What is meant when people say 'guns don't kill people; people do'?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
Irresponsibility is the cause of an action that could end up in jail. insurance doesn't keep you from killing someone it is taking money from people who can't afford to pay to have what the Second Amendment says they are entitled to as American citizens. The cost of insurance will infringe on people's rights therefore it will not pass as we see in NY it was just shot down.
Really, tell that to the car insurance companies because ever since insurance was required we have seen car accidents and deaths from car accident come down.

They lobbied to make sure seat belts were mandatory. They did crash test dummy tests and began rating cars on safety.

They put pressure on the car manufacturers to have air bags in their cars (to improve their safety rating).

Car manufacturers have come up with many other features to make cars safer knowing that doing so will help sell the cars.

So then let's ignore the entire benefit of victims of a shooting event being compensated by the insurance company and focus on how an insurance company will reduce people getting killed.

1. You will have to show proof of insurance to buy a gun and ammunition. In this way the insurance company can be notified of every purchase you make. These are huge companies with powerful computers and algorithms that could immediately notify them of a red flag before you even leave the store.

2. In order to reduce your insurance cost you could provide more information than would be required, having that extra information like access to a mental health professional, and access to their social media could help the insurance company spot a potential mass murderer or other terrible event before it happens.

3. One of the biggest problems with gang violence is that the gun information is not in a computerized registry, so when they find bullets and shell casings they can use that as evidence in a trial, but it doesn't help them find the gun. If every gun in America had to be insured from the moment it was manufactured all the police would have to do is send the information to all the insurance companies when a crime is committed and they could check their records and find the gun. Yes, the gun will probably be listed as "stolen". But prior to being stolen it was sold at a retail outlet. If all the guns used in gang violence in Chicago can be traced to two or three retail outlets you can shut them down. Also they would have sold the guns to a "mule". A guy with a clean record who will then say the gun was stolen. If it turns out this guy bought 200 guns used in crimes, all of which he reported as being stolen you can convict him. So this will definitely make it much harder for criminals to get guns.

4. If you require insurance and then you catch a suspect with a gun it gives you a valid reason to hold the person for a day. Again, you can test the gun since it is now part of a crime and if it turns out that you have the bullets and shell casings in other criminal events you can charge this gang member before you would have had to release him on the streets.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,003
4,315
113
Really, tell that to the car insurance companies because ever since insurance was required we have seen car accidents and deaths from car accident come down.

They lobbied to make sure seat belts were mandatory. They did crash test dummy tests and began rating cars on safety.

They put pressure on the car manufacturers to have air bags in their cars (to improve their safety rating).

Car manufacturers have come up with many other features to make cars safer knowing that doing so will help sell the cars.

So then let's ignore the entire benefit of victims of a shooting event being compensated by the insurance company and focus on how an insurance company will reduce people getting killed.

1. You will have to show proof of insurance to buy a gun and ammunition. In this way the insurance company can be notified of every purchase you make. These are huge companies with powerful computers and algorithms that could immediately notify them of a red flag before you even leave the store.

2. In order to reduce your insurance cost you could provide more information than would be required, having that extra information like access to a mental health professional, and access to their social media could help the insurance company spot a potential mass murderer or other terrible event before it happens.

3. One of the biggest problems with gang violence is that the gun information is not in a computerized registry, so when they find bullets and shell casings they can use that as evidence in a trial, but it doesn't help them find the gun. If every gun in America had to be insured from the moment it was manufactured all the police would have to do is send the information to all the insurance companies when a crime is committed and they could check their records and find the gun. Yes, the gun will probably be listed as "stolen". But prior to being stolen it was sold at a retail outlet. If all the guns used in gang violence in Chicago can be traced to two or three retail outlets you can shut them down. Also they would have sold the guns to a "mule". A guy with a clean record who will then say the gun was stolen. If it turns out this guy bought 200 guns used in crimes, all of which he reported as being stolen you can convict him. So this will definitely make it much harder for criminals to get guns.

