Not sure if you’ve heard yet, but the United States incarcerates an astonishing percentage of its population when compared to similarly advanced countries. Anyone who argues we aren’t punishing criminals enough is just flat out wrong.
And also, this is intended to prevent some of those crimes from happening, which wpuld be far more appreciated by the loved one of a homicide victim*, than having the criminal locked up or executed after the fact.
- As a result of a stolen gun, obviously.
Well, we certainly seem to be doing a good job keeping potheads off of the street.
However, the fact that gun crimes are being committed often enough to warrant registering and monitoring (and charging for the privilege) legally owned firearms tells me that we either aren’t punishing gun crimes, or that some people consider the act of owning a gun itself a crime.
How does registering legal weapons and charging a premium to own them prevent crime, again? And everyone is a potential criminal, why don’t we all pay insurance for the crimes we may commit in the future? That will certainly bring murder victims back to life!
Quite common? Really?
Firearms accidents account for 0.2% of emergency room visits. In 2001, there were 600 accidental firearms deaths. Although the number of firearms in the hands of lawful owners is increasing, the number of accidental deaths is decreasing steadily.
I’ve looked, but I can’t find a cite for ‘thousands of accidental shootings’ per year. Where did you come up with this number?
While you’re at it, you should spend some time familiarizing yourself with the rates at which firearms are used for self defense in the US each year, and that statistically those who lawfully own firearms are much, much less likely to be involved in any type of crime that even police officers are.
I googled “accidental shooting CDC” and came up with dozens of links like this one.
Note that you’ve conflated “accidental shootings” with “accidental shooting deaths.” It also looks like you’ve gotten the numbers a bit wrong. In 2001, according to the CDC, there were 802 accidental shooting deaths in 2001.
You have no idea what my position is on gun control, so be careful about assuming you know what I think or what I’m familiar with. I understand why you’re defensive on this issue. But it would behoove you to be a little less knee-jerk.
Subjecting a right to accountability measures is NOT punishment. This [del]meme[/del] construction pisses me off and I want it to stop right now. It is reductive, it trivializes an important issue, and it does nothing to advance the debate.
And in this debate, there’s nothing novel about it whatsoever.
The last I checked, there are hundreds of people denied firearms purchases through the NICS background check every day. The overwhelming majority of these denials are legit meaning that the mere act of attempting to purchase a gun is illegal for those people. One statistic that is never brought up is the thousands of people every year who are arrested for failing a NICS check. The reason? They are not prosecuted at all.
If we as a nation are serious about stopping illegal gun purchases through the FFL system, we also must demand that those who legitimately fail a background check are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Then I think it would then be fair to say that the US is punishing this type of criminal appropriately.
It’s that whole “enforce the laws that are on the books now” meme. Because it’s not happening now…
Well, the fact that x amount of weapons gets stolen each year, through people being careless enough to allow them to go missing, certainly indicates some sort of ‘encouragement’ is needed to remind those people of their responsibilities.
As in the case of store prices going up as a result of shoplifting, you are being penalised for the faults of a few. Why should gun owners have it differently than shoppers?
You’re cool with charging law-abiding citizens money to pay for damages incurred in a crime committed by someone else?
So if someone steals your car and robs a gas station, do you owe the gas station money? If someone takes your baseball bat and beats someone with it, are you required to reimburse the victim for his medical bills?
Let’s take it one step further. Someone MIGHT steal your car or baseball bat. But even if they don’t, you’re are required to pay for all the crimes committed with other people’s stolen cars and baseball bats, even if yours are safely locked away at home.
This is acceptable to you?
This bill requires honest people to pay for the “crime” of owning a firearm, it’s as simple as that.
No, it doesn’t.
You must insure yourself against accidental or unlawful use of your firearm. If your firearm is stolen and you report it, you are not responsible for it.
I repeat, if you report the gun stolen, you are no longer responsible for it. And you are not required to get insurance to cover the event of a reported stolen gun.
IL has a problem with “stolen” guns because they have such strict gun control laws that there is a thriving black market for them. The suppliers of these black markets guns, when caught, simply say that their gun was stolen and they are off the hook.
But this law seems to double dip. Fine, mandate that if your gun is stolen, you must report it to police. I don’t have a problem with that law.
So, what is the million dollar insurance policy for?
