More images from Everytown:
the antis really need to read this post!
Still: Title and Tag at Each Point of Sale: Tags are not required for vehicles not being used on private lands or private collections. Titles are nice documents confirming ownership, but really unless law enforcement gets involved most people don’t really care.
Training? All good, but mandatory training does nothing if people don’t train further than that, they will simply forget their training. Further people who have trained with a skilled mentor, but not a certified trainer can often have BETTER training than the mandate, but without payment or certificates. Also I can’t even remember what was done at my driver’s ed training because it was 20 years ago…
Health Requirements? What exactly are we talking about? Yeah if you’ve been adjudicated mentally ill you can’t own a gun…tho you can still drive! This is intentionally vague.
Liability Insurance? This is a red herring. In cars it’s insurance for damages or injuries you do while otherwise lawfully operating your vehicle, they sometimes come with civil penalties, but the courts tend to handle criminal infractions. With guns there really is no infraction that isn’t criminal. Further criminals who don’t legally own guns will not have liability insurance, and certainly not on an individual gun basis because of the 5th Amendment. What the antis are going at is forcing lawful gun owners to pay for the crimes of criminals. That’s hardly the same thing.
Renewals and inspections: Well license renewals only cover driving on public roads, this is like carry permits. Still we have a right to keep and bear arms, so that’s a question the antis don’t like to acknowledge. As for inspections, well many states don’t require this, and again you only need to submit cars for inspection that are being publicly driven. Also these inspections are to determine if the car is in good working order, and safe to drive. Guns are vastly less complex than cars and simple user applied maintenance keeps them in working order. Further most guns if poorly maintained are still safe to use, they just might not effective in their functioning. Unless your guns is so severely rusted that it will be compromised by a shot (and I’ve seen some serious rust-buckets that safely fired) disrepair will simply mean your gun won’t function reliably. Apples and Oranges.
And then there’s this one that shows how out-of-touch our opponents are:
So we have what appears to be a simple hunting rifle that for whatever reason is launching an entire unfired cartridge. I don’t even know what they’re getting at. Also “Faster than a Speeding Bullet”? Yeah nobody is, are they complaining about muzzle velocity?
Yeah I don’t get it!
H/T Jack
There’s also no safe storage requirements and no background checks and no private sale ban for cars. You can sell your car for cash over the barrel-head to anyone. No going to a dealer required.
This is telling because… well.. safe storage and private sale bans are, supposedly, the two things Bloomberg’s latest group is all about.
Meanwhile driver’s licenses are shall-issue with nationwide (and beyond) reciprocity.
They… didn’t think this through did they. Then again, just look at their second graphic.
50 mill doesn’t buy what it used to.
Well not only did they not think this through, but they simply aren’t looking at our counter-arguments. There’s that “Red Team” Thinking again.
Look at me, I used to make the common argument that not ALL guns are designed for killing, and up until my prairie dog hunt two years ago I had owned a LOT of guns and had never killed ANYTHING.
Further I’ve burned through thousands of rounds of ammo and to date I have only killed possibly 4 (two confirmed) medium-sized rodents.
Still even my smallest gun (which happens to be a colt 1908 .25, which was indeed designed for use against humans) can be used to kill people and animals.
So I changed my argument to point out that killing people and animals are 100% legal under proper circumstances, and these laws are in effect in EVERY nation of the world I can think of.
I took a weak argument and made it stronger. They took a weak argument and simply repeated it.
While I’m opposed to regulating guns like cars, I don’t know if I’d be too upset if their proposition became law. Hell I have 3 guns I carry regularly, with maybe another 3-4 I might get “Tagged” for public use. If that means they’ll ignore my fun-guns that only sit in the armory and occasionally go to the range (and that means putting full-auto switches on guns and chopping barrels and owning HUGE magazines ect, so long as I don’t carry them around loaded in public) and show these guns to an inspection station every year or so to make sure they haven’t rusted solid and they’re clean and lubricated, and that means I can carry them EVERYWHERE in 50 states, buy them in 50 states, and likely carry them if I go to Europe, Canada, and South and Central America, well yeah, that actually sounds like a compromise!
50 mil doesn’t buy much in the way of thinking.
Cars can be sold to habitual criminals, aka convicted DUI on release.
Things like title, tags, insurance, residence, or even a license are not required to own
a car or for that fact a Peterbuilt with 50foot trailer. I might add that is true even for an airplane! Their logic is really severely broken.
In reality there are few thing as tightly regulated as guns.
But hey a megalomaniac and his money should be wasted.
