***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Mello]

Don't outlaw guns.Require every gun sold to carry liability insurance for any injuries caused by that weapon, accidental or intentional.

Make it a misdemeanor to own a weapon without the required coverage, with the penalty being forfeiture of said weapon.

The true liberal way to force people to do what you want. Don't make it illegal, just add tons of taxes and red tape. I love social engineering...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Don't outlaw guns.Require every gun sold to carry liability insurance for any injuries caused by that weapon, accidental or intentional.

Make it a misdemeanor to own a weapon without the required coverage, with the penalty being forfeiture of said weapon.

Hmmm, this seems like a good idea to me. Like required insurance coverage when you own a car. It wouldn't fix stuff like the Newtown shooting but it seems like it might discourage people from stockpiling weapons and help in compensating any victims.

 

[Otis]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

I think there are more folks here who's solution is to ban all guns than those saying we need more guns.

Link? I think there's exactly 1 person here who has posted that we need to ban all guns, and he didn't stay in the discussion very long.

here's the first post in this thread from this thread's most leading contributor:

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

there's 224 more posts that continue along that vein.

This is about the 14th time you gun dorks have misrepresented my position in here. I've literally said 10 times, when I wasn't schticking or venting, that I would not ban "all guns." Assault weapons and handguns. No wonder you people can't complete a conversation. Well, that and now having Tim as your bus driver. Eek.

I have neither the time nor inclination to read all of your 225 posts here. If your position has evolved past emotional outbursts and insults towards folks not like you, then congrats.It looks like you want a ban on handguns and "assault weapons", but I'm guessing you will refuse to define these...a broad interpretation might include all rifles. So, the only thing you are good with is shotguns.. right?

If you don't have the time or inclination then what good is there in mischaracterizing?I've already also said multiple times that I would have no problem with leaving hunting rifles as they are. You don't hear about these being used in the regular murders and accidents the way you do with handguns, they're difficult to conceal, and they're less efficient mass killing machines. They also have a legitimate purpose, and as much as I may think hunting is stupid, I get that other people are into it.

 

[Neovivo]

So what do we have so far? Compromise yet? Are we down to 50 round banana clips being offered up for a ban? nope

 

[Otis]

I have neither the time nor inclination to read all of your 225 posts here. If your position has evolved past emotional outbursts and insults towards folks not like you, then congrats.

Otis's position hasn't evolved past emotional name-calling, no. Look on this page alone for confirmation of that.

I'm sort of glad that the government will take away your guns and it upsets you.

 

[Henry Ford]

I haven't weighed in with a proposal yet, so here goes:

Treat fire-arms similar to cars - that is, require registration and insurance for their operation.

Registration

[*]Registration would require some sort of identification on the gun - a stamped ID, a plate added, something like that. Possibly a yearly sticker, just like we put on our license plates. The gun owner must also keep a paper receipt as well - just like you have in your car.

[*]If you are found in possession of a gun w/o ID and registration, the gun is to be immediately confiscated and will be returned when the owner presents proper papers.

[*]Registration must be renewed annually (bi-annually?). Part of the renewal process is a safety inspection, which both verifies safe operating condition of the gun as well as condition of registration tags.

[*]Safety inspection does not need to be performed by a LEO, it could simply be the guy at the shooting range, a licensed dealer, someone from your hunt-club, or pretty much anyone who has taken some basic training and says an oath.

Insurance

[*]establish some sort of liability costs associated with gun ownership. For sake of discussion, let's say $250k for loss of life and medical bills up to $250k for injuries. These liabilities are only payable if the gun was used in a crime.

[*]Gun owners must purchase insurance and proof of insurance must be presented upon request - along with registration above.

[*]Similar to cars, insurance rates can be allowed to vary, based on a number of factors such as:

[*]number of kids in house

[*]mental state of all residents

[*]gun type (based on probability that a particular gun will be used in a crime)

[*]location of owner residence - probability of gun being stolen

[*]discount for safes

[*]discount for trigger lock

[*]discount for annual gun safety courses

[*]discount for periodic range time

[*]whatever else the actuaries find that increases/decreases gun crime risk

[*]if a gun is stolen, the gun owners insurance company will still have at least a partial fiscal responsibility for above damages, so it is in their interest to ensure that owners do whatever they can to keep their weapons secure.

[*]no liabilities are to be paid when the gun was used in self-defense, including Castle Doctorine usage. That is, if a bad guy breaks into my house and I shoot him, my insurance owes him nothing.

I have no idea if anything like this has been proposed or not. IMO, this could have helped @ Sandy Hook, Va Tech, etc by providing financial incentive to keep their arms secured, as well as limit availability of illegal arms without an outright ban. I can see that if someone wants to keep a whole bunch of dangerous guns around, it's going to get expensive pretty quick if he's not adequately equipped to store them nor has proper safety certification... on the other hand, a simple 6-shot revolver that is stored in a high-quality safe and operated by someone who takes regular training will be really cheap to insure.

