***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[Mello]

What if he left you a car?

Our requirements around cars have gone way too far as well.

 

[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.

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.

What about poor people that can barely afford a firearm? Should they not be allowed to defend themselves?

 

[ATC1]

Just a thought. Maybe off my rocker. If there is a breach of privacy for a doctor to share information about a patient to the government or anyone else unless there is a crime, abuse that has been suspected. Could the NRA or other gun organization be in charge of gun registration where they allow police access to only the information to s specific gun used in a crime, or ownership being checked?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do most of us agree the real way to limit the shooting sprees is to localize the news coverage since the glorification caused by the MSM just proliferates copy cat shooting sprees?

Prior to Aurora how many incidents were there of movie theater shooting sprees? How many people have been stopped from doing the same exact thing since Aurora?

Yes other things can be done but they require massive change for a negligible impact.

 

[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.

What if he left you a car?

It would either be a collectible or in the junk yard by now. Also I would be using it on a public road that would require public maintenance. My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

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?

Economy of scale.

 

[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.

What about poor people that can barely afford a firearm? Should they not be allowed to defend themselves?

Good points by all. So it seems registration and tax is probably not a good idea.

 

[timschochet]

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.

I have no problem with responsible people obtaining concealed carry permits,, and if they can help prevent these incidents, great. I don't want teachers armed, however. I don't want guns at school. Not sure what any of this has to do with high capacity magazines,

 

[moleculo]

...My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

Sure it does. There is an infinitesimal chance that your gun will be used to commit a crime. That crime carries a burden on society.

 

[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.

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.

Regarding point two. The price is going to be in the covering the uninsured criminals and guns. I know you're not expecting that to be covered, but the public isn't going to stand for one person getting $250k when a family member is murdered by an insured gun and another getting $0 when a family member is murdered by an uninsured gun.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just a thought. Maybe off my rocker. If there is a breach of privacy for a doctor to share information about a patient to the government or anyone else unless there is a crime, abuse that has been suspected. Could the NRA or other gun organization be in charge of gun registration where they allow police access to only the information to s specific gun used in a crime, or ownership being checked?

I think I'm misunderstanding you. You don't mean that the NRA would be allowed access to everyone's mental health information and provide that information to police when it's needed, right? Or are you saying that gun information should be private just like mental health information? Something else?

 

[Mello]

...My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

Sure it does. There is an infinitesimal chance that your gun will be used to commit a crime. That crime carries a burden on society.

These laws you are dreaming of create more of a burden on society.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Just a thought. Maybe off my rocker. If there is a breach of privacy for a doctor to share information about a patient to the government or anyone else unless there is a crime, abuse that has been suspected. Could the NRA or other gun organization be in charge of gun registration where they allow police access to only the information to s specific gun used in a crime, or ownership being checked?

Not sure I follow - you want the NRA to control gun registrations, and allow police access only to information about a weapon used in a crime?So the conversation goes like thisolice: We recovered this pistol at a crime scene, we'd like the name and address of the ownerNRA Operator: We show that gun is registered to John Doe at 1 Stay Off My Property LanePolice: Great, can you you tell him we are coming?NRA Operator: No problem, have a great American day!NRA Operator turns to colleague: Good thing the police did not ask me about the other 127 weapons John Doe has. That would have been an awkward conversation.

 

[Henry Ford]

What about poor people that can barely afford a firearm? Should they not be allowed to defend themselves?

Surely the poor can stab a bunch of intruders with a pair of safety scissors, just like a kindergarten student who has no gun in the classroom, right?

 

[Sinn Fein]

...

My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

Sure it does. There is an infinitesimal chance that your gun will be used to commit a crime. That crime carries a burden on society.

These laws you are dreaming of create more of a burden on society gun owners.

 

[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.

Regarding point two. The price is going to be in the covering the uninsured criminals and guns. I know you're not expecting that to be covered, but the public isn't going to stand for one person getting $250k when a family member is murdered by an insured gun and another getting $0 when a family member is murdered by an uninsured gun.

interesting. Maybe the $250k doesn't go to the victim but instead it's a penalty paid to the gov't, who uses that to pay down the debt? 2 birds, one stone.

