OK, so you think accidental gun deaths are so rare as to unimportant? Like underwater car accidents?
And with that, I’m out.
Why not attach liability to the gun? As in, you wanna buy a gun you must buy insurance against theft and accident, just like your car, which can also kill. The insurance rates would be based on statistical analysis, just like for your car. If you’re a seventeen year old male, driving a Jag, your rates will be higher. So, if you are in a state, or age group, whatever, that indicates a higher rate of accident or live in a neighbourhood where it’s likely to be stolen, your rate reflects that. Lots of guns? Rates will reflect wherever the greatest dangers, statistically lie.
Then attach a penalty of $1000, for e every time your gun is used in the commission of a crime, if stolen. (Half you/half insurer!) You bet your ass the insurance companies would be offering huge incentives to complete certified courses, pass safety standards for storage, etc. It’d be getting done is my point. No need to amend anyone’s constitutional rights. And sort of puts the focus back on ensuring people take seriously ALL the responsibilities of gun ownership.
People who find guns uncomfortable would be calmed to know someone IS making sure only the truly qualified get access. Responsible gun owners would get what they are always saying they support, stopping the flow of guns to idiots and those who are negligent.
So poor minorities would be statistically priced out of gun ownership?
No. I think that the delivery of prevention programs should be made as efficient as possible by using one or more risk indicators. So, those who are likely to have sex should be given sex education. Those who are likely to be handling a firearm should be given firearm safety education. Those who are likely to be around someone who might need CPR should be given CPR training.
It’s pretty simple, really. One of those simple rules that even the most cognitively challenged ought to grasp.
That’s probably for the best. The distinction between a universal school based program and a program targeted to gun users seemed a bit beyond your ken, anyway.
Isn’t that what you’d prefer?
So what? They’re statistically priced out of a lot of things.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees access, not an affirmative duty of the government to ensure you can always get a gun.
Could we implement a universal gun education program developed by the CDC? How about an abstinence-only gun education program? 
Because the same people who hate Obamacare because a black man proposed it will hate Obamaguns for the same reason.
Why would there be any problem with the price of liability insurance for weapons? As everybody knows, guns make people totally safer in their homes. 'Course, the insurance companies would probably want to do some research on the question, get their actuarial tables to reflect reality. Millions of dollars on the line, they would go the extra mile to get the objective facts. Can’t rely on the CDC, of course, all full of gun grabbers.
They’d probably just rely on NRA-approved research, since those guys can be totally trusted to present the unvarnished truth, total candor. I mean, they can’t rely on some fly by night bunch like the CDC for real statistical facts, now can they, what with millions of dollars of liability on the line. Maybe billions, who knows?
We can dismiss out of hand any notion that the NRA would object to such research, given their long-standing commitment to strict truth and candor. Mmmm, yes.
Is that a commentary on the correctness of Filbert’s post, or simply on its appropriateness in this thread?
Because I can assure you, it’s definitely appropriate to the conversation. One of the most effective times to correct an error is when the error is being made. The gentleman in the OP would surely have benefited from someone walking in on him and correcting him on “The Rules,” no?
It’s just threadshitting when everybody knows what the meaning is, even if it is bastardized from the original. So is belaboring that point again.
I think he meant, “Ugh, pudding is gross.”
Certainly, that’s what I would have meant, if I had said it.
This is what “ugh” means. The common version of the saying in the US is the version I used. It has apparently been around for a century. Whichever version you want to use, the point is the same. Four simple rules don’t mean a thing if in practice they are not followed.
There really is a discussion on the meaning of “ugh”?
Not in this thread.
That would be threadshitting, apparently.
I blame this incident on Joe Biden, who encouraged people to buy a shotgun instead of an assault rifle and just shoot through the door. The boy probably felt safer being in the same room as the shotgun rather than being on the other side of the door.
“Excuse me, have you a few minutes to talk about our Lord and Sav…(BLAM! BLAM!)…aaaaarrgh!”
“Had to, officer, he was coming right for me! OK, it was a Bible, looked like a gun…”
I’ve always been fond of that idea, but I know why it wouldn’t work. To require insurance you’d have to require registration. And registration is, as everyone has heard, the first step to “the government is going to take my guns away.” So we’ve fallen down the slippery slope before you start.
I have little issue with responsible gun ownership - i.e. I have no intention to come confiscate guns short or long term, but I think insuring guns, like insuring cars, does make a lot of sense.