• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Slaughter in vegas

EatLeadCommie said:
Insurance for a Constitutionally guaranteed right is excessive. This is not driving a car. It would be akin to a poll tax to vote, and its only purpose is to impede gun ownership. Its practical effect would be to enrich insurers and limit gun ownership to those who can afford it (like this Vegas shooter). This proposal is very odious in its intent in that regard. Gun grabbers know they can't ban, so they propose things like this which would have the practical effect of making gun ownership onerous and/or expensive, ergo fewer guns. It has nothing to do with personal responsibility, but that's a good spin.
Click to expand...

And this is why a constitutional right to guns is bat shit crazy to me. By this line of argument, essentially anything aimed at fewer guns (and can't we at least agree we'd be better off with fewer guns out there?) can't work.
 
Used the data here
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

created a chart,
inserted text from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

ETcU7i6.png
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Your brother's contention is pointless to this debate. Higher prices for German guns in no way impacts the price of a S&W or Beretta or Taurus, etc... Nobody's right would be infringed upon by a higher cost in a small portion of the market, nor would their safety be impacted in any way. If we are going to use car analogies, it would be like having to settle for a Lexus or Caddy when you want a BMW.
Click to expand...

My brother's contention was noted not for its relevance to this debate, but as an example of gun absolutism. Your argument about "impeding gun ownership" is another such example. I agree that his argument was asinine. Yours is a little better, but I think a properly designed insurance scheme could pass constitutional muster. Even Scalia admitted in the (wrongly-decided) Heller case that restrictions on guns were not automatically unconstitutional. Generally, restrictions on guns are subject to intermediate scrutiny, i.e. "the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest". If 93 dead Americans per day isn't an "important government interest" I guess I don't understand what those words mean. Note that gun control laws have not, historically, been subject to strict scrutiny requiring a "compelling" government interest.
 
Deacon923 said:
My brother's contention was noted not for its relevance to this debate, but as an example of gun absolutism. Your argument about "impeding gun ownership" is another such example. I agree that his argument was asinine. Yours is a little better, but I think a properly designed insurance scheme could pass constitutional muster. Even Scalia admitted in the (wrongly-decided) Heller case that restrictions on guns were not automatically unconstitutional. Generally, restrictions on guns are subject to intermediate scrutiny, i.e. "the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest". If 93 dead Americans per day isn't an "important government interest" I guess I don't understand what those words mean. Note that gun control laws have not, historically, been subject to strict scrutiny requiring a "compelling" government interest.
Click to expand...

Great post
 
Deacon923 said:
My brother's contention was noted not for its relevance to this debate, but as an example of gun absolutism. Your argument about "impeding gun ownership" is another such example. I agree that his argument was asinine. Yours is a little better, but I think a properly designed insurance scheme could pass constitutional muster. Even Scalia admitted in the (wrongly-decided) Heller case that restrictions on guns were not automatically unconstitutional. Generally, restrictions on guns are subject to intermediate scrutiny, i.e. "the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest". If 93 dead Americans per day isn't an "important government interest" I guess I don't understand what those words mean. Note that gun control laws have not, historically, been subject to strict scrutiny requiring a "compelling" government interest.
Click to expand...

Perhaps one would pass constitutional muster, as lawyers are employed to talk a good line of bullshit, but where is the line? Insurance for the sake of offsetting health costs seems like a pretty bogus argument to me. The insurers stand to make a killing off this. That's why they're in the insurance business. Hospitals and victims would see how much, exactly? Much like Chris Rock's solution of taxing the shit out of ammo, there is a point at which this action becomes excessive. That's an argument to have, but the point of insurance is not to offset the public health cost. I just don't buy that one iota. It's to levy an additional burden and hurdle to gun ownership, something we don't require for any other freedom.
 
SDeacz said:
It's a mass shooting, doofus. Just perpetrated by the government, not civilian(s).
Click to expand...

Didn't that occur during the Sioux Wars? If you start describing wartime deaths, it seems like you're getting farther away from a solution. You're introducing deaths that resulted from politically sanctioned combat.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Perhaps one would pass constitutional muster, as lawyers are employed to talk a good line of bullshit, but where is the line? Insurance for the sake of offsetting health costs seems like a pretty bogus argument to me. The insurers stand to make a killing off this. That's why they're in the insurance business. Hospitals and victims would see how much, exactly? Much like Chris Rock's solution of taxing the shit out of ammo, there is a point at which this action becomes excessive. That's an argument to have, but the point of insurance is not to offset the public health cost. I just don't buy that one iota. It's to levy an additional burden and hurdle to gun ownership, something we don't require for any other freedom.
Click to expand...

