Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[dimreepr]

 

I think you're both wrong. You CAN put a price on someone's life, that's what life insurance is all about. What you can't know is the price of someone's health. I don't want to go off on a tangent, though.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

That's why we take out insurance.

[Phi for All]

 

Emphasis mine.

 

That's why we take out insurance.

 

As I said, I don't want to hijack the thread, but life insurance works just like car insurance, you agree on the value with your insuror and you pay premiums that reflect the value. With medical insurance, you can't know how ill you'll be.

 

More of a dig at US privatized medical insurance, but the real problem here is that normal life insurance is a consensual contract where both parties agree on what the life being insured is worth should it end. Gun insurance would only be making an offer to a victim or victim's family, one they should be able to disagree with.

[dimreepr]

 

As I said, I don't want to hijack the thread, but life insurance works just like car insurance, you agree on the value with your insuror and you pay premiums that reflect the value. With medical insurance, you can't know how ill you'll be.

 

More of a dig at US privatized medical insurance, but the real problem here is that normal life insurance is a consensual contract where both parties agree on what the life being insured is worth should it end. Gun insurance would only be making an offer to a victim or victim's family, one they should be able to disagree with.

Again me.

 

 

But what if the victim lives? They may be able to disagree/argue but they won’t always succeed, so at least some will benefit.

[iNow]

Point of order -- Important reminder.

 

Thread: Every day, 20 children in the US are hospitalized with a gun injury and 6% of them die.

 

It's been 583 days since I created this topic. That means:

• 11,660 kids have been hospitalized in the US with a gun injury since we began this discussion
• 700 children, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins, and friends have died from a gun.

This is a helpful metric since suicides are moot. Not a lot of first graders are suffering enough to choose to take their own lives. These deaths are preventable. Smart regulations and restrictions would help.

 

This is not a hard issue to make better, and we could do so without disrespecting the intent of our nations founders and also while offering appropriate respect and deference to our constitution and personal liberties.

[overtone]

Calling driving a privilage a play on words and parsing of law and the way it is applied.

It's a fundamental legal distinction that has dominated State regulation of drivers and driving. Lots of reasonable people regard the notion of States regulating the keeping and bearing of guns as States regulate the owning and driving of cars, as a direct threat. That's because it is, as a short tour of the kinds of burdens (however well motivated) States place on cars and drivers illustrates.

 

 

 

 

For tens of millions of people in this country who do not live in a metropolitan area with a robust public transportation system driving is a necessity and not some privilage that pales in importance to gun ownership.

So you do understand what the objection is, to justifying gun regulations by drawing parallels with car regulations? Why reasonable people might mistrust those who use such arguments for expanding State powers and intrusions?

 

 

This is not a hard issue to make better, and we could do so without disrespecting the intent of our nations founders and also while offering appropriate respect and deference to our constitution and personal liberties.

Absolutely. And essentially everyone agrees - the vast majority of the membership of the NRA, the average Republican voter, even waitforufo could be brought around on that.

 

As has been posted here several times, by me and in its essentials by others: Essentially everyone agrees that the current chaotic, irresponsible, inadequate, insane* situation has lots of room for improvement, including better regulation by government of guns and gun owner behavior. Agreement on that central matter is long achieved, disagreement on it may never have existed.

 

So that's not the problem, is it.

 

 

(* to repeat four of the adjectives I have been using in this thread

no, Acme, that is not a confusing statement that might mean I approve of the status quo, or oppose all gun regulations, or think every single government approach currently in place anywhere in the country is insane and irresponsible, etc etc etc. Any such misreadings, no matter by how many Bandarlog, are not my fault. )

 

 

 

Gun insurance would only be making an offer to a victim or victim's family, one they should be able to disagree with.

It's not relevant. You can't require gun owners to buy injury insurance for the same reason the State can't force bloggers to buy State-mandated minimum libel insurance. Cost barriers to the exercise of Constitutional rights cannot be imposed by the State.

Edited September 3, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

I'm sorry, but the issues involved are too simple. Misreadings and responses of the kind presented are not possible in good faith. They are too blatant. You guys aren't that stupid, and I'm under no obligation to assume you are that stupid.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

When people ask for clarification, it's best to take it on good faith that they want clarification. The implication that people are willfully misrepresenting you is basically an accusation that they are lying when they say they don't understand your point. And that's not acceptable.

 

 

 

get your ears checked.

!

