• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

thanks for expressing your opinion Jess. I like the idea but haven't fully though it through, hoping you all would help me understand the pros/cons better.

Curious how you justify car insurance or medical malpractice insurance but not insurance for gun ownership. How are these fundamentally different and where do you draw a distinction?
 
^ the article: is a good practical idea but in today's world it's a slap in the face. plus the whole molon labe thing.

am i to expect my government thinks i'm a street thug. will they not put my name on a list and give me cash as when gangbangers are allowed to turn in guns with no consequences or no questions asked?! (<--- for those that wonder those two symbols "?!" together mainly mean rhetorical.)

The worst part is they think law enforcement would actually comply with that. They have NY state laws on the books that requires law enforcement to collect semi autos, never been enacted by any of the Sherrifs offices. Not being e-brave but I would never give up my rifles and would gladly go down in a blaze, but I’m not right and don’t have kids. Also some of my rifles started from 80% lowers so there are no records of them anywhere.
 
Today on the radio I heard one of the more sensible solutions to the question of gun ownership. Require insurance for gun owners. Think about it, if I get behind the wheel of a car I'm required to own car insurance. Most people are cool with that; even an excellent driver recognizes that they might make mistakes and that other drivers on the road may make mistakes and so we mandate insurance coverage as a condition to getting behind the wheel. Safe drivers that drive sensible safe cars tend to pay a lot less then drivers with many convictions for unsafe driving or someone who chooses to commute in a Yamaha YZF R1 crotch rocket. Over time ones driving record becomes the basis for a financial decision about the cost of insuring a particular driver.

Contrast that with guns. I can go to a store, buy an AR-15 and if I use that gun illegally in a mass shooting, now most likely society has to pay for it. In that case suing for damages may not make sense because the gun owner may not be able to pay. Furthermore, tax payers now need to foot the bill to convict and incarcerate the shooter. I've never owned a gun in my life, why should I pay for a gun owners public defender? Why should the victims be stuck with the medical bill resulting from some dick deciding to open fire on them?

I'm surprised nobody proposed this sooner. Stick gun owners with a monthly insurance bill. That's fair. We live in a litigious society, I want to be able to sue you and get paid if you shoot me. No exceptions for police, they pay too. Maybe they'll think twice before shooting first and asking questions later if their insurance rates go up. The captain may not cover his irresponsible ass knowing the cost of insuring the officers gun is too high, same way a doctor with 100 malpractice suits may seek out a different career because insurance is prohibitive. If one uses a gun in self defense, then insurance still covers the damages and expenses but ones insurance rate doesn't increase cause they used the gun legitimately. If your child plays with your gun and shoots themselves, then insurance pays for that too, but now if the courts don't take your gun away, your insurance rate goes up dramatically because you didn't behave like a responsible gun owner by securing your weapon. Or consider someone who wants to buy 5 AR-15's, well now they may think twice 'cause that gun is really expensive to insure, as it should be, cause it can kill a lot more people a lot faster than a 12 gauge shotgun.

Any thoughts? Should gun owners be mandated to insure their guns and the damages it may cause or is that an overly restrictive burden for gun ownership?

Very interesting thoughts.

Of course, as Jesse says, insurance is kinda cold comfort to the dead.

But perhaps it would compel more reasonable gun ownership. Or it could just ramp up the black market.
 
Decent idea but as I said it's been tried in Congress for years. Bottom line is, no legislation that could potentially lower gun ownership will ever pass without democratic control of both house, senate, and presidency.
 
And yet billions are spent stocking streams and lakes with non native and destructive fish species.

But fuck gun control or social security, fish solves all such dilemmas.
 
I'm not completely sure I understand how this gun owners insurance would work. I didn't get in depth about why I feel it's different to other kinds of insurance earlier because I was very tired at the time, and honestly I'm very tired now too so this won't be me arguing with my A game.

But one clear difference depending on how it's supposed to work, is car and medical insurance isn't intended to cover someone intentionally trying to harm or kill someone. They're intended for accidents.

Now from the accident side, anyone who's ever had any kind of formal firearm training follows the line of thought that there are no gun accidents. Only gun negligence. A properly handled firearm should never result in someone's injury. Unlike many other kinds of accidents, virtually all gun accidents are avoidable with proper training. So that's what I think the focus should be for the accident side. Prevention.

