# Existence and enforcement of penalties for illegal gun ownership/use? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907 "2013-01-31T13:06:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2013, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907/61 "2013-02-04T07:36:54Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Sure, you can look at it that way. Honestly, I have no problem with that. > > That’s what many types of insurance do. Why do you think your car insurance costs what it does? It’s partly because people steal cars. They also commit insurance fraud, and drive w/o proper coverage and documentation. That is built into the cost of your coverage. The fact is we, law-abiding citizens, already pay for the criminal acts of others. My car insurance doesn’t pay for the acts of a drunk driver, certainly not all of it. If you want me to carry insurance that will reimburse me when someone steals my guns, thats one thing. If you want to impose a tax that would make gun owners pay for crimes involving guns then I think you probably have a constitutional problem. > [@](#): > > Who do you think is indirectly and directly footing the bills for shooting victims like Gabby Giffords and the Sandy Hook victims? WE are already paying for the damage criminals do, yet WE are not seeing tangible benefits from affording others the ability to own guns and buy guns with very little oversight. Your umbrage at having to foot the bill for criminals is misplaced. If you don’t want to pay for the irresponsible and illegal acts of others, then move to an island. As long as you choose to be part of society, you tacitly agree to foot the bill. It’s only when we make the direct participants bear the costs of those externalities that we stop paying for it. And THIS is the problem, you are effectively blaming gunowners for gun violence and footing them with the bill. > [@](#): > > the only logical objection would be is if you don’t see legal gun ownership as sufficiently related to, or a necessary condition to the existence of the black market of guns, or the use of legally owned firearms used in criminal acts. I suppose you could make that case, but the evidence is pretty clear that the latter things could not really function without the former. Criminals would have access to guns for decades after a gun ban went into effect and every law abiding citizen turned in their firearm. The trick is to staunch the flow of guns from the legal market to the illegal market. > [@](#): > > When did I contend a judge would protect you when someone breaks into you house? Don’t be dense just to be dense. The point was that the legal system as a whole provides protection for people. No it doesn’t. Explain to me how the legal system protects me from burglars? How it protects me from rioters and looters. > [@](#): > > There is pretty much zero chance that any substantive gun law will ever be passed in this country. Not only because of the constitutional issues at play, but also because a significant minority of our citizens simply value their right to own a gun more than they do the safety of their fellow man. So 40-45% of Americans exercise their constitutional rights and your argument is basically to say, they don’t care about their fellow citizens? Really? You think that is a convincing argument or even a useful perspective to take? > [@](#): > > They are not affected by the thousands of handgun deaths/crimes that happen everyday in our city. And a gun ban wouldn’t stop that. It didn’t in any of the cities that effectively have gun bans for the last several decades. > [@](#): > > They don’t care that our laws facilitate the Mexican drug war (right over our border) that has killed more than 60k people. They don’t even care when some asshole shoots up a school full of kids. I have no illusions that any of the measures I have suggested have any chance of passing. The only reason I mentioned them is to point out that this is not a problem without a solution. And your solution is insurance? Basically price everyone out of gun ownership? > [@](#): > > It’s not even a delicate complex matter with two legitimate competing interests like climate change. It’s a patently simple problem to “solve” so long as people were willing to sacrifice a bit for the greater good. And that generally applies to both sides of the issue, but far more to the NRA crowd. I don’t think your solutions are unpassable, I think they don’t work. > [@](#): > > Even if I believed those numbers, you are not comparing apples to apples. Those numbers include things like some guy flashing his gun to scare someone away, and situations where the deterrent effect guns is perceived to have come into play. If you are going to consider all the positive outcomes (eg. defensive uses of a gun), you can’t compare it to the negative outcomes to _gun use_ (eg. criminal homicides, etc.). You need to compare it to all the “offensive” uses of a gun. You need to consider all the times some drug dealer is able to continue selling drugs and shaking people down because others know he has a gun. You need to consider all the times people don’t stand up for victims of crime and intimidation because they avoid getting involved because they fear the offender might have a gun. You need to consider all the bank robberies that are facilitated by the assumption that the perpetrator might actually have a gun. You need to consider all the times some