Another school shooting

No, this is just the lie you keep telling.

You're the one who claimed the "mainstream left."

And it still is. If you don't like being called out for your logical fallacies, stop using them.

Which is the entire point.

Laws aren't supposed to nor expected to stop all of the behavior, never have been.

I think speed limits skew the risk/reward ratio to the point that people, as a rule, drive slower than they would in their absence.

Yes, at your inability to use anything approaching a logical argument.

Where did I use the word "punish" at all? I suggested that the requirement to keep weapons secure would have avoided Santa Fe, but that requirement could be implemented in a number of ways.

There's nothing you can do to help because you're unwilling to honestly discuss the issue. You've claimed that court precedent backs your position, but I've challenged your opinion and all you've done is repeat your opinion.

Yes, because you lack the ability to honestly discuss it.

So, in a single statement, you repeat your refusal to discuss the topic, your opinion about constitutionality, and toss out an insult.

Delicious!

ROFL, it is certainly a hindrance.

There don't have to be federal requirements for firearm insurance, necessarily.

There is no right to own or operate military-style firearms with high capacity magazines, merely "arms."

No, I have not seen any relevant court precedent, just the opinion of a random poster on a basketball BBS.

No, I've just asked for proof, which you have refused or been unable to deliver.

None of this made any sense and was based solely on your speculation. Try again.

You're not in a position to state what my goals are unless you're a mind reader. I think that a side effect would be that some people would choose not to own guns due to the insurance requirement, but that would not be MY main goal in requiring insurance.

Not when you refuse to do an honest comparison, as you have...

In 2013 there were 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms," and 32,893 automobile fatalities.

Yet another straw man. Insurance would be purchased for the risk the firearm and its owners pose.

Yes, I see how your ridiculous ideas fall apart when scrutinized, this is a well established fact on this BBS.

Falling back on your refusal to discuss because of your speculation that such a law would be unconstitutional and doesn't have any chance of passage. Keep refusing to discuss, the adults will hold the debate in your absence whether you like it or not.

Doubling down on that one, I guess if you don't have a logical point, just repeat the nonsense to try to get the sheep to nod along. Oh, that's right, you're just one of the parrots repeating it.

Rational like the nothingburger that has been proposed by the GOP so far?

Keep flailing, rookie, it appears to be all you're good at.

 

LOL, you fool, I was pointing out your srawman....so this is a pretty stupid response to that wouldn't you say?
Yes, at your inability to use anything approaching a logical argument.

The suggestion that it "would have" is an inaccurate one, what you mean is that it "could have", and if not then you'd have another person to punish for it. Try harder to follow along.

The basis for what I'm saying can be found in

Harper v State Board of Elections (1966)

Bullock v Carter (1972)

Boddie v Connecticut)(1971)

M.L.B v S.L.J. (1996)

and many, many more cases. The equal protection clause prevents the government from placing significant financial obstacles in the way of poor people who are seeking to exercise particularly basic or fundamental rights. Your gun insurance mandate would clearly fall under that category.

That claim has been rejected time and time again when it has been attempted to be used in court against mandatory auto insurance laws. Sorry, owning or operating an automobile is not a protected right and thus financial burdens in the way of owning or operating automobiles are legal. Now if it was a right.....like say gun ownership, that would change things.

You simply have no legs to stand on here.

That's talking points given to you by people who know nothing about firearms. Essentially ALL firearms are "military-style". While there is leeway in the law to restrict certain accessories and certain classes of firearms, what you are calling for is simply too broad for the public to go along with it.....not to mention your ban is merely for the sake of banning something. We had that ban before and it essentially did nothing....now you want it back just so you can ban something. It's foolish, you'd be better served focusing on things that matter.

Well perhaps not to you, but I think we've established that you aren't the best at following basic conversations so how surprising is that really?

You can say whatever you want about it, but no one is going to believe you....including the courts even if you got your way. You are simply wasting your time talking about a non-starter.

That's not an "honest comparison" I compared the number of accidental deaths by firearms to the number of accidental deaths via automobile....that's a direct and fair comparison. What you did was compare an automobile accident to suicide (more than 21K of your 33K number) along with comparing willful acts of violence to accidents. That's not a fair or honest comparison....so it's kind of funny that you'd foolishly accuse me or not making an honest comparison here....and it's even funnier that the next point goes over your head.

LOL that's not a straw man, you are pretty much showing once again that you don't actually know what a strawman argument is. My point, which clearly flew over your head is that if you are going to require people to purchase insurance for "the risks they pose" when it comes to willful acts, why wouldn't people be forced to buy insurance for "the risks they pose" when it comes to other crimes involving willful acts?

Why shouldn't there be rape insurance? Robbery insurance? Assault insurance? Certainly we know that people pose a risk to the community when it comes to any of those crimes, why shouldn't they have to buy insurance based on the risk they pose?

See how your logic falls apart? No, you probably don't actually LOL.