As you say, you aren’t revealing your position on gun control, but if you are unbiased about this, I can’t see how you would conclude that this is just a law to make sure gun owners have insurance. Why wouldn’t Texas or Georgia have a law like this? Surely they are as concerned about accidental shooting as IL, no?
Or is it simply coincidence that IL is one of two states with no concealed weapons permits and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country? If this law is passed, would there be more or fewer gun owners in IL?
I can’t imagine many ‘career criminals’ filling out background checks, so I think you’d be targeting the wrong people.
Well, not entirely; you’d be getting those too dumb to be allowed to have a gun, so carry on!
So we all have a “responsibility” to not be victims of theft? And we need “encouragement” in the form of sharing punishment for the crimes committed against us? :rolleyes:
As I said in the post above yours, big stores do it to their customers all the time.
Oh, and air travellers have to pay extra because of terrorists.
So this is not intended to punish gun owners, and you would be perfectly willing to extend it to any other stolen property used in the commission of a crime?
Well, because you not only want people to report stolen guns, you want them to take measures to avoid that theft. In a well-functioning insurance market, those efforts will be rewarded with lower premiums. In theory, this law would create an economic incentive to store guns in a safe, use trigger locks, keep track of serial numbers, own only enough guns to satisfy the needs of self-defense, etc.
And remember that this is just one justification for the bill. There is the obvious benefit of being able to quickly compensate the victims of accidental or unlawful shootings.
I don’t know if they are concerned or not. Chicago is different from Dallas. l believe that both of those states have rejected mandatory reporting laws. Why would they do that?
As I said earlier, I think it is entirely fair to be especially skeptical of an IL gun law. You outline various reasons to be skeptical given the circumstances. But I don’t think it’s fair to let that skepticism become conclusions about the intent and effect of the law. We should ask whether, in fact, insurance would be such a burden. We should ask about the benefits of such a law. Etc.
Why not, if the property is capable of enabling a person to commit a further, far more serious crime?
My point first is that strawmen buy the guns, and then claim them “stolen” (only when absolutely necessary) because in reality they’re given to bad guys that couldn’t get a weapon legally. That’s what this bill was meant, presumably, to address, however poorly done.
The idea that wrongful death suits are frequently in the million dollar range doesn’t make that number the right one, Richard, even if that is the real statistic and not just an observation. Say you killed me, my wife files a WD lawsuit to protect her future without my earnings, which is the only reason to file such a thing, really. I earn just less than $100k per year. I’m at or nearing the peak of my earning potential, which means that it wouldn’t get much better than this. At a million dollars, after taxes and lawyer fees, she wouldn’t have enough to live more than a few years at her current state. If she wins. We’re approaching the upper end of the earning scale, typical victims of gun violence are not. If the idea is to recover losses, the losses ought to reflect the losses and not the arbitrary “pain and suffering” idea that pervades so much of civil law. Money does not have the power to cure, in the heart, pain and suffering in these instances, but the people have the perception it does. That, in my opinion is the problem.
A person lawfully owning a firearm with good intent is plenty incentivized to keep good control over them, not the least of reasons being the loss of expensive property. Moreover, a good firearm owner wants the guns stolen from him reported immediately, that it may be found and returned, if nothing else. This legislation fails, fails and fails again to create comprehensive protection and creates an undue burden on those of us who own, maintain and protect our firearms. Of the ones I own personally, not a one has taken any kind of life at all. I don’t expect that they ever will because I do every thing I can to prevent situations like that from happening. In the event one of my guns gets accidentally loosed on society, I will report it immediately because it is the right thing to do.
This amendment has the power to bleed further the decent law abiding gun owner, fatten the pockets of the insurance companies while at the same time making them a target for the greedy under painfully weak standards of proof.
I find it interesting that the fellow who introduced the bill serves on the Insurance committee
Representative Kenneth Dunkin (D)
Conflict of interest anyone?
To be clear, I’m not arguing that this bill is a good idea. I’m just arguing that there are some genuine benefits to weigh against the costs. And I am arguing against your position that the bill is on its face an effort to “punish” gun owners.
There is a huge difference between stolen guns and other stolen property. Some stolen TVs might be used to bash people over the head. But there are not thousands of TV-bashing incidents every year. Nor do stolen cars cause the level of harm caused by stolen guns. Most stolen cars are used for joy rides.
I am generally in favor of required insurance against the greatest risks in society. That is why I support required automobile insurance. I support homeowners having greater insurance costs if they own a swimming pool. Etc.