Skip to main content

View Diary: "[A] completely dumbass idea from the start." (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Private sales are the fly in this ointment, yes. (7+ / 0-)

    Requiring gun show sales to undergo background checks will be inconvenient as hell, but IMO it's a realistic alternative.

    •  Not just private sales (6+ / 0-)

      Perfectly legal sales to others who live in the same household.

      Didn't a relative (who was found dead, iirc)  live next door? Could have been their legally acquired guns, just like nancy lanza's legally acquired guns.

      Guns get stolen all the time.

      •  Probably some law greatly increasing the (5+ / 0-)

        penalty for one's registered weapon being used in a crime.

        If one's gun is stolen, one would need to notify the police immediately, lest they be held accountable for providing a weapon even if it was stolen and no prior report made.

        But for every reasonable rule that is made, there will be at least one person staying up at night trying to figure a way around it.

        I don't think some here understand that some people don't follow the rules and no matter what rules are put in place, they will ignore them: this is why I say regulations need to be smart, not just reactionary.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:22:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure, but ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bernardpliers, Egalitare

          what matters from a policy perspective is not achieving perfection but rather substantial improvement.  And the balancing test is whether the added burden is commensurate with the improvement gained.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:47:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cost/Benefit & Imaginary Utopias/Winning Elections (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happy camper, qofdisks

            Otherwise it's all just purity trolls

            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

            by bernardpliers on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:52:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Better should always be the focus (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mmacdDE, tommymet

            The very best restrictions didn't keep the tragedy in Norway from happening. But it likely won't be repeated there for another generation, if that soon.

            I reject the premise that we are "hard wired" more violent than the rest of the planet. We aren't. We simply make it far too easy for firearms to be married to whatever circumstance results in conflict or dispute of any sort.

            When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

            by Egalitare on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:08:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  This too is where insuring firearms for ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mmacdDE, Joieau

          ... liability can pay dividends for the "rest of us".  Unless the weapon has been reported as transferred to another registered and licensed owner, the original owner of the weapon is liable for the damages it could cause to people, property, and society.  If the weapon is stolen, the owner of the gun would be motivated to report it quickly because she or he would not want to continue paying premiums on something they don't currently possess.

          I imagine that the insurance company would still bear some burden if someone or something is damaged using a weapon reported as stolen.  This could be handled in the form of a pool of money created for this type of situation by the insurance companies themselves.  They are insurance companies after all, so they know how to mitigate risks to their bottom line.

          Lastly, insurance would motivate a policy owner to better protect their firearms because the loss of a weapon would certainly increase their premiums on other weapons they own, or on the gun they purchase to replace the one that was stolen.

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:33:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Deal is, no 'license' is required (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            just to own a gun - it's a Constitutional right. License is required in order to carry in public (some states allow open and concealed carry without license, but not many). Nor are individual guns required to be licensed, and since they are inanimate objects I'm not clear on how that would work legally. I still suspect any licensing would have to be held by the wielder and not the weapon. I which case s/he could wield any of a number of firearms at any given time.

            Stolen guns that aren't registered don't necessarily require reporting, though many people will do so because it's stolen property. If the government of the state isn't keeping track of guns via requisite registration, then they've no way to know its ownership history. High end collectibles and such are often named in insurance policies - and reported to said insurer if stolen or given away - but I know of no state that requires insurers to report any of the details to law enforcement. That would amount to 'back door' regulation that would have to pass Constitutional muster, and that could take forever/never.

            Again, price fixing for insurance required by law would probably not be legal, much less Constitutional if the state has no registration requirements. And could never apply to firearms exempt from registration requirements in states that do have such requirements, or any gun in the possession of criminals.

            •  How about requiring Titles (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too, Joieau

              for firearms?

