It’s generally law abiding people that are creating the problem. It’s not a matter of placing blame, it’s holding people accountable. Since owning a gun triggers direct and indirect costs onto society, the people who create the problem should pay for it. Why shoud I have to pay for the carnage your hobby creates? Society already affords individuals an adequate level of potection in the form of police potection, and the judicial system. If you feel you need extra potection, whether it be a gun, a vicious dog, an alarm system, or a body guard, YOU PAY FOR IT! Insurance is one way to ensure that is the case.
That’s not even mentioning all the people killed by guns because we can’t keep them out of the hands of criminals lest we greatly inconvienece sportsmen and paranoid people.
As far as poor people not being able to afford guns, that’s too fucking bad for them. If you can’t afford a car or car insurance, you don’t drive. If you can’t afford lobster dinners or cosmetic surgery, tough luck. We afford everyone the “right” to bear arms, not the financial means to do it (responsibly).
Besides, this canard about how one needs a gun to protect one’s selves needs to stop. The likelihood a gun owner is gonna stop the next mass shooting, or fend off a home invasion is vanishingly small. More likely, you are gonna shoot a family member, have it stolen, or end up committing suicide. Given that most cops don’t even fire a gun over the course of their career, what makes you think Joe Sixpack is gonna use it to stop a criminal act?
It’s just a farce at this point. I honestly don’t care if you want a gun or 100 of them. Just don’t expect me to not hold you accountable when a foreseeable negative outcome occurs as a result.
Are you joking? We actually do most of those things wrt alcohol and driving. Aside from the fact that you are conflating multiple behaviors and actions, we take pretty aggressive steps to stop both drunk driving and alcohol abuse. First, we heavily tax alcohol. We require liability insurance to drive. We require liquor licenses. Etc. Almost every analogous law already exists with the exception of the few absurd analogs you throw in there to be obtuse.
First, the guy was a reserve police officer, not a random citizen. Second, that does not speak at all to the statement I made. Yes, I am sure you can find examples of some average joe saving the day, but those accounts will be greatly exceeded by the number of terrible outcomes I referenced before.
No, they will not be. And the average guy who lives in the real world understands this, despite your best efforts to convince him that he would be safer if he was defenseless. The truth is a powerful thing.
The penalties for not having insurance or protecting your gun need to be harsh because nobody would follow them otherwise. The source of guns used in criminal acts is legal sales typically engaged in by law abiding people. If you can convince those people to lock their guns, install trigger locks, and maintain insurance, etc., you will start to stem the supply of guns available to criminals. Given that a number of law abiding, supposedly sane people have vowed to die/kill before allowing their guns to be taken for any reason, I think you need to make sure that these assholes know the stakes are not something they can ignore.
Sorry, but this is BS! The people I’m talking about are in and out of jail their entire lives. Some of their offenses are major, some are minor, some are probation/parole violations. But the harm they cause when out, and the expense of investigating their crimes, the courts, etc. dwarfs what it costs to lock them up a good long time when they commit their first major act. Especially when you also factor in the human suffering they cause while out.
Giving someone a 40 year sentence, and then only making them serve 10% of it is not effective. The majority of crime in this country, including violent crime, is committed by repeat offenders. Passing new laws won’t do shit until we start hammering people who are breaking the ones we already have on the books.
As I said, your muddled thinking has led to you confusing a number of disparate things such as:
Keeping alcohol away from people legally prohibited from drinking
Preventing DRUNK driving
Making driving itself safer.
As far as your list goes, of thre points you made that we’re actually analogous, we do the following:
Ban private sale of alcohol.
Require car registration, insurance, and inspection.
We heavily tax alcohol.
Require that adults take reasonable steps to ensure that children are not able to obtain alcohol
Require that all alcohol is basically inspected for safety and limited in its potentcy.
Furthermore, we set a number of other laws and guidelines that govern both how alcohol is sold and distributed, and how cars are operated. Hell, some states require all alcohol to be sold only on state run stores. How would you like that law applied to firearms? Trust me, if we treated guns like we do driving or alcohol, most gun owners would hate it.
Presumably he doesn’t seeing as most “real world guys” don’t own guns. Either way, defend away. Nobody is stopping you. Just pay for the damage you cause on the way to your bunker.
That doesn’t even consider all the suicides, the accidental shootings, and the mass murderers who buy/steal/borrow guns. Besides, where else do you think the guns come from? Do you think some company just makes glocks for criminals? In 99% of cases, these guns flow through the same streams legal guns do, but then get diverted by straw buyers, corrupt firearms dealers, or petty thieves. The point is that without those channels, criminals generally wouldn’t have access to guns with ease or certainty.
