So now you want registration and strict liability (that we don’t see in any other arena).
The proposals for strict liability for gun owners is so ridiculous that I can only assume that it is born of a disdain for anyone that owns a gun.
Registration does not require the cooperation of criminals to be effective. It merely requires a generation or two.
Registration will significantly reduce the primary source of guns entering criminal hands. People selling guns to criminals. It wont’ turn off the flow of guns into criminal hands but it will restrict the flow enough without restricting guns in law abiding hands.
Over many years the stock of guns in criminal hands will be significantly reduced, the price of guns will be significantly higher and hopefully with fewer guns in the wrong hands we have less gun violence.
Think of it as a large and increasing tax on criminals that want guns.
Your proposals seem draconian (unless I am misunderstanding your proposal) for someone who loses a gun or has one stolen from them. If I report my gun stolen then i am off the hook right?
But if I don’t then I am complicit in the fucking murder committed with my gun?
I agree with any law that you want to pass that makes it illegal to shoot you without justification.
We already have liability laws in place that throws a shitstorm on your head if you are negligent with your gun and some kid shoots himself or someone else. What else do you have in mind?
And why don’t commonly proposed licensing and registration regimes solve that problem for you?
Sure, there is nothing unconstitutional about gun registration unless it is a subterfuge for something else. Heller pretty much said so. Its the rest of your proposal that goes too far.
Do I really have to explain the advantage to law enforcement, if a firearm is used to commit a crime, of the ability be able to quickly trace the serial number efficiently, and track down the owner?
What we really need is a national database of firearms and their owners. Instant trace of the firearm. Instant qualification of the owner or would be owner. And instantly identify if you’re in possession of an unlicensed or improperly licensed firearm. Yep, the tradeoff is more restrictions on legal owners than there exists now. IMHO, it’s definitely worth the trade off to society. You’ll probably disagree.
And why should you be? In what other scenario are you held liable for the criminal acts of another?
You are making a special pleading that guns are especially dangerous so we need to create a special form of liability that does not exist for anything else. I guess you can make that argument but it is a radical idea and you treat is like “common sense reasonable gun laws”
Nothing common sense or reasonable about it.
You would be assuming wrong. Can we try to debate instead of you putting words in my mouth please?
The cost to society of the US gun situation is far far far higher than any other developed nation. I want firearm owners to shoulder a more equitable portion of that cost. Gun insurance is akin to car insurance…
I also want to reserve the right to buy a gun if I want. And I don’t care where you fall in the gun debate, its hella lot of fun to go blow off some rounds. And the statute of limitations has expired, but I’ll admit is a hella hella lot of fun to slam some beers while blowing off rounds.
As a self proclaimed gun guy, he isn’t going to have these problems and he is not trying to ban guns assault weapons or otherwise.
Then we have to agree to disagree. To me it is imminently sensible. You have your firearm, no one tells you how to secure it, actuarials will determine what the insurance premium should be, and you are the responsible owner until the ownership is officially registered as changing hands. It’s a common sense model. I get that a lot of firearm owners would see that infringing on the lax rules, regulations, laws and enforcement in place today, and cost you insurance premiums.
Except there are myriad laws that place exactly this responsibility -
Buy alcohol knowing it is for minors? Illegal
Allow an unlicensed / uninsured person to drive your car? Illegal (at least here)
Why should guns be so different? Why should straw purchases be allowed? Why shouldn’t a gun owner be responsible for at least some basic level of making sure his gun is sold to someone that is allowed to have it?
Maybe this will help you understand where I’m coming from. I grew up in bumfuck farm country where guns are a way of life and some kids had their own shotgun or .22 by high school if not earlier. Eddie the Eagle wasn’t around back then, but most folks took firearm safe shooting classes, and it was universally drilled into everyone to “secure your firearm, don’t ever shoot anything you don’t know what’s behind it, treat every gun as if it is loaded.” There may have been more but those 3 have stuck with me in the many decades since.
I live in a socio economic area where crime is very low. I might want a firearm if my living situation were different. That said, you come into my house with bad intent towards me or mine, I think I’ve got decent odds of gutting you like a deer with a knife.
I also have 3 kids. One child is on the autism spectrum and has virtually zero understanding of danger. The only way I can guarantee that there is never ever a gun accident in my home is to absolutely never have a firearm in my home. (And this extends in my house to household chemicals, exposed electric plugs, windows that cannot open on the second floor, etc).