              •  That's registration/licensing. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Not all states require this, and I don't know how a federal requirement for registration/licensing would work, since it never has before. Again, we're talking a constitutional right, not a privilege extended by authority on its own terms. Getting state and local gun laws past that constitutional right has been rather difficult in a number of cases from a number of states. Simply saying you want such restrictions doesn't mean they'll pass constitutional muster. Honest.

                Perhaps there is a way. Lord knows there are lots of people trying to find a way. Even then it'll have to get legislative approval in the states, and that's certainly not guaranteed no matter how altruistic your motivations.

                I don't need a Title for my chainsaw. Or my axes or mauls. Or my machetes, my bows, my swords, or any other implement of destruction I keep as a matter of course in living where I do. Which is deep into the wilderness surrounded by federal and state designated forest/game lands. Nor am I required to report to anyone what critters I kill on my own property, for any reason. Though I do always report rabid animals or suspicious drop-deads (might be West Nile or something) so they'll know there's a problem.

                One size simply does not fit all in either the spirit or letter of the law. Given that you need to clear any blanket regulations through constitutional muster, we truly do need a comprehensive conversation about what CAN be done.

            •  I'm talking about an idea which has been... (0+ / 0-)

              ... floated in various diaries on this site.  Requiring liability insurance for each firearm, similar to cars.  The second amendment may give you the right, but it doesn't absolve you of the responsibility associated with that right.

              I can't envision any scenario in which my insurance company should have to pay for my injuries (or damage to my property) should your firearm go off unexpectedly - those costs should be born by the person owning the gun, without exception.  Just like any automobile accident, your insurance company would immediately be on the hook for all medical expenses, property damage, and cleanup.  It's not something that I should have to worry about at all.

              Nor can I imagine that our society has the obligation to pay for the damage done in situations like Aurora or Sandy Hook.  If you want to own a weapon capable of inflicting mass casualties, that's fine as long as you have insurance to protect the rest of us (all of us) from bearing the costs associated with those incidents.  Our society shouldn't have to worry about the actual costs of nightmares like this, the emotional costs are bad enough.

              What's fair is fair.  Gun owners can own an arsenal if they choose - as long as the rest of us are protected from the potential damage which can be done by that arsenal.  The second amendment right doesn't eclipse our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

              I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

              by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:14:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am saying that liability insurance (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                covers the operator, not the gun. For recording purposes the vehicle is listed, but no insurer I know of covers that vehicle if it's being driven by someone who isn't on the policy/immediate relative thereof, or designated friend/relative with owner's permission.

                IOW, I could own a car that isn't insured, I just can't drive it on public roads until I have insurance. Which covers me and any other of my licensed household members who may drive it. I cannot get an affordable insurance policy that covers a car thief who steals it from me. Or covers anyone not ostensibly covered for driving it under my policy terms.

                I could get insurance in case I shoot somebody who isn't a criminal trying to harm me and my family or presenting a credible threat. That policy wouldn't cover the thief after he steals the gun, or any of his friends. See what I mean?

                •  Yes I understand... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... but cars are not designed to lethal weapons.  The owner of a gun owes a special responsibility to the rest of us that we are free from as much harm as possible from the weapon you choose to purchase.  The fact that it isn't in your possession doesn't limit the lethality of the item you purchased, and shouldn't limit your liability.  

                  You can limit your liability by taking precautions to make sure that a thief can't find your gun, and if he does that it would be very difficult for him to enable it for use.  But if a gun owner keeps a loaded gun in their bedside table without a trigger lock, why should the rest of us be responsible for the result of a gun owner's laziness?  The short answer is that we shouldn't, the gun is the gun owner's responsibility until it is sold to another person willing to be liable for the right to bear that weapon (or until it is destroyed).

                  I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                  by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:47:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But there's no law against (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    me using a tool designed to kill, for the purpose of killing. I can kill any creature that is on my property that is not otherwise protected as endangered or in preservation status, or in a designated public space so long as I've paid the fee and agreed to kill only in-season creatures, or any of half a dozen others I may happen upon that are not regulated (open season, no license required).

