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.
And THIS is the problem, you are effectively blaming gunowners for gun violence and footing them with the bill.
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.
No it doesn’t. Explain to me how the legal system protects me from burglars? How it protects me from rioters and looters.
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?
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.
And your solution is insurance? Basically price everyone out of gun ownership?
I don’t think your solutions are unpassable, I think they don’t work.
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.
Really? Where?
Why?
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.
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.
They’re also unconstitutional. I don’t need a trigger lock in addition to my gun safe.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
First, your numbers are wrong. Thirty-two percent of households have guns. Twenty-two percent report owning 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
That is the fine for failure to pay taxes in the vast majority of cases.
I don’t think he should have to get insurance.
You are just vilifying gun ownership not gun crimes.
Yeah, I understand that. Those are the part I think are unnecessary and serve no purpose other than to punish and demonize gun ownership.
Uh, because they can accidentally kill people or provide an avenue for suicide? So can the subway.
Yeah and in doing so you inappropriately force me to pay for the crimes of others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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 reporttheir 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.
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.
No, I am explaining why such risky behaviors should not be engaged in without forethought and consideration for others.
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.
**You already pay for the crimes of others. ** The issue is whether people who don’t own guns should have to pay.
Doesn’t matter if they win. Do you think legal defenses are free?
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.
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.
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.
Necessary? Its not even desirable.
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.
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.
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.
Yes but my insurance company doesn’t pay out when someone steals my trampoline and then breaks their neck at their own house.
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.
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?
Accidents and suicides are not the main use of guns either.
Why would people who own guns be any more at fault for the crimes of others than the people who don’t own guns?
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.
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.
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.