We've maybe not seen it simplified like this: Comparing Car purchases and Gun Purchases

[Mira]

[Travis_0004]

1. Im fine with this

But it got me thinking. Does anybody really need 300 HP. We should limit all passenger cars to 150.

[Decoy of Fenris]

2. And mandate that no vehicle be capable of going faster than the national speed limit, of course.

Maybe even just change the national speed limit to 30, even on highway.

[The CCC]

26. And mandate that no vehicle be capable of going faster than the national speed limit, of course.

Better yet go back to horse and buggy days. That will work real well in 21st Century America.

[TipTok]

106. Now now... Don't be unreasonable...

We'll just mandate public transportation ... No more cars means no more deaths and it's all about the greater good right?

What's wrong with waiting 20 or 30 minutes to leave if it saves the life of a child?

[Octafish]

58. Lawbreakers include those driving 71 mph in zones marked ''70.''

Following speed limits show precisely where most Americans fall in the legal/illegal ledger.

[Decoy of Fenris]

59. A-yup. Lots of people willing to legislate when it won't affect them. n/t

[Octafish]

68. It would leave about 1-percent of the country eligible for guns.

Put cameras all over rigged to robotic radars and shrink the list. Not too many cops would be able to carry, either.

[demwing]

102. Evidence?

or are we just pulling random numbers to score cheap debate points?

[Octafish]

110. Drive down the highway at the posted speed limit and count cars.

Tell me how many cars and trucks pass you and compare with how many you pass.

Going from experience, it's about 100 to 1.

[demwing]

111. Is that what you're responding to? My Bad

I somehow got the idea you were responding to the OP. Sorry!

[Octafish]

116. I was. I consider those who violate the speed laws to be lawbreakers.

Hence not many people are eligible to be considered for gun ownership.

Do you think criminals should be able to carry guns, demwing?

[demwing]

118. Some, not all.

Example: I'm fine with gun ownership for someone who went to prison over pot. I'm not fine with gun ownership for anyone who has a violent criminal record.

[Mira]

3. I neither know about guns or cars,

not how many HP my Ford Ranger or my Ford Fiesta have. But I don't think either can do willful taking of lives the way assault rifles can.

[Decoy of Fenris]

5. But if it saves just one life, isn't it worth it? n/t

[GGJohn]

6. Yet, vehicles are very proficient at taking thousands of lives a year,

and Assault Rifles have been banned for sale to the general public since the passage of the NFA of 1986, very few are in civilian hands and are very tightly controlled.

[Travis_0004]

7. A corvette is deaigned for speed

Since our speed limit is 65 that is reckless. And cars kill thousands of people a year, some due to speeding.

Ive gone 150 before in a car. Do we really want cars on our road capable of this (I was not on a public road, but people are killed from speeding every day.)

[A HERETIC I AM]

29. When you say "our speed limit", to whom are you referring? n/t

[MillennialDem]

79. Perfectly legal to speed at the drag strip. Plus there are instances, albeit rare ones, where

gunning the throttle is what helps you avoid an accident.

[Decoy of Fenris]

8. Actually, snarky response aside, I think you're wrong.

A car is a multi-ton vehicle capable of dealing damage on a scale far, far greater than that of any assault rifle. In terms of sheer destructive power on both property and the human body, the car is a much more deadly threat if someone decided to use one as a weapon. Imagine a truck barreling down a busy boardwalk at 80 mph. The results would be devastating beyond any mere mass shooting.

[Human101948]

36. When is the last time a truck barreled down a boardwalk at 80 mph...

I can't recall that one. I do recall that there have been hundreds of mass shootings so far this year.

[demwing]

103. Trucks for EVERYONE

The only way to stop a bad guy with a truck...you know the rest

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. When has an assault rifle EVER *willfully* taken a life on its own?? Just ONE LINK where one of

these "assault rifles" jumped off of a rack, or climbed out of a safe, slipped out the door and roamed the streets alone looking to kill someone will do.

Meanwhile, there are *hundreds* of stories of cars/trucks jumping out of gear while parked on a hill and rolling down the road, either hitting someone, or causing a bad, sometimes fatal, wreck.

Thanks in advance...

Ghost

[KittyWampus]

69. Car accidents are why there is insurance.

And those innocent guns are used by people whom society has an interest in proving are properly schooled in handling and medically capable of wielding.

You're welcome.

[Ghost in the Machine]

86. Maybe you didn't read the exact wording that I responded to.. here they are...

But I don't think either can do willful taking of lives the way assault rifles can.

Again I ask, in a different way, how can an inanimate object do ANYTHING "willfully"?

As you stated: "those innocent guns are used by people" This we can agree on. There are certain people who have absolutely no business ever owning a gun of any kind. However, my point still stands... unless YOU can provide a link showing exactly what I asked in the post that you responded to. Care to try??

You're welcome, too!

