Skip to main content

A friend of mine says that she believes in the 10-day waiting period and background check for all guns, including gun shows. But she also believes in legal gun ownership.

That's too lax. That's not enough. That would still have allowed Columbine and Newtown, at minimum. Here's what I believe and want, and I don't think it's too restrictive.

In a perfect world, nobody would have guns. This is, I admit, not a perfect world. So here's what I want:

I want anyone who owns a gun to have to take a yearly gun-safety course to get a gun license. I want them to have to renew it once a year. I want them to have to carry liability insurance on each gun they own, and I want them to have to register each gun they own. And I want failure to do any of these things to bring a felony charge.

I want limits on how many guns a person can own. I want gun owners to have to put them in a gun safe with trigger locks on them. I want limits on how much ammunition a person can own (no more than 30 rounds sounds good to me - that's the law in Israel, did you know that?) and I want any gun that has a "magazine" to be unavailable to the public, from 9 mms to full-auto AK-47s and everything in between. If Adam Lanza's mother had been restricted to two six-shot revolver handguns with required trigger locks and gun safes and 30 rounds of ammunition total, Newtown would not have happened unless she broke the law and didn't comply - and I want anyone who doesn't comply with these restrictions charged with a felony for not complying.

I want gun shows to be stopped entirely, because how are you going to enforce the 10-day waiting period and background check there? It's like trying to get people to show proper ID at a swap meet. It's a pipe dream to think we can regulate a gun show. I want gun and ammunition sales on the internet to be completely illegal (with a felony charge if you try to do it). I want a person to have to walk into a store in person to buy a gun, and I want a national database that flags if he tries to buy more than what he can legally own (two non-magazine handguns and 30 rounds of ammunition) to prevent him from buying anything else.

These restrictions would have prevented Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and most of the other mass gun murders in the last ten to twenty years. They would also prevent quite a few of the gang murders and drive-by shootings, since that's the loophole most gang members use these days to get their guns - the gun shows, which often bypass or "forget" the background check and ten-day waiting period. And they do not restrict people's rights unnecessarily. You can still maintain the fiction that you're "protecting yourself" with two handguns.

Constructive comments welcome. Comments that boil down to nothing more than "but, but, Second Amendment!" are not. I know that it's a free site and so you can say what you want, but I won't respond to any comment that is a But But Second Amendment comment beyond mockery or contempt.

Originally posted to Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

    by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:37:35 AM PST

  •  but, but, Second Amendment... (6+ / 0-)

    Which actually refers to milita...  unless you think the framers were into dependent clauses that didn't work grammatically.

    Honestly, I think your list doesn't go far enough.  I want a national buyback to get guns OUT of the hands of people who have them now.

    I want unregistered guns to be considered an intent to commit murder.

    I want.... ROOOOM SERVICE!!!!

    Sorry, just had to vent a little pointless frustration at that last part.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:46:58 AM PST

    •  As I understand it... (0+ / 0-)

      Yes, they were very fond of such (now) unorthodox grammatical constructions.

      Furthermore, every adult not otherwise disqualified is a member of the militia. Including women, in any honest modern interpretation.

      Personally, I would feel much safer if the police and military were disarmed first. They kill far more people every year, in much less justifiable circumstances. If they were to disarm first, as an act of good faith, perhaps it would persuade everyone else to voluntarily disarm.

  •  care to define what you mean by magazine? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, johnny wurster

    since in hunting rifles, this would ban all multiple round weapons except double barrels.  Did you perhaps mean detachable magazines or clips or did I misread what you proposed?

    •  Anything that holds more than six rounds of ammo (5+ / 0-)

      is too much. And yes, I want all such weapons banned, including "hunting" rifles.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:01:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe the diarist... (5+ / 0-)

      Was referring to removable magazines.

      A five round internal magazine in a bolt action cannot be easily swapped out.  

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:02:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but he says anything that holds more than 6 round (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RonV, VClib

        so I have to believe he is referring to all mags and not just clips.  However, I would point out 6 rounds is a devastating amount of firepower in a 12g shotgun.  In the Old West, a shotgun was called a "street howitzer" because of its destructive power and some such guns were termed "street sweepers" by others in modern times.

        The author may wish to re-think his section on magazines since even antique weapons as a Henry would be banned under his definition
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        •  With that number of rounds... (3+ / 0-)

          the most you can kill is six people. That's still six people too many for me, but at least it's not 20 children.

