2nd amendment enthusiast

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

The way I envision it is simple and these are the broad strokes. When the firearm is registered to you, you are responsible. As soon as that registration transfers to a dealer or another individual, then it is not your responsibility. If a firearm is lost and forget to report it then it is the owners responsibility. If a firearm is stolen, it is the owners responsibility *until *it is reported, and once reported no longer the owners responsibility.

Responsible firearm owners should know where the firearm is and how it is secured. No free pass for “forgetting to report it lost” or “didn’t realize it was lost” or “didn’t notice it was stolen 3 months ago.” But once the firearm is legally transferred then there is no liability.

I’m for not trying to mandate how to store the firearm in your home or what constitutes an assault weapon. But the flip side of the coin, is that if there is a gun accident in your home, then there is some kind of penalty for failing to adequately secure the firearm.

We already have laws in place for that, or are you proposing a higher level of penalty for having a gun accident in your home versus any other type of accident. Say poisoning with liquid plumber or an explosion from leaving your gas on? because more people die from accidentally ingesting poison than accidentally getting shot. About as many people die from gas explosions as from accidentally getting shot.

Firearm owners are trusted to adequately secure the firearm in their home based on their situation/knowledge/requirements. If not “adequately” secured, then pay the price. And by definition, if there is a firearm accident in your home then it was not adequately secured.

So you would impose a higher level of liability to gun owners than anyone else?

I have an autistic child in my home. She doesn’t understand a lot of things. There is only one way I can guarantee there are no firearm accidents in my home, and that is to never allow a firearm in my home. Your situation is probably different, and I find it difficult the government can *dictate *in an effective way.

And there are already laws for that. When a child is accidentally shot, every state that I am aware of has a law that can put you in jail. Prosecutors frequently do not prosecute but there is no reason to be3lieve that they would prosecute based on your new law either, it pretty much sounds like you just want to punish gun owners if anything goes wrong.

IMHO, I think an insurance solution might be workable. If you’re a firearm owner, then you have to have insurance against accidents.

Liability insurance for guns when there are about 300 accidental deaths per year. Are you serious?

Insurance actuarials will work out if an “assault style” long gun is statistically more or less safe, and the premiums would adjust accordingly.

How would an assault style long gun be more prone to accidents than other types of firearms?

It might be that 10 round magazines cost less to insure than a 30 round magazine or vice versa.

In what way would the extra 20 rounds be more likely to cause an accident?

Depends on the actuarial data. Or that insurance goes up for handguns versus hunting rifles, or an over under is statistically the safest firearm out there and therefore has the lowest insurance rates. And the insurance would pay out if there are accidents,

I have no problem with liability insurance requirements if people are required to have it for everything that is NOT protected by the constitution as well.

or if its stolen and used to commit a crime,

Ah. So now you want to assign liability to gun owners for the criminal acts of others. Something we almost never do absent gross negligence or willful misconduct.

or if the neighbor kid accidently kills his little sister with it.

We already have a tort system in place for this. Can you show that this tort system is insufficient to deal with the issue? Are you worried mostly about the gun owners being too poor to pay the judgment?

And higher risk firearms have higher premiums…and this is a free market solution instead of government bureaucratic decision.

Its not a free market solution, it is a stupid solution. I am now going to add insurance requirements to gun bans on the list of retarded gun control ideas. Too many people have suggested this to simply ignore it as the misinformed ideas of uninformed people. it is now in the category of stupid gun control ideas.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

Thanks for the reply and the link.

I agree that gun control folks are like headless chickens, especially in the face of the NRA. NRA is really simple, any net new firearm limitation is bad, a slippery slope and implied that this will lead to universal confiscation of existing firearms (and probably without compensation), a total ban on private ownership and enslavement to a fascist police state.

Those that want to limit firearms in some way

1. can’t agree on where to focus
2. rat hole on ineffectual areas such as the “assault weapons ban” when 80% of firearm murders are committed by hand guns.
3. Not organized to turn a tragedy into an opportunity (good read by LBJ’s advisor in your link)
4. For whatever reason, spend political capital on getting something like a 10 round magazine limit passed
5. have no clue how to stack rank what is the most dangerous firearms or what the “best” limitation would be if you could only pass one thing.
6. Accept the strategy of one tiny limit is all that can be hoped for instead of going after universal registration, universal background checks, and complete closure of the “gun show” loophole
7. Not understanding the definitions and language of 2nd amendment enthusiasts. So roll over on verbal jousting on things like “gun show” loophole. Ie, gun show means private sales and most take part outside of actual gun shows.

…2nd amendment enthusiasts on this board have given me quite an education in the past few months.

We all have different ideas of what constitutes common sense and reasonable. And in a democracy nobody gets everything they wants… usually. But there are a few areas where popular notions of what is common sense and reasonable are irrelevant, these areas are outlined in the constitution. Too many of the things that gun control folks want either run afoul of the constitution or are ineffective. The only thing that is still left out there for gun control folks that could possibly have a significant positive effect on gun violence that doesn’t require repeal of the second amendment is licensing and registration.