What?
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Perhaps one would pass constitutional muster, as lawyers are employed to talk a good line of bullshit, but where is the line? Insurance for the sake of offsetting health costs seems like a pretty bogus argument to me. The insurers stand to make a killing off this. That's why they're in the insurance business. Hospitals and victims would see how much, exactly? Much like Chris Rock's solution of taxing the shit out of ammo, there is a point at which this action becomes excessive. That's an argument to have, but the point of insurance is not to offset the public health cost. I just don't buy that one iota. It's to levy an additional burden and hurdle to gun ownership, something we don't require for any other freedom.
Click to expand...

The point of insurance would be to compensate victims of gun crimes for their health costs.

It would operate just like car insurance does. Are you a little old lady who drives her 5 year old Camry to the store once a week? Your premiums would be low because you are low risk. Are you a 40 year old guy who has multiple AR 15s and no gun safe? Your premiums would be high because you are high risk.
 
tiltdeac said:
And this is why a constitutional right to guns is bat shit crazy to me. By this line of argument, essentially anything aimed at fewer guns (and can't we at least agree we'd be better off with fewer guns out there?) can't work.
Click to expand...

There really isn't a constitutional right to guns, we just have an activist supreme court and a strong though small-peened gun lobby. In any event, WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT EVEN ALLOWED TO TAX GUN PURCHASES?????? INFRINGEMENT!
 
vadimivich said:
The idea that AR-15 or AK-47 family weapons are "the same as a hunting rifle, they just look different" is laughable.

Because they were developed from military rifles, AR-15 and AK-47 family weapons are designed to accept a wide range of tactical accessories designed for combat situations. These include high capacity magazines, combat slings, bipods/tripods, bump stocks, etc, etc. Yes, you could in theory manufacture your own for another semi-automatic rifle, but that's a far cry from the huge volume of easily purchasable military grade hardware available with 3 clicks on the internet or in a shop.

Because they were developed from military rifles the AR/AK family are designed to be weapons that can be fired rapidly and in large volume over an extended time. They are very light (especially the AR family), have little recoil, are easy to maneuver, and can be fired for extended stretches which would be nearly impossible with a standard hunting rifle. In particular, the receivers and barrels are designed for a volume of fire that a standard semi-auto rifle for hunting or sports purposes never has to support.

Both the AR and AK families are traditionally chambered for rounds that have little purpose outside of combat. The NATO 5.56x45mm used by the AR family and the 7.62x39mm used by the AK family are both designed for combat situations and ranges against human targets. They are relatively under performing as hunting rounds and aren't optimized for sports either. The 5.56x45mm in particular lacks punch against anything larger than a human, and is a round that was designed to be as small as possible while still being lethal to humans (so soldiers could carry as much ammunition as possible and to limit recoil allowing for more extended periods of accurate fire).

The AR/AK family rifles are combat rifles. They are very, very, very good combat rifles proven on the field of battle over and over. They are optimized for the task of killing human beings, and very little else. The idea that they are the equivalent of a .30-.30 chambered deer rifle is fucking laughable and insulting.
Click to expand...

This is a good post and probably best responded to by a guy like Elkman if you all haven't driven him off again, but a few things...

Grandpappy's 30-30 is not particularly relevant to the discussion. Long arms, much like sidearms, have greatly varied in weight over the years. Your grandpappy's 30-30 probably felt pretty awesome compared to his grandpappy's musket. Probably less metal due to the shortened barrel, lighter wood maybe, easier and quicker to load/reload. All these are practical inventions that made it easier to kill people and to kill deer. Pretty sure the gun in general wasn't invented for killing animals, and even if it was, then its advancements over the years are most certainly due to its application in war. What my dad used for hunting 30-40 years ago, and what I therefore used by extension, is outdated by today's standards with the polymer stocks and other advancements.

Your point about them being designed to fire for long stretches is a good one. I could be mistaken, but thought that I read the firing pins on the civilian models are different and not as durable as military models. Again, this is where Elkman's knowledge would be good to have. Would also like to hear Elkman's take on whether or not making all new semi-autos sold in the US double action only would be (1) practical as a gun control option (and as deterrent to bump fire), and (2) within Constitutional limitations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top