It's really not just "speculation", you just lack the ability to see how it's blatantly obvious based on what the constitution says and court precedent. If you feel like wasting your time and making people think you are a simpleton, feel free to keep pushing non starter legislation, the big kids will focus on things that could actually go into law and help.

 

I didn't use a straw man, nice attempt at deflection from your lie.

Assuming that the storage requirements were followed, "would have" is more accurate.

If people had to carry insurance, the only "punishment" would be higher rates for people who are irresponsible with their firearms.

I'm not the one unable to follow along here.

You realize that none of these cases has anything to do with either insurance or firearms, right?

It is highly likely that I know dramatically more about firearms than you and I would be thrilled to put our relative competencies to the test at a gun range for a tipjar bet.

No, they're not, and saying they are clearly shows how ignorant you are on the topic of firearms.

You do realize that I didn't "call for" anything in the comment you quoted, right?

Nice lie, I haven't, nor will I, call for banning any firearms.

Yet another insult, no surprise.

No, delusional people like you aren't going to believe me. You prefer to just make up straw man and pretend like I said them because you don't have the ability to actually have reasonable discussions.

Firearm deaths vs. automobile deaths is the honest comparison. Yours was not.

I compared one "vehicle" of death to another. It isn't my fault you have to cherry pick in order to try and support your nonsensical points.

You chose to argue against something I didn't say (risk of committing robbery) because you're incapable of arguing against the point I've actually made.

We require insurance for the risk people pose when they drive an automobile. We require(d) insurance for the probable event that a person would need to use medical services. Homeowners are required to purchase insurance to cover the various risks to the property.

It would appear you're the one who doesn't understand that he is using logical fallacies.

To answer your straw man, those people are not choosing to acquire additional risks by purchasing a firearm.

I see that you don't understand the word "logic."

You haven't shown court precedent, just speculation by a random poster on a basketball BBS who isn't in any way versed in constitutional law, a fact that is apparent to everyone except you.

 

In fact I just got done explaining to you how you did, you just didn't follow along in conversation well enough to realize it.

I spelled out to you already why that is an assumption that cannot be made....you just didn't follow along in conversation well enough to understand that.

You are yet again conflating 2 different conversations because you are particularly terrible at following along in conversation.

I understand that you don't follow the link between those cases and your "gun insurance" plan, but that's really not my fault. I don't see many scenarios where you would be able to follow along with a line of logic in a conversation.

That said, I'll give you a hint, every single case has a central theme. Try to work it out.

I'm sure you think so, but then again your false confidence has been on display with you attempting to engage in conversation that is somehow over your head. I'm sure a lot of civilians believe themselves to be weapons experts because they fired a .22 once, I'm not really interested in those kinds of people though.

Furthermore however, if you followed along with what I was saying, I never mentioned what you knew or didn't know, I was talking about those who gave you the talking points you were regurgitating.

Yeah, they pretty much are.


For example, this is a "military style" firearm


Just like this is a "military style firearm"


Just like this is a "military style firearm"


just like this is a "military style firearm"



just like this is a "military style firearm"



just like this is a "military style firearm"



The problem is that you don't know enough to know that you don't know what you are talking about.

I spelled this out for you already, but you were comparing willful acts to accidents, I was comparing accidents to accidents. It's okay if you don't understand the difference between the two comparisons, it's probably best we move on.

I'm arguing against mandatory insurance against willful violent illegal acts be it insurance against the risk of becoming a rapist, robber, or murderer. You fail to understand that, but at this point it's to be expected. You do your best I suppose.

Those are all examples of insurance against accidents, not insurance against the risk of willful acts against others. Also, none of those things are constitutionally guaranteed. You have no right to own a home, you have no right for cheap medical services, you have no right to own or operate a vehicle. You can ignore it when I spell this out to you, but it really does make a difference.

No, but they are still a risk, if you set a precedent that you can require people to take out insurance covering the risk of their potential willful acts of violence, why wouldn't you want coverage for their other risks to society?

I mean, I have, you just aren't an intelligent enough person to connect the dots. It is what it is.

 

I have a highly credible source who has tremendous knowledge about the p*rn industry who could debunk this congresswoman's theory that p*rn is to blame for school shootings:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...l-gun-violence_us_5b0d6634e4b0568a880ede65?19

 

Article from the New Yorker has an explanation. Far more science based and terrifying. The media has connected us to the extent that an individuals actions have greater influence on everyone as a group. More influence than ever before. This feeds the riot response where people are far more likely to do terrible things. Things they would never do without the groups influence.

“situations where outcomes do not seem intuitively consistent with the underlying individual preferences.” What explains a person or a group of people doing things that seem at odds with who they are or what they think is right? Granovetter took riots as one of his main examples, because a riot is a case of destructive violence that involves a great number of otherwise quite normal people who would not usually be disposed to violence.

