Skip to main content

View Diary: Instead of "Assault Weapons", how about a fire-rate restriction? (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yesterday someone suggested (4+ / 0-)

    in answering some questions I had about ins. that there be a small dedicated tax on firearms and ammo that goes to a compensation pool. So old dude on farm who has his hunting rifle and a shotgun and his daddy's old pistol doesn't end up paying for his right to own them.

    I like that it would cut out ins. companies so they don't get to gouge.

    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

    by high uintas on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:48:23 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Is he paying for his right to own them? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, splashy

      He can own them, but if he wants to use them, he must insure against the chance of them being used to harm or kill someone, damage property, or be used irresponsibly by someone because they weren't secured properly.

      I agree, however, that something would need to be done to avoid gauging, although we all get gauged every day by insurance companies; it's an unfortunate part of American life these days.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:58:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  In addition to the current outdoor conservation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas

      tax (whatever the real title is), or instead of? And, to be honest with you, if there's room to bump it, I'd rather see it go back into conservation

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:15:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In addition (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, BlackSheep1, mlbx2

        A percentage of purchase price and then set aside to a designated fund.

        With you on the conservation tax, but since it's cool now to reduce the workforce in our public lands to two rangers and a squirrel for every 1000 square miles...my pet peeve can ya tell?

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:46:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I like the Insurance Requirement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy

      I'd like a simple rule - if you buy a gun then you are legally responsible for anything bad that happens with it, ever.  It doesn't matter if the gun is stolen.  It doesn't matter if you thought the person you shot was a burglar.  Just strict liability:  your gun = your responsibility.

      •  That's an egregious standard hardly applied (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, BlackSheep1

        anywhere else in our society. See High Unitas's comment above on a way around that.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 11:31:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  One Step Beyond Cars. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't know about other states, but if you own a car you are liable for accidents even if you aren't in the car at the time.  It's subject to pretty low dollar limits and only applies to accidents by permissive users.  It's not crazy to say that the owner's liability for guns should be greater because the products themselves are different.

          I wouldn't oppose the tax/insurance idea but I'm not sure about the math.  You know people on the right will go crazy about a tax taking away private enterprise.  It's like health care only worse.  If you assume 30,000 gun deaths per year, a payout of $2,000,000 per gun death, and 300,000,000 guns in private hands that would work out to an insurance cost of $200 per gun per year.  That's without administration costs and without paying for people who are injured, but not killed, by guns.  Serious injuries tend to cost a lot more than deaths because of ongoing medical care, etc.  If I were writing the rules I might not have insurance pay off when the owner of the gun is shot and wouldn't pay the gun owner if he was the next of kin of the person shot, so that would bring the numbers down a bit, but it would still add up to a big number per year.

          •  You can cancel your insurance if you don't have (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1, high uintas

            ownership of your car anymore, and I'm almost certain you're not liable if the car is stolen and misused.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 12:15:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I said that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              splashy

              I said for cars it was liability for permissive users only, and that I could see reasons for expanding that rule in the case of guns.  I would agree that you'd be off the hook after a properly registered sale to a lawful buyer.  If the gun is stolen well it was your responsibility to make sure it wasn't stolen.  That's one of the risks you impose on society when you choose to buy a gun.

              •  Sorry, can't get on board with that. (0+ / 0-)

                I do not agree that if something is stolen from you, when meeting a minimum standard of protection against it, that you should be held liable for any misuse that arises from it after it's stolen...and i seriously doubt that any court would find that a reasonable requirement.  

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 02:33:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Constitutional (0+ / 0-)

                  The court just gets to decide if the requirement is Constitutional, reasonable is for the Legislature to decide.

                  If the middle ground is no liability if a gun is stolen out of a properly locked gun safe I could live with that, provided the theft is promptly reported.

          •  erm, Tod: one of the ways red-light tickets (0+ / 0-)

            are defeated is that if the camera only gets the license plate and the ticket is sent to the registered owner, that's not the same thing as catching the driver in the act of breaking the law.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 01:51:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Apples and Oranges (0+ / 0-)

              The statute I was talking about is for civil liability for traffic accidents, not criminal liability for running red lights.

              •  not apples & oranges if you (0+ / 0-)

                are the owner but not the driver when the infraction occurs.

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:25:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  splashy

                  If you are the owner when someone else runs a red light and causes an accident you are civilly liable for the accident up to the limit of the statute but you don't have to pay the fine for running the red light. That's how it works.

                  •  ah, but in these cases there's no wreck (0+ / 0-)

                    just a camera, that takes a photo of a redlight-violating vehicle.

                    One of the results of an incident like this (but more to the point, there were tons of contested tickets and the company that put the cameras in stiffed the city of the promised revenue increase) ended the use of red-light cameras in our city.

                    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                    by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:33:59 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Not far from the Rylands decision n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  I'm pretty sure I agree with kos' car analogy (0+ / 0-)

          And am listening to all the alternatives.  As long as the responsibility falls on gun owners I'm satisfied. I don't think Tod's  plan is at all workable or fair.  If you sell or have a gun stolen, I think the responsibility falls on whoever is legally in possession.  This makes registration a necessity both for law enforcement and for gun owners to protect themselves.

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

          by Smoh on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 03:32:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  This is a very reasonable way of making sure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, GoGoGoEverton

      that two things happen: there is compensation available for injured parties and that money is coming from the appropriate source.

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

      by Smoh on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 03:24:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you, Smoh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh

        I think it would be fair and it wouldn't add another party to make money off of it. We all know that ins. companies like to squeeze the pay out percentage as much as possible. We don't need to give them another revenue stream to play with.

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 03:31:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site