Skip to main content

View Diary: When do we stop burying our children and bury these bastards, instead? (355 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Repeal Tiahrt Amendment, institute (37+ / 0-)

      mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns, and require registration and licensing and some insurance, and we make a dent.  

      David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:12:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mandatory liability insurance, not some (18+ / 0-)

        You own it, you're responsible for it.  If it's missing, you report it or you're STILL responsible.

        Licensing both owners and individual weapons.  The vehicle model is a great start.

        •  But there is already insurance and the NRA sells (5+ / 0-)

          it (and probably receives money from the sale):

          NRA Offers Stand Your Ground Insurance

          Seems to be more about CYA in court. $47 per year per $100K

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:17:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Standard liability insurance of (8+ / 0-)

            ... a minimum of $1 million per firearm. Pay for the risk created by the person's choice to own one, rather than leaving people injured by a weapon to try to recoup some small portion of medical costs from the perpetrator in civil court. Of course, no amount of money is sufficient to repay family members of people killed with weapons, but if the money is set aside ahead of time in the form of insurance, then it's at least possible for, for example, the family of a police officer to fund the housing, feeding, and educations of the officer's children if s/he's killed by a firearm. No more cans at the counter in the convenience store to collect pennies for a fund for the family.

            •  So only wealthy people can exercise their rights? (0+ / 0-)

              pass.

              Because Citizens United worked out so well.

              I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

              by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:22:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can buy a $1 mil. liability policy for $30/mo (10+ / 0-)

                If someone's laying down $1200 for an AR-15, and additional $$ for accessories, cleaning kits, ammo, higher-capacity clips, etc., they don't get to cry poverty.

                •  ridiculous (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  meagert, FrankRose, ancblu

                  that's the sort of "welfare queen" argument I'd expect from a right winger.

                  So then, what of the person who can only afford a $250 gun?

                  I swear, some people have lost their fucking minds on this site, to start taking plays and arguments out of the GOP playbook.

                  I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

                  by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:35:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We require liability insurance (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    madhaus

                    ... for all sorts of things - even if you're poor. The risk of gun ownership resulting in an injury or death is clear, and predictable.

                    Insurance company actuaries can easily determine how much to charge based on gun type, if you'd prefer a model with varying premiums based on riskiness.  

                    But if someone wants to assume the risk of a firearm, they must take responsibility for that risk via insurance, rather than dumping the responsibility onto the rest of society.

                    We do this for cars, woodstoves, and other risky elements in our lives. You can't even rent a hotel function room for a small event that doesn't serve alcohol without paying for liability insurance.

                    It's a no-brainer.

                    •  Then we should make the same requirements (0+ / 0-)

                      for protesting, practicing your religion and most of all, free speech, right?

                      GW's political free speech has killed millions throughout the Middle East through his unfunded wars of oil acquisition.

                      Those unfunded wars are killing thousands of Americans every year due to poverty.

                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                      For years, poverty has been cited as a contributing factor to poor health. But a recent study goes further, quantifying how many people poverty kills per year -- 133,000 in 2000

                      And please note, the figures in the linked article are from the year 2000, we've had 13 yrs of these policies of destruction that haven't been updated.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:04:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The wars are not speech (0+ / 0-)

                        They were acts of war, enacted via official declaration after the congress designated that the President could do so. If all W had done was speak, there would not be 100K+ dead from those wars. It's interesting that you can't tell the difference.

                        •  Wow, why is it always about me? Are you guys (0+ / 0-)

                          truly that one-dimensional?

                          So, when O'Reilly called for the killing of abortion doctors and they were targeted and killed, you accept this as legitimate use of "free speech"?

                          What if his speech led Congress to pass such mandatory laws?  Execute any doctor whom commits an abortion? Would that have made it less morally reprehensible?

                          NO.

                          Is it acceptable to you that the religious free speech of many "Christians" has lead to the increased attacks on the LGBT community, are they legitimate then?

                          I'd love to understand this relativistic morality you employ, seriously.

                          Acts of war, prompted by the political "free speech" of GW.  We now know those "speeches" were lies and fraud and he's never been held accountable for the killing spree he unleashed in the Middle East.  When we were warned against those lies, the truth speakers were silenced, were they not?  Phil Donahue, remember him?

                          Did Congress authorize war crimes too? The use of White Phosphorus. The continued use of Depleted Uranium?

                          Wait, I know, from your position if anything happens after Congress authorized it, there is no liability on anyone's part right?  Isn't this the legal defense employed by Blackwater?

                          Those crimes of the Bush Appointment led this nation to go into a 10+ yr unfunded war where we've paid for said on the backs of Americans, forcing them into poverty which kills more than any gun ever will.

                          Isn't this about morality and more specifically the morality of gun control AND our governments policies being decided as we speak? Or did I miss your point along the way?