Eck!
Um, I can have a fully fueled, ready to drive motor vehicle, that is neither registered, insured, nor even “road legal” on a public road, even if I personally have no driver’s license. I just have to be transporting it on a trailer or tow dolly, with a licensed driver operating the tow vehicle.
If that “unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured, “unsafe”vehicle is a “Farm Use” vehicle, it can be driven on a public street by an unlicensed driver who is too young to get a driver’s license.
If driving my very road unlegal vehicle while I have no license (or even one revoked for misconduct behind the wheel) is the only reasonable way to prevent further harm (i.e., a “necessity” defence) such as no cell phone or other commo, and my buddy is having a heart attack – so I throw him in the only vehicle I have available (say, my dirt track stock car) to get him someplace we can get help – I can drive that vehicle on public roads to the extent reasonably necessary to avert the greater evil. This is called a “necessity” or “justification” defense.
Wearing or carrying a gun is analogous to transporting a vehicle on a flatbed. The vehicle only has to be “street legal” and have all the administrivial boxes checked off when it is operated on the public road. My gun isn’t being operated until I fire it, either.
So, if I discharge a firearm on public land, I can (by analogy to cars) be required to have either full compliance with whatever administrivial regs the law asks for (like some public ranges have requirements before you can use them, certainly hunting on public land has requirements), have an exemption specifically for that type of gun (analogous to the “Farm Use” category), or I must be able to show legal necessity (claiming lawful self defence is legally a “necessity” claim).
This is analagous to the frequency of localties banning the discharge of firearms within municipal limits *unless* the discharge is in relation to defense of life.
The concept that treating-guns-like-cars would mean 50 state shall issue with full reciprocity is the generous interpretation. The stricter one, as you point out is 50 state con-carry.
It’s really a key example of the Dunner Kunning effect that not only are these clowns ignorant of gun laws but they’re also totally at sea with car law.
It’s not for nothing that the antis will frequently argue not just on proposed laws but also merely on what the legal status quo is.
I’d even be willing to argue that loaded and holstered or slung is “Bearing Arms” which is the operation of the gun, and that unloaded and cased (we could argue if the case needs to be locked or not) being the analogy to a trailered stock car.
Yep, and if there is a riot on my street and I’m seeing Molotov cocktails being tossed, I would be 100% legal to step onto the curb with my 14″ suppressed, full-auto FAL with a folding stock and a chest rig filled with 30-round DSA mags and engage the deadly threat.
I could also drop that sweet rig in a gun box (and maybe lock it) and the mags separate and put it in my car and drive to my gun club…or a gun club in New York State that I have an invite to, and shoot that gun there with no legal issues…so long as my carry gun is one of the guns I have registered on my permit.
Again, I’d prefer just to repeal all these laws and go 50-states Constitutional carry, and simply end the NFA, and have registration of guns be a simple criminal act.
Still I wouldn’t be too upset by this compromise.
Well, Weerd, I don’t have to defuel an “off road” vehicle and lock it up or disable the ignition before transporting it on a public road. (How do you lock the ignition on a kick start dirt bike or a 1945 jeep that has no ignition key?)
Again, I am not operating a firearm when i am merely bearing it — it is only when I discharge (or present it at the ready as if I am going to discharge it), just as I am not operating a motor vehicle that is sitting on a flatbed, even if it is gassed up, unlocked, and has a push-button ignition with no lock.
Remember, the criminal offences involving the use of a firearm arm are either discharging it when not permissable, or handling it in a way that reasonably indicates you likely intend to discharge it unlawfully (i.e., threatening someone by pointing it at them or waving it around like a lunatic). Mere possession, even concealed, is not criminal misuse of a firearm. (The federal courts have long established that not all crimes involving firearms are necessarily crimes involving the use of firearms.)
Mandatory gun insurance to pay directly to victims would work very well. There are lots of kinds of insurance that pay for criminal and intentional acts including car insurance in a lot of states. Read your homeowners policy, if you torch your house the bank gets the mortgage paid off while you rot in jail. If the insurers don’t get off the hook but continue to be responsible if the gun is transferred by theft or otherwise to someone who doesn’t take out new insurance that takes care of the problem that crooks won’t buy it.
Why do you hate poor people?
From your own page
“Insurance will accomplish this because insurers will take measures in their pricing, sales decisions and policy terms to limit their exposure. The insurance recommended here would compensate victims on the basis of their losses not liability of the gun owner and would continue to apply to a given gun until it is replaced by other insurance. Because an insurer would still be on the hook after a gun is lost, stolen or illegally transferred, it would take steps to prevent that from happening.”