4. If you require insurance and then you catch a suspect with a gun it gives you a valid reason to hold the person for a day. Again, you can test the gun since it is now part of a crime and if it turns out that you have the bullets and shell casings in other criminal events you can charge this gang member before you would have had to release him on the streets.
LOL, maybe where you live in CA they have gone up in CO they have gone up. Insurance doe not stop accidents or reduce them. man people get only a month or first quarter then do not renew them. You need to get out more. CA has 35 % of the homes in the nation and none of those who drive have insurance, we have about 4 million uninsured 3800 death each year in cars alone 2,161 by guns most done by an illegal gun stolen.
CA has an increase in crime, gun death, and car death.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
LOL, maybe where you live in CA they have gone up in CO they have gone up. Insurance doe not stop accidents or reduce them. man people get only a month or first quarter then do not renew them. You need to get out more. CA has 35 % of the homes in the nation and none of those who drive have insurance, we have about 4 million uninsured 3800 death each year in cars alone 2,161 by guns most done by an illegal gun stolen.
CA has an increase in crime, gun death, and car death.
The numbers don't lie

Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled
Fatalities per 100,000 population

In 1957 it was 5.71 deaths per 100 million VMT and 21.47 deaths per 100,000 population

Car insurance became mandatory in all states around 1970 and seat belts were required beginning in 1968

In 1980 it was 3.35 deaths per 100 million VMT and 22.48 deaths per 100,000 population

In 1984 NY introduced the first law that required the use of the seat belts.

In 1990 it was 2.08 deaths per 100 million VMT and 17.88 deaths per 100,000 population

Air bags have been mandatory in all new cars since 1998 even though they have been around since the 1970s.

In 2000 it was 1.53 deaths per 100 million VMT and 14.86 deaths per 100,000 population

In the last twenty years new safety features like adaptive cruise control, lane assist, automatic braking and warning systems.

In 2021 it was 1.33 deaths per 100 million VMT and 12.89 deaths per 100,000 population

(BTW I live in South Dakota, not California)
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,003
4,315
113
The numbers don't lie

Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled
Fatalities per 100,000 population

In 1957 it was 5.71 deaths per 100 million VMT and 21.47 deaths per 100,000 population

Car insurance became mandatory in all states around 1970 and seat belts were required beginning in 1968

In 1980 it was 3.35 deaths per 100 million VMT and 22.48 deaths per 100,000 population

In 1984 NY introduced the first law that required the use of the seat belts.

In 1990 it was 2.08 deaths per 100 million VMT and 17.88 deaths per 100,000 population

Air bags have been mandatory in all new cars since 1998 even though they have been around since the 1970s.

In 2000 it was 1.53 deaths per 100 million VMT and 14.86 deaths per 100,000 population

In the last twenty years new safety features like adaptive cruise control, lane assist, automatic braking and warning systems.

In 2021 it was 1.33 deaths per 100 million VMT and 12.89 deaths per 100,000 population

(BTW I live in South Dakota, not California)
don't be rude, I am not lying and I said CA as if you even read where I said :

"LOL, maybe where you live, in CA they have gone up in CO they have gone up."

1957 LOL hahaha why not go back to 1944 to raise the number higher.

you and I are done.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
don't be rude, I am not lying and I said CA as if you even read where I said :

"LOL, maybe where you live, in CA they have gone up in CO they have gone up."

1957 LOL hahaha why not go back to 1944 to raise the number higher.

you and I are done.
1957 was chosen because it was prior to any influence from insurance or laws requiring the use of seat belts. Often before these things became mandatory they were widely available.

The bottom line is that requiring insurance does not deny the right to a well regulated militia.

What we have right now in the US is not well regulated.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,003
4,315
113
1957 was chosen because it was prior to any influence from insurance or laws requiring the use of seat belts. Often before these things became mandatory they were widely available.

The bottom line is that requiring insurance does not deny the right to a well regulated militia.

What we have right now in the US is not well regulated.
I hear they are fine in the south
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,176
1,573
113
68
Brighton, MI
LOL, maybe where you live in CA they have gone up in CO they have gone up. Insurance doe not stop accidents or reduce them. man people get only a month or first quarter then do not renew them. You need to get out more. CA has 35 % of the homes in the nation and none of those who drive have insurance, we have about 4 million uninsured 3800 death each year in cars alone 2,161 by guns most done by an illegal gun stolen.
CA has an increase in crime, gun death, and car death.
I think gun insurance is dumb for the reasons you stated friend.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,003
4,315
113
Which is why we have liability insurance that everyone must have in order to drive a car and which I believe every gun owner should have.
no which is why we have the right to shoot a rapist :) insurance doesn't do anything but take money from those who are allowed to have a gun because it is the Second Amendment. Insurance does nothing. driving a car is not mentioned as an Amendment. You want insurance get it.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,659
1,094
113
My favorite part of the second amendment is where it says WELL REGULATED
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
The Bill of Rights is a document informing the government of the rights of the general public. The bit about “well regulated” in the 2A doesn’t mean the government should be regulating the militia, but rather the militia will be well regulated by themselves.