Peace,

Ghost

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. I'll give up my 240HP **4 CYLINDER** built out Acura Integra when they pry my cold, dead hands

from the steering wheel!! It's a '94 with a Honda B18B1 Engine, built, with a header, stainless steel High performance exhaust, 2 stage competition clutch and short shift 5 speed... and STILL gets right at 35 MPG. It registers 150 MPH on the speedometer... I've had it to 140, and had to back out of it because my exit was coming up... about a mile away. Still had plenty of pedal to go, too!

I usually baby it and drive it normally, but this was on a lazy sunday afternoon, on a long stretch of empty Interstate (I think I passed 2 cars) and I just felt like opening it up and seeing what it would do. I had quit driving like that back in the mid 80's, when I gave up my '73 SS Camaro. It felt good, but I wouldn't do it again... just caught the bug that day!

I'd LOVE to have a 2015 Dodge Challenger with the 426 Hemi & 426 HP, but they cost too much, and the gas would too! Plus, at almost 53 years old, I don't need to be getting myself in trouble with tickets and stuff. I've had a clean driving record for over 21 years now, and protect my license like a piece of gold.

Peace,

Ghost

[Skittles]

52. I see what you did there

[Ghost in the Machine]

87. It's a gift... or a curse... I haven't decided yet, but sometimes these things just pop in my head

naturally and I just run with it...

Peace,

Ghost

[cui bono]

18. There are speed limit laws. That takes care of that.

And many other traffic laws as well. So perhaps we need some speed limit laws on firearms/shooters too.

No more than 1 bullet per hour in a school zone.

In the case of a gunfight, a 4 way stop sign scenario shall be followed where everyone has to wait their turn to shoot, the first person to draw goes first, then the person to the right, then the person to the right of them and so on.

Pedestrians have the right of way.

No tailgating.

etc...

[Rex]

61. The end result might be more people dying from 300 HP then 150...so good point!

Same as people never needing an assault weapon or extended clips. Good point!

[MillennialDem]

78. Fine with me, I won't drive anything built after the early 2000s ever.

[GGJohn]

90. Wanna buy my restored 66 Chevelle Super Sport?

396 ci engine, Borg-Warner close ratio side loader 4 speed, gets about 12 gallons to the mile, oops, I meant 12 miles to the gallon.
Make me an offer?

[MillennialDem]

98. Actually I don't like 60s/70s cars. I like late 80s - early 2000s cars. And as a bonus, my 383

1995 camaro gets upwards of 20 mpg on the highway and as much as 30 mpg cross country (averaged about 27).

The beauty of a 6 speed and fuel injection.

[GGJohn]

108. Nice!!!!!

My Chevelle never saw a gas station it didn't like.

[Reter]

113. No we shouldn't

I don't want more laws on the road. If you don't want a 200 hp car, don't buy one. 150 limit? Pfft.

[GGJohn]

4. Here's a clue as to why it's different,

one is an enumerated right while one isn't.
Guess which one is a right.

BTW, a vehicle doesn't have to be registered, licensed, insured, inspected, no driver license required, no written test, no practical test, no renewal if the vehicle isn't used on the public roads.

[cui bono]

20. Doesn't matter. Requiring insurance doesn't take away the right to bear arms.

Plus, the 2nd amendment is not interpreted properly by those who tout it as the be all end all of the discussion.

There is no reason why insurance should not be required when we can see the deadly results of stupid and careless gun owners. That anyone cares more about a misinterpreted right than children's lives is sick.

[Lizzie Poppet]

38. Requiring insurance will also accomplish little, if anything.

Personal liability insurance specifically for gun owners is readily available...and very cheap (because claims are astronomically rare). The largest insurer is the NRA, so I can't say I much like the idea of a law that could vastly swell their coffers. A lot of people don't even need these specific policies, as their homeowners insurance covers them for accidental harm caused by their guns.

The overwhelming majority of harm caused with guns, of course, is caused by deliberate criminal acts...which no insurer on the planet covers.

[Martin Eden]

35. Here's some more clues ...

... the political clout of the NRA
... the political cowardice in Washington
... the ignorance, obsession, and delusions of so many gun owners

[Logical]

117. If no CC then I agree, but i think CC holders need some instruction. The 2 idiots....

In my class had no business carrying a gun. One had never held a gun till he bought it the week before.

I am sure you think thst is ok, but there has to be some rules, even your hero scalia said so.

[GGJohn]

120. Actually, I do agree that CC needs classroom and practical training,

here in AZ, we don't have to have a CHL to carry concealed, which I disagree with, if you're going to CC, you should have to attend a class on the safe handling of a firearm, the legal consequences of what is going to happen if you ever have to use that firearm,
the do's and don'ts of CC'ing, take a written test with a minimum of 80% for passage, then qualification on the firearm you plan to carry with a minimum of, again, 80% to qualify.

[Logical]

121. Hey! We agree on something! Probably more than not! :-)

[GGJohn]

122. Here,

let's toast to this occasion.