violent dude is able to keep his ex up at night because she knows he has an arsenal at home. You can’t just claim guns are great because they can intimidate a _criminal_ or prevent a criminal act without also considering that they also enable criminals to intimidate law-abiding folks, and commit criminal acts as well. You can’t have it both ways, and an apples to oranges comparison is not insightful or illuminating. Those criminals are going to have guns whether you tax my guns or take them away. How are any of the things you propose going to take away guns from criminals? It is entirely logical to compare the benefits of citizens having guns to the cost of citizens having guns. You want to compare the benefits of citizens having guns to the cost of criminals having guns. I proposed universal licensing and registration of guns that would reduce the flow of guns from lawful owners to criminals to whatever a criminal could steal from lawful owners (a fairly small percentage of guns used in crimes). You seem to be more focused on just getting rid of guns in society. Frankly you seem to be painting lawful gun owners with almost the same brush as the criminals. > [@](#): > > Why not? You can be jailed for not having car insurance in some cases. Really? Where? > [@](#): > > I am not suggesting some insurance agent goes arresting people whenever their insurance lapses. I am saying that if the police have occasion to be at your house, or if your uninsured gun shows up at a crime scene, you should be subject to jail time. Why? > [@](#): > > You want a cite for a hypothetical? Or are you asking for a cite that stricter penalties generally result in higher rates of compliance? If so, do you really need a cite for something so obvious. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but the people response to incentives and disincentives in a relatively predictable fashion. I suppose you’re one of those people who think that the death penalty is a great deterrent. that the mandatory drug sentencing laws have been a huge success. You are effectively criminalizing otherwise legal gun ownership. And I wasn’t asking whether jail time would be effective. I was asking why you thought jail time would be effective where a fine would not. I agree that at the margins it might be but you will be putting a lot of people in jail for a relatively mild additional deterrent effect. And now that I know about the sort of insurance you are talking about, I frankly object to your form of gun insurance entirely. It effectively blames legal gun owners for all gun crimes and has questionable benefits. > [@](#): > > Because a gun being stolen, and/or subsequently used in a crime s directly related to how secure the gun was. If you are insured, the insurance company determines risk based on how likely they are to pay out. If you want to keep you arsenal in an unlocked closet near the front door, then you will pay a higher rate commensurate with that risk. The point is that once you make people own the cost of their negligence, they are far less likely to be negligent. That means fewer stolen guns in the long term. You seem to be under the impression that stolen guns are a major source of guns used in gun crimes. Stolen guns are not the major source of guns used in crimes. Stolen guns account for 10-15% of all guns used in crimes and a lot of those “stolen” guns were probably given or sold to the criminal. > **[frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html)** > [@](#): > > It wouldn’t generally. It would, in some cases, prevent your teenage son from accidentally shooting his friend, or intentionally killing himself. A [study](http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/21/the-suicide-paradox-full-transcript/) showed that, “in 70 percent of cases, the time between deciding to commit suicide and taking action was under an hour. For about one-quarter of the people involved, the time gap was five minutes or less.” A trigger lock, even if it just slows down a suicidal person would save many lives, and it would lessen insurance payouts. They’re also unconstitutional. I don’t need a trigger lock in addition to my gun safe. > [@](#): > > No it wouldn’t. The reality is that criminals will not follow those laws. So if not being insured or registered results in just a slap on the wrist, you haven’t really solved the problem. Adding jail time wouldn’t make criminals follow YOUR laws either. And the beauty of MY approach. You don’t NEED criminals to follow the law, you only need law abiding citizens to do so. ALL guns start out in the hand s of those who can lawfully possess them and are transferred to criminals at some point. EVERY day we reduce the number of guns in criminal hands when we bust criminals and take their guns. But the flow of guns into criminal hands is limited only by how much money the criminal has. If you have registration and licensing, you severely restrict the flow of guns into criminal hands. Over time this reduces the number of guns in criminal hands. Even better, a national registry enjoys 40% support among gun owners universal background checks enjoy very widespread support among everyone including NRA members (I am assuming a shall issue license would also enjoy such support). ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907/62 "2013-02-05T02:51:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > My car insurance doesn’t pay for the acts of a drunk driver, certainly not all of it. Did I say it paid for all of it? You have this strange habit not actually reading what is said, then making widely inaccurate statements on the basis of your misunderstandings. The point was that WE do pay for the actions of criminals in many cases, and car insurance is just one of those cases. That is a fact. What percentage we pay for is not really at issue. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you want to impose a tax that would make gun owners pay for crimes involving guns then I think you probably have a constitutional problem. Not reading again I see. Was that not clear when I mentioned the fact that none of my proposals would pass not in part due to constitutional issues? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And THIS is the problem, you are effectively blaming gunowners for gun violence and footing them with the bill. Once again, you didn’t bother reading. I admitted this, and pointed out that this point is a reasonable disagreement one can have on the wisdom of holding gun owners accountable. If you disagree that they are, then we can agree to disagree. But stop going off on illogical tangents. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Criminals would have access to guns for decades after a gun ban went into effect and every law abiding citizen turned in their firearm. The trick is to staunch the flow of guns from the legal market to the illegal market. Where did I suggest people should be forced to turn in their guns? Your latter statement is the entire point of this debate. The only way you can stem that flow is to make the last legal owner of a firearm financially and legally liable for what happens to it. Yes, that will not do much about all the guns in criminal hands now, but it will give the police greater ability to lock these people up, and it will slowly make obtaining a gun more difficult and expensive. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No it doesn’t. Explain to me how the legal system protects me from burglars? How it protects me from rioters and looters. You cannot be this stupid. The legal system provides a structure for society to lock people away. How does it protect you fro a burglar? It provides a framework for locking him up before he gets a chance to burgle you. Fewer burglars on the street means you are safer. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So 40-45% of Americans exercise their constitutional rights and your argument is basically to say, they don’t care about their fellow citizens? Really? You think that is a convincing argument or even a useful perspective to take? First, your numbers are wrong. Thirty-two percent of [households](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/guns-in-america-statistics/60071/) have guns. Twenty-two percent report [owning](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/) a gun. The reason you get numbers like yours is when people try to juke the stats by including multiple people in one household as gun owners when they do not self-identify as such. That said, why are you assuming I think _all_ gun owners are callous and indifferent? I said a “significant minority”, not all gun owners. The people I am talking about are the very vocal and delusional gun nuts who profess their desire and willingness to die before their guns are taken away by a government that has never taken any steps towards doing so. These are the people who generally don’t care about the effects their choices have on others. It’s certainly a minority even amongst gun owners, but they are loud enough, influential enough, and crazy enough to make any reasonable gun restrictions impossible. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > /And a gun ban wouldn’t stop that. It didn’t in any of the cities that effectively have gun bans for the last several decades. First, I have not proposed a gun ban. Second, the reason why _city-wide_ gun bans don’t work as well as they could is because the guns come in for outside the city. What they do do is provide a pretense to arrest probably criminals based on a strict liability crime like gun possession. That benefit has had positive returns. But your implication that these laws don’t work because they are inherently untenable and unworkable is demonstrable false. Just look at the result when _countries_ ban guns. It’s pretty effective in most cases in preventing even criminals from having guns so long as the geographic area is large enough to make circumventing the law problematic. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And your solution is insurance? Basically price everyone out of gun ownership? Actually I had 5 proposals which would all need to work in concert. As far as pricing people out of owning guns, yes that would be a likely, and in my opinion, good outcome. If you cannot afford to own something that presents an inherent risk to others, then you shouldn’t own it. Nobody complains about how unfair it is to price people out of car ownership via car insurance, or restaurant ownership via accident insurance. Some things should be expensive because they come with significant risks and costs. The only reason why guns are relatively cheap is because the industry and individuals don’t actually bear the costs; they foist the on to everyone else. