borisp wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Borisp.

Accusing me directly of being a thug, trading on the blood of innocent children, denying you the right the protect your freedom - is quite frankly absurd, a gross distortion and personally offensive.

I'd prefer you keep your posts civil and reasonable, even if we disagree.

You chose to mention Newtown repeatedly, - even though that murder could not have possibly be prevented by the measures that you are proposing and defending.

Ergo, you mentioned it as a moral blackmail, trying to pose as a defender of the children, and trying to picture the opposing side, - me, - as someone who if responsible for the tragedy.

You did it in the same way a politician exclaims "let's do it to save the children". In the same way the politicians in the old country was arguing that we must keep the collective farms since we must feed the children and elderly, and we can't trust private farmers to do that.

You know it and I know it, and everyone else knows it.

You are in no position to get offended.

And my posts are 100% civil, for I called your behavior thuggish not to throw names, but purely as factual narration.

Vigilante wrote:
May I suggest?

dtjcview wrote:
Borisp.

Accusing me directly of being a thug, trading on the blood of innocent children, denying you the right the protect your freedom - is quite frankly absurd, a gross distortion and personally offensive.

I'd prefer you keep your posts civil and reasonable, even if we disagree.

dtjcview wrote:
Very good debate. I liked the quote "the problem with bans is that capitalism always wins". I couldn't agree more. That's why engineering a unique American solution to this American problem is important: creating a framework for businesses and lawyers to make money from solving the problem, while not trampling individual freedoms.

The insurance/litigation route seems like a potentially good framework. Let the insurers build the pot of money, and let the sharks (err, lawyers) go after the bad guys.

Quote:

AlexC wrote:
"tool" LOL

here's a reasoned argument about the "language" of the debate. Listen to the Canadian speaker at around the 7 min mark:

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segm ... /50ec81452b8c2a71b90000cd

dtjcview wrote:
Borisp - Let me guess. You came to the US from some hell-hole like Croatia. Welcome.

dtjcview wrote:
1. Restrict your freedom? You can still buy and own guns. But I'd rather you as a gun owner pay more of the medical bills and funeral costs of gun victims than me as a law-abiding, non gun owning taxpayer. And what about the freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of those dead and injured in Newtown?

dtjcview wrote:
2a. If and when axes, chainsaws, computers or whatever are used to inflict death and injury on the same scale as with guns, then it may be worth considering. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a movie. Newtown and Columbine were real. (Borisp - you really need to work on your reductio ad absurdum line of arguments.).

dtjcview wrote:
2b. By "moved", I was both appalled and stirred into action. By "rights", I think you mean your "sense of entitlement". So yes. I'm attacking your warped sense of entitlement, if it helps stops future horrific events such as Newtown. "Prejudiced" against guns? No. Not even prejudiced against irresponsible gun buyers and sellers - my desire to hold them accountable is entirely rational.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Borisp - I'll label your post 1, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4: you had 2 "second" points and one "forth", presumably "fourth".

1- No-one wants criminals to have guns, never mind gun insurance.
2a - Gun sellers who provide criminals with guns would be the target of litigation, if not additional criminal charges. So yes. Supposedly "law abiding", yet irresponsible gun owners would be held accountable.
2b - Oh I guess like at least half of the nation, I was moved by the events at Newtown. Anything that helps stop this kind of horrific tragedy is worth pursuing.
3 - It's a paranoia. People are motivated by stopping tragedies and not stealing your rocks. It may be self-fulfilling though if all sides of the debate can't learn to negotiate.
4 - Worth considering when penises can be bought and sold like guns.

There are no two "seconds", - it is just that my first paragraph had two items in it. However, if it makes easier to you, I will stick to your enumeration. Also, apologies for the "forth". However, since I am speaking English only since my late twenties, I am going to forgive myself for this minor transgression against the language. Now... where were we? Ah!

1. Ok, I just want to say this again so it sinks in, - you want to restrict my freedom not as a punishment for a crime and not via some form of due process, but preemptively. Because you are afraid that I may commit a crime.

2. Do you propose to institute similar approach everywhere? Should I register an axe? Get an insurance for a chain saw? For a computer, in case I plan to hack some website? Is this a blanket suggestion - everyone who may harm someone must register everything that can be used for causing harm? Or is it highly selective?

And, because you were moved? You really think this is a proper outlet for your emotions, - to attack my rights? If you were moved not against some sort of tools, but against a category of people, you'd recognize it as bigotry. Prejudice against a tool is not disgusting, unlike prejudice against some people, - no argument there. But it is just as irrational.

