Common sense reasonable gun laws

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

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. And we already have laws for that. Laws that send you to federal prison for ten years, if we can ever get around to enforcing them.

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.

I think there is a HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE between GIVING my neighbor’s kid a case of beer and my car keys and having a gun stolen from me. I don’t see how you can’t distinguish between the two but this may be the source of our disagreement. You think having my guns stolen from me is like me giving my gun to a criminal that uses the gun to kill someone.

So now reporting the gun stolen absolves me of anything that happens with the gun as long as I report the gun as stolen within say a week of realizing it was missing (certainly you can’t hold me liable for a gun I didn’t even realize was missing, or am I supposed to do a gun check week? Is that something that the gun people you grew up around used to do?). Then why not just pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor not to report the theft of a gun?

Everything you are suggesting requires high tracability that cannot be achieved without 100% gun registration. I would suggest that registration in and of itself can achieve 90% of what you think you will achieve with your rule without all the ridiculousness (no one would ever take your idea seriously because it is so ridiculous).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Horatio_Hellpop

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.

Most of those mass shootings are not being committed with rifles.

In fact more of those mass shootings are not Sandy hook style rampages but gangland style drive by shootings.

So its not a matter of a difference in sources, its a matter of you being confused because you are being lied to by people on your side. “Assault weapons” is a manufactured term like “death taxes”. It is a way for proponents of an agenda to lie to their supporters by using unattractive words to get their support on something they wouldn’t really support nearly as much if they knew the truth.

An assault weapon is a rifle with largely cosmetic and ergonomic differences. But you probably think they are somehow more dangerous than hunting rifles. Hunting rifles are frequently more powerful than an AR-15, the only advantage that I think most AR-15s have over hunting rifles is that hunters generally don’t have very large magazines (22lr rifles do but you can usually get a lot of prairie dogs in one place, not so with deer or elk).

[DrDeth]

@Horatio_Hellpop

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.

No, there hasn’t. I think there have been five.

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

Thirty-six of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

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

There are all sorts of stupid ideas that get proposed as law and go nowhere.

Mandatory gun insurance is among those ideas.

Add the fact that none of the proposed ideas follow your model of attaching liability after a transfer has occurred and there is no one pushing your idea.

From the Christian Science monitor article

Next big thing in gun control? 7 questions about mandatory gun insurance.

Even the most optimistic supporters think that:

“As a lone measure, requiring insurance would not be enough to screen out the people we’re most worried about,” says Professor Frank. “But in combination with numerous other measures that have been proposed, it would be a step in the right direction.”

A step in the right direction

These are the words that get thrown in my face when I try to talk gun rights advocates away from fears of slippery slopes.

Take the additional concerns of the insurance industry into account:

"The insurance industry also appears to be wary of such measures as currently proposed in some states. That’s because insurance generally covers accidents, not intentional or illegal acts, says Mr. Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute. For example, insurance covers homeowners if their house burns down in an electrical fire, but not if homeowners deliberately set fire to their homes.

As proposed, legislation currently under consideration in state legislatures makes “no distinction between acts that were accidental or unintentional versus those that are intentional and illegal,” he says. “That is a major distinction in the world of insurance. Insurers do not insure illegal acts. We cannot insure acts of murder, acts of intentional violence.”

“And if legislation was rewritten to cover only accidents or unintentional injuries or deaths, the efficacy of the bill would be questionable, he suggests.”

"Were such a bill to pass, it would likely face legal challenges over the constitutionality of forcing people to buy insurance to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

What’s more, Hartwig says it is unlikely insurers would offer such coverage.

“There is no guarantee that such a product would emerge were legislation passed as written,” he says. “You can mandate coverage but you cannot mandate insurers to offer such coverage.”

And the inescapable conclusion is that your idea is just ridiculous.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

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.

How do you enforce insurance without registration? How do you know I am insuring all my guns if you don’t even know I own them?

This insurance scheme has historically been a stalking horse for gun registration. You can implement mandatory insurance without universal registration.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

One American way is to tax and regulate them.

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.

If you are taxing at levels high enough to reduce ownership then you are probably talking about an unconstitutional tax.

Smokers DO pay higher health insurance premiums.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DrDeth

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?

It creates a chain of title. When the retail purchaser sells the gun, registration laws would require the gun to be registered in the name of the new owner. This would prevent private citizens from selling or otherwise transferring guns to criminals.

I don’t understand the confusion.

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.

When you say Fed, what do you mean?

Registration has no law enforcement purpose when implemented at the state level. When implemented at the national level there is much more effect because guns have a lot more trouble leaking over the border than across state lines. NYC criminals don’t get their guns from NYC gun dealers or NYC straw purchasers. They also don’t get their guns from Mexican or Canadian smugglers. They get their guns from straw purchasers from places like Virginia.

Registration would stop that.

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

We have had a gun registry for over 80 years (for machine guns) and at the peak of gun control hysteria in the 1990’s we never once considered using the registry to confiscate guns.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

I would say that $50 would be something. I would say it should be an annual registration fee instead of a one time point of purchase. And if the annual fee doesn’t fund the survivers fund, then it should increase until it does. It is better than the nothing in place now and if it proves adequate then great.