          I have no problem banning antique weapons. I'd like them all banned, frankly, but I'll start where I can.

          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:08:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  would you also ban the manufacture of guns? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RonV, VClib

            After all, though I am no gunsmith, in a pinch, I think I could still come up with a fairly well performing zip gun
            http://en.wikipedia.org/...
             

            •  If I had my way, there would be no guns. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Debby, DefendOurConstitution

              Period. End of story.

              But until we can change the culture so that people will stop believing that gun = safety, there's no chance of that.

              "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

              by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:14:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  problem with this POV is it does not seem (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RonV, VClib

                to take into account the realities on the ground and it offers little ground for discussion

                •  The realities on the ground right now are (5+ / 0-)

                  unacceptable.

                  It's time to change them. What are your suggestions, beyond "guns, guns and more guns"?

                  "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                  by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:34:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you requested responses to your grand proposal (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    but I did not know that meant having to submit a grand proposal of my own.  Basically, I find that the best way to deal with a large problem is to break it down so it is a series of smaller problems.  One thing I find helpful with that is educating myself on the topic by discussion and research.

                    I would suggest we pick one aspect of the problem, say extended clips, agree on the definition of the vocabulary that will be used and proceed from there.  While overarching problems such as world hunger or climate change may be easy to see, finding a silver bullet to solve them is much more difficult as these problems are usually the result of a series and groups of processes which cannot be tackled all at once    

                    •  That's reasonable. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DefendOurConstitution

                      I admit I want my grand vision realized yesterday - or, rather, this time last year so we could have avoided Aurora and Newtown altogether. But any step in that direction is good.

                      What I'm not good with is defense of the status quo. "BBSA" (But but Second Amendment) is a shameful response and should be as socially unacceptable as smoking in public or offering drugs to children is already.

                      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:02:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  however there is a significant number of gun (0+ / 0-)

                        owners willing to discuss restrictions on ownership, just so long as there is an agreement as to the vocabulary used and both sides agree to educate themselves thoroughly on the other side's position and to continue to educate themselves during the course of the discussion.

                        •  I believe I have educated myself on the RKBA (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DefendOurConstitution

                          position. I don't agree with it at all, however.

                          The main two cries I hear from RKBAs are these:

                          1) But, but, Second Amendment!

                          2) I have a right to defend myself against [fill in scary stereotype not based in reality here]!

                          The first is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the intent of the Founders when they established the Second Amendment. The second is based on fear, prejudice, racism, and frankly stupidity.

                          With regards to the first: Wealthy landowners (which is what the Founders were) would not have established a law allowing the citizenry to own weaponry for the purpose of overthrowing the nation or its government. The fact that the phrases "a well-regulated militia" and "necessary to the security of a free state" are in that amendment tells us that the Founders were saying "if you want to own a gun, you have to be in the army and defend this nation in wars." They were NOT saying "you can have a gun so you can shoot anyone that you feel is threatening you." Your home does not qualify as a "free state."

                          With regards to the second: People using the self-defense line invariably end up saying "black men" or "Mexicans" when I press them to tell me WHO would break into their nice, middle-class suburban home? Never mind that the crime rate in their area could be (and usually is) close to zero; oh, no. It's those scary black and brown people (read here: if you're not white, you're automatically a criminal) that are going to break into their homes, rape their wives and daughters, murder their families, and steal the good silver. It's bogus. It's bullshit. And it's racist.

                          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:22:34 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  since I have taken neigther argument (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            it is not productive to expect me to defend what others have  said; instead it would seem a better use of time for us to discuss real world related solutions which could be enacted, for example, the discussion of restricting the size of clips available to civilians (noting while clips are magazines, not all magazines are clips)

        •  Perhaps a grandfather clause for specific pieces. (4+ / 0-)

          could be discussed.

          But IMHO that's the end-details of a comprehensive ban, which I believe is needed.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:09:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  So add a clause on shotguns. Not rocket science.nt (2+ / 0-)

          Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

          by Sharon Wraight on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:44:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he has such little respect for human rights... (0+ / 0-)

          Why would he care about whether a collector could have an antique firearm at all?

          •  Ownership of guns may be "constitutional" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SoCalSal, DefendOurConstitution

            if you're willing to squint instead of read the words that are there - but it's by no means a "human right" to own a gun. Also, there are far more important human rights, like living out your entire life - a right which those 20 kids and six teachers at Newtown did not get to exercise thanks to the gun lobby in this nation.