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Those criminals are going to have guns whether you tax my guns or take them away. How are any of the things you propose going to take away guns from criminals? First, you stem the flow of guns to criminals via price, liability and legal considerations borne by legal owners- the source of 99% of guns owned by criminals. Next, you heavily penalize unregistered gun ownership, giving police a pretense to arrest anyone (criminals) carrying a gun. Since you also close loopholes which allow unregulated private transfers of guns, criminals will have a dwindling supply of guns available to them at a low cost. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It is entirely logical to compare the benefits of citizens having guns to the cost of citizens having guns. It is. But the comparison you were making is not. As I explained, comparing the number of defense uses of guns, which includes many instances where a gun is not actually used or brandished, is not the apt counterpoint to _the number of gun uses_ that have negative outcomes. The proper analogue would include many of the things I mentioned, which are often ignored whenever anyone wants to point out how guns are largely harmless defensive weapons. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Frankly you seem to be painting lawful gun owners with almost the same brush as the criminals. No, I am asking them to be accountable, and to recognize that their exercise of their rights is what allows for criminality in a broad sense. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Really? Where? Many states do it for people who habitually drive without insurance. Minnesota is one. Additionally, many states allow for arrest on the spot, and significant fines, which if not paid will result in jail time. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why? First, it would not be a good use of police resources. Second, it would require government officials to make random home visits, which I have trouble with for a number of reasons. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And I wasn’t asking whether jail time would be effective. I was asking why you thought jail time would be effective where a fine would not. I agree that at the margins it might be but you will be putting a lot of people in jail for a relatively mild additional deterrent effect. First, because too many of the riskiest cases, in terms of people who carelessly own and operate guns, have resolved to not follow any laws. These are people who want to just make a point about thumbing their nose at government. A fine, would simply not be paid. Second, punishment for not spending money on insurance can’t just be financial. Let’s say you ride the bus to work everyday, and one day you are gonna stop paying. Does the bus driver issuing you a fine for $5 for not paying the $1 bus fare have any teeth if you are still allowed to ride the bus? Does a fine for not paying for something a sufficient deterrent in most cases? Of course not. Third, most people cannot afford to bear the costs of a gun crime for which they would be held liable. If you allow people to avoid spreading the risk via insurance, then you are in some respects hoping you can extract a significant sum from them in the event they are held liable. If your gun kills someone, the damages could easily be in the million dollar range. What recourse would you have against a recalcitrant gun owner who decided against getting insurance? You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. Ultimately, society would just have to eat the cost again. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It effectively blames legal gun owners for all gun crimes Yep, pretty much. I don’t think I have tried to hide that. Just as car insurance “blames” car owners for all automobile accidents and crimes. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You seem to be under the impression that stolen guns are a major source of guns used in gun crimes. Stolen guns are not the major source of guns used in crimes. You seem to be under the misimpression that I didn’t cite those same numbers long before you did. I have no illusions about how often guns are stolen. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Adding jail time wouldn’t make criminals follow YOUR laws either. Obviously. What it would do is put them in jail. If you make an insurance system, licensing, and registration processes affordable and transparent enough to make most reasonable people comply, then you will by definition exclude anyone who needs to remain under the radar. Providing a means for those people to be arrested is likely a net benefit as they are not responsible gun owners, and will in many cases be criminals. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And the beauty of MY approach. You don’t NEED criminals to follow the law, you only need law abiding citizens to do so. ALL guns start out in the hand s of those who can lawfully possess them and are transferred to criminals at some point. EVERY day we reduce the number of guns in criminal hands when we bust criminals and take their guns. But the flow of guns into criminal hands is limited only by how much money the criminal has. If you have registration and licensing, you severely restrict the flow of guns into criminal hands. Over time this reduces the number of guns in criminal hands. Even better, a national registry enjoys 40% support among gun owners universal background checks enjoy very widespread support among everyone including NRA members (I am assuming a shall issue license would also enjoy such support). Dude, do you read at all? YOUR approach is basically MY approach save the insurance and stiff penalties. The problem with your approach without insurance is that legally owned guns still impose a significant cost to society. Not only in cases like Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech, where no gun law short of strict prohibition would have prevented the tragedy, but also in the vast number of accidental shooting and suicides. My approach is not just about _preventing_ crime, it’s about ensuring that when crimes happen, that the damaged parties are made whole via other means than the public coffers and deep pocketed litigants only tangentially involved. Just look at what happening in the Aurora case. Since American gun manufacturers and gun dealers have fairly broad liability [immunity](http://old.gothamgazette.com/article/crime/20051101/4/1642), the victims are suing the movie theater chain. What sense does that make? Now every patron is not gonna pay higher ticket prices because the people responsible are not made to pay. The reality is that you cannot prevent every crime, even with strict laws. You also cannot get criminals to pay for their crimes because they don’t have enough money. The only option is to get law abiding people to. From there, the question becomes whether society as a whole should foot the bill, or if only a small related subset of people should as in the case of private health insurance or care insurance. When people don’t pay their hospital bills, then hospital makes up the costs by charging only the other people who _use_ said hospital. They don’t charge everyone who lives in the town or state. Similarly, much of the cost of uninsured drivers is borne by law abiding insured drivers; not the public in general. We should do the same for gun owners. ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907/63 "2013-02-05T03:04:28Z")
Here in the great State of Washington, a juvenile must be caught with an illegal firearm at least five (5) times before he gets to spend a few days in juvenile hall. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907/64 "2013-02-05T08:03:30Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Your latter statement is the entire point of this debate. The only way you can stem that flow is to make the last legal owner of a firearm financially and legally liable for what happens to it. Yes, that will not do much about all the guns in criminal hands now, but it will give the police greater ability to lock these people up, and it will slowly make obtaining a gun more difficult and expensive. So I am financially and legally responsible for a murder that is committed by some other guy that stole my gun? You don’t see why that is patently unfair? > [@](#): > > You cannot be this stupid. The legal system provides a structure for society to lock people away. How does it protect you fro a burglar? It provides a framework for locking him up before he gets a chance to burgle you. Fewer burglars on the street means you are safer. Yeah, that kind of protection doesn’t make me feel particularly safe. Sure its infinitely better than a society without rule of law but so what? > [@](#): > > But your implication that these laws don’t work because they are inherently untenable and unworkable is demonstrable false. Just look at the result when _countries_ ban guns. It’s pretty effective in most cases in preventing even criminals from having guns so long as the geographic area is large enough to make circumventing the law problematic. And in every case, you either had a tyrannical government go around confiscating all the guns OR you had a period of decades where criminals were armed and the citizenry was unarmed. > [@](#): > > Actually I had 5 proposals which would all need to work in concert. Nope you only need licensing and registration. The rest is superfluous and merely designed to reduce legal gun ownership or increase the cost of legal gun ownership. > [@](#): > > First, because too many of the riskiest cases, in terms of people who carelessly own and operate guns, have resolved to not follow any laws. These are people who want to just make a point about thumbing their nose at government. A fine, would simply not be paid. Really? How do you think the government gets people to pay their taxes? They take their stuff, sell it and then garnish their wages. If you don’t pay your parking tickets, they impound your car and auction it off. > [@](#): > > Does a fine for not paying for something a sufficient deterrent in most cases? Of course not. That is the fine for failure to pay taxes in the vast majority of cases. > [@](#): > > What recourse would you have against a recalcitrant gun owner who decided against getting insurance? You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. Ultimately, society would just have to eat the cost again. I don’t think he should have to get insurance. You are just vilifying gun ownership not gun crimes. > [@](#): > > Dude, do you read at all? YOUR approach is basically MY approach save the insurance and stiff penalties. Yeah, I understand that. Those are the part I think are unnecessary and serve no purpose other than to punish and demonize gun ownership. > [@](#): > > The problem with your approach without insurance is that legally owned guns still