Insurance premiums are designed to cover various markets, including a low income one. Since the purpose of them is ultimately to protect the owners and outside parties from financial ruin from the damages caused by using the insured property. The argument comes from people unaware how property-casualty insurance works. With cars, there is definitely a low-income and assigned risk market catering to those of limited means or lousy driving ability.
The great thing about the insurance requirement is it creates national level ownership data which law enforcement can draw upon if needed (following 4th Amendment protocols), but its not in the hands of law enforcement. Instead its in the hands of people trying to protect ownership interests.
You are underestimating the ingenuity of desperate gunhuggers. As I posted in the other thread:
Semiautomatics. Ban them. Ban them all.
Removable magazines. Ban them. This will stop Mr. Clever Gun Tinkerer looking at Section 2 above and building a .30-30 lever action carbine with a 100-round drum magazine
The problem with such a question right now is that premiums/risk are not just calculated based on an individual, but on the total pool of insureds paying into the system. More people = lower premiums to cover risks.
The fact that the House is passing these things, and that essentially 96% of the democrats in the senate are willing to vote for them while 100% of the republicans in the senate refuse to even discuss them does not equal democrats not wanting to do anything.
It points to our broken system, for sure, but I wish people would stop pretending that, because one side is an obstructionist cesspit it means the other side “don’t care.”
And that’s not even getting into the State/local situations.
DC, under democratic rule, had banned handguns and got sued and had the ban overturned while I lived there:
Same thing happened in Chicago a couple years later.
You DO realize how our government works, right? Biden can’t write or pass legislation, which is what we need done, himself. He can suggest and draft it, or work with congress to do so, but it is THEIR job to write laws. The most he can do is an executive order, but that’s not going to be enough to fix this problem. Congress NEEDS to do it’s job, and it’s not thanks to 30 years of “government is the problem” mind set from the GOP.
We have more guns than people in the States, so I’m willing to bet that we have more people who would be required to buy gun insurance than people who currently have health insurance (and that’s WITH the ACA in place).
Countless American teenagers have cars, and even a used car costs several thousand dollars these days even before you account for registration, insurance, gasoline and maintenance.
So yeah, it would be silly to assume that the financial burden of buying or licensing an assault weapon would be enough to keep them out of the hands of middle-class teenagers.
Tell that to my Congresswoman, Lucy McBath, whose son was killed by gun violence and who ran on a platform of gun control. Dems are ready to pass legislation. As others have said, it’s a minority in Congress who hold us back. Until there are enough votes in Congress to change the laws, Biden can’t do a lot.
Regarding the price - In this case and others like it, it would be silly to think they wouldn’t just put everything on a credit card knowing they won’t be around to pay it.
The licensing and insuring, though, I do think that would help. Going through that step for car purchases was a pain as a newbie. I imagine it might introduce enough of a delay into the process that at least some kids reconsidered.
And it would (hopefully) cut down on the arsenals being amassed by some preppers and that whole genre.
It’s completely messed up that my house insurance costs more if I have a swimming pool or a trampoline but they don’t even ask about guns.
Could be, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try.
We need LOTS of constitutional amendments right now. But we should aim for the low-hanging fruit, which is legislation. Constitutional amendments are much longer processes, and we can’t wait for that.
All fair points. I’m just not sure legislation is that low hanging a fruit. It seems to me that the gun lobby fights even the slightest regulation just as hard as they would a constitutional amendment.
may not be the lowest, but it’s more feasible than a constitutional amendment at this point. As long as the far right has a stronghold on state legislatures, we have to think strategically on these issues.
Especially the insurance. If people had to pay market price for insurance against their guns being used to hurt or kill innocent people, and the insurance companies had a clear profit motive to not insure dangerous people, that right there is a market-based policy of personal responsibility that conservatives should theoretically give their enthusiastic support. (If they actually believed in their stated principles, anyway.) It would also provide a fund to help the families of those injured or killed, who typically can’t get much from the estate of the shooter so that they aren’t forced to try to get a settlement from the school district or whatever.
I was thinking that Congress can propose a constitutional amendment specifying it is to be ratified by the states via ratifying conventions rather than state legislatures, precisely to get round the state legislatures that will never, ever vote against their gun gods.
Which all sounds fine and all, except of course my argument was that this would be easier than passing legislation…
And since it still relies on Congress taking action, any Congress that could do it, could also pass gun laws.
I still think it’s the only viable solution – or more accurately I don’t think there can be a solution until US attitudes to guns change widely enough that buying 500 semi-automatic weapons and cosplaying as Seal Team Six is no longer seen as acceptable behaviour by anyone.
But that doesn’t mean the fight for legislation isn’t necessary or the right thing to do right now.
I think it doesn’t. Congress can decide whether a proposed amendment is to be ratified by state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions.
If it is by state ratifying conventions, the state legislatures’ only involvement is in specifying how the convention is to be called and conducted.
New Mexico has apparently tried to be cute by enacting legislation stating that its ratifying convention shall consist of the state legislature but it’s never been tested as to whether that’s valid or not.
