Gun Control is anti Women?

[Hawker]

Keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics and felons is a good idea; once you go beyond that you need to have a good reason.

Do crazy people and ex-cons not have a right to self-defense?

I'm just curious as to why you would single them out.

Lets agree that crazy and ex-con are a huge overlapping population because we nowadays use prisons to warehouse people who used to be in mental institutions. People who have the misfortune to fall into these 2 categories are more likely to initiate use of violence than others.  As such, it doesn't make sense to give them guns. 

Well, if we're simply going to limit it based on percentages, on the chance that they might initiate violence, Men are statistically more likely to initiate violence than women, so perhaps we should simply ban all men from owning weapons. No, we cannot base it on statistical risk, for down that road lies madness.

Is there anything inherent in these two groups which makes it certain that they will, if provided with the means of defense, turn it upon their fellowman? Certainly there is a higher risk in the mentally unstable doing that, and an increased, but lesser, risk from the previously violent individuals. But nothing that makes it certain.

Now, thankfully, our modern economy provides a means to manage risk, to socialize it while focusing more of the cost on those individuals performing risky behaviors and less on those avoiding them. This means, of course, is the insurance industry. A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon. Likewise, to a much greater degree, with a mentally unstable person. These premiums would likely decrease over time, as they showed themselves capable of owning a firearm without initiating violence. If the risk was too great, the insurance company could refuse to insure the person if he were to purchase a firearm, and this would provide incentive to avoid that purchase.

If the mentally ill and the ex-cons can get insurance against their own misbehaviour and if they do pay the premiums, its all well and good.  

I do have to say that my experience of being inside leaves me with a very sceptical view on the chances of either of those conditions being met.

[1715624411]

1715624411

[1715624411]

1715624411

[1715624411]

1715624411

[myrkul]

Keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics and felons is a good idea; once you go beyond that you need to have a good reason.

Do crazy people and ex-cons not have a right to self-defense?

I'm just curious as to why you would single them out.

Lets agree that crazy and ex-con are a huge overlapping population because we nowadays use prisons to warehouse people who used to be in mental institutions. People who have the misfortune to fall into these 2 categories are more likely to initiate use of violence than others.  As such, it doesn't make sense to give them guns. 

Well, if we're simply going to limit it based on percentages, on the chance that they might initiate violence, Men are statistically more likely to initiate violence than women, so perhaps we should simply ban all men from owning weapons. No, we cannot base it on statistical risk, for down that road lies madness.

Is there anything inherent in these two groups which makes it certain that they will, if provided with the means of defense, turn it upon their fellowman? Certainly there is a higher risk in the mentally unstable doing that, and an increased, but lesser, risk from the previously violent individuals. But nothing that makes it certain.

Now, thankfully, our modern economy provides a means to manage risk, to socialize it while focusing more of the cost on those individuals performing risky behaviors and less on those avoiding them. This means, of course, is the insurance industry. A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon. Likewise, to a much greater degree, with a mentally unstable person. These premiums would likely decrease over time, as they showed themselves capable of owning a firearm without initiating violence. If the risk was too great, the insurance company could refuse to insure the person if he were to purchase a firearm, and this would provide incentive to avoid that purchase.

If the mentally ill and the ex-cons can get insurance against their own misbehaviour and if they do pay the premiums, its all well and good.  

I do have to say that my experience of being inside leaves me with a very sceptical view on the chances of either of those conditions being met.

Understandably so. Prisons in our current society are not so much rehabilitation centers as criminal colleges, where poor criminals are sent - at the expense of their victims - to learn to become better criminals.

[MarKusRomanus]

Gun Control In the USA was Mainly started By the KKK early on to keep guns from Blacks.
http://www.examiner.com/article/kkk-began-as-gun-control-organization-confirms-racist-roots-of-gun-control

How Ironic these days that some gun control advocates are trying to say gun rights supporters are racist!

[myrkul]

Gun Control In the USA was Mainly started By the KKK early on to keep guns from Blacks.
http://www.examiner.com/article/kkk-began-as-gun-control-organization-confirms-racist-roots-of-gun-control

How Ironic these days that some gun control advocates are trying to say gun rights supporters are racist!

Ironic indeed, given that statistically, blacks (in the US) benefit more from loosening gun restrictions than whites.

[Schleicher]

A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon.

Why do you think that these people care about insurance at all?

[myrkul]

A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon.

Why do you think that these people care about insurance at all?

That's a rather long explanation, which I'm more than willing to give you, but the short version is that with out it, they'd be on the hook for the entirety of any damages they caused.

[Hawker]

A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon.

Why do you think that these people care about insurance at all?

That's a rather long explanation, which I'm more than willing to give you, but the short version is that with out it, they'd be on the hook for the entirety of any damages they caused.

If someone has a gun to commit a crime or because of a violent delusion, your idea is that they would go out and buy insurance before using the gun. 

[myrkul]

A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon.

Why do you think that these people care about insurance at all?

That's a rather long explanation, which I'm more than willing to give you, but the short version is that with out it, they'd be on the hook for the entirety of any damages they caused.

If someone has a gun to commit a crime or because of a violent delusion, your idea is that they would go out and buy insurance before using the gun.

This is why it was a long explanation. No, the insurance would be purchased long before the gun was.

[Hawker]

A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon.

Why do you think that these people care about insurance at all?

That's a rather long explanation, which I'm more than willing to give you, but the short version is that with out it, they'd be on the hook for the entirety of any damages they caused.

If someone has a gun to commit a crime or because of a violent delusion, your idea is that they would go out and buy insurance before using the gun.

This is why it was a long explanation. No, the insurance would be purchased long before the gun was.

And you would not allow someone to get a gun without insurance?  Isn't that very restrictive?

[myrkul]

A previously violent individual would have increased insurance premiums, and they would further increase if he were to purchase a weapon.

Why do you think that these people care about insurance at all?

That's a rather long explanation, which I'm more than willing to give you, but the short version is that with out it, they'd be on the hook for the entirety of any damages they caused.

If someone has a gun to commit a crime or because of a violent delusion, your idea is that they would go out and buy insurance before using the gun.

This is why it was a long explanation. No, the insurance would be purchased long before the gun was.

And you would not allow someone to get a gun without insurance?  Isn't that very restrictive?

Who said anything about not allowing people to get a gun without insurance?

I'm relatively sure I've explained this to you before, but if you'd like, we can go through it again. I'm a patient man.