Everything old is new again.

 

[Otis]

I haven't weighed in with a proposal yet, so here goes:

Treat fire-arms similar to cars - that is, require registration and insurance for their operation.

Registration

[*]Registration would require some sort of identification on the gun - a stamped ID, a plate added, something like that. Possibly a yearly sticker, just like we put on our license plates. The gun owner must also keep a paper receipt as well - just like you have in your car.

[*]If you are found in possession of a gun w/o ID and registration, the gun is to be immediately confiscated and will be returned when the owner presents proper papers.

[*]Registration must be renewed annually (bi-annually?). Part of the renewal process is a safety inspection, which both verifies safe operating condition of the gun as well as condition of registration tags.

[*]Safety inspection does not need to be performed by a LEO, it could simply be the guy at the shooting range, a licensed dealer, someone from your hunt-club, or pretty much anyone who has taken some basic training and says an oath.

Insurance

[*]establish some sort of liability costs associated with gun ownership. For sake of discussion, let's say $250k for loss of life and medical bills up to $250k for injuries. These liabilities are only payable if the gun was used in a crime.

[*]Gun owners must purchase insurance and proof of insurance must be presented upon request - along with registration above.

[*]Similar to cars, insurance rates can be allowed to vary, based on a number of factors such as:

[*]number of kids in house

[*]mental state of all residents

[*]gun type (based on probability that a particular gun will be used in a crime)

[*]location of owner residence - probability of gun being stolen

[*]discount for safes

[*]discount for trigger lock

[*]discount for annual gun safety courses

[*]discount for periodic range time

[*]whatever else the actuaries find that increases/decreases gun crime risk

[*]if a gun is stolen, the gun owners insurance company will still have at least a partial fiscal responsibility for above damages, so it is in their interest to ensure that owners do whatever they can to keep their weapons secure.

[*]no liabilities are to be paid when the gun was used in self-defense, including Castle Doctorine usage. That is, if a bad guy breaks into my house and I shoot him, my insurance owes him nothing.

I have no idea if anything like this has been proposed or not. IMO, this could have helped @ Sandy Hook, Va Tech, etc by providing financial incentive to keep their arms secured, as well as limit availability of illegal arms without an outright ban. I can see that if someone wants to keep a whole bunch of dangerous guns around, it's going to get expensive pretty quick if he's not adequately equipped to store them nor has proper safety certification... on the other hand, a simple 6-shot revolver that is stored in a high-quality safe and operated by someone who takes regular training will be really cheap to insure.

I don't see how the bolded is true. This woman went through all the legal mechanisms required to get her guns and used them regularly. This would have made no difference here.

 

[moleculo]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

I think there are more folks here who's solution is to ban all guns than those saying we need more guns.

Link? I think there's exactly 1 person here who has posted that we need to ban all guns, and he didn't stay in the discussion very long.

here's the first post in this thread from this thread's most leading contributor:

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

there's 224 more posts that continue along that vein.

This is about the 14th time you gun dorks have misrepresented my position in here. I've literally said 10 times, when I wasn't schticking or venting, that I would not ban "all guns." Assault weapons and handguns. No wonder you people can't complete a conversation. Well, that and now having Tim as your bus driver. Eek.

I have neither the time nor inclination to read all of your 225 posts here. If your position has evolved past emotional outbursts and insults towards folks not like you, then congrats.It looks like you want a ban on handguns and "assault weapons", but I'm guessing you will refuse to define these...a broad interpretation might include all rifles. So, the only thing you are good with is shotguns.. right?

If you don't have the time or inclination then what good is there in mischaracterizing?I've already also said multiple times that I would have no problem with leaving hunting rifles as they are. You don't hear about these being used in the regular murders and accidents the way you do with handguns, they're difficult to conceal, and they're less efficient mass killing machines. They also have a legitimate purpose, and as much as I may think hunting is stupid, I get that other people are into it.

I don't know how I can possibly mischaracterize you when I quote you directly.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Don't outlaw guns.Require every gun sold to carry liability insurance for any injuries caused by that weapon, accidental or intentional.

Make it a misdemeanor to own a weapon without the required coverage, with the penalty being forfeiture of said weapon.

damn, that's exactly what I was typing up...

you were far more detailed - I just had an idea...

 

[ATC1]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Otis, I thought you were in the camp to ban semi-automatic weapons?

 

[moleculo]

I haven't weighed in with a proposal yet, so here goes:

Treat fire-arms similar to cars - that is, require registration and insurance for their operation.

Registration

[*]Registration would require some sort of identification on the gun - a stamped ID, a plate added, something like that. Possibly a yearly sticker, just like we put on our license plates. The gun owner must also keep a paper receipt as well - just like you have in your car.

[*]If you are found in possession of a gun w/o ID and registration, the gun is to be immediately confiscated and will be returned when the owner presents proper papers.

[*]Registration must be renewed annually (bi-annually?). Part of the renewal process is a safety inspection, which both verifies safe operating condition of the gun as well as condition of registration tags.