Gee… what you’re talking about, what you think is a GOOD thing is having the state mandate people purchase a service that will deliberately price out undesirables from… exercising a right.
Oh! And you don’t want to *ban* handguns or evil high capacity clips. No you’re just advocating making them so expensive to insure that only “the right” people will have them.
Oh look, safe storage, keeping guns at gun ranges, periodic “inspections”, proof that you’re “rich enough” to deserve guns, oh and a lump payment up front.
Gee… I guess it’s not infringing if it’s a big corporation that’s making a citizen do it!
So… do you think poor people shouldn’t have guns are you just a shill for big insurance?
You also seem to have a strong dislike to mental clarity.
” If the insurers don’t get off the hook but continue to be responsible if the gun is transferred by theft or otherwise to someone who doesn’t take out new insurance that takes care of the problem that crooks won’t buy it.”
What does that even mean?
And more from your site: “Second Principle — Top Down Insurance Does Not Require Gun Registration or Owner Tracking”
Well… the government isn’t doing the tracking. But the Insurance company is.
Gee.. I wonder what the Insurance company would do with their information if the person was unable to continue payment. Or if say a ban was passed and the government asked the Insurance companies for a list of anyone who had a now illegal gun.
Trustworthy!
Thanks for coming by, Tom, you’re braver than most, but you’re full of shit.
Accidental gun death and injury is at statistical noise levels. Those of us in the pro-gun side are working hard to lower that even more (tho zero is an impossible goal, unfortunately) by teaching proper gun safety, promoting good training, and taking newer shooters and inexperienced people to the range where safety and enjoyment are the first priority.
As for people who commit violent acts, how many of those people were actual legal gun owners, and could be considered people who would be paying their insurance. Sure the high-publicity spree shooters legally owned their guns, but generally they only owned them for months, not years. How many premium payments are those? Further spree shooters are also statistical noise when looking at the violence in this nation. Most of the gun deaths and injuries happen in the inner-cities where gun laws are strict (and ignored) and gang issues are prevalent. Most of the people shooting other people in this country ILLEGALLY own their guns, and they will NOT be paying insurance.
So what you’re talking about may be CALLED “insurance”, but really its a tax on the lawful to be paid to the victims of criminals. By your own admission, and by DOJ statistics, NOBODY will ever get a payment from the insurance companies, but yet we’ll still pay premiums. No thanks!
You can make a logical argument for such insurance being required while using a firearm on public land — such as an “insurance fee” for use of a publicly owned firing range or hunting on publicly owned land.
You would, however, be unpleasantly shocked (I suspect), when you found out how laughably tiny such fees would be, based on a risk factor.
I say this as someone who deals with the costs of an organizational $1 million liability policy that covers firearms accidents, pyrotechnical accidents, and all other injury and property damage inherent in an organization of dozens of people who regularly use automatic weapons and pyrotechnics in “non-static” situations involving literally hundreds of others outside our organization, any of whom are potential claimants. The cost for coverage far in excess of the likely claims, for way more people than an individual gun owner (both in total and in annual man-days), and for activities far more dangerous than your average gun owner faces is a few hundred bucks a year.
The cost of printing the insurance receipts and other administrative overhead for people using guns on government owned land (even rolling it into the cost of an annual hunting license) would exceed the statistically calculated risk-based premiums.
Even if you mandated the purchase of such insurance by every lawful gunowner, even those that are not intending to operate their guns on public land (remember, even if you end up using an off-road, uninsured vehicle, on a public road in an emergency – analogous to lawfully using a defensive gun to protect yourself -, you still don’t have to insure it), the actual risk-based premiums would be smaller than the cost to government for administering the program. (Not even the UK has managed to get gang bangers to pay “gun insurance”. And given that they tend to get their guns via international smuggling or domestic covert production, they aren’t able to recoup it by “premiums” paid by lawful gunowners who at one time owned the guns.)
Which makes it clear to any rational person who deals with risk analysis and mitigation on a professional basis — it isn’t about “insurance” or “societal cost”, it’s about bigotry and rank ignorance on the part of the proponents.
The only purpose of such a program is to be a hidden tax, to discourage the practice of an enumerated right, especially among the poor.
We got rid of poll taxes for a reason, and the Supreme Court has outlawed taxing of the practice of individual rights.
It’s hard to find your articles in google. I found it on 16 spot,
you should build quality backlinks , it will help you to rank to google top 10.
I know how to help you, just type in google – k2
seo tricks