Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[doggin94it]

Best gun control idea I've seen - draft the marketplace:

But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance. That’s required for owning a car, despite the fact that such a rule could be deemed by the unreasonable as being an impediment to constitutional protections of interstate commerce. And, unlike government, the one thing insurance companies know how to do is assess risk.


You want a semi-automatic assault rifle? O.K., says the insurer. Where are you going to store it? Who else will have access to it? Your insurance won’t apply if someone else is firing it. Have you been trained? Do you have a license? You want another one—well, your rates just went up. And by the way—you have to notify us if you have been deemed to have any psychiatric problems, because we might cancel your policy. Then, just like with a car, people who want to carry around their gun have to have their insurance card on them at all times. And folks who have a gun without insurance? Well, that’s when the government steps in and deems it a felony.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/dai...cond-amendment

The rest of the (very long) article is worth the read too - but I thought that last bit was absolutely brilliant. A proposal I hadn't heard before but that has actual promise.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Best gun control idea I've seen - draft the marketplace:



http://www.vanityfair.com/online/dai...cond-amendment

The rest of the (very long) article is worth the read too - but I thought that last bit was absolutely brilliant. A proposal I hadn't heard before but that has actual promise.

================================================

An interesting idea, I just don't see how it would in any way prevent another mass shooting like SHES.

In fact maybe I do, insurance companies would determine who could or could not own certain weapons.

Could leave the insurance companies open to a wrongful death lawsuits.

Sound like another emotional article in response to another tragedy.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Best gun control idea I've seen - draft the marketplace:



http://www.vanityfair.com/online/dai...cond-amendment

The rest of the (very long) article is worth the read too - but I thought that last bit was absolutely brilliant. A proposal I hadn't heard before but that has actual promise.

What exactly would this liability insurance cover? Are you saying people need insurance in case someone gets a hold of their weapon and starts randomly killing people? How much coverage would be required to pay for such an incident? How does one begin to quantify such a thing. Are we talking property damage, so if a bullet accidentally hits a car then it covers the repair?

This is not a good idea at all Doggin. How would this insurance plan have prevented the shootings in Newton/AZ or Colorado?

The only thing forcing people to buy "insurance" does is put free money in insurance companies hands. It may help reduce the number of guns being purchased legally as well. It certainly would help to create a healthy black market for gun sales though.

By this theory an even better proposal for reducing the number of guns being sold would be to slap a hefty tax on gun sales. Something like a tobacco tax of 100+% of the purchase price. That helps the government get more money and ironically it would likely come from the people most hostile to big government. If you want to punish middle class folks that simply want to protect themselves the money you take from them should not go to insurance companies. It should go in the tax pool. Maybe use the funds to reduce the deficit or lower taxes for the rest of us.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Best gun control idea I've seen - State Mandated Insurance

A proposal I hadn't heard before but that has actual promise.

Agree to disagree, I find almost nothing in this idea that would prevent gun crime, prevent mass shootings or do anything else to law breakers.

What it does do is punish the law abiding, provide a profit stream (to be forever maintained by lobyists and politicians) for corporate and State revenue, and impose an intolerable burden on the law abiding's right to engage in their Constitutional Rights.

Can you name any other Consitutional Right you'd force an individual to buy private insurance first, before the State would regulatorily "allow" a law abiding citizen to express that right?

The answer to the issue of guns is to punish those who break the law and infringe upon the rights of others with guns.

It is not to punish the law abiding, provide yet another revenue stream to the same old same old, and to further restrict the rights of those who have done no wrong, committed no crime, and harmed no person.

I wonder how tolerant you'd be Doggin, if you were forced by the State to buy "Speech Insurance" in case you ever said anything that caused problems, "Voting Insurance" to be sure you vote the right way, or "Legal Insurance" in case you ever commit a crime and need a public defender or need to pay reparations for your possible future crimes.

For example, bullying. Bullying hurts. So....maybe everyone should have to buy "Speech Insurence" in case they ever verbally bully, knowingly or unknowingly, any other person and thus cause them emotional harm. Costs would be triple for children of course, since they're so prone to verbal bullying. Speech Insurance paid, you can have your right to free speech. Fail to pay, and (what does the article say?) fail to have your "Free Speech Card" with you, and you'll be arrested as a felon.

