Gun Control 2023 (V) - ATF Shenanigans, States Fight Back!

[American Legionaries]

Liability insurance is an absurd proposition.

How so?

Because it's functionally a non issue. If you required me to carry insurance against my chances of Injuring or killing someone with a gun at a rate similar to motor vehicle liability insurance, I would pay literally a few cents every month.

A legal requirement for someone to pay an insurance premium of a fucking nickel is absurd.

[Ostroeuropa]

How so?

Because it's functionally a non issue. If you required me to carry insurance against my chances of Injuring or killing someone with a gun at a rate similar to motor vehicle liability insurance, I would pay literally a few cents every month.

A legal requirement for someone to pay an insurance premium of a fucking nickel is absurd.

Not if the insurance companies pay out to victims and families given that it would spread the harm visited upon some tens of thousands of people across millions of gun users to pay that nickel to ensure they are financially compensated for the event to the tune of quite a fair stack of cash that would ensure the harm is minimized by their injury or loss of a family member. It's not meant to stop you using guns. It's meant to reduce harm the legality of guns causes to others.

As you've noted, the actual payment on your gun would be completely negligible.

[American Legionaries]

Because it's functionally a non issue. If you required me to carry insurance against my chances of Injuring or killing someone with a gun at a rate similar to motor vehicle liability insurance, I would pay literally a few cents every month.

A legal requirement for someone to pay an insurance premium of a fucking nickel is absurd.

Not if the insurance companies pay out to victims and families given that it would spread the harm visited upon some tens of thousands of people across millions of gun users to pay that nickel to ensure they are financially compensated for the event to the tune of quite a fair stack of cash that would ensure the harm is minimized.

I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your proposal is not ignorant and foolish, but rather hateful and cruel.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not if the insurance companies pay out to victims and families given that it would spread the harm visited upon some tens of thousands of people across millions of gun users to pay that nickel to ensure they are financially compensated for the event to the tune of quite a fair stack of cash that would ensure the harm is minimized.

I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your proposal is not ignorant and foolish, but rather hateful and cruel.

How do you figure?

[American Legionaries]

I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your proposal is not ignorant and foolish, but rather hateful and cruel.

How do you figure?

Because your goal is to collectively punish people for the wrongs of a microscopically small minority of the demographic they belong to, rather than to hold anyone responsible for their own actions.

[Ostroeuropa]

How do you figure?

Because your goal is to collectively punish people for the wrongs of a microscopically small minority of the demographic they belong to, rather than to hold anyone responsible for their own actions.

i thought it was completely negligible and wouldn't impact you in the slightest. I agree with that assessment, so how can it be punishment?

[American Legionaries]

Because your goal is to collectively punish people for the wrongs of a microscopically small minority of the demographic they belong to, rather than to hold anyone responsible for their own actions.

i thought it was completely negligable and wouldn't impact you in the slightest. I agree with that assessment, so how can it be punishment?

Your fault for thinking wrong things.

[Ostroeuropa]

i thought it was completely negligable and wouldn't impact you in the slightest. I agree with that assessment, so how can it be punishment?

Your fault for thinking wrong things.

You're being incoherent here. You said it didn't matter and wouldn't impact you.

You've gone from "This is stupid and pointless and doesn't matter, it won't effect me or my decisions or behavior in the slightest" when I propose you pay a nickel.

But when I say "We're spending the nickel on making sure people whose pets get kidnapped get bought a cake" you flip and say you're being punished by paying the nickel, and it's cruel and hateful.

That's very bizarre. I had no idea that how we spend the money makes it suddenly all about you. That's fascinating and I'd like to propose we subject you to social experiments. We'll take the nickel off you and take it into another room, and then not tell you if we've spent it on helping other people or not, and you can point out on the doll where you get hurt when you detect the sudden harm done to you if we do end up spending it on helping others.

Is it just that you don't actually care about being charged to use a gun, but are adamantly and bitterly opposed to actually helping other people? Because that's largely how it looks from this exchange.

Perhaps you should clarify. Would you be more in favor of liability insurance and paying your nickel if the money *didn't* go to victims and their families? Does it go back to merely being "Pointless" then? What if we burned it instead, is that punishing you?

[Juansonia]

Because it's functionally a non issue. If you required me to carry insurance against my chances of Injuring or killing someone with a gun at a rate similar to motor vehicle liability insurance, I would pay literally a few cents every month.

A legal requirement for someone to pay an insurance premium of a fucking nickel is absurd.

Not if the insurance companies pay out to victims and families given that it would spread the harm visited upon some tens of thousands of people across millions of gun users to pay that nickel to ensure they are financially compensated for the event to the tune of quite a fair stack of cash that would ensure the harm is minimized by their injury or loss of a family member. It's not meant to stop you using guns. It's meant to reduce harm the legality of guns causes to others.

As you've noted, the actual payment on your gun would be completely negligible.