[Logical]

123. I agree....

[Mira]

9. Looking over the responses

I feel like saying:
"Why don't we stop talking about (the damn emails) and pay attention to the issue(s) at hand"

[Decoy of Fenris]

11. Guns aren't the issue. We're waiting on the Gun Control side to catch on.

Until then though, it's basically a playground slapfight. Gun Control side accomplishes nothing, more people die, rinse wash repeat. It's sad, but that's all we can do until the extremists sit down and let the adults do some talking for a while.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Posting a graphic in a discussion group usually results in discussion of said graphic

If the discussion doesn't go the way you intended, them's the breaks...

[cui bono]

19. Insurance is the way to go.

There's no reason why it shouldn't be required. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's right to own a gun, it just provides a regulation to having one. There is a limit on free speech too. I don't see people thinking it is unreasonable since it is to protect the people.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. It would be cheap, not cover criminal acts (no insurance does), and probably provided by the NRA...

...who are already the largest seller of firearms insurance in the US.
No doubt Lil' Wayne Lapierre, et al, relish the idea of millions of new members.

If you are cool with an NRA approaching the size of AARP, by all means keep pushing
the idea of mandatory insurance for gun ownership...

[Skittles]

23. people who cannot admit there is a problem, there's no point even talking to them

ADDICTS, that is what they are

[pablo_marmol]

28. People who cannot admit that some problems defy easy solutions.......

.......there's no point even talking to them.

ADDICTS, that is what they are.

[jack_krass]

77. The problem is:

That people want to kill other people. The gun is simply one tool available to do this.

Endlessly obsessing about guns might feel good, but it is simplistic thinking and detracts from discussion of useful solutions.

[Skittles]

83. EXHIBIT NUMBER 847593

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. Where did you get your degree in telepsychology?

[Snobblevitch]

13. This simplification has been seen countless times. It is not a valid comparison.

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Pointing out that one can drive pretty much anywhere after getting a license, nor...

...is permission needed to obtain one (you pass the tests, your record is checked for outstanding
legal issues, you pay the fee and you get your license) tends to quiet those making the comparison

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

104. You can'rt drive inside any building other than a parking garage.

So if you had to leave your gun outside any building, that would be fine too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. True, but you still get to drive in all fifty states

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

119. I'd make that trade.

I'd be fine with open carry as long as the only buildings you could carry it into were those you personally owned.

[Mira]

15. Why?

I like the simplification. It hits home about an issue we seem to not be able to address without emotion.
Addressing the presentation is an ad homonym way of skirting the issue. Because it is easy to fault the little graph and ignore the issue.

[NutmegYankee]

31. It compares apples and oranges.

All the stuff listed for cars is needed to operate the car on public roads. You can always Own/buy a car and garage it as a showpiece or operate it on private land without registration or license for driver. Thousands of Americans have unregistered cars sitting in garages because they are keeping them as collectibles or restoring them. There are many more vehicles that are not registered because they are considered farm vehicles, etc.

The only valid comparison with guns would be on permits to carry firearms in public.

[Straw Man]

32. You may not like some of the results.

For example, most people will not be denied a driver's license because of a criminal record, unless the record was for DUI. I think you'll find out that driver's license are most decidedly "shall issue": if you meet the criteria, they have to give you a license: none of this discretionary denial nonsense. Then there's the issue of reciprocity: my driver's license is good in every square inch of the United States, unlike my CCW, which isn't even valid in the largest city of the state that issued it. ("Start spreading the news ...&quot In fact, I can even use my US driver's license to get an international license that allows me to drive in other countries! Would you recommend the same for CCW permits?

The insurance issue is a red herring. No insurance company will pay off on a deliberate criminal act by the insured party. Actual gun accidents, despite the press attention they get, are relatively rare, meaning that the premiums wouldn't be high. Furthermore, gun liability insurance already exists, and the NRA is one of the largest purveyors thereof. If you are interested in improving the financial picture of the NRA, then go right ahead and pursue the insurance issue wholeheartedly. But somehow I get the feeling that that's not what you had in mind.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Controllers forget that the NRA is a major insuror of gun owners, and would love the new business

[angrychair]

21. Very simple really

In a civilized society you have rules. We are the only OECD nation that allows this level of latitude with firearms. Guess what? Most have had very tight controls on the ownership and use of firearms for decades and all are doing very well on the whole of it. No desolite wastelands with Mad Max-like gangs of thugs killing and stealing and raping at will. Very nice.

So, what is it with us? What is our deal?

In my experience "gun rights" people fall into 1 or more of 4 categories: "I need to hunt" or "I'm scared the bad guys in the dark will give me cooties" or "government put microphones in my head, know what I'm thinking...I need to go buy a book. The chair is against the wall!! The chair is against the wall!"
Last category, two words: "zombie apocalypse"

I find the hunting thing silly and a little disturbing but not going to hammer that to harshly.

The personal protection thing is pathetic and sad. Millions, if not billions of human beings, live their lives, day in and day out, without ever owning or needing a gun. I have lived all over this country and outside this country, never once have I needed a gun. I have been to some not so nice places. Never an issue. Of note, not once has a private citizen CC gun owner, there have been from one to several present at many of these incidents, stopped or even attempted to stop, using their CC gun, a killer in a mass murder in the United States. Not once.

