Treat guns like cars. Every one has a title and licensing fee. Every year every gun owner has to bring his gun in and submit a ballistic sample so that it can be traced in the event it is used in a crime. Annual fees for guns, mandatory gun safety classes and refresher courses. Selling your gun just like selling a car, the title is transferred over and the state checks the background of the new owner. No magazines over 6 rounds, no kits that turn semi automatics into automatics. Thorough background checks of all purchasers.
The claim that one would make, if one were a victim of gun violence, agains the specific gun and gun owner, as it would a car, but against the fund itself. Everyone pays into it, as a part of legally owning a gun. If your gun is not insured, and you shoot someone (whether by accident or by intent), they are still covered by the fund. Suicide is a harder one, but I would pay out death benefits to survivors. I’ve known families that have gone through their main provider committing suicide, and on top of the emotional devastation, they become financially devastated as well. With the stats that guns make suicide much more successful, and require far less planning, the presence and access to guns is a major contributing factor, enough of one that I would say that the guns are liable.
By having the fund go towards anyone who is injured or killed by guns, whether or not that particular gun was insured, many more people would be covered. Criminals being covered doesn’t bother me all that much. It could give them a chance to get their life back together, and stop being criminals.
There are, and many of them don’t have health insurance. Having a fund to pay for the medical bills, rather than going bankrupt because someone else shot you would create some level of economic stability.
I don’t mean to pick on you, but I dislike that argument. It’s an example of using statistics the wrong way. Averages from a large group do not relate to individual instances.
Example: Your chances of getting attacked by a shark while swimming are one in several million.
If you are standing on the shore on the Farrolon islands after sea lion calving season, you might take comfort in that statistic and decide to go for a swim. Unfortunately, your chances of being attacked by a shark at that time and place approach 100%.
So, the question isn’t is it overall safer to have a gun for home defense? The question is considering my particular circumstances is it overrall safer for me to have a gun for home defense than not?
Well, yes, otherwise we wouldn’t need to educate them, would we? People used to think that cigarettes were safe and that buckling your seat belt wasn’t worth the trouble, either.
I think a ban on the entire class of semi-automatic weapons seems a bit overkill (no pun intended). I would prefer to see a limit on magazine capacity. Being able to shoot 400 bullets a minute doesn’t mean much if you have to reload after every 5 shots. It may be possible that a determined mass murderer could jury rig a high capacity magazine, but I would expect that that would increase the likelihood of a weapon jam, and require technical skill than simply buying one online.
You’re replying to manson, but it kind of sounds like you’re addressing me, so…
You’re right, of course, that everyone should make their own decisions, and I’m not denying that the general rule should be that adults without criminal records should be able to own guns if they choose. But given that suicides and accidental deaths are much more common than successful uses of a gun for self-defense, obviously poor choices in this regard are widespread, and people would benefit from being better informed about the risks and benefits.
I think a lot of the problem with gun regulations in this country is that gun control advocates are often really just anti-gun, no therefore there is no cooperation between them and responsible gun owners. The end result is that we have stupid laws, like the ban on suppressors while military grade weaponry can get in the hands of civilians and be used to kill or injure scores of people.
Every year thousands of people drown in swimming pools. Let’s say you look at this the way many gun control advocates look at guns:
People don’t need swimming pools, they are useful for sport and recreation, and it’s not worth it. Therefore, you are in favor of any legislation that limits, or gets rid of swimming pools, or makes it more difficult for swimming pool owners, thereby disincentivizying them.
On the other side of the coin, the swimming pool lobby is powerful. You will never be able to ban them outright. There is a swimming pool culture and tradition, that you can’t break.
You pass laws on the chemicals used in pools their size, all sorts of esoteric, anything you can. The swimming pool fights you on everything they can.
One day, you pass a ban on fences. It is now illegal to fence a swimming pool. The reasoning that got that passed was that a fence would impede a rescuer causing more people to drown. The real reason though is that you know swimming pool owners like fences and if they can’t fence their pool they might not install one.
The swimming pool owners now hate you and distrust you. They will fight you on anything you propose, tooth and nail. It creates a gridlock. Now swimming pool companies can come up with anything they want and sell it, taking advantage of this gridlock. Why use chlorine when you can use lye to keep your pool clean? Fill your pool with gasoline in the winter to save on the rising gas prices. No legislation can get through to fight these and other terrible ideas. No sensible pool regulations can get through.
This is the state of gun regulation in the US. An example of the fence ban is like the ban on suppressors which would protect hearing by quieting guns down, but wouldn’t actually harm anybody. The ban on suppressors is really to make guns less attractive and convenient. It also makes them less safe.
My own personal model for gun laws would be laws about cars.
The default assumption would be that people would be allowed to own and carry guns just as people are generally allowed to own and operate cars.