The point of insurance is to ensure that, if you end up financially damaged or liable, you don't need to pay out-of-pocket. Generally, intentional criminal acts are excluded from liability insurance coverage.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not if the insurance companies pay out to victims and families given that it would spread the harm visited upon some tens of thousands of people across millions of gun users to pay that nickel to ensure they are financially compensated for the event to the tune of quite a fair stack of cash that would ensure the harm is minimized by their injury or loss of a family member. It's not meant to stop you using guns. It's meant to reduce harm the legality of guns causes to others.

As you've noted, the actual payment on your gun would be completely negligible.

The point of insurance is to ensure that, if you end up financially damaged or liable, you don't need to pay out-of-pocket. Generally, intentional criminal acts are excluded from liability insurance coverage.

We can make an exception for guns if we wanted to.

[American Legionaries]

Your fault for thinking wrong things.

You're being incoherent here. You said it didn't matter and wouldn't impact you.

You've gone from "This is stupid and pointless and doesn't matter, it won't effect me or my decisions or behavior in the slightest" when I propose you pay a nickel.

But when I say "We're spending the nickel on making sure people whose pets get kidnapped get bought a cake" you flip and say you're being punished by paying the nickel, and it's cruel and hateful.

That's very bizarre. I had no idea that how we spend the money makes it suddenly all about you. That's fascinating and I'd like to propose we subject you to social experiments. We'll take the nickel off you and take it into another room, and then not tell you if we've spent it on helping other people or not, and you can point out on the doll where you get hurt when you detect the sudden harm done to you if we do end up spending it on helping others.

Is it just that you don't actually care about being charged to use a gun, but are adamantly and bitterly opposed to actually helping other people? Because that's largely how it looks from this exchange.

Perhaps you should clarify. Would you be more in favor of liability insurance and paying your nickel if the money *didn't* go to victims and their families? Does it go back to merely being "Pointless" then? What if we burned it instead, is that punishing you?

The problem is what I've said isn't coherent with the strawman you've made. And you're unwilling to abandon the strawman and actually engage with what I actually said.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're being incoherent here. You said it didn't matter and wouldn't impact you.

You've gone from "This is stupid and pointless and doesn't matter, it won't effect me or my decisions or behavior in the slightest" when I propose you pay a nickel.

But when I say "We're spending the nickel on making sure people whose pets get kidnapped get bought a cake" you flip and say you're being punished by paying the nickel, and it's cruel and hateful.

That's very bizarre. I had no idea that how we spend the money makes it suddenly all about you. That's fascinating and I'd like to propose we subject you to social experiments. We'll take the nickel off you and take it into another room, and then not tell you if we've spent it on helping other people or not, and you can point out on the doll where you get hurt when you detect the sudden harm done to you if we do end up spending it on helping others.

Is it just that you don't actually care about being charged to use a gun, but are adamantly and bitterly opposed to actually helping other people? Because that's largely how it looks from this exchange.

Perhaps you should clarify. Would you be more in favor of liability insurance and paying your nickel if the money *didn't* go to victims and their families? Does it go back to merely being "Pointless" then? What if we burned it instead, is that punishing you?

The problem is what I've said isn't coherent with the strawman you've made. And you're unwilling to abandon the strawman and actually engage with what I actually said.

That's why I asked you to clarify.

[Juansonia]

The point of insurance is to ensure that, if you end up financially damaged or liable, you don't need to pay out-of-pocket. Generally, intentional criminal acts are excluded from liability insurance coverage.

We can make an exception for guns if we wanted to.

What would be the point of mandating liability insurance against an intentional criminal act? It would serve no purpose other than as an act of collective punishment, which is a violation of human rights.

[Ostroeuropa]

We can make an exception for guns if we wanted to.

What would be the point of mandating liability insurance against an intentional criminal act? It would serve no purpose other than as an act of collective punishment, which is a violation of human rights.

It serves the purpose of compensating victims of gun violence and their families, such that the harm caused by gun rights is offset in society. And, as we've already covered, I find it amusing that somebody can propose it's a punishment and simultaneously say it's a completely negligible figure. Though perhaps you don't think it's negligible. Which would open another can of worms then surely.

Gun tax is 10-11%.

Would that tax suddenly be rendered a collective punishment of gun users if we spent it on victim compensation?

[American Legionaries]

The problem is what I've said isn't coherent with the strawman you've made. And you're unwilling to abandon the strawman and actually engage with what I actually said.

That's why I asked you to clarify.

No, what you did was proposed that I be subjected to "social experiments" because what I said and the lies you concocted are not congruent.

Truly this is the sign of a reasonable person.

[Kernen]

What would be the point of mandating liability insurance against an intentional criminal act? It would serve no purpose other than as an act of collective punishment, which is a violation of human rights.

It serves the purpose of compensating victims of gun violence and their families, such that the harm caused by gun rights is offset in society. And, as we've already covered, I find it amusing that somebody can propose it's a punishment and simultaneously say it's a completely negligible figure. Though perhaps you don't think it's negligible. Which would open another can of worms then surely.

Gun tax is 10-11%.

Would that tax suddenly be rendered a collective punishment of gun users if we spent it on victim compensation?

It is a collective punishment.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's why I asked you to clarify.

