NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

[WildCat]

Yeah, but the 35,000 auto deaths...we can agree those are about 99% accidental deaths, yes?

Accidental gun deaths are ~600.

The rest of the gun deaths are suicides or criminal intent. Items that insurance won't cover.

even So tell me again how crucial it is for gun owners to carry one million dollars worth of insurance?

But how many gun deaths are really car deaths? You can't do a drive-by shooting without a car, for example. And would that robbery gone bad had happened without the getaway car? The Sandy Hook school shooter drove there! Let's not forget the crucial role the automobile played in the DC sniper shootings, or how the killers of Hadiya Pendleton used a car in the crime.

Clearly, we need to require $1 million insurance for every automobile covering any criminal or other intentionally harmful activity done with that car.

 

[Sabretooth]

But how many gun deaths are really car deaths? You can't do a drive-by shooting without a car, for example. And would that robbery gone bad had happened without the getaway car? The Sandy Hook school shooter drove there! Let's not forget the crucial role the automobile played in the DC sniper shootings, or how the killers of Hadiya Pendleton used a car in the crime.

Clearly, we need to require $1 million insurance for every automobile covering any criminal or other intentionally harmful activity done with that car.

I know you're being facetious...but some politician somewhere is going to find this as a brilliant plan.

 

[uk_dave]

Ah, a "guilt by association" sin tax? (That will hit the law-abiding but not the criminals who are the problem).

Are there any other groups of law-abiding citizens to whom you would like to apply punitive taxation (based on a superficial identifier which actually isn't a causative factor).

Seems like any extra tax should come from ex-cons, or parole boards who have released too many re-offenders, or voters who persist in re-electing mayors and police chiefs who are unable to bring crime rates under control… not innocent citizens.

Well, first you have to quantify the harm guns do to a society and, since there are figures available for gun related deaths and injuries it would be possible to establish how much overall compensation would need to be available. It could then be expressed as a percentage of current gun prices.

Is it punitive? Punitive might be tax payers or insurance holders having to foot the bill for unpaid medical expenses and work days lost as a result of guns within a society.

I would see it as similar to the tobacco tax in the UK which went a long way towards funding the NHS. Tobacco use causes lung diseases and these have to be treated so a tax on the harmful product helps pay for those treatments.

As far as the criminal element goes, yes of course the police and courts should get tough on guns being in the hands of criminals, so any sales tax measure should also run alongside ways of registering a gun to the current owner, stiffer penalties for possession of a gun which is not registered to you, background checks for all purchases (including private ones) and penalties for irresponsible gun ownership which leads to legally held guns being stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals.

I'm assuming that guns don't last forever without care and maintenance and I suspect that criminals are probably not very diligent in looking after the weapons they do have, so eventually the numbers of illegally held guns will be reduced through natural wastage and more care taken by responsible gun owners.

 

[WildCat]

Or, just require every sale (public and private) go through an FFL at $20 a transaction. I think that's fair.

That would certainly increase the number of FFL holders, many of which may never sell a single gun. If I were a gun show organizer, for example, I'd get one and become the sole person at the show authorized to do the checks.

Cha-ching!

 

[WildCat]

I know you're being facetious...but some politician somewhere is going to find this as a brilliant plan.

It actually makes more sense than the gun insurance, since even the criminals will have to pay the car insurance. Hard to keep a few cars stashed on a shelf in the closet, and they're already registered and titled.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That would certainly increase the number of FFL holders, many of which may never sell a single gun. If I were a gun show organizer, for example, I'd get one and become the sole person at the show authorized to do the checks.

Cha-ching!

I assume the FFL will have to do the background check and record the transaction and this all take about 10 to 20 minutes. But it would be nice to see a booth set up to solely deal with personal transfers. The other FFLs at the show would likely appreciate it. It would likely make some money, but not be the huge windfall you imagine.

 

[Nessie]

It appears little to nothing is good enough for the pro gun side. That doesn't count, that wont work, I'll object to that, that stops me from....., thats too expensive etc etc.

Some watered down proposals have got some favour with the pro gun side. But they do nothing to attempt to get such legislation past. Instead they stand at the side and mouth off the NRA are too extreme and some legislators are too extreme. It is just a big spoiling game for them so that ultimately nothing happens and loads of people die.

I am back to the position I had before Sandy Hook, that nothing is going to happen and Americans will shoot and kill each other on a regular, daily basis and the gunners don't really care so long they get what they want. Tons of guns and little control.

 

[Sabretooth]

It appears little to nothing is good enough for the pro gun side. That doesn't count, that wont work, I'll object to that, that stops me from....., thats too expensive etc etc.

Some watered down proposals have got some favour with the pro gun side. But they do nothing to attempt to get such legislation past. Instead they stand at the side and mouth off the NRA are too extreme and some legislators are too extreme. It is just a big spoiling game for them so that ultimately nothing happens and loads of people die.

I am back to the position I had before Sandy Hook, that nothing is going to happen and Americans will shoot and kill each other on a regular, daily basis and the gunners don't really care so long they get what they want. Tons of guns and little control.