Moderator Note

That's not an appropriate response to a request for a citation.

[Ten oz]

It's a fundamental legal distinction that has dominated State regulation of drivers and driving. Lots of reasonable people regard the notion of States regulating the keeping and bearing of guns as States regulate the owning and driving of cars, as a direct threat. That's because it is, as a short tour of the kinds of burdens (however well motivated) States place on cars and drivers illustrates.

 

 

 

 

So you do understand what the objection is, to justifying gun regulations by drawing parallels with car regulations? Why reasonable people might mistrust those who use such arguments for expanding State powers and intrusions?

 

 

Do object to drawing parrallels between gun rights and freedom of speech? Freedom of speeh is more broadly and less controversially acknowledged as a right specifically protected. Yet people need permits to protest, can be sued for slander, held in contempt, cited for causing a disturbance, and ect. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is an example often used but in truth yell anything in a crowded theater and you'll be asked to leave. Failure to do so will lead to legal action. Police regularly note verbal assualts or agressive speech as a justification for tasering or pepper spraying people. Our freedom of speech has many limits.

[dimreepr]

Good point well made +1 and yet I fear our fun loving participant who pretends to want gun control, yet objects to any and every legitimate action, will no doubt object.

Edited September 4, 2015 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

It's not relevant. You can't require gun owners to buy injury insurance for the same reason the State can't force bloggers to buy State-mandated minimum libel insurance. Cost barriers to the exercise of Constitutional rights cannot be imposed by the State.

Really? We can restrict felons and those who've been admitted from owning guns, but we can't create cost barriers for those who can't be completely trusted to handle a gun safely?

What about knowledge barriers? We could waive the insurance requirement for those who show excellence on tests of gun safety and effective coping strategies. The study material can be freely available online. This would address the Dunning-Kruger issue.

Edited September 4, 2015 by MonDie

[dimreepr]

Why waive the requirement? Why not just reduce the cost to a fraction of the gun cost?

 

Edit/ That way even a perfect storm of unlucky would be covered; potentially.

 

Otherwise I’m in complete agreement.

Edited September 4, 2015 by dimreepr

[MonDie]

I added the part about coping strategies after your response.

 

Could the admission restriction prevent gun owners from seeking mental help for fear that they'll be admitted and lose their guns?

[dimreepr]

It certainly seems to be a possibility and whilst I feel for those that would succumb to such fears, I think the lesser of the two evils, is rather obvious.

[MonDie]

You feel for them? It seems very selfish IMO.

[dimreepr]

You feel for them?

 

 

Yes, of course, anyone seeking help for mental health issues deserves compassion.

 

 

It seems very selfish IMO.

 

 

 

 

Please explain?

[MonDie]

It certainly seems to be a possibility and whilst I feel for those that would succumb to such fears [of losing their guns after admission], I think the lesser of the two evils, is rather obvious.

bold text added by me

 

It disgusts me to think people would hide their symptoms to keep their guns.

It's suspected that fewer men are diagnosed with BPD only because they're more likely to go to jail than mental health facilities. I would rather give a gun to someone who's been admitted, perhaps after willingly confessing their symptoms, than to a potential criminal.

Edited September 4, 2015 by MonDie

[dimreepr]

It disgusts me to think people would hide their symptoms to keep their guns.

 

 

Let's not get holier than thou; we are all guilty of some sin.

[overtone]

When people ask for clarification, it's best to take it on good faith that they want clarification.

 

 

"Asking", are they? Sure, whatever.

Not always. Not when, for example, the clarification demanded is of something never posted in the first place, which one is expected to acknowledge in the process of "clarification". Not when the demand is nothing more than a means of abetting an insult. Not when the demand is a bullying tactic of requiring that one go to trouble to "clarify" the perfectly obvious stated in a seven word declarative sentence in the first place. Not when three or four previous "clarifications" have been ignored or denied. Not when the demand is delivered in the form of a Fox-question intended to reframe the discussion. And so forth.

 

Demands for "clarification" are quite often delivered in bad faith around here - especially by the usual suspects, to me. It saves time to cut the elaboration short.

 

 

 

That's not an appropriate response to a request for a citation.

No such request was actually made, and you left out most of the response - if you include the rest of the response, and type for yourself a more accurate description of the post addressed, you'll find it was perfectly appropriate.

 

 

 

Really? We can restrict felons and those who've been admitted from owning guns, but we can't create cost barriers for those who can't be completely trusted to handle a gun safely?- - - .

