Common Sense Gun Laws
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It’s insane that they are legally buying all of those guns. |
Anonymous
And what if one is legitimately defending themselves from an attacker? We would need gun insurance to “pay out money for the dead” offender? That person in Alexandria who successfully defended themself from the carjacker last week should have had insurance to pay the family of the thug who tried to take the car with force? The lady in West Virginia who stopped a mass casualty event just a few days ago with her legally owned and carried handgun should have had insurance to pay off the family of the jerk who started shooting up a graduation party? This is a lot more complex than you make it out to be |
Anonymous
A lot of states have the common sense to have it fall on the party at fault to pay. |
Anonymous
You are talking about accidents. A homeowner liability insurance already covers accidents. No car insurance covers intentional damage or injury because those are criminal, and the insurance company does not insure against criminal acts. |
Anonymous
No insurance can be written for intentional acts of wrongdoing by the insured. If the wrongful death is due to negligence, that's already covered by a homeowner's insurance for guns. If the wrongful death is caused by an intentional act, then no insurance exists to cover that. |
Anonymous
|
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961022002057
The sustained effect of a temporary measure: Urban firearm mortality following expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban American Journal of Surgery Apparently a weapons ban was very effective from 1994-2004 Abstract Background The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) was in effect from 1994 to 2004. We sought to examine its impact on firearm-related homicides. Methods All firearm-related homicides occurring in three metropolitan United States cities were analyzed during the decade preceding (PRE), during (BAN), and after (POST) the FAWB. Files were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Rates of firearm-related homicides were stratified by year and compared using simple linear regression. Results 21,327 firearm-related homicides were analyzed. The median number of firearm-related homicides per year decreased from 333 (PRE) to 199 (BAN) (p = 0.008). This effect persisted following expiration of the ban (BAN 199 vs POST 206, p = 0.429). The rate of firearm-related homicides per 1 M population also decreased from 119.4 in 1985 to 49.2 in 2014 (β = −2.73, p < 0.0001). Conclusions During the FAWB, there was a significant decrease in firearm-related homicides in three of the most dangerous cities, underscoring the need for better directed prevention efforts. |
Anonymous
Fine, then run it like an uninsured motorist fund. Everybody has to pay in to a fund. |
Anonymous
That’s actually one of the only reasonable things I’ve seen posted in this whole series of threads. |
Anonymous
We need a fund to buy back these war weapons and get them out of our society. |
Anonymous
It's perversely psychological. Disproportionate share of these shootings have been AR-style assault rifles - even though there are semi-auto hunting rifles that in many cases are even more lethal than AR's. These wanna-be tough guys, wacked out teenagers, right wing militia dudes all want the AR-15s because they *look* militaristic and tough and these inadequate losers want them in order to try and compensate for their own self-doubt and self-loathing. But it's not sexy enough for them to engage in their sick gun porn fantasizing with a regular hunting rifle. |
Anonymous
Uninsured motorist funds also do not cover intentional criminal acts. I am not sure what you are thinking of, but it may be closer to a victims-of-crime fund, and those types of funds already exist. It's nothing new and typically covers a variety of crimes, not just those involving a gun. It may be plausible that such a targeted fund is set up at the state or national level that is funded through a tax on gun sales. As a gun owner, I'm ambivalent about something like this. If it exists, I'd obviously help pay for it. I just don't see that it will have any type of deterrence effect for people owning guns as such taxes will be minor compared to the cost of the gun. In the grand scheme of things, there just aren't that many people who are victims of gun violence compared to the sheer number of guns owned in the US. If we take last year's million guns sold per year, and add a $50 tax on the sale of each gun, which is entirely plausible, that would generate nearly 1 billion dollars for the fund. It's estimated that the yearly medical cost of gun violence is, surprisingly enough, $1 billion dollars. In fact, they can use the yearly sales data to set the following year's gun sales "victim fund" tax. If only 10 million guns are sold, then it would be $100 per gun. Surplus/deficits can carry/roll into the following year. |
Anonymous
If you own certain breeds of dogs you paid more for insurance. If you have a gun yo7 are liable for your actions with a gun..also the seller and manufacture. |
Anonymous
Not before a constitutional amendment. If purely voluntary, it would have a very limited effect. |
Anonymous
It's not voluntary. The item.is now illegal and you can turn it is for compensation or not but it is still now illegal. They change the rules all the time for lots of things. I have a lead blower but now it is against the rules to use it my town because they are a noise pollution disaster and the people got together and said no more. The rules out ours to make in this country. |
Anonymous
|