Skip to main content

View Diary: The Gun Responsibility Act of 2013 (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Most gun owners are responsible now. (7+ / 0-)

    In several of the examples you gave the gun owners would be charged. I don't know a single careless gun owner, or one who doesn't accept the responsibility for owning a gun.

    The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

    by cherie clark on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:35:47 PM PST

    •  I realize that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      a mother whose child kills himself with her gun might be charged with 2nd degree manslaughter, but the sentence would likely be light. I say it should not be light as this happens all too often.

      I am not sure that any charges would have been brought against the Sandy Hook mother, but I think that had she lived, charges should have been brought against her.

      I expect that most gun owners dont think they will ever become one of these statistics, but the fact is some of them will and they should pay new harsher penalties when it happens.

      And, if you think most people are responsible enough to do the right thing with guns, you haven't been to Wal-Mart lately.

    •  how many have multi-million dollars of insurance? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, mk, mwm341

      If their gun accidentally puts someone in the hospital for life, who pays that bill?

      If they are truly responsible, such insurance should be dirt cheap.  If they can't get it cheaply, chances are they're not really being responsible.

      If every gun owner had to carry $5 million of liability insurance, more would own gun safes, take gun safety courses, etc., just to lower their premiums.

      •  JMcD - if every gun owner had to have $5 million (6+ / 0-)

        of personal liability insurance, specifically regarding their guns, only rich people would have firearms. That would likely not be constitutional under Heller. While legislatures at all levels have broad gun control rights, they can't fundamentally impact access.

        The minimum liability insurance for autos is very low, in most states $30,000 - 50,000, clearly not enough to compensate anyone for a severe injury. The minimum liability requirements are so low so that poor people can afford to have the insurance needed to register a car.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:15:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  people need cars, they don't need guns (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Why should I pay for their negligence?

          If they actually were as trustworthy as the NRA types keep claiming, even $5 million in insurance wouldn't amount to more than a few hundred dollars per year.

          If the risk they pose is higher than that and they can't pay it, they should not own guns.

    •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, JMcDonald, drmah
      Most gun owners are responsible now
      Not nearly good enough.
    •  so they don't exist (0+ / 0-)

      because you don't know a single one?

      what about the assholes at Columbine or the one in Aurora or the mother of the kid in Newtown? were they being responsible?

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:42:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I own guns. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cherie clark

      I also know a LOT of people who own them.

      OF those people that I know, easily a couple hundred, none have ever shot anybody and none have ever had their guns stolen or otherwise used by others to harm anybody in any way.

      I keep hearing this stuff here about insuring guns, or making gun owners responsible for their guns if they harm somebody. I can't help but think that the people proposing it have never owned guns or know anybody who does.

      First on the insurance issue I'd have no problem with that because the premiums would be so low.

      On the responsible for use of your guns by others I'm not sure.

      I mean in my state the leading cause of death for those under 45 is not homicide. It's OD on prescription medications.  

      Also while I don't know anybody personally whose guns have caused havock, I do know people who have either sold or had their prescriptions stolen and sold. I have also known people who got drunk and hurt themselves or others in car wrecks or fights.

      I'd be OK with your proposal as long as we also hold bar owners, and convenience stores liable for injury due to alcohol, and drug stores and people who have prescriptions liable for OD's.

      •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

        The thing is, some gun owners have issues with their guns being discharged in ways they didn't want even if you don't.  Just because you personally don't know anyone this has happened to does not mean that it never happens. It actually happens pretty often in the USA.

        As to your drug analogy I will say this... I don't have a huge of chance of someone going nuts and then trying to overdose me with presciption medications.  I they try that, they will likely fail. But, if they have several guns on them, I am probably toast.

        I grow weary of all of the psuedo analogies that are made to guns. Cars are for transportation, forks are for eating with, drugs are for medical issues, and guns are for killing. See the difference?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site