Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.

There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

There are two arguments against liability insurance. First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights. Second, why guns? Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance? You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways. Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.

 

[candycorn]

There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?

The few times I've been in car wrecks (my fault once), my insurance paid to have both of our cars fixed. So because I crashed into Mr. and Ms. Jones and had insurance; they didn't have to take me to court. Allstate took care of both of us.

No court was involved.

So your scenario is that the victim of a gunshot has to deal with their recovery--which ain't cheap by the way--then hire lawyers to go after the perp who likely is in custody. And when they win; gee...the get what exactly; the street value of the beretta that was used to shoot them?

 

[candycorn]

There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

There are two arguments against liability insurance. First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights. Second, why guns? Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance? You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways. Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.

The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

There are two arguments against liability insurance. First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights. Second, why guns? Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance? You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways. Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.

The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.

Cars and driving are NOT a right protected by the Constitution. Fire arms are. What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE do you not understand. It means no punitive tax on firearms and no insurance charges.

Unless of course we need insurance for freedom of worship freedom of speech, or our criminal protections.

 

[P@triot]

You're not only ridiculous, you're also a liar of mass absurdity. I'm a registered Democrat and I do not want to see the government confiscate all guns. I want, however, only licensed, trained and responsible citizens to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

BTW, ALL of your posts taint those who disagree with my opinion appear to be on your side, and thus make them appear to be as mentally disturbed as you. Who or what made you into the hateful person you have become?

Wry - what happens when exactly what you want comes to fruition and then a criminal breaks into a car and steals a gun?

Furthermore, drugs are outlawed and have been all through the 1900's, yet they are as rampant as ever. Are you really so naïve as to have no knowledge of that little thing called the "black market"?

There is no panacea to cure all ills. What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation. In response to your points:

1. The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.

2. Of course the war on drugs is a failure. Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns). All need to be controlled. For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market. MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco. Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.

Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.

That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.

After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.

 

[Lovebears65]

A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.

We can certainly start there.

How will that stop a criminal from buying a gun on the black market. IT WONT..

 

[P@triot]

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?

The few times I've been in car wrecks (my fault once), my insurance paid to have both of our cars fixed. So because I crashed into Mr. and Ms. Jones and had insurance; they didn't have to take me to court. Allstate took care of both of us.

No court was involved.

So your scenario is that the victim of a gunshot has to deal with their recovery--which ain't cheap by the way--then hire lawyers to go after the perp who likely is in custody. And when they win; gee...the get what exactly; the street value of the beretta that was used to shoot them?

Because in your world, the criminals are going to purchase liability insurance to make sure their victims get their due pay day?!?

By the way - who in the hell is going to insure criminals?

 

[Steven_R]

However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.

There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

In that case, we should probably go ahead and require insurance for everything. I can hit my neighbor in the head with a brick, and it's coloring books for Christmas for him from now on, and he'll need something to pay the bills because my being in prison for committing a crime just ain't doing it.

Maybe he can get the money when he sues Lowe's for selling me a brick in the first place.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Secondly, your dodging. You conveniently did not quote the second part of what I said which pertains to your actual position; guns need to be eliminated entirely and people who own them should be negatively stigmatized to discourage ownership of firearms. Again, your priorities are horribly misplaced. Cars cause far more injuries and deaths to humans than cars. Yet you seem unwilling to put this same negative stigma on car owners. Why is that? The same policies you advocate could be applied to the automobile, hopefully eliminating the ownership of them eventually and thus eliminating the deaths and injuries they are involved in. Where are your priorities? It seems they are only placed on the ones that don't cause you a personal inconvenience.

Cars are designed to transport.
Guns are designed to injure.

Not anywhere close to the same thing.

However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.

As for stigmatizing it; That goes back to the OP. I was asked for a plan and that is the only way to stop mass murders who use firearms; make guns harder to get.

if anything

there should be a requirement that those that establish

a gun free zone

should be required to carry insurance

 

[candycorn]

There are two arguments against liability insurance. First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights. Second, why guns? Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance? You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways. Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.