[*]Safety inspection does not need to be performed by a LEO, it could simply be the guy at the shooting range, a licensed dealer, someone from your hunt-club, or pretty much anyone who has taken some basic training and says an oath.

Insurance

[*]establish some sort of liability costs associated with gun ownership. For sake of discussion, let's say $250k for loss of life and medical bills up to $250k for injuries. These liabilities are only payable if the gun was used in a crime.

[*]Gun owners must purchase insurance and proof of insurance must be presented upon request - along with registration above.

[*]Similar to cars, insurance rates can be allowed to vary, based on a number of factors such as:

[*]number of kids in house

[*]mental state of all residents

[*]gun type (based on probability that a particular gun will be used in a crime)

[*]location of owner residence - probability of gun being stolen

[*]discount for safes

[*]discount for trigger lock

[*]discount for annual gun safety courses

[*]discount for periodic range time

[*]whatever else the actuaries find that increases/decreases gun crime risk

[*]if a gun is stolen, the gun owners insurance company will still have at least a partial fiscal responsibility for above damages, so it is in their interest to ensure that owners do whatever they can to keep their weapons secure.

[*]no liabilities are to be paid when the gun was used in self-defense, including Castle Doctorine usage. That is, if a bad guy breaks into my house and I shoot him, my insurance owes him nothing.

I have no idea if anything like this has been proposed or not. IMO, this could have helped @ Sandy Hook, Va Tech, etc by providing financial incentive to keep their arms secured, as well as limit availability of illegal arms without an outright ban. I can see that if someone wants to keep a whole bunch of dangerous guns around, it's going to get expensive pretty quick if he's not adequately equipped to store them nor has proper safety certification... on the other hand, a simple 6-shot revolver that is stored in a high-quality safe and operated by someone who takes regular training will be really cheap to insure.

I don't see how the bolded is true. This woman went through all the legal mechanisms required to get her guns and used them regularly. This would have made no difference here.

I'm assuming her guns weren't stored securely - assuming this on the basis that they were used against her. Had it been a significant financial penalty for her to have multiple weapons not adequately stored in a location with a resident mental-health patient, she likely would have either stored her guns off-site or had a better safe.

 

[Jobber]

I haven't weighed in with a proposal yet, so here goes:

Treat fire-arms similar to cars - that is, require registration and insurance for their operation.

Registration

[*]Registration would require some sort of identification on the gun - a stamped ID, a plate added, something like that. Possibly a yearly sticker, just like we put on our license plates. The gun owner must also keep a paper receipt as well - just like you have in your car.

[*]If you are found in possession of a gun w/o ID and registration, the gun is to be immediately confiscated and will be returned when the owner presents proper papers.

[*]Registration must be renewed annually (bi-annually?). Part of the renewal process is a safety inspection, which both verifies safe operating condition of the gun as well as condition of registration tags.

[*]Safety inspection does not need to be performed by a LEO, it could simply be the guy at the shooting range, a licensed dealer, someone from your hunt-club, or pretty much anyone who has taken some basic training and says an oath.

Insurance

[*]establish some sort of liability costs associated with gun ownership. For sake of discussion, let's say $250k for loss of life and medical bills up to $250k for injuries. These liabilities are only payable if the gun was used in a crime.

[*]Gun owners must purchase insurance and proof of insurance must be presented upon request - along with registration above.

[*]Similar to cars, insurance rates can be allowed to vary, based on a number of factors such as:

[*]number of kids in house

[*]mental state of all residents

[*]gun type (based on probability that a particular gun will be used in a crime)

[*]location of owner residence - probability of gun being stolen

[*]discount for safes

[*]discount for trigger lock

[*]discount for annual gun safety courses

[*]discount for periodic range time

[*]whatever else the actuaries find that increases/decreases gun crime risk

[*]if a gun is stolen, the gun owners insurance company will still have at least a partial fiscal responsibility for above damages, so it is in their interest to ensure that owners do whatever they can to keep their weapons secure.

[*]no liabilities are to be paid when the gun was used in self-defense, including Castle Doctorine usage. That is, if a bad guy breaks into my house and I shoot him, my insurance owes him nothing.

I have no idea if anything like this has been proposed or not. IMO, this could have helped @ Sandy Hook, Va Tech, etc by providing financial incentive to keep their arms secured, as well as limit availability of illegal arms without an outright ban. I can see that if someone wants to keep a whole bunch of dangerous guns around, it's going to get expensive pretty quick if he's not adequately equipped to store them nor has proper safety certification... on the other hand, a simple 6-shot revolver that is stored in a high-quality safe and operated by someone who takes regular training will be really cheap to insure.

I don't see how the bolded is true. This woman went through all the legal mechanisms required to get her guns and used them regularly. This would have made no difference here.

I'm assuming her guns weren't stored securely - assuming this on the basis that they were used against her. Had it been a significant financial penalty for her to have multiple weapons not adequately stored in a location with a resident mental-health patient, she likely would have either stored her guns off-site or had a better safe.