Third, Bubba, you are never going to stop the Kenyan overlord with his UN stormtroopers from putting you into abandoned Wal-Mart concentration camps to be re-educated by the French on the 5 pillars of Isalm. Come out of your mom's basement, i.e. 'The Bunker'.Give up now.

So, the only valid reason to own a gun then is: zombie apocalypse. Since that only happens in fucking video games, your out of excuses.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. "not once has a private citizen CC gun owner...stopped or even attempted to stop...a killer" Wrong:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=178108

Pearl High School:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20123633,00.html

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting Woodham attempting to flee the parking lot after the shooting, shouted for him to stop. After Woodham's mother's car got stuck in the grass, Myrick ordered him out of the car at gunpoint and detained Woodham until police arrived at the scene.

Clackamas Town Center:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2037285

Man With Concealed Weapon at Clackamas Town Center

Portland, Oregon
by Mike Benner, KGW Staff

Posted on December 17, 2012 at 5:18 AM

Updated Monday, Dec 17 at 11:52 AM

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli. "It just bothers me."

Parker Middle School dance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Middle_School_dance_shooting

The shooting began on an outdoor patio, about 20 minutes before the dance was scheduled to end, around 9:40. He shot John Gillette after he asked Wurst to come inside. Before running out of ammunition, Wurst proceeded to enter Nick's Place, where the dance had been held, and subsequently fired and wounded Edrye Boraten, a teacher and two students, Jacob Tury and Justin Fletcher.[1] The shooting ended when the owner of Nick's Place, James Strand, intervened and confronted Wurst with his shotgun, ordering him to drop his weapon and later holding him at bay for eleven minutes. Strand later got Wurst on the ground and searched him for weapons, finding a dinner fork in his sock.

Freewill Baptist Church:

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112

About 11:20 a.m., Jesse Gates returned to the church. The Rev. Guyton's grandson, Aaron Guyton, 26, was in the recreation building separate from the church and saw Gates get a shotgun from the trunk of his car.

“At that point, I knew I had to do something,” Aaron Guyton said. “I wanted to try to contain him outside.”

Aaron Guyton went into the main building and locked the doors.

Henry Guyton said he was in the pulpit, preaching about how Jesus spoke the word of God and healed the sick, when Gates kicked open the side door of the sanctuary and entered with the shotgun, pointing it at the pastor and congregation.

Church members, including Aaron Guyton, a concealed weapons permit holder, acted quickly.

Aaron Guyton held Gates at gunpoint, as church members Jesse Smith and Leland Powers held him on the floor and waited for deputies to arrive.

Austin construction site:

http://kxan.com/2014/04/30/2-hurt-in-shooting-near-downtown/

AUSTIN (KXAN) – Two people were hurt in a shootout just before noon at a West Campus area construction site near the intersection of Rio Grande Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

Austin police are not yet releasing the names of the two men involved but said the suspect was recently fired from the construction site and returned with a gun. He opened fire on the site’s foreman, who drew his own gun and returned fire — hitting the suspect.

Police say the foreman has a Concealed Handgun License and was allowed to have the gun with him at work. Police say the suspect had recently returned to the site and had been threatening the foreman, so a police report was filed.

Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital:

http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/20140808/mercy-fitzgerald-shooting-suspect-out-of-hospital-placed-in-prison

Richard S. Plotts, 49, of Upper Darby, was released from the Hospital of University of Pennsylvania Thursday and is now incarcerated at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility. Plotts was taken to the hospital after he allegedly shot and killed Theresa Hunt, his caseworker, and wounded Dr. Lee Silverman. The doctor was able to return fire against Plotts, critically wounding him.

Plotts is facing charges of first- and third-degree murder, criminal homicide, possessing an instrument of crime, illegal possession of a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license and reckless endangerment as a result of the July 24 shooting. Plotts allegedly arrived about an hour early for a scheduled appointment at the Sister Marie Lenahan Wellness Center on Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital’s Yeadon campus that afternoon. Hunt brought him to Silverman’s office, where Delaware County District Attorney Jack Whelan said that Plotts became agitated. Whelan said that Plotts was allegedly upset about the ban on possessing guns on hospital property.

Whelan said that Plotts shot Hunt in the head, killing her, before turning the gun toward Silverman. Silverman was struck in the thumb and suffered a graze wound to the head before he managed to shoot Plotts three times with a gun he kept in his desk drawer. Two other hospital employees subdued Plotts after he was shot, and investigators say that Plotts had more than 30 additional rounds of ammunition and was prepared to kill more people.

[JDPriestly]

22. Now that is a plan.

The insurance is the key.

We will get a change in the amount of money invested in education about guns and violence if there is an industry -- an insurance industry -- that balances with an interest in saving money and not paying out claims the interest of the gun industry in selling guns.

That's the way our system works.