No, what you did was proposed that I be subjected to "social experiments" because what I said and the lies you concocted are not congruent.

Truly this is the sign of a reasonable person.

Oh dear. I was light heartedly mocking the apparent belief that taking money from you becomes a punishment of you dependent on where it is spent, and inviting you to consider how ridiculous that belief is by suggesting to you you approach it from the perspective of a thought experiment.

So i'll ask one question to you.

If you pay liability insurance, you seem to think that doesn't matter.

If the money from that insurance is given to others, you think it does matter and it's cruel and you're being punished.

Now.

If we put you in a blind experiment, and sometimes spent the nickel on others, and sometimes didn't, I think we both know you wouldn't be harmed. We can extrapolate this out to; "The liability insurers are secretly doing payouts and not telling you.". No harm, still a "It doesn't matter" perspective.

What changed suddenly?

You knowing where the money is spent.

So we have to conclude, the knowledge of other people being helped, is what you think caused you harm.

[American Legionaries]

What would be the point of mandating liability insurance against an intentional criminal act? It would serve no purpose other than as an act of collective punishment, which is a violation of human rights.

It serves the purpose of compensating victims of gun violence and their families, such that the harm caused by gun rights is offset in society. And, as we've already covered, I find it amusing that somebody can propose it's a punishment and simultaneously say it's a completely negligible figure. Though perhaps you don't think it's negligible. Which would open another can of worms then surely.

Gun tax is 10-11%.

Would that tax suddenly be rendered a collective punishment of gun users if we spent it on victim compensation?

If the government charged you a tax of a single cent every year for being a brony, this would be negligible, yes?

If the government punished failure to pay that tax on time with twenty years in prison, this would be punitive, yes?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Mandatory minimum third party only gun insurance.

Those are the only words I have to say today. (Well alright. Legalize flash hiders too.)

Hating the poor ain't cool, yo.

[Ostroeuropa]

It serves the purpose of compensating victims of gun violence and their families, such that the harm caused by gun rights is offset in society. And, as we've already covered, I find it amusing that somebody can propose it's a punishment and simultaneously say it's a completely negligible figure. Though perhaps you don't think it's negligible. Which would open another can of worms then surely.

Gun tax is 10-11%.

Would that tax suddenly be rendered a collective punishment of gun users if we spent it on victim compensation?

If the government charged you a tax of a single cent every year for being a brony, this would be negligible, yes?

If the government punished failure to pay that tax on time with twenty years in prison, this would be punitive, yes?

A tax on "Being" something is a little different, but we'll go with it. Typically yes, failure to pay taxes results in punishment.

[American Legionaries]

Mandatory minimum third party only gun insurance.

Those are the only words I have to say today. (Well alright. Legalize flash hiders too.)

Hating the poor ain't cool, yo.

I mean, given the relatively low cost that actual liability for firearms would run, and the totally sensible penalties that anti-gun states would put on failing to provide proof of insurance, it's less about hating the poor and more about hating anyone who forgets to pay the bill.

[American Legionaries]

If the government charged you a tax of a single cent every year for being a brony, this would be negligible, yes?

If the government punished failure to pay that tax on time with twenty years in prison, this would be punitive, yes?

A tax on "Being" something is a little different, but we'll go with it. Typically yes, failure to pay taxes results in punishment.

How is a tax on being something different than a tax on being something, again?

And that punishment would be cruel and punitive.

[Ostroeuropa]

Mandatory minimum third party only gun insurance.

Those are the only words I have to say today. (Well alright. Legalize flash hiders too.)

Hating the poor ain't cool, yo.

I think this is probably the best argument against the proposal.

[Haganham]

If the government charged you a tax of a single cent every year for being a brony, this would be negligible, yes?

If the government punished failure to pay that tax on time with twenty years in prison, this would be punitive, yes?

A tax on "Being" something is a little different, but we'll go with it. Typically yes, failure to pay taxes results in punishment.

How is a tax on bronys any more a tax on being then a tax on gun owners

[Ostroeuropa]

A tax on "Being" something is a little different, but we'll go with it. Typically yes, failure to pay taxes results in punishment.

How is a tax on being something different than a tax on being something, again?

And that punishment would be cruel and punitive.

Being taxed for owning property is not the same as being taxed for an intrinsic quality about yourself, because you can decide to ditch the gun or surrender it if you can't pay, and it can be seized for failure to pay.

That can't be done with internal qualities. But that's a quibble. You could compare it to "A tax on having a brony profile picture" and that would be better.

Hating the poor ain't cool, yo.

I mean, given the relatively low cost that actual liability for firearms would run, and the totally sensible penalties that anti-gun states would put on failing to provide proof of insurance, it's less about hating the poor and more about hating anyone who forgets to pay the bill.

If your concern is the extent of punitive measure for failure to pay, what do you think would be an acceptable cap on the punishment? I'm personally fine with seizure and then you've got a few months to backpay the amount owed or you lose your claim to the gun as the cap. I don't think people should go to jail over it.

If instead you're opposed outright, then could you stop pretending its because you're scared of overreach?