Common sense reasonable gun laws

You don’t think the fact that by far the largest perpetrators of firearm crime would not acquire gun insurance to be a weakness in this proposal? Here’s a protip: no one who you wish to persuade takes the phrase “common sense” seriously. What you suggest is the opposite of common sense. You suggest something that will burden everyone but the people who should be burdened, and call that common sense. A proposal with limited efficacy, and a high cost. Something that has not been proposed outside of the gun control strongholds in certain counties, and only discussed at limited state levels and call that traction. Add to that the fact that insurance generally covers accidents, not intentional acts or illegal activity - and accidents make up a tiny fraction of gun related deaths.

You allow them, or you get voted out of office (unless you successfully change the minds of the voters) and the next guy votes to allow them.

Yeah… well your definition looks like you made it up after watching a couple of movies. You should stick with what the 1994 AW Ban defined as an assault weapon if you insist on using the term, because yours is ridiculous. If you can cite any definition of an assault weapon that includes being converted from full auto to semi auto at the point of civilian sales (I believe that’s what you said…) I’d appreciate it. That is against federal law by the way.

I’m looking at the FBI data for ALL homicides by firearm, not just “mass shootings”. The data is through 2013. Please note the number of times rifles were used then compare it to the number of deaths associated with handguns, and tell me why banning any sort of rifle, let alone the subset that you consider “assault weapons” would make a difference whatsoever? You’ll also note that more people are killed with knives, blunt objects, etc by 4-5 times than rifles.

I know AWs look scary, but if you really want to look like a good pro gun-control type, you should at least know your numbers. Handguns are used far and away more than any other firearm combined for firearms deaths annually.

I’ll add this. You used the term military grade assault rifle earlier, you described however what most call an assault weapon. The former is a highly regulated firearm and all new sales have been banned to civilians since 1986. They are essentially never used in crimes.

If you really want to ban the sales of “military grade assault rifles” have at it. Of the 400,000,000 million firearms in the US, there are around 250,000 of them that are available for sale. If you want to ban semi auto rifles with telescoping stocks or pistol grips or flash hiders or bayonet lugs and detachable magazines, even though all of those things are cosmetic and don’t affect the functionality of the gun itself, use the proper terminology to avoid confusion.

Sure it’s a weakness in this proposal. But need to start somewhere. The amount of pushback on insurance by legal gun owners is but a tiny blip compared with the pushback on requiring universal registration and responsibility until ownership has been legally transferred.

I get that you think self-policing by gun owners is sufficient. I disagree.

One American way is to tax and regulate them. :smiley:

It is somewhat akin to smokers. If you want to smoke and accept the associated health risks, well have at it. I don’t want to be exposed to your second hand smoke in public places, and I’d certainly prefer if smokers paid more of their health related costs so my health insurance would go down.

Here’s an interesting write up that firearm related deaths now exceed automobile related deathsin the US for the first time in more than 60 years.

Why and how would it do that? You understand that now, a new buyer fills a FFL form, right? Then the FBI can track a gun from Manufacturer to dealer to buyer, right? Does that stop buyers from re-selling now? Ever hear of shell corporations, nominees, and so forth?

I was a Fed for twenty years myself- altho there remains certainly the chance of some really stupid criminals, registration really has no current law Enforcement purposes.

Current gun owners look upon it simply as a gateway to mass confiscation. Altho I find that doubtful, it’s not crazy.

How many criminals do you think drop the gun at the scene of the crime?

And, we can do that now. You run the serial #, Manufacturer, etc. They tell you which FFL dealer bought it. That FFL dealer can tell you who bought the gun from them.

It’s of very little use to law enforcement.

Mainly as when you do track down the owners, the gun turns up resold, lost or stolen almost every time. You proposal wouldnt change that.

I thought that was pretty much what was happening; but allegedly it’s all the fault of the NRA, not the voters.

Is that because gun deaths are going up (I keep hearing the opposite) or that automobile deaths have gone down?

If you’re talking about the overwhelming support for gun rights – at a basic level, it’s the “fault” of the founding fathers. They did include the Second Amendment, after all, and the US has had a gun culture since the beginning. If you’re talking about the incredible resistance to any form of gun control or restrictions, like extending background checks to all purchases, then I think the NRA deserves some of the “blame” for that (if you think it’s a bad thing).

I don’t believe the 2nd amendment and a commitment to private gun ownership is a bad thing, but I do believe that knee-jerk resistance to any form of gun control is a bad thing, and knee-jerk dismissal that some forms of gun control might be able to have some positive impact (even a small positive impact) on crime is a bad thing (for example – if it was illegal to manufacture and sell magazines larger than 10 rounds, then eventually there wouldn’t be many larger-than-10 round magazines any more, and killers who wanted to commit mass shootings might be slightly less effective in killing lots of people).