Right now there is no economic balance countering the gun industry and the NRA. If we involved an insurance industry in the mix, we might get people who would invest in advertising and education for avoiding gun murders.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. The NRA is one of the largest, if not *the* largest, underwriters of gun insurance in the US...

...and would no doubt jump at the chance to sell memberships with their insurance policies.

If you dislike them now, just imagine them the size of AARP or AAA...

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. Exactly. nt

[hack89]

43. What problem will mandatory insurance solve?

It is irrelevant to suicides. It is irrelevant to felons owning illegal guns. It is irrelevant to mass shootings.

[JDPriestly]

55. We should require all owners of guns to have insurance to cover any losses, whether due

to negligence or intentional acts.

I know very well how this would differ greatly from other kinds of insurance that mostly indemnify negligent acts. It would protect not the users of the guns against risks so much as protect the victims of the guns. In fact, I think that the insurance company should be allowed to recover damages paid to victims to the extent possible from any user who intentionally uses a gun to cause damage to any other person.

The question is: how do we require gun owners as a group to pay for the damages that guns cause?

It is not fair that people who do not own or use guns have to pay for those damages when they pay for their health insurance, their Social Security (which pays in many cases, benefits to children, for example, of those killed in gun accidents) and for government services to people who are injured in gun accidents. (That is not a comprehensive list of the price that the public -- the non-gun-owning-or-using public pays for these gun incidents.)

Allowing gun owners to own guns, as many as they wish to own, without requiring them to help pay for the risk that gun-ownership means to others in our society is unfair to the rest of us, all potential victims of the gun culture in our society.

So, I propose a sort of "insurance," and I use that word even though it doesn't quite fit because it is the only word that I can think. The "insurance" I am thinking of would cover kinds of risk that most insurance policies do not cover and would be imposed on the gun. An owner would be required to have the insurance on each gun he or she owns.

This insurance should indemnify against any damages caused by the negligent or intentional use of a gun, and the cost of the insurance to the insureds should rise and fall with the fluctuations in incidents of damages caused by guns.

The insuring company should of course profit from the service it provides to gun owners and users as well as to the public (all of us who are potential victims of gun violence).

The need for this insurance is obvious: every year, many people are injured and killed by gun violence or negligence. The financial loss due to the loss of lives and limbs has to be paid for.

Gun owners claim the right under the Second Amendment to own guns. I support them in that. But the exercise of the Second Amendment right, unlike the exercise of other rights, is causing terrible damages. Those who choose to exercise that right should help pay for those damages in my view.

I think the insurance companies should be for-profit, and clearly, they should be able to increase their profits as the value of the damages caused by gun incidents declines.

If we had insurance companies that had a commercial interest in decreasing gun deaths and injuries, we would have an entity that would work to balance out the propaganda and extremism of the gun lobby and would fight for gun safety, improvements in gun designs that would make them safer and would educate the public about the dangers of guns.

The numbers of deaths caused by guns in our country each year is not acceptable. We need to attach some sort of cost to gun ownership that discourages the misuse of guns. I think that requiring insurance for each gun would serve that end.

After all, if I and my friends want to march down a street in Los Angeles, we have to get and pay for a permit to do it. It's our First Amendment right to march down the street, but if our marching imposes a cost on society, additional police protection for example, we have to pay that price.

Those who own guns do not pay the price that their exercise of that right costs society. They should.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. No insurance will pay for criminal acts, nor will it pay for the actions of third parties...

...not connected to the insured.

Also, would you likewise hold all drinkers of alcoholic beverages responsible for
the sum of all damages caused by alcohol use? If not, why not?

[JDPriestly]

57. That is why I point out that this "insurance" would be more of an indemnification fund

than traditional insurance. It is direly needed.

You own a gun. You should help pay for the damages caused by the negligent and intentionally damaging uses of guns by others.

Yes. I would like the price of alcohol to include a payment into a fund to cover the damages caused by the negligence that alcohol causes as well as the many intentional crimes that involve alcohol use.

Same for tobacco.

We do place pretty high taxes on tobacco products in California.

Tobacco use in California is down thanks to the high tax rates and the education campaign in our state.

We need to do the same for alcohol and guns.

We need to insure or tax, whichever the public prefers, and discourage the use of these things that cause so many injuries and deaths in our society and that impose so many financial costs on all of us.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. You do realize that financial penalties to discourage exercising a enumerated right is a no-no...

...per the Supreme Court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

[hack89]

60. Still irrelevant to stopping gun deaths

Won't stop suicides. Criminals won't buy insurance for their illegal guns. Mass killers won't care.

It will cover a small percentage of gun deaths.

I have liability insurance for my guns. It costs a pittance. Know why? The insurance company did their research and determined that I pose no risk to public safety.

If you make it too expensive, people will simply own guns without the insurance.

[JDPriestly]

62. The insurance companies should be required to include all the risk of damages by guns

in every policy and not price policies according to the specific risk of the person buying the policy. That is the only thing that I can see that will truly make people like you, people who handle their guns carefully, help solve the problem of gun violence in our country.