There is a significant element of the gun control crowd that thinks we should just try every idea that anyone can dream up and see if it works. And if it doesn’t work, then maybe we didn’t try it for long enough. They have no regard for the second amendment and therefore, no regard for the constitution, sure they might like some of the ideas of the constitution but they don’t really think the constitution is important, just the parts they agree with. Undermining the second amendment undermines all the amendments. It is the canary in the coal mine. If you repeal it, then fine but if you simply try to ignore it then you are inviting people to ignore other constitutional rights, and that is probably not good for anyone.

Say what you will about LBJ, he could count votes and he thought he had the votes for licensing and registration then. He also knew that banning guns was both ineffective and unlikely to pass. The gun control lobby has actually gotten dumber since the 1960s.

[China_Guy]

[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:102, topic:741598”]

They have no regard for the second amendment and therefore, no regard for the constitution, sure they might like some of the ideas of the constitution but they don’t really think the constitution is important, just the parts they agree with.

[QUOTE]
Could you dial down the inflammatory language? I’ve been bitch slapped numerous times on these boards for not using exact 2nd amendment enthusiasts terminology, make an effort to use said terms, and would appreciate the same courtesy.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

Thanks for the reply and the link.

I agree that gun control folks are like headless chickens, especially in the face of the NRA. NRA is really simple, any net new firearm limitation is bad, a slippery slope and implied that this will lead to universal confiscation of existing firearms (and probably without compensation), a total ban on private ownership and enslavement to a fascist police state.

Those that want to limit firearms in some way

1. can’t agree on where to focus
2. rat hole on ineffectual areas such as the “assault weapons ban” when 80% of firearm murders are committed by hand guns.
3. Not organized to turn a tragedy into an opportunity (good read by LBJ’s advisor in your link)
4. For whatever reason, spend political capital on getting something like a 10 round magazine limit passed
5. have no clue how to stack rank what is the most dangerous firearms or what the “best” limitation would be if you could only pass one thing.
6. Accept the strategy of one tiny limit is all that can be hoped for instead of going after universal registration, universal background checks, and complete closure of the “gun show” loophole
7. Not understanding the definitions and language of 2nd amendment enthusiasts. So roll over on verbal jousting on things like “gun show” loophole. Ie, gun show means private sales and most take part outside of actual gun shows.

…2nd amendment enthusiasts on this board have given me quite an education in the past few months.

The ineffectiveness of the gun control lobby is not the fault of the NRA, it is the fault of the gun control lobby. TRUST ME when I say that the NRA is not run by political masterminds. There is simply huge asymmetry in information. The gun rights groups know a lot about guns, the gun control groups only know that they don’t like guns.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[quote=“China_Guy, post:103, topic:741598”]

[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:102, topic:741598”]

They have no regard for the second amendment and therefore, no regard for the constitution, sure they might like some of the ideas of the constitution but they don’t really think the constitution is important, just the parts they agree with.

Could you dial down the inflammatory language? I’ve been bitch slapped numerous times on these boards for not using exact 2nd amendment enthusiasts terminology, make an effort to use said terms, and would appreciate the same courtesy.

I don’t mean to offend you and if I have then I apologize. I think you are making a sincere effort to look at this afresh and I commend you for it. I am not referring to you personally when I say these words. I am talking about some common sentiments within the gun control crowd.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@jerry_smissingfinger

what’s wrong with the laws that are on the books now? :shrug

We have significantly higher murder rates than our peers. A significant portion of those murders are committed with guns. The notion is that the easy access that criminals have to guns is at least a contributing factor. Gun control folks think the answer is simply to eliminate guns and damn the constitution. Gun rights folks think that we already have plenty of laws.

I generally think we have plenty of useless laws that should be replaced with a few effective laws.

I would repeal all gun control laws and replace it with licensing and registration and forbid states and localities to pass any gun control laws.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I would repeal all gun control laws and replace it with licensing and registration and forbid states and localities to pass any gun control laws.

I could support this, as long as there were some assurance / guarantee that there wouldn’t be additional gun control at the federal level too.

[jerry_smissingfinger]

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

Not sure if anyone knows for sure how many “GUN LAWS” there are now.

[jerry_smissingfinger]

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries | Ryan...

this was an interesting read

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Not really. It’s cherry picked data used to argue against other cherry picked data.

I could support this, as long as there were some assurance / guarantee that there wouldn’t be additional gun control at the federal level too.

Eh? The licensing/registration scheme proposed would presumably at the federal level. Did you mean beyond that?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@HurricaneDitka

I could support this, as long as there were some assurance / guarantee that there wouldn’t be additional gun control at the federal level too.

What sort of assurance or guarantee?