Don't tell us it's Guns

I respect what you said. I think changing our society could be great.

But, it isn't operational until you suggest ways of doing it.

For example, let's say we agree that broken families is not good.

What are the changes to regulation that would help improve that?? I didn't see you suggesting anything that is operational.

I suggested improving education, etc.

 

Hard to put any confidence in your link, given it's nearly 20 years out of date and done based on survey rather than police or other records.

I believe it is a part of American culture. If I am wrong and culture isn't part of why you have so many more dead by gun there, then that puts more of it on the guns themselves, amplifying the effects of the violence.

Very broad. Everything from race tension to lack of public health and mental care to poverty relief. That's part of the problem.

I would presume the shooter is the first liable, and if they don't cover the loss then the owner is held fully liable for the damages? Is that the case? If so, then what's the justification given for gun owners not needing insurance to cover that?

If you carry a gun loose in your purse claiming it's for "personal protection" and a runner snatches your purse and takes the gun, you didn't have it secured. It doesn't matter if the runner knew the gun was there or if you didn't want them to have it. They now have it.

That entirely depends on how you define the responsibility. The US seems to define it much more loosely than elsewhere.

Sure.

It's made harder when arming the population at large, both making guns easier for criminals to get and making criminals feel more in need of them, and more likely to use them.

 

Oops!
I always to consistently ask for ways to reduce gun death. Maybe I blew that one in some post or posts!

It's reducing gun death that is the objective.

Well, you proposed those ideas.

I liked the ideas, but pointed out they need to be turned into steps that could actually be implemented.

I tried to help with that, but I agree that changing our society is something that is gigantically difficult to do.

And, that is even more true in the current climate of writing laws against teaching how to accept our various differences, passing more laws oriented to assuring that even the crazies get guns, encouraging people to carry guns wherever they go, leaning more heavily on those struggling in America - like McCarthy demanded and like the SC, which rules against working America on a regular basis.

These are all things that PROMOTE intolerance of differences.

 

"Shall not be infringed".
There's no sound argument for the constitutionality of carrying insurance as a legal precondition for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

What, in this scenario, would you consider "secured"?

 

You guys love to cherry pick that phrase.

 

You guys love to delude yourself by thinking "well regulated militia" somehow defines who has the right to keep and bear arms, places a limit on the length and breadth of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and affects the protections afforded to it by the 2nd Amendment.

Now:
Demonstrate how I am wrong re: the constitutionality of a legal requirement to carry insurance as a precondition to the exercise of the right.

 

And you guys still cherry pick "shall not be infringed".

 

If you must carry a gun then a well strapped down holster attached directly to your torso or limb so the gun can't be yanked out in a hurry maybe.

 

And you guys still love to delude yourself by thinking "well regulated militia" somehow defines who has the right to keep and bear arms, places a limit on the length and breadth of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and affects the protections afforded to it by the 2nd Amendment.

Now:
Demonstrate how I am wrong re: the constitutionality of a legal requirement to carry insurance as a precondition to the exercise of the right.

 

That just says what the law is there. That isn't an argument or explanation of why it should be that way. You do mandate car owner insurance, no? So why not gun? Just because the founders said so?

 

What's the difference between insurance and paying for a gun?

 

What good is carrying a gun if it can't be used "in a hurry"?
Would, in your humble option, something like a police service holster suffice?

 

The why, in this, and most every other, case, is irrelevant --- the fact remains:
Shall not be infringed.
There's no sound argument for the constitutionality of carrying insurance as a legal precondition for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

When exercising the privilege of driving the car on public roads..
See the difference?

 

For the police, sure. For random gun owners without such a responsibility or accountability, I don't think so, no. But again, my opinion isn't relevant to your laws.

 

The why of the law is very relevant if your reasoning isn't purely authoritarian.

Maybe I see a difference, yes. Are you saying gun owners should only be allowed to carry them on private property?