                          The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  This time, the American people are paying attention and I just happen to be one of them.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:24:05 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  none of those are protected by the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      Like it or not, until you change the Constitution, it cannot be mandated to purchase something in order to exercise a right.  The funny thing of it is, is if healthcare was a Constitutional right - the mandate would have been shot down in court early on.

                      Also there is not going to be any meaningful disparity between costs owning one type of gun versus another.  Again, favoring the rich over the poor who by virtue of their paycheck will tend to live in areas that have more crime, therefore incurring higher liability costs.

                      And I don't think you're going to propose federally subsidized gun liability insurance based on income.

                      I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

                      by wretchedhive on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:04:29 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The constitution does not preclude regulation (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        elginblt

                        The Supreme Court has ruled may times - even in "Heller" - that regulations are not precluded. Regulations are rarely cost-free, but yet they are still clearly allowed.

                        "The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. "

                        ...

                         “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” Justice Scalia wrote. Government buildings in general could still ban guns. And the court said it had no quarrel with “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

                        Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.” He gave an example: “M-16 rifles and the like.”

                        Instead of beating your head against a wall trying to convince us that the rest of society has to accept the social cost of the damage done by guns, you may want to start offering solutions that shift that cost where it belongs, as well as realistic solutions to the problem of uncontrolled gun violence.

                        The old arguments have stopped working. "Because freedom!" is not sufficient. There are limits to freedom when one person's freedom threatens others (e.g., shouting "fire" in a movie theater is illegal, even if it's speech).

                        The vast majority of the public is sick and tired of the bloodshed. Your right to keep and bear arms does not trump all other rights.

                        •  Actually, the onus is on those who speak of (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea

                          doing such radical things as changing the Constitution or imposing financial barriers.

                          I am all for public awareness campaigns and background checks for 100% of firearm sales.

                          But hearing of changing the Constitution for this?  We are not talking about a slippery slope, we're talking about ski-jumping over that slope in terms of all of things that lead to preventable deaths:

                          Hospital/doctor's errors
                          Abortion
                          Drunk driving
                          Driving while distracted
                          Poor nutrition
                          Smoking
                          Heart disease vectors
                          stress

                          Not only that, I'm seeing the weakest logical fallacies pushed in this debate that will not garner the support that is needed.

                          There is a problem, yes.  But it is not a holocaust requiring absurd regulations that are not proven to be effective.  Legislation based on the current zeitgeist or "feelings" is always bad legislation.

                          I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

                          by wretchedhive on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:20:34 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Hard to prove effectiveness when the studies have (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            elginblt, Yamara

                            ... been made illegal by the successful lobbying efforts NRA.

                            I'm not talking changing the constitution. The court has already said that regulations are A-OK. I'm calling for regulations. You may not like them, but I'm betting that they'll be more acceptable to the court than you think.

                            Neither of us is going to make the law, but someone is, and if gun owners don't start participating in the planning, rather than just saying "no" to every proposal, they're going to be mighty disappointed in the result.

                          •  not every non-gun owner is anti-gun (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            running with hubris is only going to alienate the center.  finding allies is as important as defining your enemy.

                            I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

                            by wretchedhive on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:44:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  What good is liability (4+ / 0-)

            Insurance to victims or their families when you can't use the information that might enable you to support a lawsuit?  That is what the Tiahrt amendment is about.  Anyone who has ever dealt seriously with an insurance company knows they only pay chump change on claims unless they think they will lose a lawsuit.   And sometimes they wont pay even then.

            "[L]et us judge not that we be not judged." Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865

            by ByTor on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:49:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly. /nt (0+ / 0-)

              Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
              I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
              —Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:09:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  What the heck is your point? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elginblt

              I said insurance should be mandatory.  Where did I say that Tiahrt (sp?) should stay in force?  It needs to go yesterday.

              •  Sorry. (0+ / 0-)

                I wasn't trying to contradict you.  I was only - inartfully - making a point about liability insurance.  The only thing that keeps insurance companies honest is the threat of civil litigation.  Eliminate that, as even some progressives suggest, and you completely gut the value of insurance.

                The price of insurance always reflects the monetary value of calculated risk, especially risk of loss in litigation - either with an adverse party or with a policyholder.  If insurance is cheap, then it means the insurance company does not think there is much chance it will have to pay big claims on either score.  It appears from the prices mentioned in this thread that those offering insurance do not think there is much risk they will ever have to pay claims.  Maybe because of things like the Tiahrt amendment which make it very difficult to pursue civil claims.  

                And yes, despite the dismaying arrangement of consonants relative to vowels, Tiahrt is the correct spelling. :-)      

                "[L]et us judge not that we be not judged." Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865

                by ByTor on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:09:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  no, seriously (22+ / 0-)

      this is the most sensible proposal i've seen regarding the gun debate.  besides pushing social policy we all love and want anyway as the antidote to violence, that is.

      ; P

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:15:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site