We have to have a change not just in our laws, but in our culture that admires in a subtle and sometimes not so subtle way, those who wield guns to enforce their own,, private and sometimes demented version of justice.

That is how we curb gun deaths.

We also have to protect the innocent victims. iN MY VIEW, all gun owners should pay to indemnify the losses of those hurt by guns.

[hack89]

63. You can't force them to pay out for crime

they can simply refuse to issue policies. Try to buy flood insurance in some parts of America - you can't.

Why am I responsible for solving violent crime? I don't contribute to it, I don't condone it. Why should I have to pay to solve it? I drink beer - that doesn't make me responsible to fix all the social ills alcohol inflicts on America.


But you are missing my point - it won't save lives. All it will do is piss off a bunch of motivated voters and make the NRA a shit ton of money.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. "(In my view), all gun owners should pay to indemnify the losses of those hurt by guns."

Let us know when you're ready to pay to indemnify the losses of victims of computer fraud.

[Turbineguy]

107. Individual gun owner insurance policies

are probably cheap because there are loads of gun owners and relatively few accidents. That way we can keep gun makers, lobbyists and dealers safe from being held liable.

Guns are artificially cheap because the true cost is not included in the price. Society subsidizes this industry by protecting them from the true economic damage they cause.

In a true cost-benefit analysis guns wouldn't stand a chance. This is why the NRA fights any attempt to study gun violence as a public health hazard.

Since lost lives don't matter anyway, the real threat is economic reality.

The NRA blew it big time by taking the path they have taken. They have the means, knowledge and resources to make gun ownership safe, reasonable and controlled by somebody other than the government (which is the whole point of the U.S. Constitution. It is a contract between the citizens and their government). Instead they have turned it into a religious cult. The NRA could have been society's best friend.

[hack89]

109. "Reasonable"

the rock upon which all discussions of gun control flounder. I will concede that background checks need to be strengthened by making them universal. But in general, gun ownership is safe and reasonable. 99.9% of all gun owners will not shoot or kill anyone with their guns. There is a reason we have cut gun violence in half over the past 20 years.

Where gun control advocates blow it big time is conflating legal gun owners with criminals who are committing the vast majority of gun violence. Or by using the personal choice of suicide to justify strict gun regulations.

The demographics of gun violence are well known but ignored by gun control advocates. Rather than several focused solutions (like a national anti-suicide campaign or refocusing the justice system on violent crime instead of drugs) that would reduce gun violence, you make it just about the guns. Well guess what - that 99.9% don't want to surrender a civil right based on the actions of the other .1%. That is why gun control is a smoking wreck in America - you smear your opponents with broad brush insults and then are surprised when they refuse to help you.

[Turbineguy]

112. Actually I agree with you

that individual insurance policies will do very little to alleviate the problem.

But then again, maybe I see a problem where there is none.

[C Moon]

24. Hey! Cars aren't used to intentionally take out great numbers of lives.

Jesus! Quit making excuses for your hobby and realize that we need regulations on guns.

[A HERETIC I AM]

30. Except when they are;

[C Moon]

72. Did you read? I said they weren't CREATED for that purpose. Oh boy. It just never stops.

[A HERETIC I AM]

73. BwaAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Really? Seriously? Your post is just up there ^

Yes, I read it. Several times.

Hey! Cars aren't used to intentionally take out great numbers of lives. Jesus! Quit making excuses for your hobby and realize that we need regulations on guns.

So, no, you DIDN'T say "they weren't CREATED for that purpose"

You said what you said. And I responded.

[Angleae]

25. And yet again this giant heaping of bull.

You do not need to register a car, have a drivers licence or have insurance unless you plan on driving the car on public roads. If you drive on private property the govt has no say.

[MasonDreams]

27. trigger locks

And their use required. I'm so tired of hearing about a child shot a sibling, & they were just playing.

[aikoaiko]

33. Your analogy implies anyone could own unregistered machine guns on private property; even felons

Are you sure you want to treat guns like cars?

[lostnfound]

34. Oh Noes! They're coming to take away OUR CARS!!!! N/t

[Sivart]

37. Insurance....

Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

I think you guys are completely wrong about the insurance angle......

Insurance is the most crooked business in America. We don't need any more legislation that makes it the law to buy their crap.

All this will lead to is me having to buy uninsured gun owner coverage, and a bunch of crap like that.

No more laws requiring me to get robbed by insurance companies. Enough is enough.

Deal with guns by dealing with guns.

I work for an insurance company and have for the past 12 years. Most crooked business in America. Not kidding.

Editing to add that I am not a gun owner - never have been. I am very much in favor of serious gun control. But Americans cannot afford to hand over any more of our money to insurance companies. Enough is enough.

[hack89]

41. In this context, insurance is not supposed to solve a problem

it is simply to make gun ownership too expensive. A back door ban in other words.

[Sivart]

48. then make the guns more expensive

Then make it more expensive using taxes, where that money can be put to good use, as opposed to yet another hand out to the insurance companies. That stuff has got to stop.