            Their right to live out their lives will always trump your "right" to own a gun. And frankly, I don't give a damn about your antique firearms - as long as they are so antique that they can't be fired or used as guns anymore.

            "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

            by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:44:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Self-defense is a human right. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              Think of how ridiculous it would be to claim that the Constitution may give you freedom of the press, but that they should still be allowed to outlaw little sculpted lead blocks with letters on them.

              The tools necessary to exercise a right are every bit as protected as the right itself.

              There is no more important right than the right to self-defense.  Certainly if that school teacher had had such a right, there might have been fewer deaths. But thankfully, Connecticut has an assault weapons ban, doesn't it?

              •  Defend yourself with something other than a gun. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DefendOurConstitution

                You don't need a gun to defend yourself. It's the lazy coward's way out of that problem.

                The moment you're ready to kill another person to "defend" yourself is the moment that I no longer take you seriously. You passed that point a while ago.

                "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:58:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Now you're being stupid. (0+ / 0-)

                  What's a 110 pound woman supposed to defend herself with? Or an 60 yr old man?

                  We can't all have fantasies of besting 20 ninjas with our bare hands, like liberal college hippies daydream about.

                •  does that mean you would not take anyone (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  seriously in a debate who has killed before, albeit in a socially accepted context such as self defense or in war?
                  After all it seems to me that many here may say they would kill in self defense but would hesitate for their own safety  but would not hesitate to use any means to hand to defend others

                  •  Yes, that's what I mean. (0+ / 0-)

                    Killing another person or being willing to will absolutely strike you off my list as a "moral" person. Find another way to defend yourself that doesn't involve killing others.

                    I have already said that if confronted with a gunman trying to kill my children, I will throw myself on him to stop him. I will not, however, attempt to kill him. For one thing, I will not kill. For another, I'd rather see him pay for his crimes in some way that makes him have to consider them for the rest of his natural life instead of getting the coward's easy way out by being shot.

                    War is abhorrent to me. That should be enough said. I realize that those who are on the front lines rarely have a choice in that moment, but I would be a conscientious objector long before it ever came to that.

                    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                    by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:12:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  He (she?) means... (0+ / 0-)

                    That you shouldn't kill the rapist, you should be willing to let him force his penis into your orifices and very ungently jackhammer you until you bleed, after which point he can slice your throat open or stomp on your head.

                    We have to think of the rapists, their lives are just as valuable as anyone else's. Anyone that says otherwise is a horrible person.

                    •  No, I mean that you shouldn't shoot or kill him (0+ / 0-)

                      I mean that you can and should find some other way to stop him because frankly his victims deserve the justice of knowing he's rotting in prison for the rest of his life.

                      And frankly, at this point, I'm dismissing anything else you say as deliberately inflammatory and openly pro-gun ideological. When you can talk about facts instead of dragging in your continued logical fallacies and Fox-News-inspired garbage, we'll talk. Until then, I'm ignoring anything else you say.

                      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 10:24:00 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You don't know what you mean. (0+ / 0-)

                        If your attacker is bigger than you are to any great degree, there is no other way to stop him. If you vigorously defend yourself, he may flee... and certainly if he does so I don't condone the victim shooting him in the back after the danger has passed.

                        But should he not flee (and there are many reasons he might not), there is little choice.

                        The elderly, women... hell, even men like myself, how can I defend myself from a larger attacker intent on doing me harm? God forbid there are more than one.

                        It is not a holy or moral thing to forego killing such a person. Even if you would sacrifice your life for theirs, their next victim is on you.

                        I have loved ones, I have a wife, a young daughter, and another child on the way. If the choice is between some maniac and one of them... that's no choice at all. To worry about trying to preserve the life of their would-be-murderer is so absurd it doesn't even truly deserve a response. Something's wrong with you, something in your brain, and I pray to whatever fictional deities might be listening that all your political proposals fall flat and never be acted upon.

                      •  I have had several CVAs, granted small ones (0+ / 0-)

                        but ones that left neurological deficits.  Should anyone attempt to injure one of my granddaughters, I would try to stop him by whatever means at hand to whatever extent is necessary.

                        If I could I would retreat to the safe room and call 9-11 but assuming he breaches the room and threatens the grandkids, I will try to stop him.  I have an ewisa I use as a cane as well as various edged weapons but I also have several firearms which I would use in a heartbeat if necessary.