                    Nor is there any law that forbids me to exercise my second amendment right to own/wield a tool designed to kill for the purpose of protecting life and limb, obtaining food or defending my property/livestock. Given the fact that I am neither a felon nor someone who has been involuntarily committed for mental health issues in any state, the state doesn't give a shit. You shouldn't give a shit either, my exercise of my rights is not a matter of your concern or dependent upon your approval. Not at all picking a fight here, just stating what is real and/or legal per firearms where I live right now. In reality. It doesn't matter to my rights what your feelings about weapons designed to kill may be. You are free not to possess or ever use such a thing in deference to your feelings. You are not free to forbid me the right. See how that works?

                    Now, the likelihood of you personally ever encountering the business end of any gun I may be wielding is vanishingly slim. I might show it to you if you were invited to my property as a vouched-for legit visitor and wished to see it. Heck, I might even let you handle it and plunk some cans and/or pumpkins with it down in the bottomland too, depending on circumstance.

                    If you were of a type and mind to meet the business end in not-friendly terms, you aren't likely to be someone I'd invite for dinner, are you? That is the status of my rights as it stands legally at this point in time. I am not confident it will change significantly during my lifetime. Doesn't mean I'd stand in anybody's way trying to get rational controls emplaced, of course. I wouldn't even try to stop those who wish to rescind the second amendment in toto. Good luck with that is what I'd tell them. They'll need that and more.

                    •  The insurance idea is just one of the reforms... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      ... being discussed.  And I am not trying to pick a fight either.  Also please understand that when I use the term you, I am not about you personally, but the universe of gun owners.

                      What I am, is a person who feels that there are broader implications to society when a person wishes to purchase a weapon.  I am not talking about what you are allowed to do lawfully when the gun is in your possession and under your control.  If you are acting within your lawful rights, then you've got nothing to worry about.  If you secure your weapons when they aren't being used, so they can't be a threat to me and my family, you're right, I don't give a shit.  See, it works both ways.

                      The issue is what happens when something bad happens and it's the result of a gun?  But what about those other scenarios, who bears the responsibility to the victims, society in general or the population of those who choose to own weapons?  Why should I, as a citizen with the same rights as you, have to worry about whether you can pay my medical bills if something bad happens as a result of your weapon?  

                      That's why I prefer requiring you to buy insurance if you want a gun, just like a car.  It's a market solution to a societal problem.  If you are a low risk (as determined by companies who stay in business because they understand risk mitigation), you've completed a safety program, and have purchased equipment which protects the weapons from theft, your premiums will be low.  But if the converse is true, and you want to buy an AR-15, the market may prevent that from happening; much like it might prevent a 19 year old with a part time job from buying a Lamborghini.

                      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                      by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:50:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am in favor of requiring (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        liability insurance for people who wield guns in public. Police departments already carry such insurance. Criminals don't and won't, because no insurer is going to cover liability for a criminal act. A concealed carry permit holder should be liable for medical bills if s/he shoots an innocent bystander. That doesn't describe what happened in Tucson, Aurora or Sandy Hook though. Those were all criminal acts.

                        Perhaps you can succeed in getting such requirements for new gun purchases. Best of luck in the effort. You cannot disarm the tens of millions of law abiding people who already own guns without first repealing the second amendment. That's not going to be quick or easy. Meanwhile, criminals and crazy people don't care what the laws are and never will. They are the ones who are a threat to innocents.

                        IOW, beware of wasting time and energy tilting at windmills. Something must be done about the violence. I just don't believe that the quest to disarm me (a non-violent vegetarian grandma who lives in the boonies bordered by bear sanctuary) goes very far in making the world safe for first graders in Connecticut, movie-goers in Colorado, or politicians in Arizona.

                        •  It was interesting talking with you this evening.. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          ... thank you for your time.  We tilt at a lot of windmills on this site, I'm sure my dog feels like Sancho Panza while I am at the computer (which I probably should name Dulcinea) tilting away.  Thank G-d for the unconditional love of man's best friend.

