Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[Acme]

Well, now that that's all over, lets move on...

Yeah, like it's over.

 

If a person had to apply to the local police department, who would do a background check, in order to obtain a firearm purchase permit, to be able to purchase handguns ( at least ), do you think that would have any effect on the handgun deaths statistics ?

 

Once the background check has been done and the purchase permit issued, the applicant can purchase as many guns as he wishes, since we know he's not a criminal or a nutbar; he/she just can't do it immediately but has to wait a period of time.

The background checks procedures vary from state to state. I recently bought a handgun and had to fill out about 3 pages of information which was checked by 3 different employees. Then they submitted it to [presumably] law enforcement and told me I had to wait up to a week before picking up my gun. As it was the check was completed in 1 1/2 days and they called me to come in. Before I could take possession and pay for it they had 2 employees check my ID and had me go over the paperwork again and initial it to confirm no errors.

 

And the police have a record of which houses/individuals posses handguns, and can proceed accordingly when responding to a call from that house/individual.

This is not the case at least in my state, i.e. the police do not keep a record of who owns guns. They do keep records of who has concealed carry permits however. For one I don't think they have the legal authority to essentially have a registry and for another there would have to be a system to report & track when people move.

 

We have this system in Canada ( FAC ), while I hear that in the US you can buy guns 'on the spot', at gun shows, pawn shops, etc.

Please inform me if otherwise, and, do any of you think it will partially alleviate the problem, or, trample your fundamental rights Waitforufo.

Again this varies by states and some states do have loopholes vis-à-vis gun shows. Oregon just enacted a law requiring background checks for all sales, even private, that must be run through a registered gun dealer. Exceptions are sales and/or gifts to family members and a person can borrow a gun to hunt with and not have to go through a permitting process.

 

None of these regulations do anything to stop the theft of guns, which is a major contributing factor in folks having guns illegally. I have no problem with this kind of control, though I doubt the number of folks that shouldn't have guns and apply is small. Neither do these regulations do anything toward preventing the childrens' injuries and deaths that this thread started with. That problem is one of responsible ownership and parenting just as keeping the little ones out of the cleaners and medicines, not leaving them alone in the tubby and other such lethal dangers as children face.

 

On the drift this has taken I have no problem with changing the constitution, abiding by the supreme court's interpretations of it, or abiding by the laws of my state. The idea that my government is going to pry my gun from my cold dead hand is a red herring because no matter what arsenal of small arms I or anyone else has, my government has artillery.

[overtone]

If a person had to apply to the local police department, who would do a background check, in order to obtain a firearm purchase permit, to be able to purchase handguns ( at least ), do you think that would have any effect on the handgun deaths statistics ?

That's the basic situation now in the US, most places, except that the background check is done at purchase.

 

The problems include the lack of rigor and diligence in the background check (it's not uniform nationally) , and the fact that it often does not apply to private purchases (such as gun show purchases are set up to be).

 

If the license to purchase were "shall issue", deniable only on reasonable grounds legatly established, and the fee low or even tax-paid, there would be no Constitutional conflict. There would be political trouble from the ingrained suspicion of many that once the government has a list of who owns what guns the step to confiscation is a short one. This is unfortunately not farfetched (see post-Katrina events, Black Panther suppression, etc). There is also, in the US, the fact that there are so many guns floating around that a list of new purchases would not provide the reassurances envisioned.

Edited September 2, 2015 by overtone

[Acme]

That's the basic situation now in the US, except that the background check is done at purchase.

 

The problems include the lack of rigor and diligence in the background check, and the fact that it does not apply to private purchases (such as gun show purchases are set up to be).

You present that as if it was universal in the US and as I just posted, these laws vary by state. This variance is one reason folks are pushing for a federal standard.

 

There would be political trouble from the ingrained suspicion of many that once the government has a list of who owns what guns the step to confiscation is a short one. This is unfortunately not farfetched.

Fear mongering plain & simple. This 'ingrained suspicion' is pretty much an aspect of the exceptionalism reported* in the gun violence study I posted FWIW last week. I freely admit my own gun ownership and use is culturally rooted, but so is my adherence to the law and the law trumps.

 

There is also, in the US, the fact that there are so many guns floating around that a list of new purchases would not provide the reassurances envisioned.