 

[Mello]

...

My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

Sure it does. There is an infinitesimal chance that your gun will be used to commit a crime. That crime carries a burden on society.

These laws you are dreaming of create more of a burden on society gun owners.

Which make up a very large part of our society. Also, I'm not a gun owner. Turned one down offered for free this last weekend. And I still consider this a burden because:1. I may want to own one in the future and should be allowed with no government interference.

2. My tax dollars will be used to create more government bureaucracy and limit peoples' freedoms.

3. It will create more criminals out of people who are not criminals costing even more tax dollars and harm to society.

 

[timschochet]

While I don't want mentally ill people to access firearms, I am extremely uncomfortable with legal restrictions that would attempt to enforce this.

 

[moleculo]

...

My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

Sure it does. There is an infinitesimal chance that your gun will be used to commit a crime. That crime carries a burden on society.

These laws you are dreaming of create more of a burden on society gun owners.

Which make up a very large part of our society. Also, I'm not a gun owner. Turned one down offered for free this last weekend. And I still consider this a burden because:1. I may want to own one in the future and should be allowed with no government interference.

2. My tax dollars will be used to create more government bureaucracy and limit peoples' freedoms.

3. It will create more criminals out of people who are not criminals costing even more tax dollars and harm to society.

1. can you own a car without government interference? How about a house?2. What percentage of your current tax dollars don't create more bureaucracy?

3. there will be further regulation regardless, you can be sure of that.

 

[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?

Bump. Anybody know about this?

 

[Mello]

...

My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

Sure it does. There is an infinitesimal chance that your gun will be used to commit a crime. That crime carries a burden on society.

These laws you are dreaming of create more of a burden on society gun owners.

Which make up a very large part of our society. Also, I'm not a gun owner. Turned one down offered for free this last weekend. And I still consider this a burden because:1. I may want to own one in the future and should be allowed with no government interference.

2. My tax dollars will be used to create more government bureaucracy and limit peoples' freedoms.

3. It will create more criminals out of people who are not criminals costing even more tax dollars and harm to society.

1. can you own a car without government interference? How about a house?2. What part of your tax dollars you currently pay the gov't doesn't create more bureaucracy?

3. there will be further regulation regardless, you can be sure of that.

1. No, but we should be able to. People agreed to these laws well before I was born. I can at least fight the new ones people try to impose on us.2. None of them and I'd rather the government do far less things than it currently does. Again, I'd rather stop the expansion.

3. I'm sure there will and it's sad. Enjoy the police state you all have created. Hopefully we can limit it to something that doesn't really matter like clip size.

 

[Mello]

Which make up a very large part of our society. Also, I'm not a gun owner. Turned one down offered for free this last weekend. And I still consider this a burden because:

1. I may want to own one in the future and should be allowed with no government interference.

2. My tax dollars will be used to create more government bureaucracy and limit peoples' freedoms.

3. It will create more criminals out of people who are not criminals costing even more tax dollars and harm to society.

No, you shouldn't.

Yes, I should and you should too.

 

[Dvorak]

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?

Bump. Anybody know about this?

I don't know of any biometric ones that are commercially available. Just the conversion kits that require magnetic rings.

 

[Bird]

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.

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

 

[moleculo]

...My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

Sure it does. There is an infinitesimal chance that your gun will be used to commit a crime. That crime carries a burden on society.

These laws you are dreaming of create more of a burden on society.

Here's the thing - civilian gun ownership inherently places a burden on society right now - I don't think that can be disputed.

 

[ATC1]

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.

If someone owns a gun and then suffers from some anxeity, how do you propose we get the guns from them?

 

[ATC1]

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.

another good point.

 

[ATC1]

Do most of us agree the real way to limit the shooting sprees is to localize the news coverage since the glorification caused by the MSM just proliferates copy cat shooting sprees?Prior to Aurora how many incidents were there of movie theater shooting sprees? How many people have been stopped from doing the same exact thing since Aurora?Yes other things can be done but they require massive change for a negligible impact.

If you are a supporter of the 2nd amendment and don't want to give the government too much control, you should hate this proposal as well.