Or taking it further, if insurance for an AR is $100/year, perhaps she'd have thought twice about purchasing it in the first place.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm assuming her guns weren't stored securely - assuming this on the basis that they were used against her.

I'm not sure this is a great assumption. It's not like the guns were taken by an intruder. Lanza may have known the combination to the safe, or he may have tricked her into giving him access to the guns.

 

[urbanhack]

Why can't we get a Senate-confirmed director of the ATF?

How about changing these:

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, for instance, banned the A.T.F. from conducting more than one unannounced inspection of a gun dealer per year, and made it tougher for the agency to revoke the licenses of dealers who break the law.

Congress has blocked the bureau from keeping a centralized computer database of gun transactions. Advocates say a database would make it easier to trace weapons, reducing the need for complex surveillance operations.

 

[timschochet]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

 

[boots11234]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

This is the ultimate goal, one little step at a time.....to all gun being banned.

 

[JHuber77]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

 

[timschochet]

[ I was going to mess with Tim since he believed high cap mag bans and private sales restrictions haven't been tried, but just setting him straight is probably best. Oddly, he lives in Cali where the legislation he wants has been in place for a long long time. A dozen or so states have high cap mag bans and some 17 have forced licensed dealers to be involved in every private sale. What we know about the Clinton ban is that the Academy for Applied Sciences and the hardcore anti-gun Center for Disease Control both researched the results of the legislation and concluded that it did nothing to decrease crime. Tim, what you support is toothless, this we KNOW.

As usual, Chaos Commish, you make some of the most compelling arguments around here. However, in the case of the private sales loophole, it seems pretty obvious to me that any single state legislation is not going to have much of an impact, when all you need do is go to a different state to complete your transaction (which, according to California police, many bad guys do.) A national database has never been attempted. As for the high capacity mag limitation and the studies you mentioned, I repeat that I make no claim that it will decrease crime, only that it MAY have a positive effect in these mass shootings. I know of no way to prove this. I am opposed to banning "assault rifles" in part because of the studies you mention.

 

[sporthenry]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

Where do you think the illegal weapons come from?

 

[Jobber]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

However, most of these mass shootings are legally obtained guns.

 

[moleculo]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

here's the thing - your proposals wouldn't have done a damn thing about Sandy Hook. I consider Sandy Hook to be a failure of proper gun storage in the vincinity of a mentally unstable individual. Limiting magazine size and/or a national database tracking gun sales are fine ideas, but not really relative to what just happened.i'm interested in finding solutions to problems, not simply leveraging an emotional response to push a pre-existing agenda.

 

[timschochet]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

This is the ultimate goal, one little step at a time.....to all gun being banned.

That's not my goal.

 

[moleculo]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

This is the ultimate goal, one little step at a time.....to all gun being banned.

tim - was this the one guy who wants all guns banned? I'm losing track.

 

[timschochet]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

here's the thing - your proposals wouldn't have done a damn thing about Sandy Hook. I consider Sandy Hook to be a failure of proper gun storage in the vincinity of a mentally unstable individual. Limiting magazine size and/or a national database tracking gun sales are fine ideas, but not really relative to what just happened.i'm interested in finding solutions to problems, not simply leveraging an emotional response to push a pre-existing agenda.

First off, I thought the discussion was gun control, which means we should cover every aspect. I have had serious doubts from the beginning of this conversation that ANY thing we propose could have prevented Sandy Hook. I agree with you about emotional responses.

 

[timschochet]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

This is the ultimate goal, one little step at a time.....to all gun being banned.

tim - was this the one guy who wants all guns banned? I'm losing track.

No, this is a paranoid pro-gun guy. He thinks we're after his arsenal.

 

[JHuber77]

A better idea would be preventing anyone from buying guns who are seeing psychologists and psychiatrists for mental health issues. You could also go further and require people to have a secure means of locking up weapons. Perhaps you could prevent people from owning guns who have someone that is mentally unstable living in their homes. All of these shootings have 1 thing in common and its all mental health issues.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

This is the ultimate goal, one little step at a time.....to all gun being banned.

The fact that many pro-gun people make paranoid slippery slope arguments at the drop of a hat doesn't help anyone. Certainly not the other pro-gun people.

 

[Dvorak]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

However, most of these mass shootings are legally obtained guns.

Does murdering a person and stealing their guns = legally obtained in your world?Because that right there is a money saving tip.

 

[timschochet]

If the NRA does what Rich Conway suggests and agrees to remove the private sales loophole, personally I'd be willing to give up the high-mag restriction. To me that's a reasonable compromise. But it has to come from them.

 

[Dvorak]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

This is the ultimate goal, one little step at a time.....to all gun being banned.

The fact that many pro-gun people make paranoid slippery slope arguments at the drop of a hat doesn't help anyone. Certainly not the other pro-gun people.

"One little step at a time" was Tim's phrase. He's pro-gun now?