impose a significant cost to society. Uh, because they can accidentally kill people or provide an avenue for suicide? So can the subway. > [@](#): > > My approach is not just about _preventing_ crime, it’s about ensuring that when crimes happen, that the damaged parties are made whole via other means than the public coffers and deep pocketed litigants only tangentially involved. Yeah and in doing so you inappropriately force me to pay for the crimes of others. > [@](#): > > What sense does that make? Now every patron is not gonna pay higher ticket prices because the people responsible are not made to pay. Come back and say that after they win. [quote] When people don’t pay their hospital bills, then hospital makes up the costs by charging only the other people who _use_ said hospital. They don’t charge everyone who lives in the town or state. [quote] Yeah they do, its called taxation. Hospitals are frequently subsidized by the state, by tax dollars. > [@](#): > > Similarly, much of the cost of uninsured drivers is borne by law abiding insured drivers; not the public in general. We should do the same for gun owners. Licensing and registration is good enough and frankly you might as well wish for unicorns than your plan. My plan has the benefit of being constitutional (at least it probably is based on the dicta in Heller). Every time gun conrtol advocates push for stuff that wouldn’t do a damn thing to reduce gun violence and they could never get past congress anyways, they make it harder to get real achievable reform because it makes the gun control side of the debate sound just as unreasonable as the gun nuts. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907/65 "2013-02-05T15:03:31Z")
Sorry I’ve been away for a while. I must admit I have some difficulty following these point-by-point posts. I bought some sudafed over the weekend. Showed my driver’s license, and they ran a computer check within a couple of minutes. On the one hand, it pisses me off to have to show my license to buy sudafed. But I guess it isn’t all that much of an inconvenience. Strikes me a odd that I could legally buy a gun with less vetting than is required to cure my sniffles. I’m going to look into the constitutional justification for state FOID requirements. My personal preference would be for universal background checks for purchases, national FOID required for purchase and possession, and strict enforcement of hefty penalties for violations. But I highly doubt any of the above will come to pass. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907/66 "2013-02-05T21:07:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So I am financially and legally responsible for a murder that is committed by some other guy that stole my gun? You don’t see why that is patently unfair? I don’t see it as particularly unfair. If you don’t take reasonable steps to prevent a deadly weapon from getting in to the hands of a criminal, you should have to pay the price. More importantly, if you don’t punish people who have guns stolen, then you will just see corrupt individuals who keep having their guns “stolen”. This is why gun dealers must now report gun thefts within 48 hours. Before then, the shit only hit the fan when one of their unreported “stolen guns” was found at a crime scene. If you don’t allow for punishment for having your gun stolen, then you will see a bunch more “stolen” guns. Obviously, prosecutorial discretion will come into play here, but financial and legal penalties need to be on the table lest you provide a clear pipeline for guns to reach criminals. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Nope you only need licensing and registration. The rest is superfluous and _ **merely designed to reduce legal gun ownership or increase the cost of legal gun ownership.** _ (my bolding) Which I have admitted several times, and provided my rationale for why I would propose such actions. There is no point going back and forth on issues not in contention. That said, insurance is necessary for reason I have outlined several times. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Really? How do you think the government gets people to pay their taxes? They take their stuff, sell it and then garnish their wages. If you don’t pay your parking tickets, they impound your car and auction it off. There is far more opportunity to impound a car because it is available to impound when it is parked on the street. They don’t come to your house to take your car as they would have to in the case with guns. That’s not even considering that fact that it is much easier to hide a gun than a car. Plus, typical parking fines are greatly exceeded by the cost and utility of a car. Fines which exceed the cost of a replacement of any object are typically not paid. When you can buy a gun for a few hundred dollars, the wisdom of paying a fine close to or exceeding that number becomes obvious. Second, the income tax evasion is easier to remedy because fines are the least of the punitive steps taken by the government. They can garnish your wages, put a lien on property, levy your bank account, and/or seize your property. Which is in line with my first point. One’s assets and current income stream likely exceed the taxes owed. Additionally, they can and do put people in jail. The fact is that without the latter penalty, you would see far more people flouting the law wrt to income taxes as the do with