In my view, it’s reasonable to support private ownership of guns, and it’s reasonable to have some restrictions on private ownership, including things like background checks and restrictions on magazine size or other physical characteristics of certain firearms (to a point).

From your own cite:

*Over the same period gun deaths rose, but by a considerably smaller amount. Gun homicide rates have actually fallen in recent years, but those gains have been offset by rising gun suicide rates. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.
*

Gun homicide rates have actually fallen.

The convergence of the trend lines above is driven primarily by a sharp drop in the rate of motor vehicle fatalities since 1950…Over the same period gun deaths rose, but by a considerably smaller amount. Gun homicide rates have actually fallen in recent years, but those gains have been offset by rising gun suicide rates. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.

Large decline in car deaths, significant increase in suicides.

I’ll add that while I support these policies, I think they would have only have a minor impact on crime in the US. As long as there are lots of guns in the US (and no commonly proposed regulations would do anything to affect this, and I doubt anything that could affect the amount of guns in the US would be constitutional), and as long as there are lots of people in relatively desperate circumstances, there will be lots of gun crime. When guns are ubiquitous, they will be easy for people to get if they really want one, no matter what the law says.

[quote=“Horatio_Hellpop, post:162, topic:740275”]

I have competed in IPSC handgun matches at various points in my past.

An AR pattern semi auto .223 is a pretty solid all around gun for hunting. there are tons of accessories for it and gunsmiths know it well. There are other non AR pattern .223 semi autos but nobody seems to care about them even though functionally they are the same gun.

No

Gun violence overall is still falling

Possible, yes, reasonable, not really. I dont know of any reason for civilians to own dedicated anti armor weapons like RPG’s or fragmentation grenades.

hhmmm Comparing firearms-related deaths with vehicle-related deaths?
Deaths from vehicle crashes and the like have been reduced significantly by simply increasing the ability of the cabs to keep the critters inside them safe. I cannot see how the same concept can be reasonably applied to firearms.

I like the insurance idea, but that still does nothing to curb the criminal element usage.

Anyways, here in Canada we had a pretty good set of firearms regulations but I think over the years, enforcement got slack. The we had an incident where a college student killed some 14 other students. The government at the time went all reactionary and implemented laws that criminalized hard-working, honest people and did nothing to discourage illegal usage of firearms (and cost us taxpayers some $2 billion to do it). In fact, after this long-gun registration and licensing and whatnot was implemented, firearms violence increased. Not only that, but the hard-working, honest critters were pissed about being criminalized so they registered everything and anything they possessed that was even similar to firearms: things such as water guns, hair dryers, paint strippers, screw guns, etc. along with only partial registration of the firearms that fire bullets.
In the meantime, I think firearms violence had been on the downswing. It has since continued on a downward path here in Canada.
We used to have to have separate license for possession and acquisition, but those were combined into 1 license in Sept this year. We also need a permit for transportation purposes but that simply allows for transporting for a specified purpose (such as going from home to gun range) and does not allow for carrying a firearm for general purposes like the USA “carry permits”. And we still have to have hunting licenses, game tags, etc.
Laws requiring registration changed so now we do not have to register unrestricted firearms but it is moot as we still have to have licenses.
The Canadian government estimates that there are between approx. 2.5 million and approx. 15 million firearms in Canada and about 2 million are licensed. Most people outside government estimate far more.
I think laws help a little bit against violence, but keeping proliferation in control would help more in the States, l think. The biggest factor that would help , I think, is changing attitude, as I mentioned earlier. A lot of Canadians seem to think that Americans have the attitude that they are still living in the old west.
Whether it is the Canadian attitude that having firearms is a privilege more than a right or not, I have no idea, but as a farmer, hubby and I view firearms as tools no different than a gate in a fence, a screwdriver, our dozer or excavator, etc. and we can either use them for the purpose we bought them for (hunting and target-shooting) or we can abuse them for other purposes.

Anyways, here is the RCMP’s page on our firearms program: Firearms | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Oh, yeah, I also think that proper screening by authorities as to who may possess firearms makes a big difference, as well.

In what way does this deal with mass shootings, or criminal use of a firearm? This is attacking the smallest weakest gun problem with a massive pile of legislation. I am pretty sure no insurance company on the planet is going to cover me, and will specifically exclude coverage, if I go all rambo at the mall.

If you want a “common sense” approach to something like this I would say something like a $50 tax levied on any gun purchase that (as a matter of said law) only goes to a fund to which survivors of random gun violence could apply to help with medical bills. I don’t like it but it has a far more reasonable cost benefit situation.

Sorry – that was copy/paste with Tapatalk, and evidently a weird spell check spasm.

But my question remains: Can you give me an example of an assault rifle meeting your definition that is sold to civilians?

I like that idea better than insurance. (Most insurance, IMO, is simply a way to suck people’s money from them without having to supply anything).