However, IMHO it probably wouldn’t cover the full costs, and would view it merely a token attempt at showing full responsibility for your firearm until proven otherwise. I prefer insurance just like you have to have with a motor vehicle, but would support a $50 annual licensing fee tied to the survivors fund.

Wait. So now I am not only paying fro the damage caused by my guns, I am paying for the damage caused by other people’s guns? ridiculouser and ridiculouser.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Horatio_Hellpop

In Post 195, one of your fellow travelers made fun of me for thinking automatic weapons were illegal and here you’re making fun of me for thinking they aren’t. Forgive me for wondering why you guys don’t get your stories straight.

I think you may be getting confused by the terminology.

Assault rifle: automatic weapons. These guns are heavily regulated and the government collects a $200 tax every time one is transferred (the supply of civilian automatic weapons is limited to the ones that were registered as of 1986)

Assault weapon: a rifle with some ergonomic or cosmetic features or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The term was created by the 1990s assault weapons ban. Before then people did not use the term assault weapon to differentiate between rifles with bayonet lugs and rifles without bayonet lugs.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

Separate the issues. yep the BMI, drug use, alcohol use. These are different from firearms in that they are self destructive with an associated non trivial societal cost. That said, I don’t equate self destructive behavior with firearm violence, do you?

You realize that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides right?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Horatio_Hellpop

According to Yahoo Answers, yes with a permit, no not under any circumstances, and maybe in some states. I walked right by a gun shop today in Poulsbo and didn’t think to go in and ask.

I see news reports of a shaky, mentally unhinged teenager with a duffle bag full of legally-obtained automatic weapons and think “Fuck, this ought to be illegal.” Mock me at will.

Are you sure you are not confusing automat6ic with semi-automatic? There is a huge difference, you know.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

Self harm versus firearm death by murder or accident. I’m consistent as well. Depends how you define it. This isn’t about gotcha’s. Firearms in the commission of crimes and accidents are a real issue. I want to solve for that issue and have provided a common sense solution.

I agree that the use of guns in crimes is a problem but nothing you proposed is common sense or a solution.

If you consider everything a slippery slope, that there are no substantive changes that you would consider, and that world peace needs to be solved before tackling the firearm issue in the US, then there isn’t a lot to debate now is there? To repeat ad nausem, I am not trying to prevent the legal ownership of firearms nor am I mandating how to secure said firearm(s), but IMHO even legal owners don’t carry their share of responsibility and that should be changed.

No, you are just proposing that gun owners be subject to a unique form of liability especially for gun owners.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

This slippery slope is such a one trick pony and IMHO crack smoking hyperbole. Most folks want limitations on buying and selling guns that are far more effective than the BS in place now. There are some extremists, like with anything, that want to severely curtail private ownership of firearms. There are probably a handful that want a 100% ban on firearms (but I haven’t personally met one of these).

So, can’t even consider any kind of “common sense” limitation on any kind of firearm because, ya know, a month later all firearms will be confiscated, and a month after that China and Russia will divide the US in half and we’ll all be slaves.

There are times when the slippery slope argument is not valid and there are times when it is. I believe that the slippery slope is an invalid argument for licensing and registration. I do not believe you should stand in the way of a good idea be3cause you fear that it will be paving the way for a bad idea.

The slippery slope argument is entirely valid for assault weapons bans. The only purpose of an assault weapons ban is to get the ball rolling on banning other types of weapons. The efficacy of an assault weapons ban is imperceptible.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

End state is a “reasonable” level of crimes and deaths from firearms. No one can tell you now if plan A will work and that’s all that is required. Plan A gets implemented and maybe that leads to the need for Plan B. That ain’t a slippery slope, that’s common sense. IMHO it’s asinine to demand one tiny incremental solution that will fix the firearms issue once and for all, and if you can’t guarantee that will happen then it isn’t worth even attempting to try.

Sure, there is a tiny percentage of folks that want zero private firearm ownership. I’m not one of them. Just like there is a tiny percentage of folks that think having completely unrestricted private gun ownership without limitation is the right way to go. The vast majority of the middle ground are not going after zero private firearm ownership or anything close to it.

Methinks it’s raging firearm fetish paranoia that believes any firearm control is a gun grabber play for zero firearm ownership. Just 'cause there are extremists that are really vocal about it and want zero firearm ownership doesn’t mean that is what the majority or even a credible minority of Americans want. Correlation does not prove causation. Again, IMHO its raging paranoia.

It ain’t no different from “need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun” and arm school teachers and make everywhere in the US of A a free fire zone gun nuts. Extremists on both sides are, well, extremists by definition. So howsabout we don’t trot out that meme? Of I can just exit stage left if there is nothing to debate since everything is a slippery slope.

And I look at the pushback in this thread on anything that might make guns owners accountable. What would you propose to make responsible gun owners actually accountable beyond good intentions?