As for deliberate, people trying to harm or kill people. So how's this supposed to work? All gun owners pay for firearm insurance and the insurance pays out for anyone who's shot intentionally by someone else? Because if that's the case you can't really argue "why should cars and doctors require insurance but not guns?" Because that's not an equivalent circumstance. Which isn't to say that it's a bad idea simply because it's different to this types of insurance, just that you can't argue that it should exist because it's like other forms of compulsory insurance. Thing is, I believe in universal health care. I'm not generally a big believe in what philosophers call positive rights, rights that must be provided by the government rather than the government preventing them being infringed (negative rights). I think it leads to people making all sorts of shit arguments like "what about my right not to feel afraid of <insert anything they don't like here>". It fast gets out of hand.

But despite that, I think people have a right to at least a basic level of medical care if they live in a country with our level of wealth. So I'd rather focus in that than this gun insurance concept. My other concern is how fast this could expand to other things. And that I don't really think it's that needed. You can already sue someone for causing deliberate or negligent harm to you. Now yes as someone said, what if they don't have the money? Well what if they don't have the insurance? How would it be implemented? Would this become a defacto licensing system? Another concern I have is this concept being used as a de facto gun control system skirting the 2nd amendment. Such as by making insurance mandatory before you can get a gun then making the insurance cost unaffordable.

I have a lot of issues with the idea. But generally my sentiments are more that i feel there are better alternatives no matter what the ultimate goal is.
 
Did you guys see trump at the NRA convention today? I had to do a rewatch bc I kept getting calls at work while it was on. Jfc I was literally dying laughing when he was talking about Kerry being a terrible negotiator and breaking his leg. Anyway his speech about the lefts desire to go after the second, and how he had the people eating out of the palms of his hand has me convinced that fear mongering the second amendment will be the most effective tactic when going to purple houses. He’s essentially doing just that in his pitch for voting rep in 2018. Love it or hate it, I think it’s a winning tactic, especially with the left and their “organic” funding of school protests and their daily assault via the media. I’m not buying the argument, but it’s a good one bc it inspires through fear. Both sides do it all of the time sadly.
 
Has anybody heard of these new "Red Flag Laws"? Here in MD a gun owner can now lose their right to own a firearm simply because a family member or friend believes the person is a thread to themselves or others. So now an anti-gun person can claim you are dangerous and the police will come to your house and take your firearm. I understand there are seriously mentally ill people who shouldn't own guns, but I can easily see this law being abused and safe law abiding citizens will lose their guns simply because someone tells the authorities that so and so is a danger because they have a gun. Any thoughts?
 
When real artists get political it looks something like this:



It was cool when he shot the choir
didn't Kendrick Lamar do something similar in his Grammy performance?

interesting to compare this to Kendrick and also that Eminem video. Different approaches.
 
Has anybody heard of these new "Red Flag Laws"? Here in MD a gun owner can now lose their right to own a firearm simply because a family member or friend believes the person is a thread to themselves or others. So now an anti-gun person can claim you are dangerous and the police will come to your house and take your firearm. I understand there are seriously mentally ill people who shouldn't own guns, but I can easily see this law being abused and safe law abiding citizens will lose their guns simply because someone tells the authorities that so and so is a danger because they have a gun. Any thoughts?

I don't like to comment out of ignorance. If it were true exactly and ONLY as you describe that would be pretty bullshit yeah. But if there's a lot more to it, and someone can appeal such a claim and would be likely (if stable) to succeed, I'm a little more on the fence.

There probably should be some sort of red flag law, but it's very important it be done right. So that's really where I would or wouldn't have objections.

I don't have any outright on principle problem with the concept, we already have long had and largely accept a similar concept with loss of overall freedom with involuntary mental holds (baker acted if you're from Florida). But we all understand that's temporary. That's what if want to know here, what are the time limits? And of course are there time limits? The devil is in the details. But yeah, as long as it's done right, where someone can appeal and can win if they're not a threat, I don't see an issue.
 
Last edited:
It was cool when he shot the choir
didn't Kendrick Lamar do something similar in his Grammy performance?

interesting to compare this to Kendrick and also that Eminem video. Different approaches.
Yeah, that Kendrick show and the Eminem video both touch on the subject of gun control.

I found Eminem and Kendrick to be more lyrically intensive while Gambino relies a lot more on the flow and emotional aspect using contrast. All great artist using their talent.



Can you imagine someone in the music industry who gets a lot of attention without actually putting those thoughts into a form of art? What a waste of a life.
 
I used to like Eminem until he sold out to mainstream media.

A self hating white man with some serious treacherous left wing stances? Not that kind of person I would listen to.

"Shall not be infringed"
 
Top