But people would be required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of gun use just as they’re required to demonstrate they know how to drive before they can take a car out on the highway. And people could lost their right to carry guns at a due process hearing for reckless gun use just as they can lose their right to drive a car.
I would not seek any widespread confiscation or abolition of guns. In my system, something like ninety-five percent of the guns that are out there now would still be out there. I just want society to have the ability to remove the five percent or so of guns that cause most of the gun problems. Or, if you want to look at it another way, I have no problem with ninety-five percent of gun owners; I just want to take guns away from the five percent of gun owners who cause most gun problems.
Sure, I can go with that. So, find a person that has a gun in their house, and tell them to provide you with studies, crime rate analysis, or other such facts that led to them determining that they are safer in their house with a gun in it.
Or, find someone who carries a gun around, and ask them for the studies, crime rate analysis, or other such facts that they read to lead them to determining they were safer carrying a gun around then not carrying one around.
And the answer you will get? “I don’t have to prove anything. 2nd Amendment!”
THAT’S why education about how dangerous it may/may not be to have a gun in your house, or carried by you is useless. Because the people you want to educate don’t want to know, nor do they care to know. “I’m safer, and it’s my right!” is all they need.
So, it’s not really insurance. It’s a personal property tax assessed per firearm with some sort of “victim” fund. I would think that would incentivize gun suicides (not only is choosing a gun effective, I’m comforted by knowing that I’m also providing for my family).
Whether or not it makes sense to provide payouts to the families of suicide victims (or criminals), I don’t see how this would encourage gun safety (or address gun crime).
Unless they are buying rifles and shotguns this isn’t exactly correct. An Illinois resident can’t go to Indiana or any other state to buy a handgun from a dealer. They can buy it, but the gun would have to be transferred to a FFL dealer in Illinois for transfer and pickup. I assume that’s what you meant since you mentioned “clean record”.
Maybe you are making the claim that they are coming back with rifles and shotguns bought legally from Indiana. I’m not seeing that in the news so much. Or maybe that they are buying handguns from private sellers in Indiana, also illegal unless transferred to an Illinois FFL, but their “clean record” wouldn’t really be a requirement right?
There is no doubt that guns are being purchased via private sales in Indiana and smuggled back into Chicago. It is illegal as hell however and has been for quite some time. A person’s clean record has no bearing in these sales.
I’m pretty ignorant about firearms and own none, so I won’t propose any specifics. But it seems to me that there would be a legitimate government interest in any number of reasonably tailored potential regulations. Of course, no one or combination of such regulations would prevent ALL gun deaths. And SOMEONE would be upset/inconvenienced by ANY regulation. But those shouldn’t be sufficient reason to not take SOME steps.
The concept of “freedom” is a curious one. So many other aspects of living communally are regulated extensively, that it just strikes me as common sense that guns could be as well. Of course, the 2d amendment - and a court willing to interpret it broadly - is a huge bar to regulation.
I don’t understand why it is unacceptable for “long black guns” to be closely regulated. Who benefits from their existence - other than the manufacturers? Is there any legitimate societal benefit in allowing those to be so readily available? Maybe require that they be registered and/or stored at licensed ranges. Someone is going to say he/she wants them plink in their acreage, spray bambi, or be safe in their home. To me, it is legitimate for the gov’t to say, “Too bad. Satisfy yourself with the entirety of other firepower available.”
Why not put some limit on speed of reloading/magazine size? Or - as above, allow it only at registered ranges?
And I don’t know enough about handguns to comment, but it seems as though the magazine size, speed of reloading, and stopping power of ammo would be legitimate areas to limit.
Or maybe as the demonstrable value of a weapon/ammo for self protection or hunting declines, impose huge taxes. Again - possible exception for licensed ranges.
The fact that no one regulation will cure EVERY incident of gun violence is no excuse to do NOTHING.
Most gun crimes are committed with handguns. I think regulations should be stricter on handguns, with a baseline applying to all guns.
I’d be ok with getting rid of concealed carry. I’m not convinced that there are leagues of “good guys with guns” out there stopping crimes. This wouldn’t affect anyone’s ability to own guns, keep them at home, or use them for regular purposes. You don’t need a gun hidden in your jacket to protect yourself walking down the streets of LA. Armed guards don’t need to conceal either.
I certainly can’t argue with that. But payouts would also pay for disability and such for victims.
If it creates an incentive for gun suicides, then that could be looked at, but as it is, enough people are committing suicide by gun, I don’t really see it moving that needle much.
I see that it would encourage gun safety because now the gun owners have a reason to be concerned about gun safety. Not just about their own personal guns, but about Bob’s gun too, because they are on the hook if Bob’s gun hurts someone.
How is the law stopping them? Person has clean record, passes background check, buys gun. Guy gives or sells gun to gang member. Rinse, repeat. Yeah, he’s breaking the law, but unless actually caught, his record stays clean, and can continue to buy guns.