But Granovetter thought it was a mistake to focus on the decision-making processes of each rioter in isolation. In his view, a riot was not a collection of individuals, each of whom arrived independently at the decision to break windows. A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them. In the elegant theoretical model Granovetter proposed, riots were started by people with a threshold of zero—instigators willing to throw a rock through a window at the slightest provocation. Then comes the person who will throw a rock if someone else goes first. He has a threshold of one. Next in is the person with the threshold of two. His qualms are overcome when he sees the instigator and the instigator’s accomplice. Next to him is someone with a threshold of three, who would never break windows and loot stores unless there were three people right in front of him who were already doing that—and so on up to the hundredth person, a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyonearound him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.

 

Nice acting by the soulless c*nt

 

Nothing legitimate has been proposed by anyone, either on this forum, or in congress....by either party. Why would you think something would get done? Since you are the resident DNC propaganda bot, what specifically do you think SHOULD be getting done?

 

"Hart, an Army veteran, said she also suggested employing veterans as sentinels in schools. She said Trump responded, “And arm them?” She replied, “No,” but said Trump “kept mentioning” arming classroom teachers. “It was like talking to a toddler,” Hart said." - NYM

 

what would they do if they didn't have guns? Why would they need to be veterans?

 

Furthermore, what good would they do if they weren't armed? Is she just wanting them there to be the first people shot if something happens? How much was she proposing we pay veterans to essentially hang out and draw fire if needed?

It kind of sounds like a suggestion that a toddler might come up with.

 

Am guessing she is sympathetic with her co veterans who currently having a difficult time getting employed by the private sector.

Regardless of which side you are with GC, they have established that they have different opinions about it. Move on with the discussion like adults.

 

You're incapable of actually discussing what I said, so you tossed out three insults in a row instead.

Oops, four in a row.

You should try arguments rather than insults, they would be more persuasive.

And the central theme has nothing to do with either insurance or firearms, as such they don't support your contention that firearm insurance would be unconstitutional.

I'm not one of "those people" in any way. I also never referred to myself as a "weapons expert," but I would definitely bet good money that I know more about firearms and that I am more proficient with them than you.

I'm not regurgitating a thing, everything I typed were my own words. Try again, rookie.

ROFL.

None of the pictures you posted there are of firearms which would be the primary weapons carried into battle by modern military personnel. Since you can't counter that simple point, you toss out an insult instead.

It is definitely best that you move on since you don't seem to get the fact that comparing deaths as a result of firearms to deaths as a result of automobiles is an apples to apples comparison while the only way you can make a point is to cherry pick and compare apples to oranges.

Not "violent illegal acts" in general (which is what your straw man posits), but on the firearms which are the item that carries the additional risk not present in the general population.

Insurance is about protecting against risk. Whether possessing firearms is a right or not, protecting against the risks posed by them is a good thing.

Because the coverage is for the item that we know for a fact increases the risk.

And, another insult. Come on back when you're able to form coherent arguments, rookie.

 

It's not an insult to point out how poorly you've done in following along with the conversation. You've been given many arguments, you just haven't demonstrated the ability to grasp their meaning. It's what has pretty much derailed the conversation....as evidenced directly below.

It's not a big deal to me that you can't understand the link between those cases and what you propose. The people who matter can see the link and understand that it would be unconstitutional. I give you credit for trying, but you are clearly demonstrating that this level of thought is above your head.

We already went over your false confidence and you didn't add anything to the conversation by doubling down on your false confidence.

ROFL.

Every single weapon I posted has been carried into battle by military personall and has been issued by the US military for use in battle.....making every single one of them a "military style firearm". Again, it comes down to you not knowing enough to know how little you know about the subject. Just about every firearm you can point to is either a "military style firearm" or a variation of a "military style firearm".

You still trying to justify comparing intentional acts to accidents? LOL adorable.

There's plenty of factors that can make certain people much more likely to commit crimes such as rape, theft, murder and so on, why not force people to pay for insurance against their risk to society? You just got done saying that protecting against risks is a good thing, why not protect against other risks too in the same way? Oh, that's right, because your real goal is to try and create a financial burden to get in the way of people and their constitutionally protected rights, and your BS about "protecting against risks" is essentially a lie. Anyway, I get that you don't understand the precedent you'd be setting by mandating insurance against willful acts, so there's no reason to go into it further with you but suffice it to say that the people who matter will understand that.

 

No, your attempts at argument have begun at your speculation that everything proposed is unconstitutional and ended at "it will never happen." That's it.

The people willing to speculate on the matter assume it would be unconstitutional even though there is no relevant court precedent on the topic of firearm insurance.

Not false in any way, you're the one avoiding putting your money where your confidence is.

It wouldn't be honest to refer to a lever action rifle last used regularly in the days of Billy the Kid as a "military-style" weapon in the context of the modern military.

No, you're the one justifying the use of a cherry picked comparison over one that is apples to apples.

Because what you're talking about isn't a "factor" that is integral to their person. These are products that one may purchase and in doing so, increase the risks posed over a person who doesn't have any firearms.

Because this is nothing but a straw man that you're using to avoid actual discussion.

No, it isn't, but nice assumption.

Not against willful acts, against products that create increased risks.

 

https://www.ed.gov/school-safety