                        I consider myself a pacifist dating back to 1973 but, while I have the right to decide if I should personally die in lieu of injuring another human being, I have no right to make that decision for my granddaughters.  If they wish to live, it is my duty to ensure that they are as safe as I can make them.

                        Sadly, I guess that means you will dismiss anything else I say which is a pity because I have enjoyed our discussions.  However, I must assert that I have a responsibility to my family which supersedes my personal philosophies

            •  the use of the term "human rights" make me (0+ / 0-)

              nervous as it seems to be only one step removed from the concept of "Natural Rights"  While Natural Rights as originally conceived circa 1775 makes perfect sense, the term has been bastardized in current usage as to mean something entirely different

            •  No right is more absolute than the gun totin' (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Killer of Sacred Cows

              right of Second Amendment absolutists, didn't you know that?  Children's right to live another day - lesser than 2A; people's right to live without fear of getting shot at grocery store, mall, church/temple, movie theater, etc. is also much lesser than the 2A rights.  2A rights are God given and only the mullahs in their religion can even question the sacred text of the 2A.

              Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

              by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:59:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yup get the (4+ / 0-)

      'you need to be an expert to discuss this' card in early - SOP for this user.

  •  I think insurance is a good idea (7+ / 0-)

    I also think that banning high capacity magazines is common sense. I'm a bit squeamish about background checks, for reasons that I don't have the time to get into here. Essentially, I think they're like sex-offender registrations- they give people a false sense of security.

    I think that most people should be free to own guns, and I'm not necessarily down on limiting the number one can own because any number would seem arbitrary. How many is too many? Someone could buy the maximum and still be just one gun away from whatever we deem acceptable.  

    I have a really hard time with this topic. I want common sense regulation, but I don't want to infringe on anyone's rights. And, yes, I do consider owning a gun to be a right. One that I probably wouldn't have drafted into the Bill of Rights, but one that is there nonetheless, whether I like it or not. And having grown up around actual responsible gun owners, I don't see them as a threat, per se.

    In short, I don't know where I stand on any of this. I don't own a gun and never will. And I know the RKBA people freak when one suggests that owning one for "self-defense" is a sign of weakness or being cowardly, but that's honestly how I view it. It's like getting in your car and not just putting on your seat belt, but wearing a helmet and fireproof clothes as well. The seat belt works just fine for me. I know I could still get hurt wearing one, but the odds of me needing a helmet and fireproof suit while driving are very, very low. Of course, it's possible that one day doing that could save my life.

    Is it worth it? I don't think so. But each person gets to decide how prepared they want to be for the unlikely. It's just a shame that some people's idea of "being prepared" involves a deadly weapon.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:03:51 PM PST

  •  Start warming up your (7+ / 0-)

    mockery and contempt engines. You're going to need full power.

    As for ideas...

    Most insurance companies won't write a policy if you own certain breeds of dogs. Too much exposure on liability in case of a dog bite.

    Why is this not the case for guns, and can it be made to be the case? It seems to me that if you want to keep something dangerous in your house (don't start about the breed being the problem), then you, and by extension your insurance company, should be held liable for the consequences.

    You could still have your guns, but it would cost you. High-risk insurers would still write policies. You could avoid high premiums by storing the guns securely or a gun club or range.

    Sounds simple to me. What say you?

    Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

    by Eric Twocents on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:05:16 PM PST

    •  If there were a right to dogs, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RonV

      what you wrote would make sense rather than just sounding like an old man shouting at clouds.

    •  This sounds great, as long as it's not punitive. (0+ / 0-)

      If you make it through the year without any gun crimes attributed to your possession, you can pick any gun control supporter you like, and bill them for last year's premium.

      Otherwise, you're not wanting insurance, not really. You're just wanting to pretend it's insurance when it's really a fine even though the person hasn't committed a crime.

      And if the "premium" is paid to some big insurance company whose CEO donated a bunch of money to the Democratic Party, hey that's even better right?

      •  Troll. (2+ / 0-)

        If I had my way, you'd have no guns - and neither would anyone else. Then the human race might actually have to go back to civilization instead of the armed camp we have right now.

        You can call it a "fine." I call it the price you should pay for owning machinery that serves no purpose except to take life away from other living creatures, especially human beings, and occasionally as a manhood-reinforcing ego booster.

