It's a double standard man. It's the rich vs the poor. What are thoughts about super cars? Aren't those difficult to use safely? You know why they are legal? Because only the rich can afford them and if everyone had them you bet your ass they'd be banned. I think we'll seen the lid blow off with 3D gun printing though. I'd love to see the look on those GOP faces when the first one is used in a mass shooting. To be honest the answer in gun control IS price control. People would take care and secure their weapons if they cost Thousands of dollars instead of a couple hundred. It's too late because we are flooded with ultra cheap guns and it will only get worse.
The problem with "price control" is that it would be unconstitutional. You can get away with that type of thing when it comes to novelty weapons like fully auto platforms or high explosives, but you just aren't going to get away with that type of thing when it comes to "normal" guns. Even then, you are suggesting that availability of guns is the problem, and that's not the case. There are more guns in America right now than ever before and the murder rate since 2010 has been lower than any point since the 50's.
Ah, I credit the advancement of crime solving for that. It's a real deterrent. You can't get away with things like you could before. That and I hope education.
What are you talking about? Up until we started pumping guns out in mass quantities a little over a hundred years ago, guns were incredibly expensive. There were no 'price control' measures in the 1700's and 1800's. People didnt have stock piles of weapons because they were 'cool'. Additionally, you give up a lot of rights to have a permit to own high explosives and fully automatic weapons. For starters, the government can come in to your house at anytime and inspect.
A good start would to get 5 members of the S.Ct to reverse the decision that interpreted the Constitution for the gun lobby.
Well, I think the biggest factor has been the increasing prevalence of abortion. The more unwanted children are killed in utero the fewer that go on to hurt people and when you look at the people getting aborted, those are just the kinds of people that are the most likely to have gone on to hurt people. So if we say that there are something like 650,000 abortions per year in the US and only 10% of them would go on to kill people, that means you just prevented 65k murders by aborting them. If you look at when the murder rate started to drop, it was right about 20 years after Roe vs Wade....that's when those who got aborted as soon as it was legal were getting into the 18-24 age group, by far the most violent age group. By 24 years after Roe vs Wade you had the lowest murder rate since the late 60's. The policy of murdering the criminals before they are born is by far the most effective crime fighting policy.
Okay...but gun ownership was MUCH more common then than it is now. In fact, 3% of Americans own over half of the guns in the country today. So while there are more guns today, a lower percentage of people own them. So I'm not really sure what your point was. Yeah....they didn't accurately interpret the 2nd amendment "for the gun lobby", they did it for the people. I know anti-civil liberties people hate it when the rights of the people are upheld, but that's not my problem.
The simple answer to price control could easily be solved with one single regulation that punts this to a capitalist model in the insurance market. Let the insurance companies determine the financial risks in the profiles they allow to be covered. For a retired police officer with a clean record, maybe they pay 5 bucks a month for 5 non assault riffles. A man who spent 2 years in a psych ward wanting to buy an AR 15 could be charged thousands a month or not covered at all. If that man shoots up an office building that insurance co pays out to the victims families. It’s just the most rational solution that could be achievable in the next 5 years. If you are truly one of the “good guys” with a gun, is a few bucks a month such a huge ask? Especially when you are in a sense supporting the victims financially of a future shooting if it happens again. Are people that selfish and cheap? 20 minutes to go register your guns you own, 30 minutes to register online for insurance, a couple bucks a month? It’s incredibly selfish and childish given our current epidemic to throw a hissy fit over that.
It would only require a constitutional amendment....and I'm sure you think that is possible within the next 5 years, which is special.
Before the whole thing was struck down by the SCOTUS? Maybe. Of course what's the point of talking about ridiculous ideas like this?
There are car wrecks every day and they touch that market like my 3 year old touches anything with germs on it. I could be wrong, but I would think Gun insurance could be big business for them. How many guns are sold every day in America, and insurance fees are re-occurring revenue with understood price increases over time? Assessing the risk profile to up-charge risky gun owners would be the key to determining cost of profitability. And I guarantee you Insurance companies will fund that research all day every day without taking a dollar from tax payers. Hell... they might even help pay for the ATF online gun registration system & the web maintenance.
How does it infringed on the trghts of gun ownership? Look you need special permits to own special guns. Does that not infringe on the 2nd amendment. If not that why not have insurance requirements to own a gun.
Oh please... no insurance company is going to write a policy for liability with guns. One mass shooting would bankrupt an insurance company when the lawyers line up. This is just an end around on banning guns because you know changing the 2nd Amendment isn't happening. The 2nd Amendment has already been decided to have some restrictions. However, requiring insurance for every gun would be considered unconstitutional and discriminatory toward minorities and poor people. You know... the same argument used for not requiring ID to vote.....
Congress could write legislation to hem in the liability a bit to make sure the costs don't completely run away and cause a market failiure. This doesn't have to be a fatal flaw. I am concerned about this. There is already a de facto unevenness to the Second Amendment around race, where white people are more free to carry guns than black people. Adding an insurance requirement would complicate it further with an economic discrimination. When the liability is only criminal (e.g., secure your guns or go to jail), rich and poor are much more equal, at least until you consider the cost of legal representation which is a whole other ball of wax.
How so? Insurance companies have limited liability coverage. Mostly 1 million or so. So how does that bankrupt them? Also how is discrimination?
That's not actually a thing. Also, when it comes to the idea of requiring gun owners carry "insurance", that would obviously be unconstitutional for the same reason that poll taxes were seen as unconstitutional. There's really no way you can get beyond that fact so you might as well just accept it and move on.
Well for one example look at the Stowers Demand letter in TX. For example, if you are in a car accident caused by another party the first thing your lawyer does in discovery is find out how big the liability coverage is. Let's say it is 100k. A Stowers letter basically says that you are willing to settle within the policy limits. If the other side says no we aren't settling and goes to court the insurance company is no longer limited to the 100k liability. They are on the hook for the whole bill because the person they insured now gets to sue them for negligence, insurance code violations, and treble damages for not settling under the Stowers demand. That is a crude summary of one example where the liability limits of the policy doesn't matter. It is discrimination to require insurance because owning arms in this country is a right. If you put a price tag on that right by having to purchase insurance it is a violation of that right... just like making a poor person buy an ID or have to spend money to take a bus to the DMV to get an ID to vote. You can't put unreasonable or unfair barriers in front of peoples RIGHTS.
So, basically, you don't want any changes with gun laws... we'll just keep having gun shootings, especially in schools.