Ironically and just IMHO it’s been the really rabid anti-gun types that have put us in the situation we are in and have caused the really rabid pro-gun types to dig in their heels or, every time there is an event like what happened in Las Vegas to go out and buy up everything they can get in anticipation of the widespread bans they fear are coming soon. They have tried, by hook and by crook, to ban guns or make gun ownership so difficult that people won’t want to go through the hassle, and the backlash, when it finally came put us were we are today with a crazy quilt of gun laws and regulations that often make no sense and do nothing to curb gun violence, only make for more bureaucracy…and basically put us where we seem to be on all political fronts these days, with neither side willing to budge, no hope of any substantial change or compromise and both sides just digging in their heels more, guided and run by their extreme wings and nothing ever being accomplished. You can see it on these boards in the various threads that have been sparked by Vegas…how many people, really, have a moderate view and are willing to compromise in the name of actually getting something accomplished? Damned few that I can see. Most push things to the extremes while simply saying something along the lines of ‘this is just the way it is and nothing we can do about it’.
Myself, I already gave my ideas for ‘Common Sense Gun Laws’ in my own thread on this subject, but they were mainly ignored in an endless wrangle about the first sentence of my OP which ‘poisoned the well’ according to some. But, what the hell, I’ll just repost the parts relevent to this thread in the thought that maybe in THIS thread it will be discussed:
From that thread I was also intrigued by the idea of insurance, which I think that same poster posted here so won’t get into that but seems like a valid idea. Will any of this stop gun violence? Probably not that much, but it will give us some control and more data. What I REALLY think is the root solution to this issue is not more regulation (or less), but instead changing the attitudes of the American people towards firearms. You won’t do that, IMHO, by trying to take them away from people, no more than we solved the drug problem by making a bunch of drugs illegal or alcoholism by making that illegal. That doesn’t solve the problem, IMHO. Education and information is the key. Plus, in terms of gun violence, going to the root cause of the majority of it, which is socio-economic disparity between white Americans and many minority groups (mainly black and hispanic). Even this wouldnt’ solve every instance of gun violence, but then we haven’t solved every instance of drunk driving or other behavior that leads to innocent people being killed. But we could try and mitigate it to the best extent possible. IMHO of course. Now, I’ll kick back and see how I’m wrong about all of this too.
I guess my thinking is that while suicide makes up 2/3 of firearm deaths, firearms are only used in 50% of suicides. I’m not going to try parse any statistics (because I’m not good at it), but if any material number of the attempted/accomplished suicides that are not done by gun transfer over, then the number of suicides may increase because guns are more effective. Given that economic conditions are often considered to be a significant driver in suicide attempts, if suicide turned out to be a good way to provide for your family, I worry about the incentives.
But what can I do about Bob? And what can Bob and I do about Bubba, who is out shooting people and probably not paying into the system? The same reason that I think that liability insurance would be broadly ineffective (i.e., a small minority of gun deaths are the result of the type of behavior that an insurance policy would cover) is the reason that I think a victim’s fund would be less effective than even that. If I was responsible for making sure that all of the other drivers on the road had insurance and were wearing their seatbelt, I think it would be ineffective.
If you mandated liability insurance (with traditional exceptions for illegal acts or intentional damage), then the insurance company comes to me and Bob and says: “we’ll lower your premium if you take a gun safety course or buy a trigger lock.” and we do it and the number of negligent death (presumably) go down. And I think it would work, for the very limited subset of deaths and injuries it could address.
It’s obviously an incentive to commit suicide, and moreover to choose a gun rather than another means to do so. There’s no ‘if’ about that. Nobody could answer exactly how many more gun suicides it would generate, but it’s an obviously bad idea to include gun suicide survivors as beneficiaries if the idea were really to improve safety. And suicides a big chunk of gun deaths.
But this is so Rube Goldberg. Make gun owner A responsible for the conscious bad actions of gun owner B they never met, even if B went ‘uninsured’*? That’s not rational, and something irrational is easier to argue against that something rational. For example just having NJ type restrictions on guns nationally in the US is not irrational. Just nowhere near enough people nationally agree with it for it to happen. You’re not going to get around that with patently unfair and irrational ideas.
*A survey of inmates at Cook County Jail showed 2 out of 135 guns had been directly purchased at a gun store, and I don’t see how an annual gun tax would make the other 133 any more likely to buy openly and register. Which gets back to passing actual national restrictions to get to where you want to be, not trick maneuver taxes. BTW as per same article, the legal way they get around IL and Chicago municipal gun laws is legal private purchases in IA w/o background checks. The visiting IL gang associate doesn’t need a clean record for that, and a clean record wouldn’t get around the federal requirement to send a hand gun to IL FFL holder in a IA store purchase. An IA resident with clean record though is probably a straw purchaser at a IA store somewhere in the chain.
People used to think that cigarettes were safe and that buckling your seat belt wasn’t worth the trouble, either.