 

[Bird]

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

We tax the exercise of many rights (or Rights).

I am missing your point. I have the freedom to assemble, to speech and to religion without paying a specific tax. I am protected from unlawful search and seizure without paying a tax for it. There may be consequences resulting form my invoking a Right but that is not the same as paying an upfront monetary cost.

 

[ATC1]

I have no problem with responsible people obtaining concealed carry permits,, and if they can help prevent these incidents, great. I don't want teachers armed, however. I don't want guns at school. Not sure what any of this has to do with high capacity magazines,

Come on Tim. Let's say a vast majority of mass shooting occur in gun free zones because of easy targets. The only people that follow the gun free zones are the citizens that legally obtain a CCP. You propose that 10 round mags will reduce the victims involved because the shooter will give someone the opportunity to tackle him or will give and extra couple of seconds for the police to arrive. If someone is carrying and can stop him sooner, why wouldn't you support that idea. Again, I am not saying more guns = less crime. What I am saying is that less restrictions on those already carrying = less victims.

 

[parasaurolophus]

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

We tax the exercise of many rights (or Rights).

So you are ok with a poll tax?

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

We tax the exercise of many rights (or Rights).

I am missing your point. I have the freedom to assemble, to speech and to religion without paying a specific tax. I am protected from unlawful search and seizure without paying a tax for it. There may be consequences resulting form my invoking a Right but that is not the same as paying an upfront monetary cost.

We have the freedom to be free of government interference with the things in the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean the government can't collect money from people who choose to exercise those rights in a certain way. For example, it can tax the sale and purchase of newspapers and magazines. It can charge for, and regulate access to bandwidth. It can charge processing fees for filing of legal documents. And it can charge you for exercising your right to bear arms if you choose to do so though ownership of a gun. B

 

[ATC1]

Just a thought. Maybe off my rocker. If there is a breach of privacy for a doctor to share information about a patient to the government or anyone else unless there is a crime, abuse that has been suspected. Could the NRA or other gun organization be in charge of gun registration where they allow police access to only the information to s specific gun used in a crime, or ownership being checked?

I think I'm misunderstanding you. You don't mean that the NRA would be allowed access to everyone's mental health information and provide that information to police when it's needed, right? Or are you saying that gun information should be private just like mental health information? Something else?

Doctors have to keep confidentiality but in times of a crime. If a highly supported gun organization needs to be held with the responsibility of maintaining the gun registration pro gun people would feel less threatened that the info will be put in the hands of the government. If the police want to look up a serial number for a gun from a crime or check they would have to clear it with that organization.

 

[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.

If someone owns a gun and then suffers from some anxeity, how do you propose we get the guns from them?

"Oh, Mr. Johnson. I hear you're here to talk about your schizophrenia and paranoid delusions of being watched all the time, and that the government is keeping tabs on you in order to neutralize you in some pending power-grab by the federal government. Now, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I have to divulge all of the issues you have directly to the ATF as soon as you leave. Let's get started."

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I hope the Democrats don't miss a golden opportunity here to increase mental health spending.

 

[ATC1]

Just a thought. Maybe off my rocker. If there is a breach of privacy for a doctor to share information about a patient to the government or anyone else unless there is a crime, abuse that has been suspected. Could the NRA or other gun organization be in charge of gun registration where they allow police access to only the information to s specific gun used in a crime, or ownership being checked?

Not sure I follow - you want the NRA to control gun registrations, and allow police access only to information about a weapon used in a crime?So the conversation goes like thisolice: We recovered this pistol at a crime scene, we'd like the name and address of the ownerNRA Operator: We show that gun is registered to John Doe at 1 Stay Off My Property LanePolice: Great, can you you tell him we are coming?NRA Operator: No problem, have a great American day!NRA Operator turns to colleague: Good thing the police did not ask me about the other 127 weapons John Doe has. That would have been an awkward conversation.

Why would the NRA need to notify the owner that the police are coming or that he has an arsenal at home?If a patient is sent to Physical Therapy, do you think the PT should have the right to know if the patient has AIDS? It's a hot topic among health care facilities.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

We tax the exercise of many rights (or Rights).

So you are ok with a poll tax?