 

[moleculo]

A better idea would be preventing anyone from buying guns who are seeing psychologists and psychiatrists for mental health issues. You could also go further and require people to have a secure means of locking up weapons. Perhaps you could prevent people from owning guns who have someone that is mentally unstable living in their homes. All of these shootings have 1 thing in common and its all mental health issues.

my insurance plan would essentially do that. If you cannot obtain insurance, you would not be able to purchase an operable gun.

 

[Jobber]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

However, most of these mass shootings are legally obtained guns.

Does murdering a person and stealing their guns = legally obtained in your world?Because that right there is a money saving tip.

These guns were owned and purchased legally by the mother. My point is a tax on them may very well have discouraged the mother from owning any, or more than one in the first place. Thus potentially reducing the damage this person could have done. Thanks for the...tip.

 

[Dvorak]

How about a ten round maximum, but an authorized facility can still have high capacity magazines to be rented and used in those facilities?

I think this is a great idea. Do you think pro-gun types would go for it? It's a great compromise.

Otis, I thought you were in the camp to ban semi-automatic weapons?

You have to cut Otis some slack, he doesn't know what semi-automatic means. Further, he doesn't care.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

This is the ultimate goal, one little step at a time.....to all gun being banned.

The fact that many pro-gun people make paranoid slippery slope arguments at the drop of a hat doesn't help anyone. Certainly not the other pro-gun people.

"One little step at a time" was Tim's phrase. He's pro-gun now?

Tim said it would be tough to get previously mentioned ideas about gun registration and insurance passed right away, so he would settle for "one little step at a time" towards those goals "Registration and insurance" is not the same as "all guns being banned." Next time maybe read the whole sentence?

 

[JHuber77]

A better idea would be preventing anyone from buying guns who are seeing psychologists and psychiatrists for mental health issues. You could also go further and require people to have a secure means of locking up weapons. Perhaps you could prevent people from owning guns who have someone that is mentally unstable living in their homes. All of these shootings have 1 thing in common and its all mental health issues.

my insurance plan would essentially do that. If you cannot obtain insurance, you would not be able to purchase an operable gun.

So would I be required to obtain insurance if I buy such gun from my local gang member who stole it?

 

[Henry Ford]

A better idea would be preventing anyone from buying guns who are seeing psychologists and psychiatrists for mental health issues. You could also go further and require people to have a secure means of locking up weapons. Perhaps you could prevent people from owning guns who have someone that is mentally unstable living in their homes. All of these shootings have 1 thing in common and its all mental health issues.

There are way too many reasons that people talk to psychiatrists and psychologists that don't affect the ability to responsibly own a gun to put this into effect. To say nothing of the fact that people will go bat-#### crazy when you tell them you're releasing their federally-protected mental health records to the government to be put in a database to decide whether or not they can own a gun.

 

[boots11234]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

However, most of these mass shootings are legally obtained guns.

Does murdering a person and stealing their guns = legally obtained in your world?Because that right there is a money saving tip.

These guns were owned and purchased legally by the mother. My point is a tax on them may very well have discouraged the mother from owning any, or more than one in the first place. Thus potentially reducing the damage this person could have done. Thanks for the...tip.

Ummmmm, did you get a look at her shack? I doubt a tax would have hindered her in any way.

 

[Henry Ford]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

However, most of these mass shootings are legally obtained guns.

Does murdering a person and stealing their guns = legally obtained in your world?Because that right there is a money saving tip.

These guns were owned and purchased legally by the mother. My point is a tax on them may very well have discouraged the mother from owning any, or more than one in the first place. Thus potentially reducing the damage this person could have done. Thanks for the...tip.

Ummmmm, did you get a look at her shack? I doubt a tax would have hindered her in any way.

Yeah, last I heard she was getting something like $280,000.00 a year in alimony.

 

[Jobber]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

However, most of these mass shootings are legally obtained guns.

Does murdering a person and stealing their guns = legally obtained in your world?Because that right there is a money saving tip.

These guns were owned and purchased legally by the mother. My point is a tax on them may very well have discouraged the mother from owning any, or more than one in the first place. Thus potentially reducing the damage this person could have done. Thanks for the...tip.

Ummmmm, did you get a look at her shack? I doubt a tax would have hindered her in any way.

It seems I'm not being clear in the point I'm trying to make. Sorry. My point: Making it more expensive (registration tax) and adding a few more hoops to gun ownership would reduce the raw number of firearms in homes. Maybe Listen, I'm a gun owner, but I'm also open to discussing ideas and not outright pulling an Otis or NRA stance of just crossing my arms and screaming NO to all proposals.

 

[DrJ]

Give me a list of all the potential rape victims who have prevented the rape because they were packing heat.

This is a weak argument Otis. You're not really helping here. Of course there are armed women who have defended themselves from rape with the use of firearms, and good for them. I hope more women arm themselves and learn how to use these weapons; I really do.

Why is it a weak argument, Tim? I suspect this happens very, very, very infrequently. I'm asking. And I'm not here to help you.