Say it with me: Don't punish the innocent before hand for the crimes of a tiny minority. Punish the Guilty.

I don't even own a gun, nor will I most likely, and I find this idea destestably offensive, and a horrible precedent to set regarding having to "insure" ones basic civil rights.

If you want rid of guns, stop being a backstabbing rights-revoking legislative tyrant, and have the people amend the Constitution to get what you want legally.

If you want rid os mass shootings, give up now. No law remotely within reason will ever stop a mass shooter from doing what he/she wants to do.

[FF2®]

Weird that and insurance company can raise your rates if you have a trampoline but not a automatic weapon.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by FF2®

Weird that and insurance company can raise your rates if you have a trampoline but not a automatic weapon.

===========================================

Is this true?

My automatic guns are not that valuable that I need to declare them to my insurance company as far as I know.

If I buy a trampoline should I notify my Insurance man?

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by Warfish

If you want rid os mass shootings, give up now. No law remotely within reason will ever stop a mass shooter from doing what he/she wants to do.

So you see no point to background checks that screen for a history of mental problems?

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by gunnails

If I buy a trampoline should I notify my Insurance man?

As well as if you have a tree house.

I'm not kidding.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

So you see no point to background checks that screen for a history of mental problems?

Here is where that becomes a problem.

Do YOU want the State doing Mental Health checks on you, to see if you are "fit"to have your civil rights?

I don't.

I'm perfectly fine and supportive of background checks of criminal behavior.

I'm far less fine with "depression", a "mental health issue" for example, being a qualifier for the revokation of my Constitutional Rights, in the vague idea that such a step will protect us from mass shootings, events (it should be pointed out) that are an insignifigant statistical footnote to causes of murder in America.

I do not choose willing to sell real freedom for the appearance of safety. In this case, it's not even much of an appearance tbqh. Clearly, background checks are a minor obstacle to a potential mass-murderer aquiring and using his firearm.

[Winstonbiggs]

How can you have a "Responsible" gun owner if they aren't willing to take on the liability that comes with the irresponsible use of that gun by themselves or anyone else who gets ahold of it?

Gun manufacturers and dealers should be liable if it turns out they are selling guns through networks that push their guns into the black market.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

How can you have a "Responsible" gun owner if they aren't willing to take on the liability that comes with the irresponsible use of that gun by themselves or anyone else who gets ahold of it?

Gun manufacturers and dealers should be liable if it turns out they are selling guns through networks that push their guns into the black market.

Who says the owner of the gun isn't currently liable? Anyone can sue for just about anything nowadays. If that kid in CT hadn't killed his mother she would probably be getting sued right now. Your point makes no sense.

I'm quite certain that there are rules in place as far as who the gun dealers can sell to. If you remember back when Holder's ATF was distributing guns to the Mexican cartels there were reports of gun dealers calling in suspicious purchases and being told by the ATF not to worry about it.

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Here is where that becomes a problem.

Do YOU want the State doing Mental Health checks on you, to see if you are "fit"to have your civil rights?

I see your point. Not sure, though. Something that seems out of proportion...I work in a government building. Nothing about my job is remotely secret or classified, nor is anything that goes on here. but I had to go through three months of checks to get my badge, including my neighbors and wife being interviewed, all my former employers, all my travel for the past 10 years being scrutinized. And then after all that I had a one hour sit don't examination by a screener who asked me all kinds of very personal questions. All so I could be allowed to walk into a building.

Conversely, I can walk into a gun show tomorrow and walk out with a dozen semi-automatic rifles and four dozen high capacity magazines in a few minutes. They might or might not ask me my name. On some level doesn't that seem whack?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

How can you have a "Responsible" gun owner if they aren't willing to take on the liability that comes with the irresponsible use of that gun by themselves or anyone else who gets ahold of it?

The is no liabillity unless the gun is used illegally. And staying on the car issue, the percentage of total drivers who will experience a car accident at some point is VASTLY higher than the percentage of total legal gun owners who will inflict illegal harm upon others with their legal guns.