 

Wait....
Cops are responsible and accountable for their guns, but the holster they use are insufficiently secure for people who are not?
How does that work?

 

With a balancing of risk and benefit.

 

It's clear you do not want to address "shall not be infringed".
Bad news: There's no way around it. You don't get to ignore it.
There's no sound argument for the constitutionality of carrying insurance as a legal precondition for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

Clearly you do not.
Driving is not a right. Owning a gun is.
The fact the state can require you to insure your car before you can drive it on its roads does not any way mean it can require you to insure whatever gun you may own and use as a precondition for that ownership and use..

 

Specifically:
How does that mean the security found in a service holster is insufficient for civilian use?

 

Then guns should be free.

 

Mindless nonsense.
Your par.

 

If you have to ask the question, it means you cannot understand the answer.

 

So nothing really, just more evidence of cherry picking.

 

Actually, I do get to ignore it, because that law doesn't apply to my current residence.
And the fact remains that unless you are purely authoritarian, it being the law doesn't mean it ought to be or makes any sense being the law.
You may have some very good arguments why it should be, but you aren't telling us what they are besides this appeal to what is.

And yes, you have the right to be irresponsible there and put the lives of others in danger. Good for you.

 

It sounds like you know Sleepy Little River City pretty well.

I've lived, worked and taught school in different parts of Richmond over the decades and used to live on Church Hill.

I got tired of paying rent so, in 1980, I bought an old house in an all Black neighborhood for $16,000-. The house was an old duplex that needed lots of work. My upstairs neighbor was an elderly Black lady who had lived there for 40 years on a 30 day lease.
Some of my friends who are better businessmen than I suggested that I not renew her lease, make her move and rent the place for two or three times the rent she was paying.
Of course I refused to do so and told her that she was welcome to stay where she was for the rest of her life & I kept the rent the same which is probably the reason I had no trouble with my immediate neighbors.
Most of our trouble came from "the projects" and neighborhoods just north of Church Hill. That's where the home invaders, crack heads, muggers and thieves lived.
My first blacksmith shop was only about 4 blocks away and had the additional blessing of being right next to an abandoned junkyard that was full of scrap steel, old cast iron artifacts, bulldozer parts and countless other treasures just waiting to be recycled.

What is especially sad is that Richmond used to be and still has the potential to be a great place to live in spite of a bumbling, racist and corrupt city government that does all it can to drive away any and every law abiding, tax paying and working citizen so that all that is. left are full time criminals, "Welfare Queens" with 8 unemployable and uneducable children who may graduate from High School but still can't read.

Probably the most noteworthy physical deterioration of the city by Stoney and the corrupt clown show that is Richmond's city government was the destruction of the magnificent, old monuments along one of Richmond's most beautiful, historic avenues.

Love them or hate them, nobody can dispute that those monuments were beautifully designed and spectacular works of art. As a blacksmith who has been commissioned to create wrought iron sculpture, bell towers, full sized, wrought iron human figures comprising a jazz band and similar works, I appreciated those monuments for the craftsmanship and attention to detail that will not be seen on whatever "woke" eyesore that replaces them.

Richmond's school system may be in shambles with no money for computers, books, literate teachers or school lunches but Stoney and his crew had no trouble finding tens of millions of dollars to destroy monuments to White men of an oversimplified era still ripe for exploitation.

Of course, no act of progressive vandalism goes on without corruption but Richmond's timid and equally woke newspaper refuses to discuss Stoney's cozy relationship with the proud vandals who destroyed the monuments.

After Stoney and his crew have plundered the city's coffers for their favorite Afro-centric "museums", festivals, "art", Slavery monuments etc, there's not much left for the underpaid Police and Fire departments, schools, street maintenance, trash collection, park maintenance or, really, anything else.

Regrettably, Richmond is well on its way to becoming another Chicago so, will the last employable, law abiding and taxpaying citizen to leave please turn out the lights.

Thanks,