Probably difficult to get statistics on this one. The raper would have to declare their intentions before they were stopped. After this, if you stop them it probably still doesn't get classified as a rape. Maybe you could come up with a list of potential victims that were stopped with pepper spray for us to demonstrate its superiority. While you're at it, maybe a list of victims that pepper sprayed their attackers and it didn't incapacitate them.

 

[JHuber77]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

However, most of these mass shootings are legally obtained guns.

Does murdering a person and stealing their guns = legally obtained in your world?Because that right there is a money saving tip.

These guns were owned and purchased legally by the mother. My point is a tax on them may very well have discouraged the mother from owning any, or more than one in the first place. Thus potentially reducing the damage this person could have done. Thanks for the...tip.

Ummmmm, did you get a look at her shack? I doubt a tax would have hindered her in any way.

It seems I'm not being clear in the point I'm trying to make. Sorry. My point: Making it more expensive (registration tax) and adding a few more hoops to gun ownership would reduce the raw number of firearms in homes. Maybe Listen, I'm a gun owner, but I'm also open to discussing ideas and not outright pulling an Otis or NRA stance of just crossing my arms and screaming NO to all proposals.

Adding a registration tax doesn't help the amount of guns in homes. There are already enough to arm everyone in America.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_guns_are_in_the_United_States_of_America

 

[BassNBrew]

I haven't weighed in with a proposal yet, so here goes:

Treat fire-arms similar to cars - that is, require registration and insurance for their operation.

Registration

[*]Registration would require some sort of identification on the gun - a stamped ID, a plate added, something like that. Possibly a yearly sticker, just like we put on our license plates. The gun owner must also keep a paper receipt as well - just like you have in your car.

[*]If you are found in possession of a gun w/o ID and registration, the gun is to be immediately confiscated and will be returned when the owner presents proper papers.

[*]Registration must be renewed annually (bi-annually?). Part of the renewal process is a safety inspection, which both verifies safe operating condition of the gun as well as condition of registration tags.

[*]Safety inspection does not need to be performed by a LEO, it could simply be the guy at the shooting range, a licensed dealer, someone from your hunt-club, or pretty much anyone who has taken some basic training and says an oath.

Insurance

[*]establish some sort of liability costs associated with gun ownership. For sake of discussion, let's say $250k for loss of life and medical bills up to $250k for injuries. These liabilities are only payable if the gun was used in a crime.

[*]Gun owners must purchase insurance and proof of insurance must be presented upon request - along with registration above.

[*]Similar to cars, insurance rates can be allowed to vary, based on a number of factors such as:

[*]number of kids in house

[*]mental state of all residents

[*]gun type (based on probability that a particular gun will be used in a crime)

[*]location of owner residence - probability of gun being stolen

[*]discount for safes

[*]discount for trigger lock

[*]discount for annual gun safety courses

[*]discount for periodic range time

[*]whatever else the actuaries find that increases/decreases gun crime risk

[*]if a gun is stolen, the gun owners insurance company will still have at least a partial fiscal responsibility for above damages, so it is in their interest to ensure that owners do whatever they can to keep their weapons secure.

[*]no liabilities are to be paid when the gun was used in self-defense, including Castle Doctorine usage. That is, if a bad guy breaks into my house and I shoot him, my insurance owes him nothing.

I have no idea if anything like this has been proposed or not. IMO, this could have helped @ Sandy Hook, Va Tech, etc by providing financial incentive to keep their arms secured, as well as limit availability of illegal arms without an outright ban. I can see that if someone wants to keep a whole bunch of dangerous guns around, it's going to get expensive pretty quick if he's not adequately equipped to store them nor has proper safety certification... on the other hand, a simple 6-shot revolver that is stored in a high-quality safe and operated by someone who takes regular training will be really cheap to insure.

No thanks. I'm really not interested in taking my grandfather's single shot .410 every year to get a stamp. I'm not interested in paying $100-$200 a year in insurance for a gun that's worth less than $200. I'm also not interested in getting rid of the only possession I have from the guy who took me to my first college football game or fishing we came into town.

 

[Jobber]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

People who break the law could care less about registration and insurance, so all your doing in essence is adding a tax to someone who does not break the law and is within their right to own a weapon.

However, most of these mass shootings are legally obtained guns.

Does murdering a person and stealing their guns = legally obtained in your world?Because that right there is a money saving tip.

These guns were owned and purchased legally by the mother. My point is a tax on them may very well have discouraged the mother from owning any, or more than one in the first place. Thus potentially reducing the damage this person could have done. Thanks for the...tip.

Ummmmm, did you get a look at her shack? I doubt a tax would have hindered her in any way.

It seems I'm not being clear in the point I'm trying to make. Sorry. My point: Making it more expensive (registration tax) and adding a few more hoops to gun ownership would reduce the raw number of firearms in homes. Maybe Listen, I'm a gun owner, but I'm also open to discussing ideas and not outright pulling an Otis or NRA stance of just crossing my arms and screaming NO to all proposals.

