• 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

RJKarl said:
Only lunatics need an "arsenal". There's no legitimate reason for having one other than you can.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you define as an "arsenal". My dad has about a dozen guns, all hunting rifles or shotguns. That is not at all uncommon in the rural parts of the country. He is no lefty liberal but he also is not a "gun nut" or Tea Partier or prepper or any other brand of "lunatic".
 
Seems to me that gun insurance will be seen for what it is. A tax to make gun ownership more expensive or impossible for poorer families.
 
Deacon923 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think gun safes that could be required by insurers would definitely help. We had a horrible tragedy in my town over the weekend where a 14-year old boy committed suicide by shooting himself with one of his father's guns. He had access to his father's "gun room" (can't even imagine) and was found dead in the basement by his sister. Just horrible. My wife works at the high school here and worked last year with the boy's mom. What they are going through is beyond belief.
 
I haven't thought about a specific number. Like the Supreme Court said about pornography,"You may not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it."

I do believe there's no excuse to be able to buy more than one or two guns at a time other than if you are a licensed security company, PD or in a historical/antique collection. There's no legitimate reason to be able to go into a gun shop and buy as many guns as you have cash or credit to be able to purchase.

I also believe that any "private seller" who sells a gun to a felon should be considered an accomplice to any crimes committed with that weapon.
 
RJKarl said:
I do believe there's no excuse to be able to buy more than one or two guns at a time other than if you are a licensed security company, PD or in a historical/antique collection. There's no legitimate reason to be able to go into a gun shop and buy as many guns as you have cash or credit to be able to purchase.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to prevent here? People buying guns for Mexican drug cartels in Texas?
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Seems to me that gun insurance will be seen for what it is. A tax to make gun ownership more expensive or impossible for poorer families.
Click to expand...

And that is certainly part of the point. Guns are too easy to get, to possess, to steal, to misplace, and to sell. That ready access is exactly why crazy people in this country shoot up kindergartens while crazy people in other countries (who play the same video games, watch the same violent movies, etc. etc.) do not.
 
I don't see how gun insurance can be constitutional if its express purpose is to deny poorer people access to guns. Even if it is constitutional, there's no way this can pass nationwide. So you're really talking about maybe dozen states enacting it on their own.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
What are you trying to prevent here? People buying guns for Mexican drug cartels in Texas?
Click to expand...

And gangs in OC and gangs in DC and gangs in Chicago and to sell at gunshows and through private sales to felons.

There is absolutely nothing in the 2nd Amendment about the sale of guns. Conversely, the Constitution specifically gives Congress the right to regulate trade.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
I don't see how gun insurance can be constitutional if its express purpose is to deny poorer people access to guns. Even if it is constitutional, there's no way this can pass nationwide. So you're really talking about maybe dozen states enacting it on their own.
Click to expand...

That's absolute crap.
 
Do gangs really buy guns in mass like that? Maybe they do, but would like to see a link to back that assertion up.

I have heard anecdotally that Mexican drug cartels do that which if its true should be addressed by the states its happening in.
 
fwiw, they were requiring instant background checks on all transfers at the harrisburg gun show this weekend
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Explain your reasoning that its crap.
Click to expand...

Insurance would not be that expensive. Poorer people would buy less expensive guns if insurance was required. Plus manufacturers would lower prices rather than lose a huge segment of their sales.

This excuse is gun industry BS used to brainwash others to protect their profits.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
I don't see how gun insurance can be constitutional if its express purpose is to deny poorer people access to guns. Even if it is constitutional, there's no way this can pass nationwide. So you're really talking about maybe dozen states enacting it on their own.
Click to expand...

I agree that it would be a state by state process. States would have to change some of their insurance and tort laws to make it work.

I don't agree that requiring insurance for guns is unconstitutional on its face. It's a burden on the right, sure, but there are burdens on all of our rights. You have the right to free speech, but you have to pay a billboard company if you want a lot of people to see your opinions about Ron Wellman. You have the right to freedom of movement, but the government doesn't have to make movement cost-free and can require gasoline taxes, auto registration fees, toll roads, and mandatory insurance. You have the right to freely exercise your religion, but you can't hurt other people in the process - generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise have been found constitutional many, many times.

Gun insurance is just like auto insurance. There are externalities to automobile ownership, namely, autos can be dangerous and hurt people and we need to be sure there is money available to help the people injured by the auto. Clearly, guns are dangerous and there should be money available to help the people they injure. If that incidentally makes guns less affordable, so be it - they're too cheap now, because the externalities of ownership are not appropriately priced in.

Now it is possible that any given gun insurance law could be unconstitutional - like an arbitrary extremely high premium set by a state government would undoubtedly be unconstitutional. However I don't think that gun insurance would be that expensive for one or two or even several guns, especially hunting-type weapons as they are very rarely the source of injuries. It probably would not be very high for "assault weapons" either, as these are just hunting rifles made to look tough and also very rarely the source of injuries (they just get lots of attention).

Gun insurance would probably be higher for hand guns. If all of the above means we have more people buying shotguns for home defense and keeping them in secure lockers, that would be a great result.
 
RJKarl said:
Insurance would not be that expensive. Poorer people would buy less expensive guns if insurance was required. Plus manufacturers would lower prices rather than lose a huge segment of their sales.

This excuse is gun industry BS used to brainwash others to protect their profits.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself here. Either requiring gun insurance reduces the amount of guns in circulation or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then what's the point of having gun insurance?

I assume gun insurance would not be a one time fee paid at purchase of the weapon, but like every other insurance be an ongoing bill to be paid as long as the item is owned. If you own a two or three rifles and the same number of shotguns, that price tag adds up significantly after awhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top