Militias are just military forces from the civilian population. The military forces regulated by the government are called the army. Meaning the government shouldn’t be legally allowed to regulate anything about the 2nd Amendment.

I doubt the intent of the writers of the Bill of Rights was for the militias to be made incrementally impotent by a gradual erosion of the second amendment. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the civilian population.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
The Bill of Rights is a document informing the government of the rights of the general public. The bit about “well regulated” in the 2A doesn’t mean the government should be regulating the militia, but rather the militia will be well regulated by themselves.

Militias are just military forces from the civilian population. The military forces regulated by the government are called the army. Meaning the government shouldn’t be legally allowed to regulate anything about the 2nd Amendment.

I doubt the intent of the writers of the Bill of Rights was for the militias to be made incrementally impotent by a gradual erosion of the second amendment. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the civilian population.
Liability insurance is a form of being well regulated and it isn't by the government, the insurance will be by private companies.

This is not simply a matter of everyone giving money to a private corporation which will then pay victims of shooting deaths and accidents.

No, now you have a powerful ally who is financially motivated to find ways to decrease these accidents but at the same time is financially motivated to protect the 2nd Amendment. There are 350 million guns in this country, if on average you had to pay $10 a year in insurance for each and every one that would be $3.5 billion a year. These companies don't want that business to disappear, they want to protect it, but at the same time they want to reduce the cost, frequency, and occurrence of these events. They could use all the mathematical, analytical, and computer based tools they have to address this problem and reduce shootings.

By comparison annual dues for the NRA are $45 a year.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
Liability insurance is a form of being well regulated and it isn't by the government, the insurance will be by private companies.

This is not simply a matter of everyone giving money to a private corporation which will then pay victims of shooting deaths and accidents.

No, now you have a powerful ally who is financially motivated to find ways to decrease these accidents but at the same time is financially motivated to protect the 2nd Amendment. There are 350 million guns in this country, if on average you had to pay $10 a year in insurance for each and every one that would be $3.5 billion a year. These companies don't want that business to disappear, they want to protect it, but at the same time they want to reduce the cost, frequency, and occurrence of these events. They could use all the mathematical, analytical, and computer based tools they have to address this problem and reduce shootings.

By comparison annual dues for the NRA are $45 a year.
Is the government requiring individuals or business purchase said insurance? If yes, then the government is regulating the militia. If the insurance is entirely voluntary, without government obligation or penalty, then that isn’t government regulation.

Guns and bullets are big business. Why do you think when a politician even gets on TV and whispers two words “gun control” that consumer interest in purchasing munitions skyrocket? It’s actually quite good for the economy.

The NRA are lobbyists and they are useful for the 2A. There aren’t that many rich organizations who can have long, drawn out, slugfests in court with equally rich entities attempting to destroy the 2A. Without the NRA fighting for the Bill of Rights, I firmly believe the government would have forcefully seized weapons long ago, thus provoking a civil war.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
Is the government requiring individuals or business purchase said insurance? If yes, then the government is regulating the militia. If the insurance is entirely voluntary, without government obligation or penalty, then that isn’t government regulation.

Guns and bullets are big business. Why do you think when a politician even gets on TV and whispers two words “gun control” that consumer interest in purchasing munitions skyrocket? It’s actually quite good for the economy.

The NRA are lobbyists and they are useful for the 2A. There aren’t that many rich organizations who can have long, drawn out, slugfests in court with equally rich entities attempting to destroy the 2A. Without the NRA fighting for the Bill of Rights, I firmly believe the government would have forcefully seized weapons long ago, thus provoking a civil war.
Nope. The constitution requires that the militia be well regulated. We have laws against mass murder and it is only reasonable that the victims of these shootings be compensated. There is nothing well regulated about these mass shootings leaving carnage and destruction that is not compensated.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,659
1,094
113
There was a guy for my hometown who was legally blind and Tennessee gave him a gun permit. I'm all for second amendment rights but it's like they're not even trying to keep the guns out of the hands of the wrong people
 

Eli1

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2022
4,625
1,963
113
46
The liberal equivalent of this is ”My body my choice”
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
12,659
1,094
113
The liberal equivalent of this is ”My body my choice”
I like Having the chores to not get shot so we should try to keep the wrong people from getting guns
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,332
6,617
113
Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws in the country had 54 people shot this weekend. By comparison Houston is probably the biggest city in the US that allows open carry of guns had a couple of people shot (as best as I can tell two).

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.