3. Paranoia it isn't. If people were motivated by stopping tragedies, - they'd started with something that causes most tragedies. We have data. They'd try to look at poisoning and many other things first. And, if they would look at the firearms, they would start with the situation in Chicago. When people concentrate of the rifles, and point at Newtown, - we can safely assume that "stopping tragedies" is not their primary concern.

Second, experience tells us that government never, ever, ever stops. Everything it does is a slippery slope. Look, just few years ago people were screaming their heads off because Bush applied waterboarding of a few really, really well-known terrorists. And that was waterboarding, - something that doesn't cause permanent damage and that a few journalists dared to try on themselves. Now, Obama has a kill list, he kills american citizens with no due process, and when Senate asks him to explain how he decides who to kill, - he just ignores it. And the press is not screaming bloody murder, it is perfectly fine with this interesting situation.

Don't tell me I have nothing to be afraid of.

4. Non sequitur. It matters not if something can be bought or sold. Your justification was, - it can be used to commit a crime. So, if you'd stick to your logic, you must ask everyone to submit their fingerprints and the DNA, - especially those who have equipment to commit rape. Thinking about it, - why stop there? Let's make sure that people report to the government all their movements, right? It would allow to easily investigate any crime, no? A GPS chip under the skin, - and voila, crime fighting is easy now!

Do you know of any reason why NOT to do that? No, seriously, do you have any objections, and if so, - what's your reasoning?

JPhurst wrote:
More on the "gun control was a racist plot of the KKK" canard.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11 ... ol-racism-and-nra-history

borisp wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Borisp - I'll label your post 1, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4: you had 2 "second" points and one "forth", presumably "fourth".

1- No-one wants criminals to have guns, never mind gun insurance.
2a - Gun sellers who provide criminals with guns would be the target of litigation, if not additional criminal charges. So yes. Supposedly "law abiding", yet irresponsible gun owners would be held accountable.
2b - Oh I guess like at least half of the nation, I was moved by the events at Newtown. Anything that helps stop this kind of horrific tragedy is worth pursuing.
3 - It's a paranoia. People are motivated by stopping tragedies and not stealing your rocks. It may be self-fulfilling though if all sides of the debate can't learn to negotiate.
4 - Worth considering when penises can be bought and sold like guns.

There are no two "seconds", - it is just that my first paragraph had two items in it. However, if it makes easier to you, I will stick to your enumeration. Also, apologies for the "forth". However, since I am speaking English only since my late twenties, I am going to forgive myself for this minor transgression against the language. Now... where were we? Ah!

1. Ok, I just want to say this again so it sinks in, - you want to restrict my freedom not as a punishment for a crime and not via some form of due process, but preemptively. Because you are afraid that I may commit a crime.

2. Do you propose to institute similar approach everywhere? Should I register an axe? Get an insurance for a chain saw? For a computer, in case I plan to hack some website? Is this a blanket suggestion - everyone who may harm someone must register everything that can be used for causing harm? Or is it highly selective?

And, because you were moved? You really think this is a proper outlet for your emotions, - to attack my rights? If you were moved not against some sort of tools, but against a category of people, you'd recognize it as bigotry. Prejudice against a tool is not disgusting, unlike prejudice against some people, - no argument there. But it is just as irrational.

3. Paranoia it isn't. If people were motivated by stopping tragedies, - they'd started with something that causes most tragedies. We have data. They'd try to look at poisoning and many other things first. And, if they would look at the firearms, they would start with the situation in Chicago. When people concentrate of the rifles, and point at Newtown, - we can safely assume that "stopping tragedies" is not their primary concern.

Second, experience tells us that government never, ever, ever stops. Everything it does is a slippery slope. Look, just few years ago people were screaming their heads off because Bush applied waterboarding of a few really, really well-known terrorists. And that was waterboarding, - something that doesn't cause permanent damage and that a few journalists dared to try on themselves. Now, Obama has a kill list, he kills american citizens with no due process, and when Senate asks him to explain how he decides who to kill, - he just ignores it. And the press is not screaming bloody murder, it is perfectly fine with this interesting situation.

Don't tell me I have nothing to be afraid of.

4. Non sequitur. It matters not if something can be bought or sold. Your justification was, - it can be used to commit a crime. So, if you'd stick to your logic, you must ask everyone to submit their fingerprints and the DNA, - especially those who have equipment to commit rape. Thinking about it, - why stop there? Let's make sure that people report to the government all their movements, right? It would allow to easily investigate any crime, no? A GPS chip under the skin, - and voila, crime fighting is easy now!