        "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

        by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:45:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So your answer is... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ancblu

          "La la fantasyland!"

          And yet I'm the troll?

          I have a non-fascist proposal for you: I keep the sorts of personal possessions that I would like to keep, you can do the same, and we can peacefully coexist.

          •  I refuse to agree to that. (2+ / 0-)

            Your personal possessions can kill me and my children. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should own things like that. I will not agree to any proposals that allow you to keep possession of more than two of them (and even then that's a concession I'm really pissed off that I have to make).

            That's not fantasyland, either. That's a better world - one that you should be more than happy to work towards. It's one where you don't need the guns because you don't have to worry that anyone else is going to try to kill you.

            "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

            by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:00:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My personal possessions... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ancblu

              Will never kill you or your children. Ever.

              I don't know what about that is so difficult to understand. You're suggesting that I should be allowed to amputate your hands because theoretically you might be able to strangle me with them.

              I don't expect you to budge. No rational argument could convince you, and I accept that.

              •  My hands were not designed with the sole purpose (0+ / 0-)

                and function of killing other human beings. Guns are. This argument you're using is called "False Equivalence." Look it up.

                There is no equivalence between my hands and your firearms. Don't pretend there is.

                "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:15:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Guns were not designed with a sole purpose either (0+ / 0-)

                  They have many purposes. Some guns, in fact, were designed to achieve peace. The designers attempted to create a weapon intimidating enough that the enemies (specific or hypothetical) would not attack, saving thousands or even millions of lives. These designers were successful too, in many places.

                  The particular models are actually those most demonized by the progressive left.

                  Of course, I don't expect you to accept obvious truths like this... it interferes with the narrative you've become accustomed to.

                  If you'd like to discuss logical fallacies, I must insist that we first explore why you think the purposes of long dead men can somehow contaminate inanimate objects many decades later as if they were somehow demonically possessing the guns. Do you have an irrational streak that you harbor such superstitious beliefs?

    •  Eric - I think many home owner liability policies (2+ / 0-)

      exclude coverage for any firearms and any accidential death or damage caused by them. In addition, all insurance policies exclude illegal acts.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:03:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought that might be the case. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows

        That's why I raised the possibility of making insurance companies cover that risk.

        If a gun (or guns) in a home were as low-risk a proposition as gun-rights advocates insist, insurance companies would not exclude it from coverage.

        Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

        by Eric Twocents on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:43:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'll reply as someone who wants gun control (11+ / 0-)

    I don't think attaching a monetary punishment on it is the answer. That wouldn't have stopped Newtown, for one, and for another, I am adamantly opposed to only the affluent being able to afford their rights. Whether it's a right I cherish or don't particularly like, it's still a right, and it shouldn't be available to only those with money.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:09:09 PM PST

    •  ooops (3+ / 0-)

      This was supposed to be a reply to Eric Twocents.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:11:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think I said monetary punishment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BoiseBlue, DefendOurConstitution

      I said insurance and a felony charge if you don't do it. I have the same requirement for cars, which can also kill people but are not specifically designed for that purpose.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:32:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree that monetary punishment of pursuit of (4+ / 0-)

      one's rights is not the best way to handle this. Citizens United shows that money leads to much louder free speech. But.

      The Constitution does not say that you have the right to have guns for a low, low, Walmart price. Insurance companies price their products according to their percieved risk. A hunting rifle stored at a gun range should not have much effect on an individual's premium. Fifteen guns stored in a closet at home should.

      Looked at another way, I pay for an annual policy to insure my car. If I typically park that car in a high crime area, I will pay more, because it is more likely that the insurance company will have to pay a claim. If I want to have fifteen cars, I am going to have to pay a lot more in the way of premiums.

      Letting the individual that chooses to pursue his right to gun ownership pay the cost of the risks they pose is not punishment.

      As things stand now, society is forced to take on the risks and absorb the punishment of easy and relatively cheap access to guns. And as the laws now stand, we don't have a choice in the matter.

      Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

      by Eric Twocents on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:42:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This isn't logically sound. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        If there is a risk of an incident with a firearm in a home, it does not raise the risk at all if there are 2, or if there are 50. A person can only commit suicide once, a person can only murder someone with a single firearm. Kids that get ahold of a gun and play with them aren't holding 5 firearms in their hands when the things "go off" and shoot their brother.

