• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So...who pays for what happens to innocent victims of gunfire? [W:301]

Glen Contrarian said:
That's the only choice I see: either require the taxpayers to continue to pay...or require firearm owners to have insurance (for the same reason vehicle owners are required to have insurance).

Anybody got any better ideas? Or do we just continue to stick the taxpayers with the bill?
Click to expand...


In instances of legal owners shooting someone wrongfully, or someone committing suicide in the household of a legal gun owner, that would make sense.

But as to the vast majority of legal gun owners who do not do that, this would be no less "unfair", if you will, than the taxpayer footing the bill (or the health insurance of the victim, and by extension, everyone who pays premiums to that insurer)
 
haymarket said:
The Second is an Amendment. I ask again, what rights that a citizen has are taken away by those guns laws?
Click to expand...

all of the bill of rights are amendments. you're really being silly.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
all of the bill of rights are amendments. you're really being silly.
Click to expand...

So you also cannot tell me what rights a citizen would lose by those gun laws mentioned.

We are seeing a pattern here.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Get real.
Click to expand...

This is very real. Why are you unable to tell me what rights an American would lose by those gun laws?

Apparently you cannot think of even one.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Going back to the person who hit the pedestrian - sure, he can be sued...but lawsuits don't do a heck of a lot of good when that person doesn't have enough assets to pay even a significant fraction of the costs incurred.

So who pays as a result? The taxpayers. You and me.
Click to expand...

OK so? And this is the nature of crime in general. The problem is you just want to punish law abiding gun owners, not criminals. In the end it is a civil matter that is already handled in civil courts.

Glen Contrarian said:
So the choice remains - who should pay? Taxpayers? Or the insurance companies? Is it not good and right that anyone be able to pay for what they might do that is wrong? And for almost all of us, are we able to personally pay for what injuries or death we might cause with vehicles (or with firearms)? No. That's why there's insurance. If all vehicle owners carry good insurance, it becomes a lot less of a problem...and the same thing would go for firearms.
Click to expand...

No, that is nothing but hyperbole, period. It is not a huge issue and it is just another in a long line of vengeful punitive anti gun control nonsense. Sorry, never gonna happen.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
So you also cannot tell me what rights a citizen would lose by those gun laws mentioned.

We are seeing a pattern here.
Click to expand...

Yes we are seeing a pattern. You are dodging the answer...

The 2nd amendment is a right which shall not be infringed. Everything mentioned infringes on that right.
 
Black Dog said:
Yes we are seeing a pattern. You are dodging the answer...

The 2nd amendment is a right which shall not be infringed. Everything mentioned infringes on that right.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment is an amendment . It is NOT a right. It contains language which bestows a right. But it - the Amendment - is not a right.

It is YOU who is dodging and refusing to answer the question: I pose it again knowing you will be impotent to give a direct answer - what rights that American have would be lost if we have the gun laws such as registration and magazine limits?

If your previous posts are any indication, you will not be able to name one.
 
haymarket said:
The Second Amendment is an amendment . It is NOT a right. It contains language which bestows a right. But it - the Amendment - is not a right.

It is YOU who is dodging and refusing to answer the question: I pose it again knowing you will be impotent to give a direct answer - what rights that American have would be lost if we have the gun laws such as registration and magazine limits?

If your previous posts are any indication, you will not be able to name one.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment forbids the federal government from infringing upon the right of a citizen to bear arms. That Amendment is included in every State's Constitution, meaning the States, also, are forbidden from infringing upon the right of a citizen to bear arms.

Every law that has been mentioned...including this proposal by the OP...infringes upon the right of citizens to bear arms.

Do you understand now?
 
haymarket said:
This is very real. Why are you unable to tell me what rights an American would lose by those gun laws?

Apparently you cannot think of even one.
Click to expand...

Since you want to play nonsense games, the right to bear arms and every other right that is included in the 2nd Amendment, which shall not be infringed that you keep proposing that the government enact laws to infringe on.
 
haymarket said:
So you also cannot tell me what rights a citizen would lose by those gun laws mentioned.

We are seeing a pattern here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we are seeing a pattern here. It isn't any different today than it was yesterday or last week.
 
Mycroft said:
The 2nd Amendment forbids the federal government from infringing upon the right of a citizen to bear arms. That Amendment is included in every State's Constitution, meaning the States, also, are forbidden from infringing upon the right of a citizen to bear arms.