Adding a registration tax doesn't help the amount of guns in homes. There are already enough to arm everyone in America.

So if a guy owns say, 6 weapons. A registration tax is now required. A yearly bill of $600. Is that guy going to pay $600/year ongoing or is he going to consider selling some of them? Just saying.

 

[ATC1]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Reduction of victims in mass shootings appears to be your top reason for magazine restrictions. I still have not heard a response from you on this post:

Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

I've heard this argument used several times in the last few days, and it really doesn't make much sense to me. Almost all of these guys die while committing their crimes. A majority kill themselves. So far as I know, none of them get away. Yes, Lanza and the Aurora shooter chose what turned out to be "soft targets", but we don't have any clue as to whether that was their motivation. Certainly Jared Loughner and the guy who attacked the military base a few years back did not choose soft targets. I don't think there's any correlation here.

Tim I don't understand how you can argue that high capacity mags might limit the amount of victims and yet not understand how a person able to take out someone sooner then waiting for him to reload is not a better solution. Icon posted some figures I was trying to point out without numbers. If you have to wait for a uniformed police officer the victims are higher. When citizens take it upon themselves to wait for a reload the number drops significantly. When the citizen is armed the number drops as well.

15 Shooting rampages stopped by Police: 14.29 deaths per incident11 Shooting rampages stopped by unarmed civilians: 2.8 deaths per incident6 Shooting rampages stopped by armed civilians: 1.6 deaths per incidentFact: Armed civilians have been historically the most effective interventionists in minimizing body count in attempted mass shootings.

The Oregon mall shooter killed two people, it was reported that a citizen with a CCP pulled out his gun and the shooter took his own life when met with resistance. Is that absolutely true? Maybe, maybe not. But when the police arrived the shooter had already done the deed. Seems to me that nothing wold have stopped him from continuing to shoot if a citizen did not intervene.

 

[moleculo]

I haven't weighed in with a proposal yet, so here goes:

Treat fire-arms similar to cars - that is, require registration and insurance for their operation.

Registration

[*]Registration would require some sort of identification on the gun - a stamped ID, a plate added, something like that. Possibly a yearly sticker, just like we put on our license plates. The gun owner must also keep a paper receipt as well - just like you have in your car.

[*]If you are found in possession of a gun w/o ID and registration, the gun is to be immediately confiscated and will be returned when the owner presents proper papers.

[*]Registration must be renewed annually (bi-annually?). Part of the renewal process is a safety inspection, which both verifies safe operating condition of the gun as well as condition of registration tags.

[*]Safety inspection does not need to be performed by a LEO, it could simply be the guy at the shooting range, a licensed dealer, someone from your hunt-club, or pretty much anyone who has taken some basic training and says an oath.

Insurance

[*]establish some sort of liability costs associated with gun ownership. For sake of discussion, let's say $250k for loss of life and medical bills up to $250k for injuries. These liabilities are only payable if the gun was used in a crime.

[*]Gun owners must purchase insurance and proof of insurance must be presented upon request - along with registration above.

[*]Similar to cars, insurance rates can be allowed to vary, based on a number of factors such as:

[*]number of kids in house

[*]mental state of all residents

[*]gun type (based on probability that a particular gun will be used in a crime)

[*]location of owner residence - probability of gun being stolen

[*]discount for safes

[*]discount for trigger lock

[*]discount for annual gun safety courses

[*]discount for periodic range time

[*]whatever else the actuaries find that increases/decreases gun crime risk

[*]if a gun is stolen, the gun owners insurance company will still have at least a partial fiscal responsibility for above damages, so it is in their interest to ensure that owners do whatever they can to keep their weapons secure.

[*]no liabilities are to be paid when the gun was used in self-defense, including Castle Doctorine usage. That is, if a bad guy breaks into my house and I shoot him, my insurance owes him nothing.

I have no idea if anything like this has been proposed or not. IMO, this could have helped @ Sandy Hook, Va Tech, etc by providing financial incentive to keep their arms secured, as well as limit availability of illegal arms without an outright ban. I can see that if someone wants to keep a whole bunch of dangerous guns around, it's going to get expensive pretty quick if he's not adequately equipped to store them nor has proper safety certification... on the other hand, a simple 6-shot revolver that is stored in a high-quality safe and operated by someone who takes regular training will be really cheap to insure.

No thanks. I'm really not interested in taking my grandfather's single shot .410 every year to get a stamp. I'm not interested in paying $100-$200 a year in insurance for a gun that's worth less than $200. I'm also not interested in getting rid of the only possession I have from the guy who took me to my first college football game or fishing we came into town.

1. if you don't want to have your gun stamped but still want to own it, have it disabled. Have the barrel welded shut or whatever. A non-firing gun would be exempt from registration or liability insurance requirements. No problems here - just like if you have a car that you never operate (antique, collectible, whatever), there would be no need to license or insure.2. who said insurance would be $100-$200? I'm assuming you are a safe, knowledgeable, responsible gun owner. Insurance for a single shot .410 that is properly stored would be more along the lines of $10-$20 in my imaginary world.