                          I don't think anyone here seriously wants to disarm you.  We just need to strike a balance between the rights we both feel are important.  And of the literally dozens of idea's I've read about ways to prevent the next Sandy Hook (I lived a couple of miles from the school for 5 years when I worked in Southbury, CT), this one seems to make the most sense to me.  Your mileage may vary, and I understand that.  Hopefully something will be done by our government and I hope it allays your fears and puts mine to rest.


                          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                          by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:44:45 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The SCOTUS ruled in (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Heller (is that the correct case?) that the city of Chicago could not issue a blanket abrogation of the second amendment right to own/keep firearms, and according to standard Constitutional law, the decision was correct. But that's a bottom line restriction on what local (or state, or federal) law can do about gun ownership, recognizing that it's not law abiding gun owners who are the Big Problem with gun violence in Chicago, it's criminals with guns. Who don't care what the law says.

                            There are many restrictions and regulations that CAN be applied to owning/keeping, bearing and using firearms, and that is where this nation's cities and states need to go. Whole classes of weapons can be prohibited, limitations on clip capacity and bullet types can be applied, background checks for all purchases can be required, etc. To this we could probably add an insurance policy requirement for CC permit holders, much better reporting and recordkeeping for stolen/lost guns, perpetual open buy-back programs for people who want to get rid of an expensive toy they never use, even enforced limitations on how many guns (and how much ammo) can be purchased in a given year and/or stockpiled over time. Licensed dealers exempt, of course.

                            Much better procedures in police departments to ensure confiscated guns don't find their way to the black market. Requiring actual destruction of confiscated guns so they CAN'T find their way to the black market. More LE targeting of that black market and of gun/ammo hoarders. Reporting requirements for mental health care providers, and statutes allowing LE to confiscate guns from homes where people with mental health issues live, even while pending legal challenges. Better vetting of teachers and others who work with/around children - if they drug test employees and can fire them for what they smoke on their own time, a passion for guns on their own time could also be a disqualification for such employment. Better enforcement of gun laws already on the books...

                            Lots of things can be done. Regulation is not forbidden by the second amendment at all, is in fact specifically mentioned. I'd love to see the renewed conversation lead to actually DOING some or all of the things that can be done about gun violence in our society. And I think it's counterproductive to get bogged down by absolutists on either side of the questions to the point where nothing gets done at all.

                            Have enjoyed this discussion too, I hope people's anger and concerns don't fade away as quickly as we've seen in the past.

                          •  I agree with much of what you've said here... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            ... and I hope you are right on the points where we disagree.  I still believe that insuring firearms is an important tool to allay the fears of those of us in urban areas (statistically there are over 300 weapons in my apartment building - in the last nine months there have been four reports of gun use inside the building).  But after conversing with you, I do know that we need to elect more non-violent vegetarian grandmas who live in the boonies bordered by bear sanctuaries to drive our gun policies in this country.

                            I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                            by Hey338Too on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:44:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL!!! Oh, my. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Thanks for the giggle. Not to worry, they'll never get my shotgun because there's no real record that it exists, or that I have it. Really did belong to grandpa, who was Sheriff of a one-horse town in southern Oklahoma way back at the turn of the last century. The horse belonged to him too.

                            One useful thing I have learned from living next door to about a million acres of bear sanctuary is NEVER to load buckshot for attempts to drive away nuisance bears. You know... bears that raid the trash or compost bins, tear down fences, take to sleeping on the back deck, stand between you and your vehicle when you try to go anywhere, etc.). The big female that slept on the deck did this every morning to my husband as he tried to get to work. He started throwing things at her, hoping she'd at least get far enough away that he could dash into the work truck. She took to fetching the things he'd throw, bring them right back to him. Daughter, grandson and I knew right then we had to get serious, BEFORE he named the derned bear (made a pet of her)! So we called the 'experts'...

