yeah, I made mention of that in my acknowledgement that @drifter was correct
figmentPez
Staff member
figmentPez
Staff member
Jokes aside, I'm wondering if that's true:
1-year-old accidentally shoots infant sibling, mother in Walmart parking lot, police say
Handgun kept in the car, just between the seat and the console. The infant's injury isn't life threatening, but the mother's may be.
With how bad Americans are at keeping their guns secure, I find it very plausible that toddlers are shooting people on a weekly basis.
And when we do, it's about how crap those gun safes actually are. Too many LPL videos to post here proves that out.
It’s more about keeping kids away from a gun than someone trying to pick a safe. A toddler won’t try to break into a gun safe, but they will grab one that’s sitting under a mattress or in a drawer.
figmentPez
Staff member
Some of these gun safes could be opened by a curious grade schooler who knows nothing about lock picking.
Yeah, that might keep out a toddler, but it's still not good enough security to leave a gun within reach of children.
My dad kept his hunting rifle and shotgun in the master bedroom closet...
The AMMO, OTOH, was on a different floor of the house entirely in a chained and padlocked steel cabinet. After he passed, we ended up cutting the chain off to open it and dispose of the contents because my mom couldn't remember the combination.
I would rather have someone using a cheap safe that’s easy to break open than nothing at all. It’s the same thought behind including those cheap cable locks with guns. I’m sure any curious kid could find the keys for them and open them up, but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t have used a lock at all if it wasn’t included.
Personally I have my guns in one safe, and the ammo in another.
San Jose passes first U.S. law requiring gun owners to get liability insurance and pay annual fee
They'd also have to pay an annual fee. But opponents promised to fight the measure in court. People on both sides of the issue spoke at length before the vote was taken.
www.cbsnews.com
It's definitely a poke at the local v. state v. fed beehive, though.
--Patrick
The annual fee, maybe, but the liability insurance? Oof, probably higher. Much higher.
--Patrick
Dunno...if you believe the NRA numbers, cars are way more deadly than guns and more likely to be involved in accidents, so liability insurance would be lower than car insurance. Of course, whether insurance brokers will use those numbers or, y'know, the real ones, is another matter. But that's just the Free Market in action baby!
My assumption is that California will mandate a certain minimum level of coverage. A somewhat expensive minimum. One that will be enough of an onus that ownership will be significantly curtailed, but which will technically not count as "infringement."
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
That's what infringed means.
Six years ago this would have been a major constitutional crisis. But the constitution is now basically in tatters anyway, so we will see if anybody even bothers to point out the flagrant violation of the second amendment.
Oh, I know. But barriers that are solely financial in nature have been upheld before. Repeatedly.
2A unfortunately doesn't guarantee possession, it merely guarantees the opportunity to possess -- i.e., 2A is not "You get a gun! And you get a gun! Everyone gets a gun, line forms here!" instead it is "You are allowed to have a gun...subject to all these sufficiently-onerous-but-not-quite-meeting-the-legal-definition-of-infringing requirements, of course."
So far as I know, you and I are actually in agreement (or close enough, anyway) as to what it SHOULD mean, but of course that's not the reality.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
I've made that same presentation when people were talking about things like the right to food, the right to water, the right to health care. It didn't go over well.
While I'm obviously of the opinion the whole 2A is a horrible mess that's going to lead straight to CW2 being a victory for the racist conservative idiot side, and that proper weapon control and training and all that are necessary, I do agree that placing financial burdens in between that make it harder are pretty much the description of infringement. It's like saying you have a right to vote, but you'll have to take a day off from work, travel 2 hours, wait in line for 2 hours, and oh yeah, register and get a photo ID at least a month beforehand. Of course, such a thing would never happen, we all know everyone is completely free to easily, cheaply and quickly vote. Phew.
GasBandit
Staff member
That raises another thing in my mind, another example of the law of unintended consequences.
As Bubble so anviliciously points out, this is the 2A version of a poll tax.
It was shown that poll taxes disproportionately disenfranchise the poor, ergo becoming an infringement upon the voting rights of minorities.
So by the same logic, it could be said that the pragmatic effect of gun liability insurance will be to disarm minorities.
Which I'm sure will be of great comfort to the badged klansmen in blue.
There have been a few articles in the news as of late equating gun control and racism.
The very racist history of gun control - The Boston Globe
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is indispensable to Black equality.
www.bostonglobe.com
Gun control and its racist roots
From the beginnings of America, the gun issue’s been in play. Gun control laws were put in place, mainly to keep firearms out of the hands of Blacks.
www.lcsun-news.com
How Second Amendment gun rights fall short for African Americans
Nothing in the Constitution restricts gun ownership by ethnicity. But in reality, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply equally to people of color, who are often killed while trying to fully exercise their right to “keep and bear Arms.”
chicago.suntimes.com
I thought this was immediately obvious. Whenever you attach a requirement to any "Right," it ceases to be a Right and instead becomes a division between the "haves" and the "have-nots," where your dividing line is money, transportation, freedom to reproduce, whatever.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
They punished the gun.
This may come as a shock to you, but that is standard procedure in 38 out of the 50 states. All of the bad, naughty guns must be destroyed so that only the well-behaved, responsible guns may breed.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Honestly, I can see good reason for it. Especially in this case, since if it weren't destroyed it would become a collector's item.
However, it is rather ironic given "guns don't kill people, people kill people". If the gun is innocent, why is it the only one being punished?
*Relic
I could not agree more with this. If I steal a gun out of someone’s prized collection and murder someone with it, they are technically supposed to destroy it, even if it’s some rare $200k collector’s model. That’s such a waste.
—Patrick