sales taxes and other taxes. Even so, many people don’t correctly [report](http://www.genolaw.com/how-much-tax-evasion-is-there-in-the-united-states/)their taxes. Tax evasion is estimated to cost 18-23% of reportable U.S. adjusted net income. Noncompliance of that order with regard to guns would make the whole exercise pointless. Lastly, the failure to pay insurance means the costs are borne by fewer people, which can in some cases make the system hopelessly inefficient. Unlike taxes on an individual level, where the worst that happens is that the government operates without an amount of that is basically a rounding error, an uninsured gun can cause damage that greatly exceeds the cost of insurance. It would be as if my failure to pay 50k in taxes could result in the government having to borrow an addition $50mm. In a situation where small leaks can have disastrous consequences, the penalties needed to force compliance must be higher. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think he should have to get insurance. That much is clear. What you haven’t explained is WHY you feel he shouldn’t? When you get home insurance, ownership of a pool, certain breeds of dog, or trampoline can raise your rates significantly. Why? Because mere ownership of said things increases the risk of the insurance company paying out. It means that they shit is more likely to go wrong. There is a clear statistical correlation between _ownership_ of those things, and negative costly outcomes. The same thing is true of gun ownership. Not just because of the less reported incidents of suicide and accidental homicide that typically don’t involve of criminals, but also because your gun can wind up in the criminal hands. That’s why gun ownership represent an inherent risk that imposes costs on society. It has nothing to to with how well behaved your pit bull is, how deep your pool is, or how great a marksman you are. The widespread ownership of guns begets problems that cost money. Why should society have to pay for those any more than we should pay for your ill-trained dog, or faulty trampoline? Now I know you are saying, “well, some straw buyer selling a gun to a gang member who eventually shoots a cop has nothing to do with my hunting rifle I lock up and use for accidentally shooting my friend in the face while hunting geese”. I contend that it does. Your ability to buy such a rifle depends on largely the same channels, dealers, and manufacturers that the cop killer’s does. Additionally, your gun is subject to theft or misuse. Those two facts alone make me think you should be paying the bills, not me. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You are just vilifying gun ownership not gun crimes. No, I am explaining why such risky behaviors should not be engaged in without forethought and consideration for others. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Uh, because they can accidentally kill people or provide an avenue for suicide? So can the subway. But that is not one of the main uses of the subway. Killing things is one of the main uses for a gun. Additionally, public transport has tangible benefit for all people in a community. Gun ownership typically does not. At least not a net benefit. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah and in doing so you inappropriately force me to pay for the crimes of others. \*\*You already pay for the crimes of others. \*\* The issue is whether people who don’t own guns should have to pay. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Come back and say that after they win. Doesn’t matter if they win. Do you think legal defenses are free? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah they do, its called taxation. Hospitals are frequently subsidized by the state, by tax dollars. Not reading again I see. The issue is not whether hospitals receive public funds. The issue is who typically bears the cost for freeloaders. It’s not usually the public, it’s the other users. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Licensing and registration is good enough and frankly you might as well wish for unicorns than your plan. My plan has the benefit of being constitutional (at least it probably is based on the dicta in Heller). It has zero chance of passing. It’s a nonstarter just as mine is. Especially because it has the added problem of it not working. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907/67 "2013-02-06T03:57:02Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > I don’t see it as particularly unfair. If you don’t take reasonable steps to prevent a deadly weapon from getting in to the hands of a criminal, you should have to pay the price. More importantly, if you don’t punish people who have guns stolen, then you will just see corrupt individuals who keep having their guns “stolen”. This is why gun dealers must now report gun thefts within 48 hours. Before then, the shit only hit the fan when one of their unreported “stolen guns” was found at a crime scene. If you don’t allow for punishment for having your gun stolen, then you will see a bunch more “stolen” guns. Obviously, prosecutorial discretion will come into play here, but financial and legal penalties need to be on the table lest you provide a clear pipeline for guns to reach criminals. Your argument is that guns are somehow and inherently dangerous item and requires not simply regulation but criminal prosecution to ensure