“Comparative fault” is the term you are looking for.
3 Likes
Why is it “reasonable”?
Persons can legally buy guns used for all manner of crime. You have no clue, and your assumptions aren’t useful to the argument.
3 Likes
Yeah, yeah. I know that’s what “most people” mean. I disagree. I think more harm is being done by handguns than by long guns.
Mass shootings are sensational. They get a lot of attention. But they’re infrequent. Meanwhile, you can get 50 shootings in a weekend in the summer in a big city. And rarely are semi-auto rifles used in these shootings… so far.
1 Like
Or it could be spent dealing with the losses to the public both physically and financially caused by irresponsible, negligent or malicious gun owners. Money spent on gun control has a chance to save money spent by the public on the damaging effects of inadequately regulated firearms in public circulation.
Of course one way to save the public money on such effects is mandatory insurance requirements. Not only does it take registration out of the hands of government (which will take yer guns away!!! 
) you put it in the hands of insurance companies which don’t mind if you own them because it means you are willing to pay them premiums. Plus it creates financial incentives for not being an idiot with them. Libertarian market solutions!!!
2 Likes
The Guardian ran a multi-part feature last week on guns, shootings, and gun culture in the U.S. The very first article talked about how mass shootings get all the attention yet make up less than 0.5% of homicides by firearm. The everyday body count, while far less sensational, is a frightening mass of tragedies.
2 Likes
What if, say, gun owners had to pick up the slack and it was a cost of owning a gun.
The way that gas tax pays for roads, how about an ammo/gunpowder tax to pay for gun control?
Totally crazy, I know.
5 Likes
I think it is extremely unreasonable to assume that, for reasons I stated. Murder is often an escalation of an emotional situation that uses a weapon that happens to be there at the time. Robbery is usually planned and brings as weapon intentionally to the crime.
The majority of murders are committed by friends and loved ones so having a gun in the house means it is present in the situation that murder arises from. The same is not true of robberies.
9 Likes
That is where insurance becomes absolutely vital and would have gun owners clamoring for it. What better way to pay for the kinds of seemingly unlikely (or commonplace) perils which could financially bankrupt you than to have insurance.
I like an ammo tax. Plus you can always throw in license and registration fees.
2 Likes
Bullshit on that. Insurance requirements do not prevent people from owning an item. Or more importantly they do not prevent reasonable responsible people from owning an item. All rights are subject to limitations and regulations. Usually concerning reasonable issues of public safety or banning deliberate and malicious harmful conduct. Plus putting issues in the hands of private industry take out government’s role.
Insurance allows for customized efforts and regulation based on the individual in a way wide sweeping laws cannot. Actuarial scales concerning use and ownership of a given weapon are far more accurate and reliable than government or lobbyist sponsored surveys. Insurance companies depend on the actuarial scales for their own bottom line and ability to generate business.
2 Likes
or bailouts
2 Likes
Her daughters were 17 and 22. A teen and a young adult would stand a helluva lot better chance fighting off or escaping a crazed 42-year-old woman brandishing a knife than one who had a gun.
10 Likes
Well, I’d go as far to say that anyone who was stabbed stands a hell of a better chance of surviving than someone who’s been shot.
Sandy Hook vs. Chenpeng Village Primary School.
5 Likes
AIG got into trouble when it started insuring things it had no business touching, Credit Default Swaps. The government got its money back from the bailout…eventually.
Now that I consider my feelings on the default for-profit enterprise we call ‘health care’ in this country, I kinda see your point.
1 Like
You are thinking of the wrong kind of insurance. Health insurance is a much different animal than property casualty insurance. If we had the same kind of healthcare system as much of Western Europe, Japan and Canada, we would either not need health insurance or have it paid in full by our employers.
Everybody who owns something valuable or can cause mayhem should have or be required to have property/casualty insurance. Be it a gun, tiger used in your Vegas act, car, or commercial high explosives for your quarry.
5 Likes
there’s one difference between proposed gun licensing and insurance and car insurance that i can think of:
the licensing and insurance for cars is about driving. whereas the licensing and insurance for guns seems to be about owning.
ii’d be curious to know what happens when it lapses.
no more buying ammo? it’s cheap, stockpiling is easy.
no more shooting at ranges? i’m not sure a gun owner would care much.
the police come knocking at the door to re-possess? people would be up in… arms.
it’d certainly be a step forward in response to other crimes – oh, you were speeding, and have an unlicensed gun in your truck, thank you that’s now ours. and for that alone, i’m for it – but, is there more?
1 Like
Which is why we make it an ammo tax. Look, my family has shotguns that have been around for about a hundred years, engraved, really nice. But not the best for hunting or actual use. So, if you don’t shoot it, it’s irrelevant. Own all the guns you want.
Bullets though, they’re a hundred bucks. And we treat gunpowder the same way we treat dynamite. You can buy it, but not too much and for a specific reason. Like Sudafed as well.
5 Likes
Actually licensing and insurance for cars is about protecting the public and yourself from the damages caused by potential misuse of the vehicle. Licensing is to to assure the public it is owned by someone with the bare minimum concepts of safe use of the item. The concept works for pretty much any item which is of significant cost and poses a given danger to the public with misuse.
It could be grounds for impounding your weapon if it is taken out in public. Revocation of carry permit. Loss of ability to buy ammo. Loss of ability to buy more guns. Most importantly personal liability for its misuse. Which unless the gun owner is very wealthy is likely to bankrupt someone in wrongful injury/death litigation. It would actually be in the best interests of gun owners to be insured.
Unless you live in the middle of the woods with a lot of land between you and your neighbors, a range is about the only place where many can really use certain kinds of guns. For some people it is the only place. It would be a big loss for most gun owners.
Baby steps. Baby steps. The worst criticism out there against gun control measures is that it doesn’t solve every situation. Well few laws do. Its not the point. Its a poor excuse to do absolutely nothing at all and ignore a public hazard. But if it does address at least some problems and makes things safer for the public in some ways, it is useful.
6 Likes
Dude, I hear you… like I said upthread, this was sarcasm, in case it wasn’t evident from the post I was replying to.
I think you mean the ONLY criticism, along with the partial truth, partial deflection of “what IS an assault weapon, anyway?”
Instead of solutions, we get sophistry.
7 Likes
