Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just five weeks after last month’s massacre at a San Jose light-rail yard that left nine people dead, the city has taken unprecedented gun-control action.
In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, San Jose’s city council approved a national first that will see gun owners being forced to compensate taxpayers for the spiraling costs of gun violence. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, gun owners in California’s third-largest city will be required to take out liability insurance for their firearms, and pay an annual tax that will help fund emergency responses to gun-related calls.
In a news release ahead of Tuesday night’s vote, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said: “While the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it does not require taxpayers to subsidize gun ownership... We won’t magically end gun violence, but we stop paying for it. We can also better care for its victims, and reduce gun-related injuries and death.”
Wow this is stupid even for CA standards. So let's charge law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals, that makes total sense.
How about- let's stop playing nice with criminals. Put them in Prison, no tv, no ac, just enough food and water to live, no medical treatment if you get sick and die, good... no rules.. let's make prison the worst place on earth to be... and maybe that will stop criminals more than a tax on people that don't commit crimes.
How is this different from car owners being forced to carry liability insurance, and pay a registration tax every year?
If you own something that could cause grievous damage to someone else, you need to be able to cover the damage you do.
These gun owners aren't going to be responsible for insuring OTHER gun owners, just themselves and the weapons THEY own.
Just like homeowners, and business owners and doctors are forced to carry liability. In case they harm someone, that person doesn't have to bear the burden themselves.
For rich people, this tax is nothing. So now poor people not only can't afford to live in the safe areas in California, they can't even protect themselves against attackers.
These gun owners aren't going to be responsible for insuring OTHER gun owners, just themselves and the weapons THEY own.
Just like homeowners, and business owners and doctors are forced to carry liability. In case they harm someone, that person doesn't have to bear the burden themselves.
Do you think Criminals who shoot someone will carry Insurance?
Are most shootings by Criminals or Honest Citizens?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 20 days ago)
35,676 posts, read 18,045,481 times
Reputation: 50732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
Do you think Criminals who shoot someone will carry Insurance?
Are most shootings by Criminals or Honest Citizens?
No, they won't. There should be SEVERE penalties for those who own and carry firearms illegally, or purchased illegally.
Those who purchase them legally and don't have a history of violence, will likely have a fairly low insurance rate, same as drivers with clean records.
I don't see how this is the least bit different from how we deal with auto liability.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,968,539 times
Reputation: 16466
Until the law abiding gun owners and patriots of America start using their tools to enforce the Constitution, and to remove the enemies of liberty from our government these draconian excesses will continue.
These elected extremist enemies of America , who strip your self defense rights and put your families, homes and children at risk of attack by barbarians nearly all have armed security, paid for by us.
And such specific liability insurance doesn't even exist, and won't. I myself carry self defense insurance. It is to protect ME from people like these Oakland extremists and their overzealous persecutions of lawful self defenders, not the scumbag that attacked me.
How is this different from car owners being forced to carry liability insurance, and pay a registration tax every year?
If you own something that could cause grievous damage to someone else, you need to be able to cover the damage you do.
These gun owners aren't going to be responsible for insuring OTHER gun owners, just themselves and the weapons THEY own.
Just like homeowners, and business owners and doctors are forced to carry liability. In case they harm someone, that person doesn't have to bear the burden themselves.
Is the property damaged caused by law abiding gun owners been enough to necessitate liability insurance? What you want is law abiding gun owners to pay for the damage caused by criminals. By the way, gun ownership is a right not a privilege like driving. So now you want citizens to pay a fee for a right? This is how asinine this thought process is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
