“San Jose could set a precedent by requiring gun insurance”

Meanwhile, in Florida:

https://www.wesh.com/amp/article/florida-lawmaker-gunowners-to-open-carry-without-permit/38873859

 

Of course they are not, today, but by doing anything to hinder access to guns now will some day effect the overall availability of guns, otherwise your only recourse is more guns, which if that worked would have been by now made America the safest nation in the world given the four hundred million we already have out there

 

And that is why Florida is known as the Gunshine State, and ranks right up there with the other gun free States as those with the higher rate of gun violence

 

You can not make the case that areas with strict gun control are safer. "More guns" is not the issue. Its the person behind the gun that counts the most. For example:

Flaco the gang member wants a gun. Using cash earned through selling other government regulated substances, he buys a gun with no background check, gun tax, DROS, 10 day wait, and of course this new insurance product. Human life and gun laws mean nothing to him. His target is a 110 pound female with 2 small children who is a potential witness against him.

Now, tell us how what you propose benefits these people:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/301549/us-crimes-committed-state/

According to that, Florida is safer than Minnesota and California (by a lot), Texas is safer than Oregon, and the DC is like high on top with a big gap, like a crown jewel of the safety of the Dem-run city.

 

Its a foolish idea.

Not happening here.

 

Nonsense! So now you are bundling responsible, registered, legal gun owners with illegal, non-registered criminal? Well sir that is in it's self ridiculous

I don't thing you have this completely thought out LMFAO

 

Well not quite! Going off this thread they clearly love the criminal Americans

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, been hearing the same lame arguement for decades, "guns don't kill people, people do," however, Babe Ruth wouldn't have hit all those home runs if he didn't have a bat, more relative, Stephen Paddock couldn't have shot over four hundred people and killed sixty in the matter of minutes if he didn't have his guns

Three variables to ever mass shooting, the shooter, the target, and the gun. No one can predict who the next shooter will be, nor the target, you can protect as many targets as you can, but there are too many available. The only factor that can be controled is the weapon that made it all possible, so deflecting off the issue with "people kill" arguement is irrelevant

 

This is not "treating guns just as we do vehicles". Vehicles only require an insured operator in public. There are no laws that regulate who can drive what vehicle on private property (likely with job-related exceptions regarding employees on commercial job sites). Does this "gun insurance" only apply to people who carry their firearm(s) in public? Of course not.

The problem is that charging money to exercise rights make it so those with less money are less able to exercise their rights. Its already nearly impossible for the average person in CA to get a permit to conceal a firearm, and carrying one openly is a misdemeanor. CA is a 'may issue' state and does not consider self defense to be a legitimate reason to apply for a CCW permit. They do however consider carrying large amounts of cash in the course of ones job to be a legitimate reason to apply. So already, the wealthy, their employees and the politically well-connected (who are rarely poor) are the only ones who can exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public in CA, and now San Jose wants to set the precedent to further entrench this wealth inequality by making gun ownership at home harder for the poor as well.

This is elitism and no one is surprised its coming out of the most 'progressive' populations.

 

Here, knock yourself out:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-by-state
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nce-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/
https://everystat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Gun-Violence-in-Florida-2.9.2021.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state
https://vpc.org/press/states-with-s...tes-in-the-nation-new-data-for-2019-confirms/

And if you need more there are plenty available

 

So you still contend that taxing the law abiding taxpayers is going to have some sort of "Imaginary" negative effect on the criminal gun owners

 

I got a better plan, take the illegals guns off the street with stop and frisk, charge and jail them. It is a model we know worked in our largest most deadly city just a couple decades ago.

 

Post all the ones confirming taxing, regulating and laws that have reduce the number of firearms making harder for criminals to own one

 

And I might add, pushed gun sales thru the roof!! In fact Obama was the best President for gun sales ever!

 

Taxation is not a regulation for public safety. Taking guns from the people is unconstitutional. Unreasonable taxation and insurance (for know reason whatsoever) is just stupid.

If your state taxes your cars at $50,000 a year, is that regulation? By your arguments, it is not unacceptable. Where is the line drawn?

 

How about:

1. Enforce existing laws;
2. Keep criminals in jail;
3. More police.

The people that commit gun violence are responsible for their actions. Why do liberals always want to assign collective responsibility to society for criminal acts.

 

Ummmmmm! Stop and frisk! how dare you! Unless you mean just everyday law abiding citizens then sure, but if they are criminal type then I strongly appose such a dastardly maneuver!!!!

 

In the first link Texas is safer than Michigan. One state has no CC laws, while the other one does. That hints that the correlation might not necessarily mean causation.
In a state with laxer gun laws a criminal is much more likely to die committing a crime and their deaths would be counted as gun deaths. The effect of lax gun laws can be seen by reduced overall crime in the state, as criminals there know that they can be shot by a bystander when they commit a crime.

 

The obvious is your claim/ideology that taxing the law abiding gun owner will somehow effect the criminal gun owner in some negative way

The only effect it will have is NO-effect

 

Known by whom? Is the "Gunshine State" something one of your liberal groups came up with? I have never heard the term used.

If you are going to make statistical claims, e.g., "ranks right up there" post your statistics and data source. That is if you want to have an actual discussion on the subject.

Also, why do you focus on gun violence and exclude violence committed with knives and other weapons.

 

OfCourse we're talking about criminals. Seriously, Cali tried tough gun laws and all it did was let the criminals have more illegal guns flowing in from their open border. Obviously, a tax is about funding the city, certainly not deterring criminal gun ownership, that's dumber than dumb. The Left loves arming their criminals though.....

 

Even your deflection is far from correct. Please describe the benefit of this insurance product you support.

 

Damn. You mean to tell me criminals don't respect gun laws?!

ARE YOU CRAY CRAY?!

 

Well I have it on good authority it will! I'm just assuming here mind you, but I think, MAYBE, the criminals will be bamboozled in to thinking they will have to pay the tax too!

I dunno, it's all so complicated, and this thread has done nothing to change that