that people store them safely. I think dynamite might also qualify as an inherently dangerous item (its the E in ATFE). But if someone steals dynamite from a construction site we might hit that construction site with a penalty for negligence but we don’t make them pay for the shit that someone does with the dynamite. > [@](#): > > That said, insurance is necessary for reason I have outlined several times. Necessary? Its not even desirable. > [@](#): > > There is far more opportunity to impound a car because it is available to impound when it is parked on the street. They don’t come to your house to take your car as they would have to in the case with guns. That’s not even considering that fact that it is much easier to hide a gun than a car. Plus, typical parking fines are greatly exceeded by the cost and utility of a car. Fines which exceed the cost of a replacement of any object are typically not paid. When you can buy a gun for a few hundred dollars, the wisdom of paying a fine close to or exceeding that number becomes obvious. You can impound more than the gun for someone who fail to pay fines based on gun violations. You can also arrest someone for keeping guns they are no longer able to legally own. > [@](#): > > Additionally, they can and do put people in jail. The fact is that without the latter penalty, you would see far more people flouting the law wrt to income taxes as the do with sales taxes and other taxes. You seem to think that the government can throw you in jail merely for not paying your taxes. They can’t. They can throw you in jail for LYING about your taxes but inability to pay doesn’t get you there. We haven’t had debtors prison i this country in a long time. > [@](#): > > Noncompliance of that order with regard to guns would make the whole exercise pointless. No it wouldn’t. More importantly the non-compliance rate wouldn’t even approach 5%. The rate of noncompliance among legal gun owners is miniscule. > [@](#): > > That much is clear. What you haven’t explained is WHY you feel he shouldn’t? When you get home insurance, ownership of a pool, certain breeds of dog, or trampoline can raise your rates significantly. Why? Because mere ownership of said things increases the risk of the insurance company paying out. Yes but my insurance company doesn’t pay out when someone steals my trampoline and then breaks their neck at their own house. > [@](#): > > Now I know you are saying, “well, some straw buyer selling a gun to a gang member who eventually shoots a cop has nothing to do with my hunting rifle I lock up and use for accidentally shooting my friend in the face while hunting geese”. I contend that it does. Your ability to buy such a rifle depends on largely the same channels, dealers, and manufacturers that the cop killer’s does. Additionally, your gun is subject to theft or misuse. Those two facts alone make me think you should be paying the bills, not me. In no other area do you hold people responsible for the criminal acts of others. But in this case you think its not only OK but necessary? Straw buying doesn’t happen in a world with universal gun registration. You can track the last known owner of a gun and people don’t sell a gun to a criminal if they can be tracked. > [@](#): > > No, I am explaining why such risky behaviors should not be engaged in without forethought and consideration for others. What sort of lack of foresight and consideration (other than the emre act of owning a gun) are people engaging in. What sort of risky activity (other than the mere act of owning a gun) are you talking about? > [@](#): > > But that is not one of the main uses of the subway. Killing things is one of the main uses for a gun. Additionally, public transport has tangible benefit for all people in a community. Gun ownership typically does not. At least not a net benefit. Accidents and suicides are not the main use of guns either. > [@](#): > > \*\*You already pay for the crimes of others. \*\* The issue is whether people who don’t own guns should have to pay. Why would people who own guns be any more at fault for the crimes of others than the people who don’t own guns? > [@](#): > > Doesn’t matter if they win. Do you think legal defenses are free? Sounds like you simply have a problem with our justice system. One that assumes that there are no transaction costs and that everyone is capable of paying any judgment entered against them. > [@](#): > > Not reading again I see. The issue is not whether hospitals receive public funds. The issue is who typically bears the cost for freeloaders. It’s not usually the public, it’s the other users. The taxes pay for the freeloaders. There is not some EXTRA charge paid by insurance companies to make hospitals whole for all the freeloaders. How do I know this? Because there are hospitals that don’t accept freeloaders, they are called for profit hospitals and they don’t receive any less money from Blue Cross for the same procedure at a non-profit hospital. > [@](#): > > It has zero chance of passing. It’s a nonstarter just as mine is. Especially because it has the added problem of it not working. My idea is much likelier to pass than yours (at least in our lifetime) and my idea works just as well as your without putting a bunch of honest citizens in jail for owning a gun. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/existence-and-enforcement-of-penalties-for-illegal-gun-ownership-use/648907.md?page=3)