Skip to main content

View Diary: White House task force reviewing gun violence options pushes to meet end of month deadline (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wish they would take up the idea of (25+ / 0-)

    mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.

    But, I'll tell you, I am glad as hell to see Biden taking this so seriously.  This doesn't seem to be some focus group, let's think about it for awhile and let it fade away so we don't have to actually do something type of approach.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:31:02 AM PST

    •  a trampoline is apparently more dangerous (7+ / 0-)

      than a gun.

      "The Republican party primarily exists to represent the interests of business elites in the political sphere and redistribute power and resources to the wealthy. Its enduring values beyond that end have always been up for grabs." Gary Younge

      by politik on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:45:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why isn't anyone tailing about how much gun (9+ / 0-)

      violence costs us literally?  That guy Cheney shot in the face? We taxpayers paid the hospital and doctor's bills since he was on Medicare.  

      When I was a resident at University Medical Center in Tucson (the hospital that saved Gabby Gifford's life and tried to save Christina Taylor Greene) we had a bunch of border area ranchers that started to shoot unarmed migrants on or near their land.  One man had his dominant hand wrist blown through.  His medical care alone cost taxpayers six figures.  Finally the sheriff's dept. visited the ranchers and told them they may be liable for the medical bills their targets were racking up.  That stopped the shooting real quick!

      •  Ah, but you are a physician (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, Womantrust, glorificus

        So you are logical, and you are used to thinking in terms of cost-benefit analysis, some conception of best practices, and your goal is to reduce morbitity and mortality.  None of those considerations hold, sadly, when it comes to public policy on firearms. It's an uphill battle getting people to think logically about costs and benefits with this issue. Congress defunded the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at CDC in 1996 and has prevented the agency from engaging in anything that could be considered to "promote or advocate for gun control." JAMA article here:

        And in 2011 in Florida, Gov Valdemort signed a bill that places a health care provider's license at risk if s/he discusses firearm safety in a way that a board deems "irrelevant" - which seems pretty stupid given that a physician or mental health worker may be the best person to prevent a suicide.  Ditto - Congress passed a law preventing US military commanders from discussing private gun ownership with their direct reports, which strikes me as utterly bizarre and unhelpful given the possibility of service members inflicting harm on themselves and others.  

        But... this is where we are as a country.  This is the sort of irrational approach we have to this topic.  It's not just guns either.  They tried to shut up NOAA on climate change. It is shocking that in area after area of public policy, people can't apply cost-benefit analysis, research, or even openly communicate.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:04:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I believe membership in the NRA includes (0+ / 0-)

      liability insurance.

      •  Manditory (0+ / 0-)

        for everyone who owns a gun.  For each gun they own, just like cars.

        Not all gun owners are in the NRA, thank heavens.

        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

        by coquiero on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:08:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK.. so you have made NRA membership (0+ / 0-)

          all that more attractive.

          Seems to me if you believe the NRA is against the principles you want to promote, you have just pushed a good portion of the country, progressives included, into their open arms.

          The fact is, liability costs of legal gun owners is so infinitessimally small, anyone would be willing to underwrite that risk... especially the NRA!

          •  I'm willing to take that chance (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bon Temps

            I'm not that concerned that I'm driving progressives into the arms of the NRA.

            If you think that kind of fear tactic will make people back off of gun control, go for it.

            As I said, I'm not concerned.

            And if it's so very easy to insure gun owners, it should be a cinch to convince America it's a good idea.  Win-win.

            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

            by coquiero on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:42:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  This would effectively outlaw guns for poor people (0+ / 0-)

      Class Warfare.

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:14:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site