Any money handed over to the insurance companies ends up in the hands of wall street.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Constitutionally verboten, per the Supremes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

[Sivart]

53. ???

This link is about paper and ink.

Is your point that we can have states put excessive taxes on cigarettes but not guns and ammo? That is complete BS.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that we cannot afford to hand over any more money to the insurance industry.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. There is no enumerated right to own cigarettes or alcohol. There *is* one to own guns

That tax was found to be impermissable as it affected the First Amendment rights of publishers.

One specifically designed to discourage Second Amendment rights is even more odious.
See also "poll tax"

[MillennialDem]

82. No, that's really just what lobbyists say is an enumerated right. Now, before you

think I'm a kook, hear me out.

The 2nd amendment has been taken to literally mean modern, 21st century firearms because the NRA has propagandized the American public and lobbied the living piss out of congress to convince people that's what the 2nd amendment says. But the 2nd says "arms" not "firearms" or "guns".

Any other arm is more restricted than a 21st century firearm. It's often legal to carry a handgun but illegal to carry a big knife, especially if it is a fixed blade or other non-folding knife. If it was strictly about enumeration, why is that the case?

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. I heard you out. I'll leave estimates of your mental health to others.

[MillennialDem]

101. LOL - when you can't argue the facts, engage in ad homs.

[LonePirate]

54. Or regulate gun manufacturers like the Repubs have regulated women's health care facilities

Make it so expensive to manufacture guns and ammunition that they will be forced to shutter their plants or make their products exceptionally expensive (effectively removing them from the marketplace). Also ban imports of guns and dramatically increase the penalties and jail time for dealing weapons illegally. Sure the second-hand and black markets will thrive; but focus first on reducing the new supplies of guns and ammo before going after existing stockpiles.

[ThoughtCriminal]

70. The taxpayers pay hundreds of billions to pay for the damage guns cause

Seems fair to have the owners pick up the tab. I drive carefully, never had an accident or ticket, but I have no objection to mandatory auto insurance for my vehicles.

[hack89]

71. Several problems with that

First, can't wait to hear how you will get criminals to buy insurance for their illegal guns. Secondly, insurance companies don't pay out for criminal acts, only real accidents.

[ThoughtCriminal]

74. Several replies

1) Many gun deaths and injuries ARE accidents. If the gun owner can't cover the cost (usually not), should the victim and taxpayer cover that?

2) Criminals could be prosecuted for failure to carry insurance - just as automobile owners do.

3) I am not at all certain that your second statement is true. In cases of automotive homicide, vehicular manslaughter, accidents while under the influence, exceeding the speed limit, ignoring traffic signals, or accidents while committing other reckless driving should be covered by the insurance company - but they will probably raise their rate substantially or cancel your coverage. If auto insurance companies could deny claims based on the driver doing something illegal, hardly any payouts would occur.

[hack89]

75. Huge difference between paying out for a Sandy Hook and a car accident

No insurance company will expose themselves to that risk.

Insurance for actual accidents is dirt cheap - I have it. There is a reason insurance companies will ask if you have a pool or what type of dog you have but not whether you have guns when you buy home owners insurance.

Charging criminals for no insurance still doesn't pay the medical bills of the people they shoot.


Here is something to consider about insurance- would you be for it if it made the NRA a fortune while massively expanding their membership? Because they will do an AARP and get into the insurance business in a heartbeat. And they will offer significant discounts if you join. Imagine an NRA with 50 million members instead of 5 million?

[ThoughtCriminal]

76. Let me get this staight.

"No company will expose themselves to that risk" ... Three paragraphs later: This will make the NRA rich because they will sell lots of insurance.

And yes, the victim families of Sandy Hook did collect $1.5 million from Nancy Lanza's home insurance policy.

Charging criminals gets them off the street longer.

Actually you could legislate it to set aside a portion of premiums for uninsured gun injuries.

[hack89]

81. They won't cover crimes. No insurance company will

They will still make a fortune.

As for Nancy Lanza, yes her insurance company payed out. The insurance companies promptly added language to their policies to close that loophole. My insurance policy explicitly states they will not cover criminal acts - it was added in my annual renewal post Sandy Hook.

[ThoughtCriminal]

85. The payout debunks your claim

What you say "your" policy excludes is hardly evidence. You site Sandy Hook as an example of why insurance companies won't pay claims, and when it turns they did, you claim it's an exception. Do you need more examples? First, how about something to back your claim that insurance companies changed the language of policies after this settlement.

And even if they did, the legislation could bar those exclusions from mandatory gun policies and include a a fund for non-insured. If the NRA wants to get in on that, it will probably change their positions on what "Well regulated" really means. That may make the insurance more expensive, but so is the cost that all of us pay. Auto insurance is expensive too, but it is essential and has encouraged creation of laws, roads and vehicles that are encourage safer, more responsible driving and saved hundreds of thousands of lives (compare 1980 to 2015!).