Your list is a retarded jumble of nonsense. I explained this to you pretty clearly and slowly. I’m sorry but can’t be more clear than that. So if your retort is, " oh yeah, but we don’t tag beers, or make it illegal to give your buddy a Miller, or install breathalyzers on every car", then you are right. And if you honestly think any of those things are analogous to what I have said or proposed, then I don’t know what to say. All I can do is explain it to you; I can’t comprehend it for you.
Insurance might make sense to me (it would probably be an extension of homeowners insurance (or renters insurance) or could be carried on a stand-alone basis) if it paid for liability incurred by the insured. It makes a lot less sense if you are effectively charging an annual tax on gun owners to pay for the effects of gun crime in the United States. If THAT is your proposal (and you want to back that up with jail time, I think you want to charge tomorrow’s gun owners for stuff criminal do with guns that they acquired yesterday.
Making law abiding citizens pay for the criminal acts of others is patently unfair.
Knives are used in about a fifth as many murders as guns. Shouldn’t we make knife owners pay a special insurance premium to pay for police and emergency services where knives re involved? And if they don’t pay the insurance, we can put them in jail. Sure its a little different but guns are tools just like knives.
How exactly does a judge protect you when someone breaks into your house?
When seconds matter, the police are only a few minutes away. They can’t be everywhere at once.
I remember the LA riots and the police had their priorities and my neighborhood was not one of them.
No its not. You’re not paying for your own protection, you are paying for the crimes of others.
And we can do that with licensing and registration. We don’t need to throw otherwise law abiding citizens in jail to accomplish that. What you are proposing is a method of constricting the flow of guns into criminal hands. You don’t need the sort of draconian measures you are proposing to achieve that goal and frankly your ideas have ZERO chance of implementation so instead of tilting at windmills, you should never mention the notion of putting people in jail for not carrying insurance again because it reinforces every paranoid fear that gun nuts have about gun control advocates.
There are about 700 accidental gun deaths every year.
There are at least several hundred thousand defensive gun uses per year (some estimates go into the millions (the Department of Justice did a study that put the number in excess of a million)).
We can add a gun tax if we want. What we can’t do is start putting people in jail for failure to pay that gun tax. The most we can do is fine them.
cite please. Especially for the notion that jail time would be persuasive where a fine would not.
And how does maintaining insurance prevent the criminal from stealing your gun?
By that token, how do trigger locks prevent anyone from stealing your gun? The worst it will do is force the criminal to break the law and saw off the trigger guard.
Licensing and registration alone would do those things.
About 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen from folks who legally own the guns. The rest are fairly evenly split between private sales and straw purchases.
All guns that end up in the hands of criminals at some point went form someone who was legally allowed to possess the firearm to someone who wasn’t and theft is simply not anywhere near the top of the list.
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. 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.
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.
They are not really analogous at all in this context. Compare the likelihood the outcome from the single use of a knife to that of a gun. Besides, the primary function of a knife is to cut things, not kill things. Additionally, certain types and sizes of knives are already illegal in many places. That said, if knives became as big an problem crime wise as guns, I would be all for regulating then in a similar fashion.
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.
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. They are not affected by the thousands of handgun deaths/crimes that happen everyday in our city. 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. 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.
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.
Why not? You can be jailed for not having car insurance in some cases. 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.
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.
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.
It wouldn’t generally. It would, in some cases, prevent your teenage son from accidentally shooting his friend, or intentionally killing himself. A study 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.
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.
Your statement, for which I requested a source, was “The source of guns used in criminal acts is legal sales typically engaged in by law abiding people.”
Your above statement: “In 99% of cases, these guns flow through the same streams legal guns do, but then get diverted by straw buyers, corrupt firearms dealers, or petty thieves. The point is that without those channels, criminals generally wouldn’t have access to guns with ease or certainty” is better. I understand know what you meant.
I read the orginal statement to mean that the majority of guns used in crimes where purchased legally by the criminal. As if a man with no criminal record goes to the gun store, buys a gun, and then goes out and robs somebody. As your links show, that’s clearly not the case.
Then you have a reading comprehension problem. That is clearly not the most logical way to parse what I said, so if that is how you read it, then you misunderstood what was an obvious point.
Obviously it was satire. It was just poorly done given that it bears no resemblance to what you are trying to send up, in addition to having no real focus.