I don’t really care how you secure your own household as long as there is no child abuse, no danger to neighbors, there isn’t a meth lab going, etc. The way I view firearms and the way you view firearms is different, and I don’t have an issue with that. Most gun owners are safety conscious and responsible. But enough are not that it’s a problem. And I think the gun owner should bear full responsibility if their judgement turns out to be wrong and the firearm is not secure.
Hard to say, since that isn’t what I wrote. “Point blank”? Try copy-and-paste.
I’m told by my cousin in Maryland that full-auto weapons are not available in gun shops. Maybe it’s different in your state?
43 states allow the sales of full auto guns. 2 people have been killed by legally owned by full auto guns in the last 50+ years. It is difficult to take serious anyone with gun control ideas who doesn’t even know some of the basics. Here is an unasked for primer:
An assault rifle has a very specific definition. It is a medium caliber rifle, with the ability to fire in semi auto, burst, or full auto, sometimes all three. These are highly regulated and new rifles have not been sold to civilians since 1986.
“Assault weapon” is a made up term that usually means something different to whomever is using the term. Typically, it is a semi auto rifle that accepts detachable magazines. Little bits like pistol grips, color, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, stocks, etc. add to clarify one’s definition, but most realize that they are all cosmetic differences only. Do you really think that a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle is any deadlier than a Ruger Mini 14 GB? Because one is an “assault weapon” and the other is not by the common definition as supplied by any number of gun control groups. Neither were designed for military use by the way.
As I mentioned earlier ALL rifles used in homicides account to 300-400 deaths on average annually. That would include the subset that most would consider assault weapons.
You lose your gun or it’s stolen, and you report it, *then *you’re off the hook. Nit pick away all you want as how it should be within 48 hours or whatever conditions. Just something reasonable. That said, if you lose a gun a week for a year, then maybe Johnny Law will want to talk with you and build a case that you’re actually a straw buyer.
Yes, I agree that if you don’t report your firearm MIA and it’s used to commit a fucking murder or any other felony, then yes actually you have responsibility and should pay a price.
For fucks sake, it is not much different than if you give the neighbor kid a case of beer, your car keys, he doesn’t have a license nor is insured to drive your car, and say “be responsible and have a good time with your buddies” and something bad happens. Again, I’m not telling you how to secure your firearm so it’s safe from being stolen - that’s on you to do. And frankly if you happen to be the kinda guy who is so lax you don’t even notice your piece is missing for weeks on end, well maybe you shouldn’t own a firearm.
Here’s how I think of it. I weigh the likelihood of the bad events happening should one side prevail, vs. the likelihood of the bad events happening should the other side prevail.
The chances of gun restrictions growing, of gun rights being curtailed is real and there is a dedicated effort to see that happen. The chance of abortion being banned I find very remote. The other things … not all of them would be bad.
I voted for Jerry Brown in CA over Meg Whitman because Brown was better for guns. Harry Reid was better than the crazy person he was running against because he was better for guns. If the Democrats ran a legit pro-gun candidate, they would likely get my vote. I vote first for guns - everything else is secondary.
I would prefer the NRA stick to guns and ignore all the taxation and ACA bullshit but they are the biggest game in town.
An accurate term would be sufficient. Gun or firearm work. It has often been a strategy of gun control to confuse people to try and increase their support. From Josh Sugarman:
This is one of the reasons why gun rights advocates insist on correct terminology. Not only does using incorrect terms seem willfully adding to confusion, but it betrays ignorance as well. No one who erroneously uses easily understandable terminology will ever be taken seriously.
Does the fact that there is no effort to push the ideas you propose make you want to reconsider your self evaluation of common sense?
Straw purchases are illegal - FYI.
No laws exist that make a person liable if someone steals their alcohol and then causes injury. No law makes a person liable if an unlicensed or uninsured person steals their car and then causes injury. These examples are not on point.
I got my definition by googling it, with hits from Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia, in case you suspect I pulled the definition out of my ass or something.
There have been 353 mass shootings in the US so far this year, so we’re obviously pulling data from different sources. In just mass shootings (ignoring single-victim shootings or suicides for the moment), 457 people were killed so far this year, 1,317 were wounded, for a total of 1,774 shot.
Nope. I thought I was all clever and stuff, but the mandatory gun insurancehas some traction. I haven’t seen any common sense logic or well thought out arguments in this thread that would cause me to change my mind
If owning guns is ultimately stupid and harmful for society, what do you do in a democracy if a voting supermajority of people want them nonetheless?