What you can accomplish via due process of law, one citizen at a time, is almost anything. If you have by due process of law determined that particular citizens are not safe gun owners, or safe possessors of the right to freedom from search and seizure, etc, then of course they can be - individually, one by one - deprived of these Constitutional rights or any others by almost any means (cost barriers, large fines, confiscation by the police, cement walls and bars, lethal injection).

 

 

 

Do object to drawing parrallels between gun rights and freedom of speech?

Now you're talking. I've noticed how seldom the gun control advocates take that tack - that's not nearly as threatening as the specter of guns being governed as cars and driving are governed, and potentially thereby more persuasive.

 

Why do you suppose that tack is so much less common?

Edited September 4, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

I have a right to free speech but need a permit (which could be denied) to protest. I can not just set a soapbox up on any corner and exercise my freedom speech. And if my speech is hate speech or causes a panic it may be a crime for me to speak it depending on the setting. Calling guns a right does not place them beyond governmental management. If a group of people from the OWS movement need a permit to exercise their freedom of speech than I hardly see how the Second Amendment provides cover to gun advocates who claim background checks, waiting periods, and permit requirements deny them their rights.

 

 

 

 

 

Now you're talking. I've noticed how seldom the gun control advocates take that tack - that's not nearly as threatening as the specter of guns being governed as cars and driving are governed, and potentially thereby more persuasive.

 

Why do you suppose that tack is so much less common?

Is it so much less common? Above is an example where I used it previously in this very thread. Why do you suppose your preception is such that it is less common than perhaps it actually is?

[waitforufo]

It disgusts me to think people would hide their symptoms to keep their guns.

 

Maybe those people would seek treatment if their rights weren't denied by doing so.

[StringJunky]

Maybe those people would seek treatment if their rights weren't denied by doing so.

If your eyesight was seriously failing, is it morally imperative that one should notify the driver licensing centre?

[waitforufo]

If your eyesight was seriously failing, is it morally imperative that one should notify the driver licensing centre?

Driving is a privilege not a right.

[MonDie]

It's not relevant. You can't require gun owners to buy injury insurance for the same reason the State can't force bloggers to buy State-mandated minimum libel insurance. Cost barriers to the exercise of Constitutional rights cannot be imposed by the State.

 

Guns present more of a threat to our others rights than speech does.

 

 

 

What you can accomplish via due process of law, one citizen at a time, is almost anything. If you have by due process of law determined that particular citizens are not safe gun owners, or safe possessors of the right to freedom from search and seizure, etc, then of course they can be - individually, one by one - deprived of these Constitutional rights or any others by almost any means (cost barriers, large fines, confiscation by the police, cement walls and bars, lethal injection).

 

It seems awfully hypocritcal to call something a right, then deprive people of it. Why can't the state impose cost barriers to the objects of our rights? More broadly, where is it outlined exactly how the government goes about justifying assistance or hindrance to the objects of our rights?

It's a fact of nature and society that there are always requirements for obtaining or maintaining the objects of our rights, be they monetary, cognitive, or laborious. The government can assist or hinder us in meeting these requirements, with its hindrances including the establishment of its own, legal requirements. Such legal requirements may have denial or approval as their default position. For example, requiring that we not be felons, although it holds approval as the default, is a hindrance as much as the requirement that we produce money.

[StringJunky]

Driving is a privilege not a right.

One must have the 'right' to recklessly endanger others without limit?

[overtone]

Is it so much less common?

Yes. Read this thread, for example. Try the very next two posts. Or do a count of your own posts.

 

Thing is: cars and drivers shouldn't come up. At all. Their fraction of the argument for gun control should be negligible. It's a radical position on a Constitutional rights issue. It's not ok or reasonable. And combine it with allusions to the 2nd Amendment being a suicide pact, the country about to fall apart in the throes of a gun violence crisis, that kind of rhetoric, and you have what should be a fringe making wild and paranoid threats instead right at the center of the public discourse.

 

Which makes two of them, and a political jam.

 

 

It's a fact of nature and society that there are always requirements for obtaining or maintaining the objects of our rights, be they monetary, cognitive, or laborious.

It's not a matter of law, because such laws would violate the Constitution of the United States.

Edited September 4, 2015 by overtone

[MonDie]

It's not a matter of law, because such laws would violate the Constitution of the United States.

Yet it can require that we aren't felons...

Please provide a source for your claim.