Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

[quoteAnonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The insurance argument makes 0 sense. Insure against what?
You insure your car against an accident, any damage done on purpose is not covered. Pulling the trigger is shooting it on purpose, so not covered…


You buy insurance that covers personal liability for wrongful death using your weapon. Like an umbrella policy. Make it mandatory, every gun owner must pay in, and then when the a shooter or his estate is sued, victims and families get paid.


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.


Fine, then run it like an uninsured motorist fund. Everybody has to pay in to a fund.


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.

Last year a million guns were sold. At $50 tax per gun that would be $50 million (not 1 billion as you state). You would have had to charge 1K per gun to get to 1 billion in the fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.

Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insurance argument makes 0 sense. Insure against what?
You insure your car against an accident, any damage done on purpose is not covered. Pulling the trigger is shooting it on purpose, so not covered…

You buy insurance that covers personal liability for wrongful death using your weapon. Like an umbrella policy. Make it mandatory, every gun owner must pay in, and then when the a shooter or his estate is sued, victims and families get paid.

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.

Fine, then run it like an uninsured motorist fund. Everybody has to pay in to a fund.

We need a fund to buy back these war weapons and get them out of our society.

Not before a constitutional amendment. If purely voluntary, it would have a very limited effect.

Except your leaf blower isn't specifically mentioned and protected by the second most important line-item in the BOR.

Change the Constitution and repeal the Amendment if you feel you have the public backing. The process for doing so is clearly spelled out in the Articles. But we both know you don't, so you'll reject this route because "it's too hard"/

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]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.

Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

Agreed. And you don't get to make rules that take away my Constitutionally recognized, God-given freedoms. The USA doesn't belong to Daniel Defense, and it doesn't belong to you, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.


Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

Agreed. And you don't get to make rules that take away my Constitutionally recognized, God-given freedoms. The USA doesn't belong to Daniel Defense, and it doesn't belong to you, either.

Your freedom to buy assault weapons is not given by God or anyone else in the constitution. The were banned just fine not so long ago and they can we banned again if that is what we want. We all make the rules. Not you. Not me. And sure as he** not daniel defense.

[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.

Last year a million guns were sold. At $50 tax per gun that would be $50 million (not 1 billion as you state). You would have had to charge 1K per gun to get to 1 billion in the fund.

Check again, 19 million guns were sold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.


Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

Agreed. And you don't get to make rules that take away my Constitutionally recognized, God-given freedoms. The USA doesn't belong to Daniel Defense, and it doesn't belong to you, either.

Your freedom to buy assault weapons is not given by God or anyone else in the constitution. The were banned just fine not so long ago and they can we banned again if that is what we want. We all make the rules. Not you. Not me. And sure as he** not daniel defense.

It certainly is guaranteed by the Constitution. It's arguable if the ban was constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.


Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

Agreed. And you don't get to make rules that take away my Constitutionally recognized, God-given freedoms. The USA doesn't belong to Daniel Defense, and it doesn't belong to you, either.

Your freedom to buy assault weapons is not given by God or anyone else in the constitution. The were banned just fine not so long ago and they can we banned again if that is what we want. We all make the rules. Not you. Not me. And sure as he** not daniel defense.

It certainly is guaranteed by the Constitution. It's arguable if the ban was constitutional.

It certainly is not. And if scotus is a bunch of political hacks under the thumb of the gun lobby, we will need to come up with solutions for that as well. It does not say that we will have nine justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.

Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

Play on words like this is asinine and convinces no one. By this same rationale, we can't maintain a police department for the purpose of public peace keeping if individual police officers may be corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.


Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

Agreed. And you don't get to make rules that take away my Constitutionally recognized, God-given freedoms. The USA doesn't belong to Daniel Defense, and it doesn't belong to you, either.

Your freedom to buy assault weapons is not given by God or anyone else in the constitution. The were banned just fine not so long ago and they can we banned again if that is what we want. We all make the rules. Not you. Not me. And sure as he** not daniel defense.

It certainly is guaranteed by the Constitution. It's arguable if the ban was constitutional.

It certainly is not. And if scotus is a bunch of political hacks under the thumb of the gun lobby, we will need to come up with solutions for that as well. It does not say that we will have nine justices.

You have the burden of proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.

Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

Play on words like this is asinine and convinces no one. By this same rationale, we can't maintain a police department for the purpose of public peace keeping if individual police officers may be corrupt.

To the contrary, that an assault weapons ban is perfectly legal and desireable is a fact.

What's wrong? You will miss strutting around and shooting your big big big powerful assualt weapon? Awwww. It will be ok.

[Anonymous]

Folks: "Gun Control" is a dead term. It died at Sandy Hook. The new term is Massacre Reduction. Pass it on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks: "Gun Control" is a dead term. It died at Sandy Hook. The new term is Massacre Reduction. Pass it on.

Absolutely. So sorry Daniel defense. Time for massacre reduction. Figure out something better to sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- license and pass a safety test (just like we have for cars)
- license can be taken away for violations, safety hazards (just like for cars)
- insurance required (just like we have for cars)
- police need to have more powerful weapons that citizenry are allowed (just like for cars, police can access equipment citizenry can’t)

Americans love cars just like they love guns. But we seem not to have totally lost their mind over them.

I absolutely disagree with your stance on police. They and the rest of us non military need nothing more than a handgun and in reality I'd prefer not even that.

Those in the military can have other styles of guns when on duty only. Not to be kept at home. Same for those that hunt.they can go to designated areas and sign in and out

This is not constitutional. But even if it was now you do not have the support needed to do anything.

Excellent image. We don't have to accept this extremely perverted nonsense the gun nuts try to sell about the 2nd amendment.

This is our country to set the rules that we want. The usa does not belong to daniel defense and it's Ilk so they can shove off.

Play on words like this is asinine and convinces no one. By this same rationale, we can't maintain a police department for the purpose of public peace keeping if individual police officers may be corrupt.

To the contrary, that an assault weapons ban is perfectly legal and desireable is a fact.

What's wrong? You will miss strutting around and shooting your big big big powerful assualt weapon? Awwww. It will be ok.

You have the burden of proof on that.

I don't know where you live that have people strutting around and just shooting their guns off, but I recommend that you move asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks: "Gun Control" is a dead term. It died at Sandy Hook. The new term is Massacre Reduction. Pass it on.

Yea, seems like a good way to refocus our efforts on the root cause of mental health crisis.

Great idea!!!