Poll taxes are specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Before passage of the 24th Amendment, they were constitutional. The vast majority of people and politicians rejected them because they think it's a good thing to have as many people vote as possible, so they were abolished through the Amendment process.Gun taxes are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Therefore they are constitutional. if you'd like to try to convince the vast majority of people that it's a good thing to have as many people own as many guns as possible, feel free to start the movement for an Amendment. Good luck with that.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Aren't guns already taxed? Are people here arguing that's unconstitutional?

 

[ATC1]

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.

If someone owns a gun and then suffers from some anxeity, how do you propose we get the guns from them?

"Oh, Mr. Johnson. I hear you're here to talk about your schizophrenia and paranoid delusions of being watched all the time, and that the government is keeping tabs on you in order to neutralize you in some pending power-grab by the federal government. Now, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I have to divulge all of the issues you have directly to the ATF as soon as you leave. Let's get started."

Agreed. But can a doctor simply tell the ATF that a person is or isn't fit to have a gun and leave it at that? Main concern here is that less people will try to seek health if that is the case.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Aren't guns already taxed? Are people here arguing that's unconstitutional?

That seemed to be what Bird was arguing- that you can't or at least shouldn't tax guns because of their "protected" status in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ATC1]

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.

If someone owns a gun and then suffers from some anxeity, how do you propose we get the guns from them?

"Oh, Mr. Johnson. I hear you're here to talk about your schizophrenia and paranoid delusions of being watched all the time, and that the government is keeping tabs on you in order to neutralize you in some pending power-grab by the federal government. Now, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I have to divulge all of the issues you have directly to the ATF as soon as you leave. Let's get started."

That's why I think a psych eval should be a necessary pre-requrement to getting a gun. Don't rely on, "catching the crazies." Make people affirmatively prove that they're ok.

And if a person is diagnosed with a mental illness after they are allowed to get a gun? A lot more issues when it comes to mentally ill people oposed to a gun registration.

 

[ATC1]

While I don't want mentally ill people to access firearms, I am extremely uncomfortable with legal restrictions that would attempt to enforce this.

yup

 

[rascal]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.

Points he brought up

1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.

2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.

3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything.

4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

 

[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.

If someone owns a gun and then suffers from some anxeity, how do you propose we get the guns from them?

"Oh, Mr. Johnson. I hear you're here to talk about your schizophrenia and paranoid delusions of being watched all the time, and that the government is keeping tabs on you in order to neutralize you in some pending power-grab by the federal government. Now, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I have to divulge all of the issues you have directly to the ATF as soon as you leave. Let's get started."

Agreed. But can a doctor simply tell the ATF that a person is or isn't fit to have a gun and leave it at that? Main concern here is that less people will try to seek health if that is the case.

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

 

[parasaurolophus]

...My legally owned and used gun doesn't create any financial burden on the country. A car does.

Sure it does. There is an infinitesimal chance that your gun will be used to commit a crime. That crime carries a burden on society.

so an infinitesimal registration fee should be charged.

 

[ATC1]

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?

Bump. Anybody know about this?

Problems. 1. If I'm a criminal I remove the grips and replace it with a old one. If they are not removable, you are looking at a very expensive proposal. 2. Before I buy a gun, I want to use it to make sure I can handle it properly.

 

[rascal]

That's why I think a psych eval should be a necessary pre-requrement to getting a gun. Don't rely on, "catching the crazies." Make people affirmatively prove that they're ok.

And if a person is diagnosed with a mental illness after they are allowed to get a gun? A lot more issues when it comes to mentally ill people oposed to a gun registration.

Have everyone get re-certified every 3-5 years.

lol....good luck getting that implemented/enforced. People should be more concerned that people don't have to pass a drivers test/vision test every 3-5 years.

 

[Mello]

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

And people wonder why many avoid seeking mental help... Here's one of the reasons.

 

[moleculo]

looks like there are others suggesting a gun liability requirement:

Slate

NRA

insureme.com - an interesting bit about "liability without fault"

Forbes

dailykos

I'm glad to see this idea is out there already.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.Points he brought up1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything. 4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.4) Sounds like a good idea.