General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStunning number that should make our blood boil
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Go Vols (a host of the General Discussion forum).
I know this is not a source that is great at all, but that title made me do a double take. I saw it on Facebook and almost fell over. I don't know how we can get rid of 400 million guns, but I am stunned that we even have that many here in the U.S.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/09/us-will-reach-400-million-private.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)
sarisataka
(18,606 posts)That is a very pro-gun, anti-left site?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)fellow citizens a little more and you won't feel the need to control (get rid of) what they possess.
99.9% of gun owners act responsibly...
phylny
(8,379 posts)mandatory licensing, insurance, and universal background checks.
Even still, no trust in any arms or armed person.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)fundamental right to protect themselves.
iow, it is anathema - the idea that a person of limited means could not purchase a weapon for self-defense for want of an insurance policy. It reeks of a "poll-tax".
phylny
(8,379 posts)If you can afford a gun, ammunition, and training (which I hope someone would do at a range, with qualified instructors), then insurance is just part and parcel to being a responsible gun owner. Anyone who doesn't take advantage of these things really has no business on the operating end of a gun, because their "self defense" will be rather shaky, I would think.
That way, families who have literally been blown apart or have had a loved one killed (think Sandy Hook, with funeral expenses, or Nickel Mines, the Amish community that has at least one child needing constant support/therapy) then there would be the chance for affected families to be awarded funds for their misery, disfigurement, or death so that everyone has their right to bear arms.
I'm honestly aghast that the families of those children who were killed at Sandy Hook, or the families of the journalists killed right here in my town a week ago, bear the expense of funerals, burials, etc. due to the negligence of some crazy person with a gun.
branford
(4,462 posts)It also demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about insurance and the effects of such a law.
First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal liability insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund funded by gun owners (which would have its own myriad of constitutional problems). For instance, even if the recent shooter of the reporters in Virginia has liability insurance, the victims' families would not collect a dime from the policy.
Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. If the government attempted to artificially raise the costs of such insurance above what actuarial standards required, it would become a tax or penalty on gun ownership, and no longer "insurance."
Third, most homeowners and renters policies already cover accidents involving firearms.
Fourth, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it more burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the same manner the courts struck-down poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.
Fifth, the vast majority of crime involving guns does not involve legal firearm owners or guns, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates as such firearms would still not be insured even if mandatory. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.
Sixth, firearm accident insurance and policy riders are already very cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor (similar to how AARP is a vendor for health and life insurance), but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country.
Seventh, there is no data to suggest that the country actually has a problem with uncompensated losses resulting from accidents involving legal firearms. What problem does the mandatory insurance proposal actually address?
Eighth, the lack of liability insurance does not prevent accident victims from suing someone for their negligence or criminal acts.
phylny
(8,379 posts)like the student and teachers at Sandy Hook, an insurance policy covering the use of that firearm could not be used to pay for costs associated with that firearm?
branford
(4,462 posts)Insurance doesn't cover intentional criminal acts. For example, you could not collect on a life insurance policy if the policy holder committed suicide, no burning down your home or business and collecting the fire insurance, and if you intentionally run down a person with your car, your auto liability policy would not apply.
However, in fairness, Sandy Hook presents an interesting scenario. Since the firearms used in the massacre were owned by the mother, not Adam Lanza, it would be presumably be her policy at issue.
As an attorney who actually deals with insurance coverage issues, if it were my case, I would sue the mother's estate and allege she negligently permitted Adam access to the weapons, and hence the policy coverage would apply under a number of negligence theories (although an actual policy could very well have specific exclusions for such a scenario). However, I doubt I would be successful since, if my recollection is correct, the guns were stored in a locked box and Adam actually had to kill his mother to gain access. Since Adam had not been adjudicated as a danger to himself or others, I also doubt having guns in the house while he was present would be sufficient for a finding of negligence. If a court did not dispose of such a case on summary judgment, it would indeed be an interesting predicament for a jury.
phylny
(8,379 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If insurers required proper secure storage* for firearms before issuing a policy, that could reduce the number of guns that fall into criminal hands via theft. That vector, however, is apparently a relatively minor one, and most criminals get their guns via either "street sales" or straw purchases at gun dealers. I should think it goes without saying that criminals, both those who use the guns and those who knowingly sell weapons to them, will ignore both insurance and background check requirements.
*Personally, I consider secure storage to be an inherent component of responsible gun ownership, and support legally requiring it. However, as you point out, such expenditures could constitute a de facto "wealth gate" on a civil right, which I oppose. This might require subsidies for low income folks who wish to exercise that right.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'm pretty sure as one of the largest insurers of firearm owners, they'd love to have some dimwits pass a mandatory insurance law.
80 million gun owners buying insurance that won't pay for criminal acts. It's a license to print money for the NRA. The people actually committing the crimes certainly won't be buying it anyway.
Kind of a short sighted move for the NRA haters we have on DU.
But I'm pretty sure the people that espouse that are just mindlessly repeating a meme they heard that sounds good. No thought actually involved.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It's tantamount to putting millions into GOP coffers, too...'coz it's no mystery which candidates the NRA is going to support.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"haven't murdered anyone" with "act responsibly".
Those are slightly different bars to clear, and I doubt you have the data to evaluate the latter claim.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to walk down the street. That's sick.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Depending on why you own a firearm 2 is a really low number.
Self Defense you should have 3-5
Hunting 5-10 depending on the game you hunt.
Competition 3-10 depending on the types of shooting.
Collecting 1-5000 depending on how deep your pockets are.
General range guns again depending on the bank account.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)For self-defense, I have 2. One compact pistol for CCW use and one larger one for home defense and occasional carry (I'm physically pretty small, so carrying a full-frame 1911 regularly isn't that practical). I can't really see the need for more than that. Even accounting for a SHTF scenario (in which case, see below, re: competition guns).
I don't hunt.
I'm a pretty serious long-range rifle competitor, for which I have three rifles, each suited to at least one particular form of competition. Any of the three would work in a SHTF scenario for the type of shooting I'd likely be doing (that is to say, I have zero interest in being in a pitched battle, and even if I'm in one, I'm trained to shoot carefully and not miss).
I have no interest in collecting.
I have two purely recreational guns, a pistol and a rifle, both in .22lr. They're also SHTF guns in that they're well suited to subsistence hunting of small game (although I lack hunting skills).
I'm happy enough with seven...and the only way I see getting more is if I get into a new form of competition.
Bonx
(2,053 posts)So that leaves 399,999,992.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)phylny
(8,379 posts)while broadcasting. I'm sure their families are heartened that the murder rate is declining.
beevul
(12,194 posts)See my sig.
phylny
(8,379 posts)for refusing to help solve this problem. You bet your ass I do.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You blame the people that didn't do it, because the people that didn't do it stand in the way of legislative proposals that don't focus on the misusers, but do target them.
The only way you can possibly see the people that aren't committing gun violence as the problem, is if gun control is the only solution you're interested in...
In which case, your attitude is the problem.
phylny
(8,379 posts)And when the gun lovers start to act like they see the problem the rest of the country sees, and works to solve it, I'll be satisfied. Until then, I remain unimpressed.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)then as older gun owners die their guns could be sold by their heirs to a program that buys them and destroys them.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)I have zero problem with guns but, if you called them Obamaguns and gave them out free, I think the NRA would be outraged and call for their (Obamguns) elimination.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Bigmack
(8,020 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)It's kind of like the difference between your real weight and what you tell the woman typing it in at the DMV for your driver's license.