Problem is that our political leaders are either leaning to far left or right to get something done correctly. I'm all for different levels of controls, but the people like me aren't represented very well. I've been writing my representatives quite often since this talk started, but my voice gets lost in melee' I'm afraid.

So, I've resigned to bitching on the JREF.

 

[monty1]

Problem is that our political leaders are either leaning to far left or right to get something done correctly. I'm all for different levels of controls, but the people like me aren't represented very well. I've been writing my representatives quite often since this talk started, but my voice gets lost in melee' I'm afraid.

So, I've resigned to bitching on the JREF.

Perhaps your ideas aren't ideas that would help the situation. If they're anything like you have voiced on this forum, I would say that's the problem. If you can wrap your mind around the idea of a sick society and a sick American mindset then you could suggest that!

And besides, one over opinionated individual with extremist views is not going to get any more of their ear than sensible parents who really have something worthwhile at stake. That would be, their children and not their silly guns and their silly gun rights.
However, I would just add, keep up your good work. It makes it clear what not to do.

 

[jimbob]

Yeah, but the 35,000 auto deaths...we can agree those are about 99% accidental deaths, yes?

Accidental gun deaths are ~600.

The rest of the gun deaths are suicides or criminal intent. Items that insurance won't cover.

So tell me again how crucial it is for gun owners to carry one million dollars worth of insurance?

If guns are adequately secured, then they won't be stolen and used in crimes. Insurance against that could have a low premium in such a situation if the risk is sufficiently low, which is what we are told by various posters.

 

[tyr_13]

It appears little to nothing is good enough for the pro gun side. That doesn't count, that wont work, I'll object to that, that stops me from....., thats too expensive etc etc.

Some watered down proposals have got some favour with the pro gun side. But they do nothing to attempt to get such legislation past. Instead they stand at the side and mouth off the NRA are too extreme and some legislators are too extreme. It is just a big spoiling game for them so that ultimately nothing happens and loads of people die.

I am back to the position I had before Sandy Hook, that nothing is going to happen and Americans will shoot and kill each other on a regular, daily basis and the gunners don't really care so long they get what they want. Tons of guns and little control.

That similar to my view, except I tend to view it from the other end. Nothing is good enough for the anti-gun crowd and that harms the chances of substantial benefits from being made. Not that I don't also think there are many in the pro-gun side, the NRA specifically, who also derail good measures either out of selfish interests, misunderstandings of proposals and the likely effects, or trying to prevent more extreme measures of control by framing what they are 'giving up' as more valuable then they actually favor it (Overton window or something like that?).

I'm a little more optimistic in that I think universal background checks and more crackdown on straw sales might actually get through. I'm of the opinion that these measures alone are worthwhile and possibly would have substantial effects on the gun supply to the unfit. (I have stopped supporting gun registration however as the anti-gun side has convinced me that they fully intend to use it in gun bans and not to crack down on straw purchases.)

The worst outcome is some 'symbolic' but do nothing measures like an AWB and some silly local/state laws get passed but nothing substantial or likely to have a large impact. This is slightly worse in my view than doing nothing because it saps popular momentum for measures addressing the problem (placating the masses) and annoys hobbyist for no real benefit. Both of these are way worse than doing the hard work, but the hard work is more complicated to explain than a blurb about how guns are/aren't like something else.

You continually blame the 'gun crowd' for this. That's wrong. It's everyone's fault. Blame is meaningless next to getting something done, and the blame game actually hurts the chances of getting something done. Again, many of your own ideas are fully supported and advocated by several gun crowd people both on these boards and in real life. It's easy to fall into the 'us vs them' mentality on issues like these, and I'm guilty as hell of it too, but let's try to overcome it.

And again, I very much appreciate your ideas on the subject as they are actually challenging and pretty well thought out unlike many who constantly post on one side or the other.

 

[jimbob]

If guns are adequately secured, then they won't be stolen and used in crimes. Insurance against that could have a low premium in such a situation if the risk is sufficiently low, which is what we are told by various posters.

I have insurance against similar situations.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So, I've resigned to bitching on the JREF.

Yeah, we all noticed, especially tyr_13:

And again, I very much appreciate your ideas on the subject as they are actually challenging and pretty well thought out unlike many who constantly post on one side or the other.

If I may venture into seriousness, I think Nessie and tyr_13 have hit on the very difficulty of "reasonable" gun control: there is no political incentive for it.

The extremes have an easy time of stirring the base, but those of us in the middle are not easily sold off in voting blocks, so courting us is just a waste of time as you lose the rabid base. Sucks, but true.

 

[tyr_13]

Yeah, we all noticed, especially tyr_13:





If I may venture into seriousness, I think Nessie and tyr_13 have hit on the very difficulty of "reasonable" gun control: there is no political incentive for it.

The extremes have an easy time of stirring the base, but those of us in the middle are not easily sold off in voting blocks, so courting us is just a waste of time as you lose the rabid base. Sucks, but true.

I was actually specifically thinking of myself. I tend to think about 'the middle' and specific measures, and criticisms of some of the pro-gun side, but apart from making it clear in a post or two that I'm for some gun controls, I tend to post in criticism of specific gun control measures that I find lacking or against anti-gun posts. Measures that I don't object to I often post little more than 'I agree because xyz' once and leave it at that when I should probably take on more of the reasons some people might attack what I say I support.

This combination no doubt makes me appear to support the far pro-gun side more than the gun-control side.

 

[monty1]

Yeah, we all noticed, especially tyr_13:





If I may venture into seriousness, I think Nessie and tyr_13 have hit on the very difficulty of "reasonable" gun control: there is no political incentive for it.

The extremes have an easy time of stirring the base, but those of us in the middle are not easily sold off in voting blocks, so courting us is just a waste of time as you lose the rabid base. Sucks, but true.

So just let it go, there's no gun problem.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/24/texas-4-year-old-dead-after-shooting-himself-with-fathers-gun/
4 year old found daddy's gun. 4 year olds obviously need to be taught to leave things alone that don't concern them. Stop blaming gun owners and those who stand up for their secund mendmunts rits.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I was actually specifically thinking of myself.

Shhh! Blame the bunny! It works, trust me . . .


Or I could have said:

Yep, me too. It is hard to stay in the middle when the one side is pushing your buttons more. But the middle is where the solutions lie. Compromise needs to make a comeback.

 

[Nessie]

Problem is that our political leaders are either leaning to far left or right to get something done correctly. I'm all for different levels of controls, but the people like me aren't represented very well. I've been writing my representatives quite often since this talk started, but my voice gets lost in melee' I'm afraid.

So, I've resigned to bitching on the JREF.

Seems odd you saying that as to us the Republicans and Democrats can be separated by a thin piece of paper.

 

[Nessie]

That similar to my view, except I tend to view it from the other end. Nothing is good enough for the anti-gun crowd and that harms the chances of substantial benefits from being made. Not that I don't also think there are many in the pro-gun side, the NRA specifically, who also derail good measures either out of selfish interests, misunderstandings of proposals and the likely effects, or trying to prevent more extreme measures of control by framing what they are 'giving up' as more valuable then they actually favor it (Overton window or something like that?).

True, different perspective, same old view.

I'm a little more optimistic in that I think universal background checks and more crackdown on straw sales might actually get through. I'm of the opinion that these measures alone are worthwhile and possibly would have substantial effects on the gun supply to the unfit. (I have stopped supporting gun registration however as the anti-gun side has convinced me that they fully intend to use it in gun bans and not to crack down on straw purchases.)

That would be a start and I favour licensing the person not the gun to persuade people this is not about seizing lots of guns.

The worst outcome is some 'symbolic' but do nothing measures like an AWB and some silly local/state laws get passed but nothing substantial or likely to have a large impact. This is slightly worse in my view than doing nothing because it saps popular momentum for measures addressing the problem (placating the masses) and annoys hobbyist for no real benefit. Both of these are way worse than doing the hard work, but the hard work is more complicated to explain than a blurb about how guns are/aren't like something else.

Which is why, 2271 deaths after Sandy Hook and nothing much but symbolic legislation I am now say even the deaths of so many children has not been a tipping point. I don't think anything significant will happen now.

You continually blame the 'gun crowd' for this. That's wrong. It's everyone's fault. Blame is meaningless next to getting something done, and the blame game actually hurts the chances of getting something done. Again, many of your own ideas are fully supported and advocated by several gun crowd people both on these boards and in real life. It's easy to fall into the 'us vs them' mentality on issues like these, and I'm guilty as hell of it too, but let's try to overcome it.

Thing is that the ones with the guns are the ones who need to change. Its not as if the ones without guns can actually do much.

And again, I very much appreciate your ideas on the subject as they are actually challenging and pretty well thought out unlike many who constantly post on one side or the other.

Thanks.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So just let it go, there's no gun problem.

Finally, someone who has been paying attention to my vast body of work. Thank you!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/24/texas-4-year-old-dead-after-shooting-himself-with-fathers-gun/
4 year old found daddy's gun. 4 year olds obviously need to be taught to leave things alone that don't concern them. Stop blaming gun owners and those who stand up for their secund mendmunts rits.

I think you missed the "new thread" button.

 

[Sabretooth]

Yeah, we all noticed, especially tyr_13:



If I may venture into seriousness, I think Nessie and tyr_13 have hit on the very difficulty of "reasonable" gun control: there is no political incentive for it.

The extremes have an easy time of stirring the base, but those of us in the middle are not easily sold off in voting blocks, so courting us is just a waste of time as you lose the rabid base. Sucks, but true.

I know you was just joshing me, but I know I come across as a huge gun nut in some of my posts. Honestly, I'm trying to dispel myths and find a fair balance in control laws vs. rights.

Seriously, I want it fixed. I want rules to be in place to protect the gun owners. Close the selling loopholes and come down hard on criminals. Get a licensing system in place. Register all handguns.

By protecting the gun owners and getting the illegal guns off the street, you've actually strengthened the country instead of weakening one side or the other.