                            First and foremost, you don't want to get close enough to a bear that a round of buckshot might actually kill or seriously injure him/her. Even a yearling black bear can run 30 mph in the short sprint, which is a LOT faster than granny can run. At a distance it won't cause serious injury, but some pellets may get through all that hair and break the skin. Which (I am told by 'experts') will definitely make 'em mad. THEN you've got a bigger problem. Birdshot's okay to make noise with, but a surprising number of bears aren't scared of loud booms (who knew?). If birdshot gets through hair it'll sting, that might work. One expert told me to try a pump pellet gun instead, more reliable sting (but you have to be good at distance aim, whereas a shotgun just requires being pointed in the general direction). It didn't work on the yearling male who decided to live below the garden for easy access to handy compost snacks. He really liked my cooking, particularly the chili beans - the hotter the better, apparently. We asked the state guys to relocate them. They laughed. "Where would we relocate them to? You chose to live next to the bear sanctuary!" Oh, yeah.

                            Finally the extension guy told us to just get another dog (the bears moved right on in when our last most loyal she-dog died and we'd been too brokenhearted to get another). So we adopted a GSD pup, named her Starfish. The first day she was busy raiding the compost bin when Junior came for his snack, he thought she was a cub. Put his nose right down on her, she barked instead of cried. In less than a week they'd all moved on, she still keeps the property well patrolled so any sanctuary strays know to stay on the other side of the ridge. Problem solved! §;o)

                          •  Joieau, I can promise you... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            ... that should I encounter a bear sleeping on my deck I would make a noise loud enough and high pitched enough to scare all of the bears on that million acres of wilderness you live next to.  Adding a shotgun to the mix would probably result in holes in the walls and a pile of soiled undergarments.

                            I'm glad the dog worked out for ya'll.  My trusty Scottish Terrier, Buddy, believes that he has chased over 100 bears of every breed from the screen of his plasma television (he also thinks that he's chased the horses around the tracks of the Triple Crown, and he gets upset that the zebras never listen to him when he tries to tell them about the lions which are about to eat them).  So my guess is Buddy would be eaten by a bear on its way to your compost heap.

                            All in all, I don't think we'd be of much help to you in the wilderness - but we would probably be a source of great amusement!

                            I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                            by Hey338Too on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:00:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  It's not just the written law. It is the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          enforcement.  Millions of people continued to drive drunk after the laws were passed, but seeing the severe penalties happen to family and friends began to discourage people from drinking and driving.  Societal norms changed as well, making it even less tempting to break the law.  It is exactly the same for guns.  The laws need to be passed with significant penalties if they are broken.  They need to be enforced in all cases.  Changing societal norms is being accomplished by gun owners themselves.  Slowly but surely large numbers of people are less comfortable with current laws regarding gun ownership.  Each tragedy opens more people's eyes.  The change in attitudes can be aided by the same tactics eloped by MADD.

          Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

          by Smoh on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:54:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yup (6+ / 0-)
        Guns get stolen all the time.
        A cop once told me (I don't know if it's true, but take it for what it's worth) that professional burglars actually target homes with NRA stickers because guns are very easy to find, easy to carry out, and easy to sell.  Why futz around with a 72" HDTV when you can get more money for a pistol that's "hidden" under the bedside table?
        •  Same with computers and other electronics (0+ / 0-)

          you have to know how to use them, how to get past any password protections, how to judge if they're actually worth anything.

          And it's much harder to carry out big stuff - walking around with a big TV is going to attract a lot more attention.

          Anything you can stick in your pocket and walk out with unnoticed is definitely better. Guns are good. Cash is better. Jewelry is small, but if you don't know whether it's worth anything you could wind up with worthless junk (which is exactly what you'd get with my jewelry).

          That's why a lot of cops will tell you to leave some cash in plain sight - if somebody breaks in, they'll take the money and run.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site