        While we might be able to reconcile it by assuming that the sort of person who has 50 rifles is more dangerous than the person who has one, statistics simply don't bear this out.

        I can only conclude that you intend for the insurance to be punitive.

        •  I don't pretend to be an expert (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows

          on how actuaries calculate risk in any given situation.

          While your points, that a person can commit suicide only once, and a kid is unlikely to be holding more than one gun, are correct, see recent coverage of the Newtown massacre. Several guns were involved.

          I doubt that any hypothetical premium would increase fifteen-fold for keeping fifteen guns (auto premiums do not increase that way either). My thinking, and I am not an isurance company, is that multiple firearms stored casually pose a greater risk of having to pay out on any given policy. This is the reason that insurance companies employ actuaries, to calculate that risk and what premium would, over thousands of policies, cover expected losses.

          As to the insurance being punitive, price a life insurance policy for an airline pilot. They pay the most. Is that punitive? Calling an insurance premium punitive because you and your insurance company have to assume the risk posed by your gun sounds more like sour grapes than reasonable argument. I note that you did not address that portion of my comment.

          Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

          by Eric Twocents on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:27:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Obviously this is not a serious discussion... (6+ / 0-)

    or else it wouldn't start out by essentially saying that opposing viewpoints are limited.

    What a lot of the people on this site don't seem to realize or care to acknowledge is that any serious discussion about this issue, including the drastic changes proposed in this diary, are not going to occur in a vacuum.

    Basically, you're writing a sermon and searching for a choir to preach it to.  That's not all that had to do a round here, lately, but it doesn't make for any converts.

    "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

    by RonV on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:00:08 PM PST

    •  Are you the designated RKBA member for today? (7+ / 0-)

      "Not going to occur in a vacuum" here generally means a long digression into mental health and better security and more people allowed to carry that crowds out the reforms that would have lessened the damage at Newtown and Tuscon.

      It's a way to avoid the fact that people kill people, and they usually use a gun to do it. Licensing would go a LONG way to help solve the problem.

      Trust me, no one is looking for converts here.

      -7.75, -8.10; Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Dave in Northridge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:15:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  shorter: "herp a derp a derp." (0+ / 0-)
      •  Apparently... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, ancblu

        not only are you not looking for converts, you are not  looking for real solutions either.

        "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

        by RonV on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:22:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't convert the delusional. (2+ / 0-)

          I can convert those who want this madness to end.

          So are you delusional, or do you actually want people to stop being murdered by guns every day?

          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:35:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why don't you just ask me... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ancblu

            if I still beat my wife, or some other logical fallacy? Asking such loaded questions is further indication of the inability to discuss this realistically. Thanks for proving my point.

            "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

            by RonV on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:45:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What are your proposals (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DefendOurConstitution

              to end gun violence that don't involve arming the entire citizenry to the teeth? I'm quite serious.

              Those who are gun nuts (aka "you will pry them from my cold, dead hands" crowd) are delusional. Are you delusional, or reasonable?

              "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

              by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:56:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would go for more far reaching solutions to... (0+ / 0-)

                violence in America. Such as ending the war on drugs and working toward economic equality.

                But shorter term band aids, and (IMHO) far less effective steps would include limited capacity magazines. Although there are so many out there now that implementation of such a restriction would be problematic.  Tighter restrictions on firearms purchasing. Limiting the numbers of weapons purchases per transaction, and/or federal notification and tracking of such purchases.

                There may be more, but being barred from discussing the established constitutional issues involved definitely limits the discussion.

                Banning all firearms, or establishing lists and overall registration are most likely going nowhere.  The insurance thing? Not likely to happen either.  Although the insurance companies would love it.

                "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

                by RonV on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:33:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  If you want to end violence... (0+ / 0-)

                Ban drone bombs.

          •  KoSC "delusional"? (0+ / 0-)

            When someone writes about what could be accomplished politically given that the GOP controls the House, and many Democratic members of the House and Senate are strong supporters of gun ownership, they are delusional? It seems to be that they are being pragmatic.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:11:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Then where do you propose a "serious" (3+ / 0-)

      discussion start? Or is it automatically NOT serious if someone states that their opinion is that it would be best if we just not have guns?

      No one here thinks that guns are going to be banned outright, or that we're going to repeal the second. But is it now even "not serious" to discuss our own thoughts and opinions? And do one of you have to jump in to scream "CONSTITUTION" in every attempt to have a discussion?