It's akin to saying there are no responsible knife owners if they don't pre-pay a Univeral Knife Insurance Policy, complete with papers to show the cosp who will come by and do routine knife checks of homes.

Gun manufacturers and dealers should be liable if it turns out they are selling guns through networks that push their guns into the black market.

What makes you think they're not criminally and civilly liable for such clearly illegal activity?

Like any other product, liabillity exists if teh manufactuer does not make a safe product that works as advertised, and they are liable if they break the law with, on in selling, that product.

The idea that Colt Firearms is somehow liable if Joe McSchmucky legally buys a gun from a legal dealer, then decides to go hose down some Nuns with it is rediculous. No other product faces that level of responsabillity.

For example, is Tylenol liable if I buy a bottle at my local CVS, then use those Tylenol to poison someone? Of course not.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

I work in a government building.

....but I had to go through three months of checks to get my badge

No you didn't.

You CHOOSE to go through it, because you CHOOSE to persue that job.

You do not have a Consitutional Right to that Job.

All so I could be allowed to walk into a building.

I doubt it's as simple as all that. You clearly had to get a clearence level for whatever reason, and thats why you faced those tests/checks.

Conversely, I can walk into a gun show tomorrow and walk out with a dozen semi-automatic rifles and four dozen high capacity magazines in a few minutes. They might or might not ask me my name.

Far as I know, most States do not allow that at all. And I believe Federal Law does not allow it either, but as a non-owner, I can't speak to it for sure.

I support the same rules and laws being in-place for Gun Shows as for Gun Dealers or fo Wal-Mart or Dicks Sporting Goods. ID Checks are fine (for voting too ), as it Federal Registration. I'm perfectly fine with both of those. I'm fine with a mandatory wiating period of a week too, Gun Shows will adapt as needed.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

There was a scene in The Basketball Diaries where these kids go into a basement to snort some heroin. Down there they run into a junkie who tells them, "If you're gonna snort it, you might as well pop it. And if you're gonna pop it, you might as well mainline." Your post reminds me of that.

You are describing a slippery slope argument. I would liken my opinion on automatic rifles vs semi-automatic rifles and pistols more to "If you're going to legalize Alcohol, perhaps Marijuana shouldn't be banned". IE a comparison of similar items being treated differently under the law.

Originally Posted by detjetsfan

Really no difference between semi and fully auto. Just a matter of trigger squeeze. I have fired both types of weapons and I own both fully and semi weapons. I can actually get a 240B and 249 SAW down to a single shot per squeeze. And btw fully auto M-16A1's were used by the US Army in Vietnam, Panama and Desert Storm.

My understanding was the M-16A1 has a selector for automatic and semi-automatic fire, and that the semi-automatic firing mode was preferred for most situations.

Originally Posted by FF2®

Weird that and insurance company can raise your rates if you have a trampoline but not a automatic weapon.

The insurance company being allowed to raise your rate based upon the items you purchase is much different than mandatory liability insurance for purchasing a specific item.

Also, comparing car insurance to the proposed gun insurance is not a like comparison.

1.) You have a right to a gun, not a car.

2.) You don't have to have insurance (or a license) to drive a car around on your private property (this may vary state to state). You are required to have a license and insurance to operate it on a public road. Note that a privately owned road may qualify as being a "public highway (which is stupid), but as far as i'm aware in most if not all states, you can drive around in circles in your cow pasture without a license or insurance.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

I see your point. Not sure, though. Something that seems out of proportion...I work in a government building. Nothing about my job is remotely secret or classified, nor is anything that goes on here. but I had to go through three months of checks to get my badge, including my neighbors and wife being interviewed, all my former employers, all my travel for the past 10 years being scrutinized. And then after all that I had a one hour sit don't examination by a screener who asked me all kinds of very personal questions. All so I could be allowed to walk into a building.

Conversely, I can walk into a gun show tomorrow and walk out with a dozen semi-automatic rifles and four dozen high capacity magazines in a few minutes. They might or might not ask me my name. On some level doesn't that seem whack?