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Doesn't matter. You still propose financial penalties in order to limit an enumerated right

See: Minneapolis Star v. Commissioner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

[ThoughtCriminal]

96. Ah, drop the arguments and try a new one with an irrelevant link

It's getting late, but that's an internet argument classic.

Mandatory insurance not only does not infringe on the maintenance of a well regulated militia, it actually enhances it. The Supreme Court has stated explicitly that regulation of many things around guns and in particular gun commerce is constitutional. Even if you defend the highly questionable and narrow Heller decision, it does not preclude regulating firearms, particularly regulations that encourage responsible use and safety as opposed to a blanket ban. Requiring insurance is an expense for gun owners similar to the expense of requiring locks for guns around children.

Also, we have had a direct federal excise tax on guns and ammunition since 1919. Maybe if the eventual nominee of the Clown Car Party wins next November we will end up with a Supreme Court that will share your legal view, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Supreme Court has recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right under the "privileges and immunities" clause and freedom of association and expression . But that right does not preclude regulations, insurance requirements and taxes. In fact, without regulation, licensing and taxes, we would find modern travel virtually impossible.

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. Do you really suppose that gun owners will merely sit on their hands while you gouge them?

Gun owners already vote at a higher rate than non-gun owners. Do you really want the
implacable hatred of 20-25% of the electorate?

It's also unconstitutional

[ThoughtCriminal]

97. More drivers than gun owners

and overwhelmingly, mandatory auto insurance has passed and while nobody likes paying for it, driver recognize the necessity to protect freedom of movement.

To be certain, gun owners tend to be a bit more unhinged about anything that might offend their special friends. The gun owners that would express "implacable hatred", are already mostly voting for right wing stooges. Pandering to the threats of the NRA is not a good argument.

The Constitution does not prohibit regulation of firearms, even after Heller. We already have excise taxes on guns and ammunition and regulations on what kind of weapons can be owned and who can cannot buy them. Further, I would argue that an insurance requirement absolutely enhances rather than erodes the maintenance of a well regulated militia.

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Drivers don't vote at nearly the rate of gun owners, who turn out when motivated

I would have thought that the recent disaster over new gun regulation in Colorado
would have clued you in, but that is apperantly not the case. For background, see...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172176644#post13

...and read down

The pro-recall forces won, even after being outspent at a ratio of about 5:1
The CO state senate is now controlled by Republicans

[Dr. Strange]

45. I've purchased three or so cars in my life.

What is the written test referring to? I never had to take one.
And the car dealerships never had any health requirements.
Or a "practical" test.

Is this graphic suggesting that we should adopt those things, or do some states actually require them?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

105. It refers to driver's licenses there.

Things without which you're not legally allowed to drive on public roads. If you were never required to take a written test to obtain your driving license, you must live in some really weird little podunk that's unlike any place in America I've ever been.

[DrDan]

47. how about "operator licensing" for each as well?

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. 'Shall-issue', good in all 50 states? I'm cool with that...

[randys1]

51. Gun "culture" LOL folks, aint giving up their toy, the fact that their toy

kills people everyday, they dont care.

The Fact that their toy was CREATED to kill people, unlike anything else they can cite...

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. With people with your mindset opposing them, they'll never have to...

[MillennialDem]

84. 10 years ago: "gays lobbying for gay marriage instead of civil unions are going to make it

impossible to get either gay marriage or civil unions and are hurting the movement"

See how silly that sounds in retrospect?

We can kill the 2nd just like we can kill DOMA

[Travis_0004]

88. I was unaware DOMA was a constitutional admendment

Please list the states that you think will repeal the secomd amendment. You might be able to name 5, but you would never get enough states to repeal it.

[MillennialDem]

99. Change enough people's minds and vote enough progressives into office (and put enough judges on

the benches) and eventually the 2nd amendment will mean a shadow of what it does now by reinterpretations.

[Kang Colby]

80. You can drive in all fifty states...

A license issued in Alabama is good in California...I'm liking this plan already.

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. And licenses are "shall-issue" if you pass the test and background check and pay the fee

I don't think the controllers thought their clever plan all the way through...

[Recursion]

89. OTOH would you like those same rules for an email account?

Cars are large, difficult to conceal, and pretty much only used on public spaces. Guns are the opposite. It's obvious when someone has a car, and not obvious when he has a gun.

Now, as far as your list goes I'm fine with all of them, though I don't think liability insurance makes much sense (gun accidents are relatively rare, particularly compared to auto accidents, which take almost as many lives as gun homicides and suicides).

And then again arms are an enumerated right whereas cars aren't, so you want to make sure that any restriction you put in place actually solves a problem -- I think registration and licensing would solve an actual problem, for guns. But then the same could be said for emails (if the government just had an existing database of everybody's online activities, rather than having to snoop for it, they could stop terrorist plots, blah blah blah), so I always kind of hesitate in my support.

[treestar]

100. Makes sense to me

guns are even more dangerous for kids to get accidentally than cars, too.