      You think THAT is going to help?

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:36:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  None of that is politically feasible, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, VClib, ancblu

    and most of it is unconstitutional.  I don't care much for guns, but I do care for the constitution.

  •  Just a comment about insurance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leu2500, DefendOurConstitution

    1.  In many states you cannot buy an insurance policy that provides coverage for your intentional crimes - they're not permitted because state legislatures don't want to facilitate crime by allowing the perpetrator to be insured from the repercussions of crime.

    2.  Most gun owners are already covered by home insurance policies for unintentional acts (e.g., accidental discharge of a gun) in many circumstances.

  •  "I want anyone who doesn't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, VClib

    comply with these restrictions charged with a felony for not complying."

    You better be prepared to hire a whole raft of new (presumably federal) prosecutors, because the last thing most prosecutors have time to deal with are violations of insurance and registration requirements.  Also...you really can't REQUIRE prosecutors to bring charges for given offenses.  That decision is always within the prosecutor's discretion.  

  •  It would seem (0+ / 0-)

    That you are saying that is perfectly reasonable that a person who wants to own one gun should be more restricted than a person who can buy dynamite by the case (a federal explosives license lasts 3 years and does not need a test to renew it).

    •  I think both should be outlawed entirely (2+ / 0-)

      but more has to be done to restrict both classes of weaponry.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:38:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You should think that through (0+ / 0-)

        Outlawing explosives would put every mine and quarry in the country out of business overnight, as well as a lot of demolition companies, a fair-sized chunk of the motion picture industry and any professional fireworks show. It is holders of federal explosives permits who make all these things happen.

        •  That's not the same thing, and you know it. (0+ / 0-)

          And frankly I think that a person who can buy dynamite by the case should also have to take a test to renew their license at LEAST once a year and preferably once every six months. If they have the license for a job that they do, let the employer pay for it - but the current situation is just frigging ridiculous.

          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:18:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'll be simple and out of here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, VClib

    I won't support it. I won't support any politician that supports it. Firearms with removable magazines have been around and in the public's hands far longer than I have been alive. We really want all the Ruger Mark I (and Mark II and Mark III) 22LR pistols that have been sold since 1950 confiscated? We want all the 1911s produced by multiple manufacturers for over 100 years confiscated?

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:34:21 PM PST

  •  If it was any other Constitutional right... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, ancblu

    Liberal-progressives would be howling.

    You'd claim (and rightly so) that such restrictions amounted to flagrant and deliberate infringement.

    Thankfully, we have a Constitution so that no matter how much the craziest Congressmen might want to remove your legal rights to free speech or the rest, they would quite literally have to repeal the amendment which enumerated such a right.

    That's what liberal-progressives need to do, if they're honest. They need to repeal the second amendment. If you undermine the Constitution itself, if you succeed and prove that rights can be abrogated without actually repealing the amendment that describes it, then all you've really succeeded in doing is making the Constitution worthless to protect any of rest.

    Why would you want to do such a thing anyway?

    Disarming those who have committed no crime, even should they surrender, is a deplorable and violent act. It gains none of anything. For all the accusations that the gun nuts have persecution fantasies, it would seem that the opposition delightfully imagines being able to persecute them. What is wrong with you people?

  •  Is pointing out a problem "constructive"? (2+ / 0-)

    Diarist has crafted a proposal that allows most of the widely accepted reasons for gun ownership to be satisfied while making Newtowns harder. That's what a civil conversation looks like. Well done.

    Face-to-face sales would be really hard to regulate, ditto transfers among friends and family. It's not an insuperable problem but does require thought.

  •  In spite of (or perhaps beause of) recent gun (0+ / 0-)

    killings, even more guns are being sold.  When parents can no longer allow their daughters to date without being accompanied by an armed chaperone; when children can only play in groups in playgrounds protected by several armed security guards; when grocery stores, movie theatres, restaurants, etc. must scan their customers for weapons before allowing them to enter their establishments; when schools, daycare centres and churches must have armed guards at every entrance,  then,  perhaps, Americans will unite to demand strict gun control.

    •  And like all other manmade disasters, (0+ / 0-)

      we're apparently willing to let it get that far before we even discuss doing something about it. That's what sickens me about the RKBA crowd. They just. don't. get it.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:19:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary. Don't back down. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:09:30 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site