• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Another School Shooting

AMCDeac said:
Unless I am mistaken, you are leaning toward holding lawful gun manufacturers liable for someone else's unlawful use of their product. That would be like holding Ford or a brewery responsible for someone driving drunk.

My "legitimate" excuse for not wanting your list of restrictions is my preference for individual liberties. I also don't want people telling me I have to drive 55 mph or that I can't drink alcohol. Nor do I want other people telling me which of my interests are "legitimate" or whether I "need" to do something I might want to do.

But again, if your goal is saving lives, what is your "legitimate" excuse for allowing alcohol sales? And under your reasoning, shouldn't alcohol manufactures be held legally responsible for the damages caused by abuse of alcohol?
Click to expand...

You are TOTALLY mistaken. I am talking about the OWNER of the gun.

There are absolutely NO restrictions on your owning a gun.
 
94Deac said:
These things don't even make headlines any more. First step is becoming immune. Second step is tolerating.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to see what would happen if the media completely ignored them. Deny these nut jobs their fifteen minutes of national attention and perhaps this phenomena starts to go away.
 
I think the mandatory gun owner insurance idea is about the only idea that (1) has any chance of curbing these mass shootings, because it would reduce the number of guns in circulation and provide a mechanism to enforce gun safety, and (2) have a prayer of getting through the SCOTUS as a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms.
 
Deacon923 said:
I think the mandatory gun owner insurance idea is about the only idea that (1) has any chance of curbing these mass shootings, because it would reduce the number of guns in circulation and provide a mechanism to enforce gun safety, and (2) have a prayer of getting through the SCOTUS as a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

923, I'm not sure how insurance would have the impact you state. I agree with your send point re: SCOTUS, but I'd be interested in further comment from you on the first point.
 
Some of the shootings have been committed by people whose parents owned the guns.
 
What's the point of gun insurance? To make owning a gun cost prohibitive?
 
Shorty said:
923, I'm not sure how insurance would have the impact you state. I agree with your send point re: SCOTUS, but I'd be interested in further comment from you on the first point.
Click to expand...

i have commented at length in other threads (especially the omnibus gun violence thread). First, if you have to insure every gun you own, people would be deterred from owning a bunch of guns. This - over time - reduces the number of guns in circulation.
Second, because guns are inexpensive, the cost of insurance would be a significant part of the overall cost of ownership, and people would be motivated to keep their costs down. Private insurance companies would lower their rates for people who have approved gun safes - and might outright require gun safes or other safety devices as a condition of insurance. That would increase the use of gun safes and locks and might make it more difficult for some of these kids who get their parent's guns, and might have some impact on suicides as well.
Third, insurance companies would also require or at least reward training for their insureds. This could also impact the rate of accidental shootings over time.
Fourth, if a gun is stolen, people would be more likely to report it because they would not want to pay insurance on a gun they no longer have.
Fifth, insurance would require some documentation of transfers so the new owner pays the insurance. This would reduce the number of untraceable guns out there, and also reduce gun transfers from responsible older gun owners to irresponsible young people who might use them in crime or sell them on the street.

Let me make clear that all of this is on the margins. I think there would be a real impact but it would be relatively small. The best way to stop gun rampages is to greatly restrict the ownership of guns, as seen by, oh I don't know, every other industrialized country. But since we have the Second Amendment, that's not an option and this is the only proposal I have seen that might actually do some good without being unconstitutional.
 
Deacon923 said:
No. If it did, it would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Your answer here indicates otherwise.

"i have commented at length in other threads (especially the omnibus gun violence thread). First, if you have to insure every gun you own, people would be deterred from owning a bunch of guns. This - over time - reduces the number of guns in circulation.
Second, because guns are inexpensive, the cost of insurance would be a significant part of the overall cost of ownership, and people would be motivated to keep their costs down."
 
The cost of owning a gun wouldn't be prohibitive. The cost of owning an arsenal would.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Your answer here indicates otherwise.

"i have commented at length in other threads (especially the omnibus gun violence thread). First, if you have to insure every gun you own, people would be deterred from owning a bunch of guns. This - over time - reduces the number of guns in circulation.
Second, because guns are inexpensive, the cost of insurance would be a significant part of the overall cost of ownership, and people would be motivated to keep their costs down."
Click to expand...

Neither of those = "prohibitive". The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not guarantee that you can own as many guns as you want or that you don't have to pay anything to acquire or maintain your guns. Requiring private insurance, in my opinion, would fall into a reasonable restriction on the right. If it was arbitrarily set by a state government (say, New York) to a $5,000 per year per gun, that would be tantamount to a ban and would not be a reasonable restriction.
 
PhDeac said:
The cost of owning a gun wouldn't be prohibitive. The cost of owning an arsenal would.
Click to expand...

What problem are you trying to solve by eliminating people from owning private arsenals? Virtually all of these mass shootings use between one and three guns.
 
Deacon923 said:
Neither of those = "prohibitive". The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not guarantee that you can own as many guns as you want or that you don't have to pay anything to acquire or maintain your guns. Requiring private insurance, in my opinion, would fall into a reasonable restriction on the right. If it was arbitrarily set by a state government (say, New York) to a $5,000 per year per gun, that would be tantamount to a ban and would not be a reasonable restriction.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem like a politically viable solution on a national level. I suppose you could pass something like this in a few states and hope the supreme court doesn't strike it down.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
What problem are you trying to solve by eliminating people from owning private arsenals? Virtually all of these mass shootings use between one and three guns.
Click to expand...

Not just concerned about mass shootings, but gun crime in general. private arsenals, and the industry that supports them, put a lot of guns in circulation due to the secondary market and theft of guns. reducing private arsenals reduces the number of guns in circulation and makes it more difficult for criminals and the insane to obtain guns illicitly.
The mass shooting piece is addressed by my second point, regarding insurers incenting or requiring gun owners to secure their guns. Makes it more difficult for a deranged family member to get a gun (Adam Lanza situation).
 
not sure how liability insurance would have stopped any of these mass shootings
 
WakeForestRanger said:
What problem are you trying to solve by eliminating people from owning private arsenals? Virtually all of these mass shootings use between one and three guns.
Click to expand...

Only lunatics need an "arsenal". There's no legitimate reason for having one other than you can.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
not sure how liability insurance would have stopped any of these mass shootings
Click to expand...

Maybe the CT shooter's mom wouldn't have bought her son so many guns if she had to pay insurance on them.

The reality is insurance is only one part of sensible gun laws. For instance there is no legitimate reason to have 20, 50 or 100 round magazines. There's no legitimate reason not to have background checks on every sale or transfer of ownership of a weapon.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
not sure how liability insurance would have stopped any of these mass shootings
Click to expand...

The only way to stop them is to enact Australian-style gun reform, which would require repealing or changing the Second Amendment. That is not going to happen. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something, within the bounds of our constitution, to reduce gun violence.

In a couple of cases I can think of, specifically Sandy Hook, the perp had access to unsecured guns that did not belong to the perp (Mom's guns). I think the Columbine guys may have stolen one of the guns they used, not sure. Maybe if the owners of those guns had gun safes required by their insurers, it might have made a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top