Since reporting your guns is voluntary, nothing short of a house to house search of the entire country would even come close to getting a count & record. Not gonna happen 'cause it won't work. Continually suggesting that it's not only possible but likely is fear mongering.

* Note: The study in post #359 did not use the term 'exceptionalism', they said "Those factors include a chronic and widespread gap between Americans' expectations for themselves and their actual achievement, Americans' adulation of fame, and the extent of gun ownership in the United States." In this I'm cynical of fame, but I have owned and used lots of guns since childhood and find that my expectations -or reach if you will- exceeds my grasp.

And to clarify further, that article is about mass murders and in no way is my identifying with those qualifications meant to suggest or imply that I'm going off the deep end. I may be crazy, but I'm not nuts.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Acme

[overtone]

You present that as if it was universal in the US and as I just posted, these laws vary by state

Sorry about the implication - it was meant as an accurate statement about the country overall, and I clarified the circumstances above edit.

 

 

There would be political trouble from the ingrained suspicion of many that once the government has a list of who owns what guns the step to confiscation is a short one. This is unfortunately not farfetched.

Fear mongering plain & simple.

Not really. We have recent examples, after all - Katrina, some of the instigating circumstances of famous standoffs, the police handling of the Black Panthers not that long ago, the behavior of various US authorities since 9/11, that kind of thing.

 

The unrealistic part is the notion that a list of new purchases would be a critical factor in such behavior. But the "better safe than sorry" take is hard to argue against, especially when a list would be of so little legitimate value.

 

On the bright side, the unexpected popularity of concealed carry permits has proved that putting one's name on a list of gun owners is not that big a deal to many of even fringe persuasion - as I tried (unsuccessfully) to get across to my fellow travelers during the debate on that law in Minnesota, a concealed gun is a registered gun, a gun whose owner has been background checked - get with the program, guys. That's what we wanted, remember?

Edited September 2, 2015 by overtone

[Acme]

Sorry about the implication - it was meant as an accurate statement about the country overall, and I clarified the circumstances above edit.

There is no accurate statement about the country overall, but I guess I'll let it go this time.

 

 

Fear mongering plain & simple.

Not really. We have recent examples, after all - Katrina, some of the instigating circumstances of famous standoffs, the police handling of the Black Panthers not that long ago, the behavior of various US authorities since 9/11, that kind of thing.

 

None of which come close to the entire US population which seems to be the threat you keep saying is so dangerous. Then too, some standoffs -Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind- were in my opinion justified actions by the authorities, the loss of any innocents notwithstanding.

 

The unrealistic part is the notion that a list of new purchases would be a critical factor in such behavior. But the "better safe than sorry" take is hard to argue against, especially when a list would be of so little legitimate value.

Background checks does not equal a registry, if that is your point. But again even a complete list is worthless if the government doesn't have the manpower and finances to go around making confiscations. As soon as it started people would hide their guns, hide themselves, and for all intents & purposes it would be civil war. Phht! Boogy man fear mongerage of the kind the survivalists and related nutters gobble up like pablum.

 

On the bright side, the unexpected popularity of concealed carry permits has proved that putting one's name on a list of gun owners is not that big a deal to many of even fringe persuasion - as I tried (unsuccessfully) to get across to my fellow travelers during the debate on that law in Minnesota, a concealed gun is a registered gun, a gun whose owner has been background checked - get with the program, guys. That's what we wanted, remember?

I don't know if states share their concealed permit lists with the feds or not, but I do know that in Oregon there was some attempt to force sheriffs to make public their list(s) and those holding the permits put the kibosh on that as an invasion of privacy. The permit holders weren't afraid of the cops -obviously-, they were afraid they'd be targets of thieves who would now have their addresses and a shopping list. I don't recall if that was a statewide thing or just county.

Then too there is the open carry, which my state and county allows and there is no permitting issue there.

[MonDie]

I was just reading research on the Dunning-Kruger effect and found a gun related example. It is study 3. Dig in.

 

Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/?report=classic

[Acme]

I was just reading research on the Dunning-Kruger effect and found a gun related example. It is study 3. Dig in.

 

Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/?report=classic

Interesting, but not particularly of bearing on the gun issues here. Well, except the off-topic parts concerning individuals ability to make and/or understand arguments and accept criticsm. To whit:

Summary

Study 3 showed that Trap and Skeet shooters overestimated their performance on a test of gun knowledge and safety even when offered a monetary incentive to be accurate. Further, this study demonstrated that strong overconfidence among the least skilled is not a phenomenon limited to college students evaluating their performance on intellectual tasks. Instead, individuals reflecting upon a hobby in which they possess considerable experience can have rather less than perfect insight into their level of knowledge regarding a central — and critical — feature of that hobby.

Can we regard forum posting as a hobby? Might as well because if it was paid work then the most unskilled -according to this study- would overestimate their skill even more.

 

Anecdote: As familiar with guns as I am, [think I am?] when I was looking over the gun I wanted to buy I worked the slide which locks open when the magazine is empty. After a few uncomfortable & overconfident seconds trying to release it as I had just seen the salesman do, I had to ask him how it was done.

 

A bit more germane to the discussion is the role of gun safety played by the manufacturers. While I was initially drawn to my gun because it was on sale at a significant discount, I was sold on all the safety features. It will not fire if the magazine is removed even if there is a round in the chamber, there is a pop up indicator to show by sight & feel that there is a round in the chamber, chambering a round only puts the hammer in half-cock and it only fully cocks when the trigger is pulled, it has a manual safety that locks the slide, there is a special key that fits in the side of the gun that disconnects the trigger, and it comes with a long-shank padlock that goes through the receiver and through the magazine channel which renders the gun unusable.

 

One final anecdote. Gun accidents with children is not only a civilian problem. A couple years back a local deputy's toddler got ahold of his loaded and unsecured handgun and shot a sibling to death. No charges were filed as there is no law about securing guns. Is that a kind of legislation that would make sense? I mean holding gun owners liable for harm caused by their unsecured weapons?

[zapatos]

 

On the bright side, the unexpected popularity of concealed carry permits has proved that putting one's name on a list of gun owners is not that big a deal to many of even fringe persuasion - as I tried (unsuccessfully) to get across to my fellow travelers during the debate on that law in Minnesota, a concealed gun is a registered gun, a gun whose owner has been background checked - get with the program, guys. That's what we wanted, remember?

Unless things are different in Minnesota than they are in Missouri, a concealed carry permit means that a person is 'registered', not a gun. When I applied for my concealed carry permit I was not required to register, or even acknowledge ownership, of any guns.

[overtone]

None of which come close to the entire US population which seems to be the threat you keep saying is so dangerous.

Jesus Mary and Joseph, what is it with this "seeming" crapola? Some kind of contagion?

 

Background checks does not equal a registry, if that is your point.

Why would that be anyone's point?

 

 

 

 

But again even a complete list is worthless if the government doesn't have the manpower and finances to go around making confiscations.

The problem seems to be fear of targeted confiscations and targeted government violence justified by advance knowledge of armaments. As with the three or four examples mentioned, you know, to illustrate and prevent "seeming"?

 

 

 

 

No charges were filed as there is no law about securing guns. Is that a kind of legislation that would make sense?

Of course. Unfortunately, specific proposals always seem to be set up to abet paranoia and instigate reflexive rejection - with enforced and documented purchases of safes, inspections of private houses for compliance, that kind of thing. Do you suppose it's because of whom they are set up by?

 

 

 

Unless things are different in Minnesota than they are in Missouri, a concealed carry permit means that a person is 'registered', not a gun

Same here. Edited September 2, 2015 by overtone

[Acme]

Jesus Mary and Joseph, what is it with this "seeming" crapola? Some kind of contagion?

No. It's about you thinking you have written clearly when in fact you have not. That's a point that was germane in the study MonDie cited. You only think you write clearly. More's the point that you blame everyone else for the misunderstanding.

 

 

Background checks does not equal a registry, if that is your point.

Why would that be anyone's point?

 

Exactly.

 

 

But again even a complete list is worthless if the government doesn't have the manpower and finances to go around making confiscations.

The problem seems to be fear of targeted confiscations and targeted government violence justified by advance knowledge of armaments. As with the three or four examples mentioned, you know, to illustrate and prevent "seeming"?

 

The fear is unwarranted paranoia.

 

 

No charges were filed as there is no law about securing guns. Is that a kind of legislation that would make sense?

Of course. Unfortunately, specific proposals always seem to be set up to abet paranoia and instigate reflexive rejection - with enforced and documented purchases of safes, inspections of private houses for compliance, that kind of thing. Do you suppose it's because of whom they are set up by?

 

Let's see some citations for such draconian proposals. I mean an actual reference with quotes and all that sorta stuff that is more than your assertion.

 

I had nothing of the sort you describe in mind, rather what I had in mind were laws to hold people accountable after the fact of an injury just as we have attractive nuisance laws wherein if your swimming pool isn't fenced and a neighbor kid drowns in it you are liable. With these laws no one is tracking swimming pool purchases or inspecting private homes beyond what a passerby might see.

And speaking of drowning and children:

Tragic Tally: More Than 200 Reported Child Drownings In Pools and Spas This Summer

WASHINGTON, DC – From Memorial Day through Labor Day 2013, at least 202 children between the ages of 1 and 14 drowned in a swimming pool or spa in the United States, according to media reports compiled by the USA Swimming Foundation. Of those, 143 of the victims were children younger than age 5.

 

The latest media-reported figures are consistent with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) annual Submersion Report, and show that young children and toddlers are especially vulnerable to drowning. Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional death among children 1 to 4 years of age and it is the second leading cause of death for children from 5 to 14 years old. ...

Addendum:

I was reading my gun manual as I recalled there was something in there about some of the safety features of the pistol that were required in California. What I didn't remember was a list of notices to meet requirements for new guns sold in multiple states and that those notices are of the character of the attractive nuisance laws as I was just suggesting. Here's a sample:

 

California:

Children are attracted to and

can operate firearms that can

cause severe injuries or death.

Prevent child access by always

keeping guns locked away and

unloaded when not in use. If you

keep a loaded firearm where a

child obtains and improperly uses

it, you may be fined or sent to

prison.

 

Connecticut:

UNLAWFUL STORAGE OF A LOADED FIREARM MAY

RESULT IN IMPRISONMENT OR FINE.

 

Florida:

IT IS UNLAWFUL, AND PUNISHABLE BY

IMPRISONMENT AND FINE, FOR ANY ADULT TO

STORE OR LEAVE A FIREARM IN ANY PLACE WITHIN

THE REACH OR EASY ACCESS OF A MINOR UNDER 18

YEARS OF AGE OR TO KNOWINGLY SELL OR

OTHERWISE TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSION

OF A FIREARM TO A MINOR OR A PERSON OF

UNSOUND MIND.

There are similar warnings of laws for Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. I think a federal law along these lines is reasonable.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Acme

[Ten oz]

No. It's about you thinking you have written clearly when in fact you have not. That's a point that was germane in the study MonDie cited. You only think you write clearly. More's the point that you blame everyone else for the misunderstanding.

 

Exactly.

 

The fear is unwarranted paranoia.

 

Let's see some citations for such draconian proposals. I mean an actual reference with quotes and all that sorta stuff that is more than your assertion.

 

I had nothing of the sort you describe in mind, rather what I had in mind were laws to hold people accountable after the fact of an injury just as we have attractive nuisance laws wherein if your swimming pool isn't fenced and a neighbor kid drowns in it you are liable. With these laws no one is tracking swimming pool purchases or inspecting private homes beyond what a passerby might see.

And speaking of drowning and children:

Tragic Tally: More Than 200 Reported Child Drownings In Pools and Spas This Summer

 

Addendum:

I was reading my gun manual as I recalled there was something in there about some of the safety features of the pistol that were required in California. What I didn't remember was a list of notices to meet requirements for new guns sold in multiple states and that those notices are of the character of the attractive nuisance laws as I was just suggesting. Here's a sample:

 

 

There are similar warnings of laws for Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. I think a federal law along these lines is reasonable.

Warnings are great but lack teeth. When children ends up hurting themselves or others with a gun if is merely viewed as a tragic accident. I would prefer a "hot car" approach. Leave a child in a hot car to die and you can expect to be charged with a crime. Should be the same for a guns. Leave a gun unsupervised around a child who then hurts themselves or others you should expect to be charged with a crime. Rather in this gun loving society many "thoughts and prayers" go out to parents after such accidents.

[MonDie]

There were 202 swimming pool drownings of children in one summer, but how many are there per year?

Doing the math from iNow's link, there are 20*0.06*365 or 438 deaths of children by guns per year.

At least in terms of child deaths, which are particularly undesireable, swimming pools constitute as much as half as many deaths. But a closer analysis might provide a per-pool vs per-gun comparison.

On the other, I would expect injuries from pools to be quite low. Aside from the 6% who die, how many gun victims are permanently maimed?

[Acme]

Warnings are great but lack teeth. When children ends up hurting themselves or others with a gun if is merely viewed as a tragic accident. I would prefer a "hot car" approach. Leave a child in a hot car to die and you can expect to be charged with a crime. Should be the same for a guns. Leave a gun unsupervised around a child who then hurts themselves or others you should expect to be charged with a crime. Rather in this gun loving society many "thoughts and prayers" go out to parents after such accidents.

The warnings are in the gun manual and are warning the gun owner about states that do in fact have such laws. I agree with you completely.

There were 202 swimming pool drownings of children in one summer, but how many are there per year?

Doing the math from iNow's link, there are 20*0.06*365 or 438 deaths of children by guns per year.

At least in terms of child deaths, which are particularly undesireable, swimming pools constitute as much as half as many deaths. But a closer analysis might provide a per-pool vs per-gun comparison.

On the other, I would expect injuries from pools to be quite low. Aside from the 6% who die, how many gun victims are permanently maimed?

I was looking at I's opening post and he quoted a statistic that guns are the #2 killer of teens ages 15 to 19. The article I cited on drowning says, "Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional death among children 1 to 4 years of age and it is the second leading cause of death for children from 5 to 14 years old". I suspect a fair number of children survive near-drowning with brain damage.

[dimreepr]

There were 202 swimming pool drownings of children in one summer, but how many are there per year?

Doing the math from iNow's link, there are 20*0.06*365 or 438 deaths of children by guns per year.

At least in terms of child deaths, which are particularly undesireable, swimming pools constitute as much as half as many deaths. But a closer analysis might provide a per-pool vs per-gun comparison.

On the other, I would expect injuries from pools to be quite low. Aside from the 6% who die, how many gun victims are permanently maimed?

 

 

Does it matter? If a child’s life is saved, what’s the difference? Be it child proof fencing, around a pool or a child proof safety switch on guns?

[Acme]

Does it matter? If a child’s life is saved, what’s the difference? Be it child proof fencing, around a pool or a child proof safety switch on guns?

Indeed. And not only a child-proof switch on a gun, but a people-proof lock. I earlier mentioned such a switch on my gun and that I thought the manual mentioned it conforming to California law. In review the manual just says "some states". This switch is an internal lock and the key hole is round & about 1/8". In addition to disengaging the trigger it locks the safety and so the slide. Loaded or unloaded, when the switch is activated the gun will not operate.

 

As I also related, I was first drawn to this gun by an advertisement and before I even went into the store I looked up a number of reviews. I was chagrined to see some reviewers actually complaining about the many safety features.

[dimreepr]

A incredibly small price to pay to enjoy the thrill of pretend killing be that skeet or target.

 

 

Edit/ That doesn't include those among us that depend on prey to live.

I have to admit ‘I love guns’ and we have to mitigate the impact of rats and other such creatures simply to maintain a reasonable return on our chicken, duck, pig and sheep business.

Edited September 2, 2015 by dimreepr

[Acme]

A incredibly small price to pay to enjoy the thrill of pretend killing be that skeet or target.

 

Edit/ That doesn't include those among us that depend on prey to live.

 

I have to admit ‘I love guns’ and we have to mitigate the impact of rats and other such creatures simply to maintain a reasonable return on our chicken, duck, pig and sheep business.

I too have a love of guns and freely admit my new one has little to no hunting value and gives me the satisfaction of a false sense of security while not causing the back & hip pain of a large-frame model. Were it illegal to own it I would give it up.

 

And speaking of giving up guns, around here there are regular gun turn-ins sponsored by law enforcement and people get reimbursed for each gun surrendered. [usually gift certificates as I recall.] Each event has netted hundreds of guns, all of which are destroyed.

 

At 11 years old I joined a gun club sponsored by the NRA and the local Optimist club. We trained and competed with .22 rifles on a 50 foot range. Safety was always first. The dues included membership in the NRA and a subscription to American Rifleman or American Hunter. The NRA then is not the NRA now, which I view with considerable disdain. So sad.

 

On the target shooting, I did take it to the public gun range to try it out. They didn't look at the gun but I did have to show picture ID, read 2 pages of rules, and sign a register. Among their rules was no human silhouette targets and no rapid fire. Not particularly cheap either as it was $20 for the day and 100 rounds of ammo cost me $40. It shoots nice & is quite accurate.

 

On the rats, we had a minor infestation last year, drawn to the bird seed falling from the feeder. As I live in a suburban setting I bought an air rifle to dispatch the rat family and stopped feeding the birds.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Acme

[Willie71]

Interesting, but not particularly of bearing on the gun issues here. Well, except the off-topic parts concerning individuals ability to make and/or understand arguments and accept criticsm. To whit:

 

Can we regard forum posting as a hobby? Might as well because if it was paid work then the most unskilled -according to this study- would overestimate their skill even more.

 

Anecdote: As familiar with guns as I am, [think I am?] when I was looking over the gun I wanted to buy I worked the slide which locks open when the magazine is empty. After a few uncomfortable & overconfident seconds trying to release it as I had just seen the salesman do, I had to ask him how it was done.

 

A bit more germane to the discussion is the role of gun safety played by the manufacturers. While I was initially drawn to my gun because it was on sale at a significant discount, I was sold on all the safety features. It will not fire if the magazine is removed even if there is a round in the chamber, there is a pop up indicator to show by sight & feel that there is a round in the chamber, chambering a round only puts the hammer in half-cock and it only fully cocks when the trigger is pulled, it has a manual safety that locks the slide, there is a special key that fits in the side of the gun that disconnects the trigger, and it comes with a long-shank padlock that goes through the receiver and through the magazine channel which renders the gun unusable.

 

One final anecdote. Gun accidents with children is not only a civilian problem. A couple years back a local deputy's toddler got ahold of his loaded and unsecured handgun and shot a sibling to death. No charges were filed as there is no law about securing guns. Is that a kind of legislation that would make sense? I mean holding gun owners liable for harm caused by their unsecured weapons?

If people had to buy insurance on their guns like people do cars, damages would be easier to manage. This wasn't my idea. I read it somewhere else, and thought this made sense. High risk people, young makes, those with no formal training, those with a history of suicidal ideation, or violent offences would be restricted quite significantly due to higher premiums associated with higher risk. Edited September 3, 2015 by Willie71

[Acme]

If people had to buy insurance on their guns like people do cars, damages would be easier to manage. This wasn't my idea. I read it somewhere else, and thought this made sense. High risk people, young makes, those with no formal training, those with a history of suicidal ideation, or violent offences would be restricted quite significantly due to higher premiums associated with higher risk.

It's an interesting idea but I see some problems.

First, it would amount to a gun registry and unlike an auto which is regularly out and about where it can be stopped and the owner ticketed for expired tags and the driver checked for insurance, guns are less often out and about and can be easily hidden and so never subject to scrutiny until or unless used in some form.

Second, the gun insurance might only be called to use in a claim that in many places the claimable injury is a crime. (And which should be a crime in all places as I and TenOz suggested in regards to injuring/killing of or by children due to negligence in storage or access.) I don't know if auto insurance pays a claim if the incident results in criminal charges and conviction. For example, if someone wrecks their car, kills someone in the wreck, and is convicted of vehicular homicide, will their insurance pay to fix their car?

Lastly, folks who have been convicted of violent offenses are usually prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under the current laws. So too, people adjudicated for mental illness, where adjudicated is the operative factor. That is to say, mental illness and treatment in or out of a facility on its own is not enough to keep someone from owning a gun; a judge has to commit the person to a facility and treatment.

 

Lot of problems then with the required insurance idea, although there may be some kind of liability insurance people can buy voluntarily that covers accidental (not illegal) gun injuries or deaths.

[overtone]

No. It's about you thinking you have written clearly when in fact you have not.

No, it isn't.

 

I'm sorry, but the issues involved are too simple. Misreadings and responses of the kind presented are not possible in good faith. They are too blatant. You guys aren't that stupid, and I'm under no obligation to assume you are that stupid.

 

This, for example, is just bullshit:

 

Since reporting your guns is voluntary, nothing short of a house to house search of the entire country would even come close to getting a count & record. Not gonna happen 'cause it won't work. Continually suggesting that it's not only possible but likely is fear mongering.

 

 

Yep. That's why I don't make any such suggestions. Not only not "continually suggesting" such nonsense, but not even once posting anything remotely resembling that crap.

 

So where are you getting it from?

 

 

 

Of course. Unfortunately, specific proposals always seem to be set up to abet paranoia and instigate reflexive rejection - with enforced and documented purchases of safes, inspections of private houses for compliance, that kind of thing. Do you suppose it's because of whom they are set up by?

 

Let's see some citations for such draconian proposals. I mean an actual reference with quotes and all that sorta stuff that is more than your assertion.

 

I had nothing of the sort you describe in mind, rather what I had in mind were laws to hold people accountable after the fact of an injury -

Good for you, and a set of "responsible handling" regulations that establish liability as well as blame would find near universal support (certainly mine).

 

But if it's true you have never heard of requiring gun owners to purchase and install gun safes, and keep their firearms in them; if it's true you have never heard anyone recommend initial or even random inspections of suspect homes - especially if children are present - for proper firearm sequestration; if it's true that you have never heard of a public official call for banning - say - all handguns from a city (we had an ex police chief running for governor of my State throw that into the campaign, sinking it); if it's true you have never heard anyone recommend that the former owner of a stolen gun be held liable as an accessory for any harm done by it; and so forth and so on,

 

get your ears checked.

 

 

If people had to buy insurance on their guns like people do cars, damages would be easier to manage.

It would have to be very cheap, and possibly subsidized, because of the 2nd Amendment. You can't put cost barriers on a Constitutional right.

 

As a rule of thumb, comparisons of guns with cars involve worthless stats, dangerously cavalier treatment of Constitutional right, and kind of scary willingness to abrogate people's civil liberties even in their cars. Tiptoe carefully - lots of people are still peeved about having to pay car insurance rates that cover their neighbor's custom paint job on his midlife crisis. They con get away with that because driving is a privilege.

Edited September 3, 2015 by overtone

[Acme]

 

No. It's about you thinking you have written clearly when in fact you have not.

No, it isn't.

 

Yes, it is. But of course you can't recognize it and that's your catch 22.

[Ten oz]

It would have to be very cheap, and possibly subsidized, because of the 2nd Amendment. You can't put cost barriers on a Constitutional right.

 

As a rule of thumb, comparisons of guns with cars involve worthless stats, dangerously cavalier treatment of Constitutional right, and kind of scary willingness to abrogate people's civil liberties even in their cars. Tiptoe carefully - lots of people are still peeved about having to pay car insurance rates that cover their neighbor's custom paint job on his midlife crisis. They con get away with that because driving is a privileg.

Calling driving a privilage a play on words and parsing of law and the way it is applied. Yes courts can take away citizens driving privilages but courts also can execute people taking away life all together. Of course the Founders did not have a crystal ball. They couldn't write an amendment specifically protecting someones right to something that did not yet exist. Then again the privileges and immunities clause does protect our right to travel freely. Today the most popular mode of travel is a car. Sort of like how "arms" are protected and "guns" are the most popular type od "arms".

For tens of millions of people in this country who do not live in a metropolitan area with a robust public transportation system driving is a necessity and not some privilage that pales in importance to gun ownership. This is an example of why strick literal adherence to the Constitution without modern considerations simply does not work. Cars didn't exist when the constitution was written. Most people never traveled more than 15-20 miles from the place of their birth as part of standard living.Today transportation be it cars, rail, or planes are arguably part of the pursuit of happiness. As we have the right to all legal activities so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Millions can't conduct the life they live without cars.

Plus I think it can be argued that if people did form militias to combact an oppresive Government automibles to transport themselves and supplies would be logistically important as guns.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Ten oz

[MonDie]

If people had to buy insurance on their guns [...] those with a history of suicidal ideation

I find it absurd that we charge people money for being suicidal. Besides, gun insurance assumes we can put a price on someone's life like we would a car. Edited September 3, 2015 by MonDie

[dimreepr]

. Besides, gun insurance assumes we can put a price on someone's life like we would a car.

 

 

No but you can put a price on someone’s health.

[Phi for All]

Besides, gun insurance assumes we can put a price on someone's life like we would a car.

No but you can put a price on someone’s health.

 

I think you're both wrong. You CAN put a price on someone's life, that's what life insurance is all about. What you can't know is the price of someone's health. I don't want to go off on a tangent, though.