I don't know what gun shows you went to. In order to purchase a shotgun for home protection in upstate NY you have to fill out a myriad of forms and wait for a government background check to be approved. It takes a few days. If you wanted a handgun the process takes months and involves interviews with acquaintances as well as mandatory safety classes.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Warfish

What makes you think they're not criminally and civilly liable for such clearly illegal activity?

Like any other product, liabillity exists if teh manufactuer does not make a safe product that works as advertised, and they are liable if they break the law with, on in selling, that product.

Congress passed and Bush signed into law back in 05 a law that exempted gun manufacturers from liability. Unlike any other product Gun Manufactures are protected by law from liability.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Congress passed and Bush signed into law back in 05 a law that exempted gun manufacturers from liability. Unlike any other product Gun Manufactures are protected by law from liability.

Vaccine manufacturers are similarly protected. The justification used in both cases was essentially "Jurors are too stupid to make rational decisions regarding these products. I disagree with both laws.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Congress passed and Bush signed into law back in 05 a law that exempted gun manufacturers from liability. Unlike any other product Gun Manufactures are protected by law from liability.

==========================================

Yes and no.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Agree to disagree, I find almost nothing in this idea that would prevent gun crime, prevent mass shootings or do anything else to law breakers.

What it does do is punish the law abiding, provide a profit stream (to be forever maintained by lobyists and politicians) for corporate and State revenue, and impose an intolerable burden on the law abiding's right to engage in their Constitutional Rights.

Can you name any other Consitutional Right you'd force an individual to buy private insurance first, before the State would regulatorily "allow" a law abiding citizen to express that right?

The answer to the issue of guns is to punish those who break the law and infringe upon the rights of others with guns.

It is not to punish the law abiding, provide yet another revenue stream to the same old same old, and to further restrict the rights of those who have done no wrong, committed no crime, and harmed no person.

I wonder how tolerant you'd be Doggin, if you were forced by the State to buy "Speech Insurance" in case you ever said anything that caused problems, "Voting Insurance" to be sure you vote the right way, or "Legal Insurance" in case you ever commit a crime and need a public defender or need to pay reparations for your possible future crimes.

For example, bullying. Bullying hurts. So....maybe everyone should have to buy "Speech Insurence" in case they ever verbally bully, knowingly or unknowingly, any other person and thus cause them emotional harm. Costs would be triple for children of course, since they're so prone to verbal bullying. Speech Insurance paid, you can have your right to free speech. Fail to pay, and (what does the article say?) fail to have your "Free Speech Card" with you, and you'll be arrested as a felon.

Say it with me: Don't punish the innocent before hand for the crimes of a tiny minority. Punish the Guilty.

I don't even own a gun, nor will I most likely, and I find this idea destestably offensive, and a horrible precedent to set regarding having to "insure" ones basic civil rights.

If you want rid of guns, stop being a backstabbing rights-revoking legislative tyrant, and have the people amend the Constitution to get what you want legally.

If you want rid os mass shootings, give up now. No law remotely within reason will ever stop a mass shooter from doing what he/she wants to do.

Well, we have a constitutional right to own property, but we also have the Fifth Amendment that says we can deprived of that property as long as "due process of the law" is followed. Guns are property. Houses are property. Cars are property, horses are property. The Constitution doesn't enumerate every form of property that is covered, but it certainly allows for regulations to govern our access to it. For example, I could not purchase my apartment without homeowner's insurance, or good credit, etc. I have a consitutional right to own my home, car, etc. but I have to jump through various hoops to get it and maintain it.

I'm personally less concerned about the liability angle in Doggin's article than I am in finding a method to do mental health background checks in a way that protects privacy. Each state would have to draw up clear criteria for exclusion from gun ownership and have a system for screening. One possibility is a system similar to the evaluations done when one applies for
Social Security Disability. Criteria could parallel those used to screen candidates to carry weapons in the police force. The state contracts medical and MH providers who do an independent assessment. And I do think this would be of value, to some extent to prevent violent crimes toward others, but even moreso to reduce the number of suicides by guns, which is an even bigger number statistically. That too would be a public service.