Every law that has been mentioned...including this proposal by the OP...infringes upon the right of citizens to bear arms.

Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

First , I want to thank you for having the courage of your convictions to step up and give a specific answer where others were afraid to.

But i still do not understand.

Let us take the issue of registration. How is registration going to deny a citizen the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms?
 
NonoBadDog said:
Since you want to play nonsense games, the right to bear arms and every other right that is included in the 2nd Amendment, which shall not be infringed that you keep proposing that the government enact laws to infringe on.
Click to expand...

If the right can be exercised, then there is no violation. None of the things mentioned would cause the right to not be exercised. Thus there is no loss of any constitutional right.
 
haymarket said:
If the right can be exercised, then there is no violation. None of the things mentioned would cause the right to not be exercised. Thus there is no loss of any constitutional right.
Click to expand...

And your game continues. That wasn't the original premise or question. I am not going to go back and track it down because you aren't really worth the effort.
 
NonoBadDog said:
And your game continues. That wasn't the original premise or question. I am not going to go back and track it down because you aren't really worth the effort.
Click to expand...

Your inability to say what right Americans would lose from the laws mentioned is telling and revealing that you cannot come up with one.

If the right can be exercised, then there is no violation. None of the things mentioned would cause the right to not be exercised. Thus there is no loss of any constitutional right.
 
haymarket said:
Your inability to say what right Americans would lose from the laws mentioned is telling and revealing that you cannot come up with one.

If the right can be exercised, then there is no violation. None of the things mentioned would cause the right to not be exercised. Thus there is no loss of any constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Your inability to address the original premise/question still negates any validity that you might have had and any motivation on my part to answer any of your posts. I am not going to chase goal posts.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Your inability to address the original premise/question still negates any validity that you might have had and any motivation on my part to answer any of your posts. I am not going to chase goal posts.
Click to expand...

You want to know who pays ... the dead pay the ultimate price. The innocent dead - they pay the highest price possible. That is the only price that trumps all the others like financial costs. And we should never ever forget that.

Now tell me what rights a citizen would lose if we have a law like gun registration. You cannot and you will not.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You didn't read the stats properly, then. Why? Because while this law wouldn't be obeyed by the 40% who bought the firearms illegally, in the rest of the cases, insurance would mostly pay. Why? Because if person A gives person B a firearm as a gift, and person B goes and kills somebody, is person A liable? Yep - just as bar owners can be held liable for idiots driving drunk. And if person B steals person A's firearm, if person A had not properly secured his firearm, can he be held liable? Possibly, yes...especially if person B lives in the same house as person A (see son and mother at Sandy Hook).

So 60% of the time, insurance would probably pay...and that's that much of the burden that's taken off the backs of the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

So If guy a bought an illegal ak 47 smiggled from the former soviet block and killed someone, who would pay since he was not a legal owner nor was the gun legally bought or even entered into the country.


Your entire premise seems to run on the thought that all illegal guns must originate from legal us sources, which is far from the case. Google atf statistics, on most years the guns they confiscate that are determined of legal origin used illegally are often matched by guns either made illegally or smuggled.

The atf Only lists in its statistics trackable guns, and throws all others into unidentifiable and excludes them from their stats. So that would simply mean the insurance would do nothing but intentionally harm lawfull gun owners and do nothing for those who could just as easily go through the black market.
 
haymarket said:
First , I want to thank you for having the courage of your convictions to step up and give a specific answer where others were afraid to.

But i still do not understand.

Let us take the issue of registration. How is registration going to deny a citizen the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

It infringes on my right to privacy.
 
haymarket said:
First , I want to thank you for having the courage of your convictions to step up and give a specific answer where others were afraid to.

But i still do not understand.

Let us take the issue of registration. How is registration going to deny a citizen the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

In order to bear an arm, your law would require a person to register their weapon. If a person does NOT register their weapon, you law forbids that person from bearing that weapon. Therefore, a registration law is an infringement on a person's right to bear arms.
 
Civil court can take on wrongful death cases. Let the victim, or their family sue for damages
 
Mycroft said:
In order to bear an arm, your law would require a person to register their weapon. If a person does NOT register their weapon, you law forbids that person from bearing that weapon. Therefore, a registration law is an infringement on a person's right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

The choice to disobey the law is yours and the consequences of that are upon you and caused by you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom