America needs to address its gun hypocrisy

No, I follow - I didn’t read your post as saying that violent movies and games cause people to act violently. My point is that violent movies and games where the heroes run around with all kinds of badass guns, and where the plot or gameplay focuses on guns and their varieties and capabilities etc, doesn’t in itself explain the way we think about guns. I am a very strong proponent of harsh gun control laws, and playing XCOM and marveling at how badass the sci-fi guns are doesn’t make me think that gun proliferation is a good thing in real life.

(I do acknowledge that an intergovernmental agency designed to combat an extraterrestrial threat would need guns, lots of them, and badass ones at that. That’s got nothing to do with whether Bubba Sixpack needs a gun. Same thing with Liam Neeson blowing away a hundred gangsters to get his daughter back in Taken, for example - you’d have to be seriously stupid, mentally ill, or both to watch that movie and think that this is actually how things would or should go down in that situation.)

TL/DR, I’ll catch up; but I wanted to say that America isn’t hypocritical on guns so much as it has a Jekyll & Hyde split personality: the people who believe in gun ownership and the people who believe in gun control are so ideologically divided as to be irreconcilable. It’s like saying America is hypocritical on abortion because we say that women have a right to abortion as part of reproductive freedom, but then do everything we can to make abortion difficult to obtain.

(sorry, long interruption).

I do think and have said before that in my opinion we are currently in something close to the worst of both worlds: criminals and sociopaths have little difficulty in obtaining guns, while comparatively few law-abiding people routinely carry. We definitely need either more guns or fewer; like the OP, I don’t believe fewer is a realistic option.

If Sandy Hook didn’t get America to take a serious look into gun violence, then nothing will. There is simply no amount of blood that can be spilled to get Americans to take it seriously. Maybe, if instead of children being shot it were American fascists (i.e., Republicans), then they might do something. I’m not advocating this of course, but violence sudden becomes more real and a problem when you’re a more likely victim.

No insurance in the world would cover a gun owner for damages caused by a gun stolen from him.

And sure if you come home and find your safe blown open, you would know. But not the gun you have half forgotten in the night stand. or if they steal your guns on day 1 of a two week vacation.

This is just a way to ban guns in the hands of responsible gun owners. Require insurance that can’t be bought.

Japan is the only major nation that comes close to that 95% figure that I replied to.

Again, I showed the UN stats quoted by Wikipedia which shows the USA in the middle of homicides per capita. The uSA is not some outlier in murders.

If you can’t keep your gun from getting stolen, you’re probably not a responsible gun owner. If you don’t want that responsibility (or liability under my suggestion), don’t buy a gun.

Maybe you shouldn’t half-forget a deadly weapon unsecured in your house then :confounded:

Gun owners who half forget that they have an unsecured firearm in their home can hardly be described as “responsible” :man_facepalming:

yeah, if any part of that is confusing to you, then you actually didn’t catch the racial implications.

I am on board with this, actually with much of your post.

I wish we weren’t as awash with guns as we are. But the genie is out of the bottle. Nobody’s going to wave a wand and make the scary bang-sticks go away. It’s better if we approach it with an adult harm-reduction mindset.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Democrats dropped gun control from their platform entirely. Maybe they could pick up enough votes to pass voting reform or UHC or stuff that actually makes a difference or lead to a sustainable political majority.

Call me silly, but owners are responsible for securing their firearms. If the owner goes on vacation, firearm on the book table, someone steals it and commits a crime, the owner should not have free pass as the firearm was not secure.

Could use some common sense and if the owner has an approved gun safe, that somehow gets burgled that not liable. Or the owner comes home and finds his firearm missing, immediately reports it as stolen and no longer his responsibility.

Insurance companies would write theft insurnace, just as they would write firearm insurnace if it was required. In other words, the owners of the firearm would have insurance to cover damages if their firearm is used to commit a crime. I completely understand that gun owners would much prefer to not shoulder the true cost to society that their gun ownership causes. But I for one think firearm owners should man up and help pay for the problem that the proliferation of firearms in this country causes.

Firearm insurance would be part of an American solution to an American problem.

Americans lack the civic spirit to work on preventing deaths to their fellow citizens. Sandy Hook and Covid have made that abundantly clear.

Given that, why would you suggest they have any type of interest in imposing any kind of burden on themselves willingly?

This is horseshit. All it does is transfer blame beyond the person who commits a heinous act. An “approved safe”. Approved by who? You? Who the hell are you?

I own a second home in northern Wisconsin. Sometimes as much as 6 months goes by before I go up there. If someone were to steal my gun safe out of there 5 months prior you would charge me with some form of crime because I didn’t know about it? This crap about blaming everybody except the actual actor is one of the major problems of this entire issue.

You leave a gun unsecured for 6 month stretches? Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of behavior we need to curtail.

That’s weird. I figured people shooting other people was the exact behavior we wanted curtailed. No wonder there are so many stupid guns laws we’ve been going after the wrong thing.

If you can’t keep your car from getting stolen, you’re probably not a responsible car owner. If you don’t want that responsibility (or liability under my suggestion), don’t buy a car.

This is just a way to keep guns out of the hands of responsible gun owners, not criminals. Just another ban attempt, because guns are bad.

Do you know where all your valuables are? Do you check on them on a daily basis?

Most people don’t.

And that’s a horseshit strawman. Nobody said the perpetrator shouldn’t be held responsible. I’m just saying the idiot who negligently made the crime possible should also be held responsible. I’m sorry if keeping your deadly weapons out of the hands of killers a whole 12 months of the year is too much responsibility for you.

There is no such insurance. No insurance company will cover a gun owner. or a vehicle owner for that matter, for what happens to other parties if the gun or vehicle is used in a crime.

“Firearm insurance” since it does not and can not exist as you want- is just a way to ban guns.

He said it was in a safe, that is just the opposite of “unsecured”.