The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.

Cars and driving are NOT a right protected by the Constitution. Fire arms are. What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE do you not understand. It means no punitive tax on firearms and no insurance charges.

Unless of course we need insurance for freedom of worship freedom of speech, or our criminal protections.

Yeah which is why the comparison is BS. Thanks for echoing my point made about 30 pages ago.

 

[candycorn]

Wry - what happens when exactly what you want comes to fruition and then a criminal breaks into a car and steals a gun?

Furthermore, drugs are outlawed and have been all through the 1900's, yet they are as rampant as ever. Are you really so naïve as to have no knowledge of that little thing called the "black market"?

There is no panacea to cure all ills. What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation. In response to your points:

1. The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.

2. Of course the war on drugs is a failure. Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns). All need to be controlled. For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market. MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco. Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.

Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.

That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.

After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.

Fort Hood?

 

[Steven_R]

Soldiers are restricted from carrying gun on post except in very limited circumstances.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There is no panacea to cure all ills. What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation. In response to your points:

1. The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.

2. Of course the war on drugs is a failure. Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns). All need to be controlled. For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market. MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco. Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.

Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.

That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.

After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.

Fort Hood?

Fort Hood is a gun free zone

 

[Bern80]

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

There are two arguments against liability insurance. First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights. Second, why guns? Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance? You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways. Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.

The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.

Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now against selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.

The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.

 

[Bern80]

The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.

Cars and driving are NOT a right protected by the Constitution. Fire arms are. What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE do you not understand. It means no punitive tax on firearms and no insurance charges.

Unless of course we need insurance for freedom of worship freedom of speech, or our criminal protections.

Yeah which is why the comparison is BS. Thanks for echoing my point made about 30 pages ago.

You can't have it both ways. Your argument pages ago wasn't about whether we should pay for constitutional rights. It was about ridding the world of a device that is involved in injury and death. The point is there are all kinds of objects involved in injury and death and you are hypocrite for advocating policy that is aimed at discouraging and stigmatizing the ownership of just one of those objects (guns) while not applying the same standard to all the other object that can be involved in injury and death. Many of them even more so than guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no panacea to cure all ills. What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation. In response to your points:

1. The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.

2. Of course the war on drugs is a failure. Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns). All need to be controlled. For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market. MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco. Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.

Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.

That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.

After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.

Fort Hood?

Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.

 

[martybegan]

So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail? May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...

I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?

The few times I've been in car wrecks (my fault once), my insurance paid to have both of our cars fixed. So because I crashed into Mr. and Ms. Jones and had insurance; they didn't have to take me to court. Allstate took care of both of us.

No court was involved.

So your scenario is that the victim of a gunshot has to deal with their recovery--which ain't cheap by the way--then hire lawyers to go after the perp who likely is in custody. And when they win; gee...the get what exactly; the street value of the beretta that was used to shoot them?

are you really trying to compare an accident resulting in a civil action (all insurance is for is so the courts are not clogged) with a criminal act against a person?

If we removed auto insurance the court load would go up by millions. By forcing people unconsituionally to have firearm insurance, how many court cases are we eliminating?

Also, what insurance can you get that covers criminal acts performed by yourself?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.

If you aren't manufacturing them and private citizens don't have them, you won't have a supply to meet the demand...

[
That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Except for all those "Socalist" European countries that have done exactly that and have reduced murder rates down to less than a thousand. Oh, and they do this without a Death Penalty, mostly.

[
The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.

I'm sure that's the wet dream of the Gun Industry, but usually, when you are in a room full of gasoline, you don't want to hand out more matches.

[
After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.

Oh, come on. James Holmes didn't pick that theatre because it was a no-gun zone. He picked it because a Batman movie was playing and he thought he was The Joker.

There were armed guards at Columbine, a police force at VA Tech, and Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard were freaking military installations.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.

So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.

Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.

 

[JoeB131]

Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.

if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens. Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many. Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse. (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)

Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.