You realize we have laws in place both criminal and civil that make gun owners accountable for things that happen with their guns, right? What these laws don’t do is assign liability for the criminal acts of another. We have never assigned liability for the criminal acts of another unless there is gross negligence or collusion by the owner.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

My side? That’s paranoia talking and it’s infuriating. I’m not on a “side”, I just happen to think that the current situation is fucked up, want to work on unfucking it, and run into

I grew up with “you are responsible for securing your piece.” You disagree and think that your best effort is good enough and you don’t have responsibility if your best effort isn’t good enough. That’s accountability. Let me give a simple example. Dick Cheney nailed some guy with shotgun pellets, but that was okay for whatever reason instead of castigating Dick for not knowing what he was shooting at.

Your proposal makes clear that you are on a “side”

BTW, what part of the country are you from? I have never heard to anyone but pretentious cops refer to a gun as their piece but perhaps it is common terminology in some part of the country.

Cheney was civilly liable but his lawyer decided not to sue the vice president and dark sith lord of the United States.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bone

Why should gun owners be accountable for crimes of other people not themselves? Gun owners are not some monolithic group that has collective guilt when there is a tragedy. If a person commits a crime or injures another - they should be held accountable and no one else. You are trying to push this bizarre notion of responsibility and culpability that is simply nonsense.

Because some gun control advocates cannot distinguish between gun owners like you and me and criminals. I.e. we are all just one bad day away from being Adam Lanza.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

Yep, it would add considerable cost to owning a firearm. I would say it actually starts coming closer to the societal cost of firearm ownership. As of now, society pays the price of a San Bernadino. Yep, Strict interpretation of “shall not be infringed” infringes. You all know that “shall not be infringed” is not absolute and I don’t want to get in that rathole.

Registry won’t prevent crimes per say. But the battle lines are clear if your legal or not. Over time, the illegal gun owners will decline with enforcement.

If you look at my wild ass thought on insurance. I don’t give a shit how you safely store your firearm in your home. Thing is, if in reality something bad happens and it’s not safely stored, well you have insurance to cover that and in my perfect world you might actually be criminally or civilly liable. Again, to make sure it’s clear, as soon as you report your weapon stolen, then it’s not longer your liability. But if your firearm is safely stored and a kid shoots his toddler brother, by definition your firearm was not safely stored. Ditto if your firearm was on the back porch, and someone stole it, then it wasn’t safely stored. Does Uncle Sugar need to define the kind of gun safe you need to the “safely” stored? It’s a no win definition that won’t satisfy all players. Rather than dictate how to safely store your firearm, let you decide and you also have responsibility if your decision falls short.

Christ, we rathole over the number of bullets in a clip that is “reasonable” versus “unreasonable”. Rathole over some thing that looks like a military grade m16 but is a Rambo fantasy look alike. Difference between a sawed off or not, or if the sportsman plug is removed. Let insurance carriers based on actuarials actually determine how much insurance you should pay based on real world data. That, my friend, is a total free market capitalistic American solution. You want a sawed off concealed carry sportsman plug removed shotgun for concealed carry, well as long as you pay your insurance and meet the local requirements for concealed carry then knock yourself out.

No one can guarantee a slippery slope. However, I suggest the free market insurance system is at least a workable solution. YMMV

Its not. Every article says its not. Insurance industry representatives say they won’t cover liability from criminal acts. And yet you think this is a good idea.

The notion of making gun owners generally pay for all gun crime is ridiculous and IIRC, that is exactly what you are proposing.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

It may come as a surprise to certain firearm owners that there are some folks like myself that spent more than a few years learning martial arts, and have a razor sharp piece of steel on or near my person 24/7. You come into my home uninvited, go after me or my family with the intent to do harm, and I’ll go for your eye or to gut you like a deer. Thank you mister firearm owner but I support the thin blue line as much as you do. And I’ll thank you to consider changing your black and white view.

It takes about a week of practice to become passably decent with a rifle. Maybe twice that with a pistol. Not everyone is going to dedicate googobs of time to martial arts so that they can defend themselves with a sword instead of a spend a few weekends to learn how to use a gun.

And if someone steals your razor sharp piece of steel and kills someone with it, should you have to pay for that? Should you have to get sword insurance that pools your risk with other sword owners and should your insurance fund pay out for damage caused by criminals with swords on the other side of the country?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@ChickenLegs

Looks like we got a badass here.

Sorry, I’m not so badass as you. I prefer something to even up the odds in the event of violent attack. That being said, a granny with a revolver trumps your martial arts and points things, and you’re a fool if you think it doesn’t. Are you suggesting that martial arts and sharp objects are superior forms of self defense than firearms?

The history of Asia (and the world) would be very different if martial arts and pointy weapons trumped guns.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

What about insurance for anything that happens while the firearm is registered to you? That’s no different than private automobile insurance, is it?

Yes, but the pool of uninsured motorist that you cover with your premiums does not represent over 50% of the claims paid out from your premiums.

If you simply want to mandate liability insurance of the type that you get with your NRA membership then the argument boils down to the fact that it is probably unconstitutional and not necessarily ridiculous. Its the assignment of liability for the criminal acts of others that makes your idea ridiculous.