 

[Dvorak]

Damn, Moleculo and Sinn Fein's ideas are much more complicated than simply having a national database, (which we would need to execute them anyhow.) I like the idea of gun registration and insurance, but it would be such a fight to try to get those that I figured one little step at a time...

This is the ultimate goal, one little step at a time.....to all gun being banned.

The fact that many pro-gun people make paranoid slippery slope arguments at the drop of a hat doesn't help anyone. Certainly not the other pro-gun people.

"One little step at a time" was Tim's phrase. He's pro-gun now?

Tim said it would be tough to get previously mentioned ideas about gun registration and insurance passed right away, so he would settle for "one little step at a time" towards those goals "Registration and insurance" is not the same as "all guns being banned." Next time maybe read the whole sentence?

Tim has been adamant about only wanting the ban high-cap mags and ending private sales. Now he's open to registration & insurance. I think you are the one not reading enough.

 

[Sinn Fein]

A better idea would be preventing anyone from buying guns who are seeing psychologists and psychiatrists for mental health issues. You could also go further and require people to have a secure means of locking up weapons. Perhaps you could prevent people from owning guns who have someone that is mentally unstable living in their homes. All of these shootings have 1 thing in common and its all mental health issues.

Too convoluted imo1. Doctor/Patient confidentiality is going to be a bear to breakdown - if you want a national database of every patient - which is what you would need to enforce this.2. How are you defining "mental health issues"?3. You just forcing people to go undiagnosed - to avoid giving up their guns.

 

[ATC1]

I also believe that having to reload will, in certain situations involving mass shootings, allow law enforcement a better chance to seize the gunman and thus reduce the number of casualties.

Please unpack this a bit. TIA.

I don't think I need to, because I'm betting you're already familiar with the argument. Just as I already know your rebuttal.

In mass shootings, the shooting tends to happen before law enforcement gets there.

Now you are getting somewhere.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I haven't weighed in with a proposal yet, so here goes:

Treat fire-arms similar to cars - that is, require registration and insurance for their operation.

Registration

[*]Registration would require some sort of identification on the gun - a stamped ID, a plate added, something like that. Possibly a yearly sticker, just like we put on our license plates. The gun owner must also keep a paper receipt as well - just like you have in your car.

[*]If you are found in possession of a gun w/o ID and registration, the gun is to be immediately confiscated and will be returned when the owner presents proper papers.

[*]Registration must be renewed annually (bi-annually?). Part of the renewal process is a safety inspection, which both verifies safe operating condition of the gun as well as condition of registration tags.

[*]Safety inspection does not need to be performed by a LEO, it could simply be the guy at the shooting range, a licensed dealer, someone from your hunt-club, or pretty much anyone who has taken some basic training and says an oath.

Insurance

[*]establish some sort of liability costs associated with gun ownership. For sake of discussion, let's say $250k for loss of life and medical bills up to $250k for injuries. These liabilities are only payable if the gun was used in a crime.

[*]Gun owners must purchase insurance and proof of insurance must be presented upon request - along with registration above.

[*]Similar to cars, insurance rates can be allowed to vary, based on a number of factors such as:

[*]number of kids in house

[*]mental state of all residents

[*]gun type (based on probability that a particular gun will be used in a crime)

[*]location of owner residence - probability of gun being stolen

[*]discount for safes

[*]discount for trigger lock

[*]discount for annual gun safety courses

[*]discount for periodic range time

[*]whatever else the actuaries find that increases/decreases gun crime risk

[*]if a gun is stolen, the gun owners insurance company will still have at least a partial fiscal responsibility for above damages, so it is in their interest to ensure that owners do whatever they can to keep their weapons secure.

[*]no liabilities are to be paid when the gun was used in self-defense, including Castle Doctorine usage. That is, if a bad guy breaks into my house and I shoot him, my insurance owes him nothing.

I have no idea if anything like this has been proposed or not. IMO, this could have helped @ Sandy Hook, Va Tech, etc by providing financial incentive to keep their arms secured, as well as limit availability of illegal arms without an outright ban. I can see that if someone wants to keep a whole bunch of dangerous guns around, it's going to get expensive pretty quick if he's not adequately equipped to store them nor has proper safety certification... on the other hand, a simple 6-shot revolver that is stored in a high-quality safe and operated by someone who takes regular training will be really cheap to insure.

No thanks. I'm really not interested in taking my grandfather's single shot .410 every year to get a stamp. I'm not interested in paying $100-$200 a year in insurance for a gun that's worth less than $200. I'm also not interested in getting rid of the only possession I have from the guy who took me to my first college football game or fishing we came into town.

What if he left you a car?

 

[timschochet]

Question- I know very little about these new biometric handgrips- are they a good idea and would they help prevent some of these mass shooting incidents? And how expensive would it be to convert existing firearms?