Do you know of any reason why NOT to do that? No, seriously, do you have any objections, and if so, - what's your reasoning?

dtjcview wrote:
Borisp - I'll label your post 1, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4: you had 2 "second" points and one "forth", presumably "fourth".

1- No-one wants criminals to have guns, never mind gun insurance.
2a - Gun sellers who provide criminals with guns would be the target of litigation, if not additional criminal charges. So yes. Supposedly "law abiding", yet irresponsible gun owners would be held accountable.
2b - Oh I guess like at least half of the nation, I was moved by the events at Newtown. Anything that helps stop this kind of horrific tragedy is worth pursuing.
3 - It's a paranoia. People are motivated by stopping tragedies and not stealing your rocks. It may be self-fulfilling though if all sides of the debate can't learn to negotiate.
4 - Worth considering when penises can be bought and sold like guns.

AlexC wrote:
"tool" LOL

here's a reasoned argument about the "language" of the debate. Listen to the Canadian speaker at around the 7 min mark:

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segm ... /50ec81452b8c2a71b90000cd

AlexC wrote:
I did Google it. Thanks for that.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/22 ... lly-shoots-off-his-penis/

LMFAO

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

AlexC wrote:
This is what happens when you pull a gun on someone:

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot ... jr-high-school-in-detroit

(WXYZ) - Police sources tell 7 Action News that a women's basketball coach from Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School shot two men who attacked him as he was walking two basketball players to their cars in the school parking lot.
Police sources say the coach was walking the two girls to their cars when two men allegedly approached and one pulled out a gun and grabbed him by his chain necklace. The coach then pulled out his gun and shot both of them, according to sources.
The man who shot the attackers was 70 years old, according to police.

Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot ... -in-detroit#ixzz2JxBEhKQQ

Rarely. Try googling "accidentally shoots". You will be reading for days. And where is boris? Why isn't he relentlessly questioning your summation that this what "always happens when you pull a gun on someone?" Where is your proof?!!! Blah, blah, boring.

AlexC wrote:
This is what happens when you pull a gun on someone:

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot ... jr-high-school-in-detroit

(WXYZ) - Police sources tell 7 Action News that a women's basketball coach from Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School shot two men who attacked him as he was walking two basketball players to their cars in the school parking lot.
Police sources say the coach was walking the two girls to their cars when two men allegedly approached and one pulled out a gun and grabbed him by his chain necklace. The coach then pulled out his gun and shot both of them, according to sources.
The man who shot the attackers was 70 years old, according to police.

Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot ... -in-detroit#ixzz2JxBEhKQQ

borisp wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
The primary purpose of the insurance would be to give gun victims access to compensation....

Also as far as I know, dead criminals and dead gun owners are not "CRIMINALLY liable". I'd guess it's also pretty tough to get compensation from them.

As MDM has already said, criminals are not going to purchase the insurance. For two reasons. First, they wouldn't want to, and, being criminals, they will disregard the law. Second, for a criminal to own a gun is illegal and to register that gun means to report on himself. The Fifth Amendment says that you can't require that. So, registration and insurance will be not just disregardable, but constitutionally inapplicable to the criminals.

So, your target is law-abiding citizens only. Nice.

Second, when you decided to target gun owners requiring them to bu an insurance, - how did you make your choice whom to target? Did you pick an activity that is most prone to accidents? Or did you pick an activity that you personally dislike?

Third, as I said before, - registration is invariably a precursor to confiscation. This is not paranoia, - this is what is an open, voiced threat from some politicians and organizations. No need to look far for example, - consider Cuomo's threats.

Forth, if you are a man, you have all the equipment needed to commit rape. So, if we to follow your logic, you can require you to register, submit the your fingerprints and DNA to the government repository, - and buy an insurance against that, right?

dtjcview wrote:
The primary purpose of the insurance would be to give gun victims access to compensation....

Also as far as I know, dead criminals and dead gun owners are not "CRIMINALLY liable". I'd guess it's also pretty tough to get compensation from them.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
A license, insurance and registration would hold gun sellers and buyers responsible and accountable. Most car dealers won't let you take a car off the lot without a license and insurance. Why not with guns? As with autos, there should be state and federally mandated liability minimums.

There is no law that requires anything to OWN a car, only to drive on the public road.

As for the rest:

1. registration, - do you want to register computers and printers? Just in case someone abuses his first amendment rights?

What is the purpose of the registration if not confiscation?

2. forced insurance is meaningless. People are CRIMINALLY liable for shooting an innocent person right now, - so adding an insurance wont make them more responsible.

So, you insurance idea is just a pretext to require registration.