (safety) that allows the State to set up such checkpoints to conduct such traffic stops (within certain parameters). I don't necessarily agree with the Supremes' ruling on the Michigan case, but I can see the point they were making. The same argument can be extended to the Second Amendment, and to the argument you are making, comparing automobiles to guns.

 

[Gun Nut]

But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)

Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.

While automobiles (or airplanes, or fertilizers having certain chemical compositions) can be used to kill people, that is not their intended use. Banning the use of automobiles (and airplanes and chemical fertilizers) would have far reaching economic implications, with crippling impacts to how modern society functions. The same cannot be said of gun ownership by the general population.

In the United States, we are guaranteed certain constitutional rights, like the ability to possess firearms, or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, such rights are not absolute. As the Supreme Court ruled on the use of DUI checkpoints in Michigan, while checkpoints violate the constitutional rights of those being stopped without reasonable suspicion, there is a greater benefit to the public (safety) that allows the State to set up such checkpoints to conduct such traffic stops (within certain parameters). I don't necessarily agree with the Supremes' ruling on the Michigan case, but I can see the point they were making. The same argument can be extended to the Second Amendment, and to the argument you are making, comparing automobiles to guns.

I can't find anything in what you wrote here that I disagree with, except the notion of intent being relevant in any way. Laws are not absolute; agreed.
What I also cannot find is anything convincing me that the original inventor's intention, or manufacturers intention*, or original designs.. etc. has any relevance to how the thing is used, traded, abused, disposed of.. or anything relevant at all to America's Gun Issue.

*manufacturer's "intention" may be a different story. If you want to talk about Marketing and Design of weapons and how it relates to Weapon Pull and other phenomena that is relevant to how civilians use these guns, then that is totally relevant to the conversation around limitations on military-style weapons in civilian hands.

 

[DBT]

Intent is relative, hunting rifles, target rifles, clay pigeon/shotguns, specialist target pistols/Olympic, etc, muzzleloaders.....