Anonymous
05/30/2022 14:23
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
Anonymous
05/30/2022 14:19
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
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
05/30/2022 14:11
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
Anonymous
05/30/2022 14:11
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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…
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
05/30/2022 14:09
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
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
05/30/2022 13:25
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
Anonymous wrote: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.
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
05/30/2022 13:12
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
Anonymous
05/30/2022 13:04
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
That’s actually one of the only reasonable things I’ve seen posted in this whole series of threads.
Anonymous
05/30/2022 12:13
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
Anonymous
05/30/2022 12:10
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
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
05/30/2022 10:43
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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.
Anonymous
05/30/2022 10:39
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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…
Oh no, not you again. Do you not understand insurance? If you drive a car and you end up injuring someone, wrecking someone else's car, or destroying property, your insurance company pays for medical bills, to repair/replace the other person's car, or to fix/replace damaged property. If your gun is used to hurt or kill someone, your insurance policy would cover the bills for the injured, pay out money for the dead, and pay to fix damaged property. Insurance kicks in whether or not you drive your car into some "on purpose" or "by accident." Same with guns. You own a gun, you buy insurance if you or someone in your household discharges the gun and injures, kills, destroys.
Let me tell you something, insurance companies are going to have insanely high premiums for young men and for families with young children.
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
05/30/2022 09:51
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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…
Oh no, not you again. Do you not understand insurance? If you drive a car and you end up injuring someone, wrecking someone else's car, or destroying property, your insurance company pays for medical bills, to repair/replace the other person's car, or to fix/replace damaged property.[b] If your gun is used to hurt or kill someone, your insurance policy would cover the bills for the injured, pay out money for the dead, and pay to fix damaged property. Insurance kicks in whether or not you drive your car into some "on purpose" or "by accident." Same with guns. You own a gun, you buy insurance if you or someone in your household discharges the gun and injures, kills, destroys.[b]
Let me tell you something, insurance companies are going to have insanely high premiums for young men and for families with young children.
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
A lot of states have the common sense to have it fall on the party at fault to pay.
Anonymous
05/29/2022 11:16
Subject: Common Sense Gun Laws
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…
Oh no, not you again. Do you not understand insurance? If you drive a car and you end up injuring someone, wrecking someone else's car, or destroying property, your insurance company pays for medical bills, to repair/replace the other person's car, or to fix/replace damaged property.[b] If your gun is used to hurt or kill someone, your insurance policy would cover the bills for the injured, pay out money for the dead, and pay to fix damaged property. Insurance kicks in whether or not you drive your car into some "on purpose" or "by accident." Same with guns. You own a gun, you buy insurance if you or someone in your household discharges the gun and injures, kills, destroys.[b]
Let me tell you something, insurance companies are going to have insanely high premiums for young men and for families with young children.
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
05/29/2022 07:53
Subject: Re:Common Sense Gun Laws
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Taking steps to keep guns out of the hands of those that should not possess them.
Raising age to purchase
Getting people on NICS more easily (e.g., prescribed psychoactive medication)
Severe penalties for straw purchases (and those selling to straw purchasers if it can be shown that seller had this knowledge)
Background checks for all transfers (i.e., no private or face-to-face sales except via federal licensee and with the NICS check)
More robust database to help crack down on straw buyers. It's insane that if you want to buy a box of Sudafed for a stuffy nose, your driver's license and info about your purchase go into a national database and if you try to buy more too soon, it will be flagged and you will be prevented from buying any more. But if you buy a bunch of AR-15s and thousands of rounds of ammo nobody knows and nobody cares. If you buy several 9mm pistols a week month after month nobody knows and nobody cares. There's an entire black market with thousands of guns changing hands.
It’s insane that they are legally buying all of those guns.