Every vehicle on the roads has a unique VIN,

[Nye Bevan]

and each vehicle is registered to its owner in government databases.

Would you support a similar system for firearms?

32 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	25 (78%)
	No, that's too intrusive
	5 (16%)
	No, that doesn't go far enough
	2 (6%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MohRokTah]

1. Plus, each person who wishes to own a firearm should be licensed.

Add required liability insurance for each firearm and we'd start to get somewhere.

[melm00se]

3. tell me

what insurance provides for protection against intentional criminal acts?

[daleanime]

6. Tell me....

you would actually listen? Because some how I doubt it. Have a lovely day.

[melm00se]

9. gee whiz

you know me so well....not.

give me an example of an insurance policy that covers intentional criminal acts.

I'll wait

[daleanime]

12. Why?

If it's not written in blood, you won't pay any attention, if a direct link can't be easy provided you have all the justification you want to refuse. Which is all you're after.

So please continue to wait, I'm not going to waste time pretending it could make any difference to you.

[LadyHawkAZ]

23. Auto insurance n/t

[Captain Stern]

39. Not so.

If I were driving my car, and looking at my phone, and accidentally hit my neighbor while he was crossing the street, my car insurance would pay for his injuries. However, if I were angry at my neighbor, and intentionally aimed my car at him and injured him, my insurance wouldn't pay him anything.

[Snobblevitch]

56. Inattentive driving will get you a traffic citation in my state.

[Captain Stern]

57. In my state also.

However, hitting someone because you were being negligent isn't the same as hitting someone intentionally. If an inattentive driver unintentionally hits someone, their insurance will pay. If a driver intentionally hits someone with their car, the insurance company will not pay.

[Snobblevitch]

58. I guess you are right.

There was a woman and her two toddler children killed by s guy on his cell phone last year, not far from where I used to live. I'm sure his insurance carrier had to pay out.

[-none]

38. If guns are so safe, the insurance companies would be crawling all over each other to sell the

insurance cheap. The few times they would have to pay up wouldn't even interfere with their employee Christmas bonuses.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

7. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation?

[Chan790]

13. Right question suggests wrong approach.

You can't get insurance to cover your own criminal acts, but I can get insurance that covers me as the victim of a criminal act.

We FDIC it...spread the risk pool while focusing the cost of that risk pool onto entities that may not be beneficiaries but present the highest risk of causing payouts. (The FDIC funds used to make you whole in the case of protected losses comes out of premiums that banks are required to pay, not from the federal budget.) The more guns you buy, the more risk you impart and the more risk you impart, the more you pay into the pool.

Everybody in America gets "victim of gun-violence" insurance for free, just sign up for it; paid for by liability taxes on gun-owners at point-of-sale for guns and ammo. Ban private sales in full except through a licensed dealer who is licensed and required to collect the liability tax. Criminalize home-making of ammunition.

Now every gun owner is subsidizing the risk-pool for potential criminal acts of every other gun-owner.

[The_Casual_Observer]

26. There are all sorts of fraud & theft policies, also your life insurance covers you if you are

murdered.

[jeff47]

4. Insurance isn't going to do much.

Insurance excludes illegal acts. If you deliberately run someone down with your car, your car insurance will not pay.

Insurance would only pay out on accidental shootings when absolutely no law was violated. And usually some law was violated.

(Which should be enforced, and violations of such laws should result in losing your right to own a gun)

[Chan790]

16. I solved this in reply #13.

There is a way to obtain an insurance payout on a criminal act not of your own doing.

It's also perfectly legal to impart liability premiums on transactions as payable to federal risk-pools. It's basically how the FDIC works. The funds to make you whole don't come from the FDIC budget or the Federal budget, they come from premiums that banks are required to pay. We impose the same transactional liability on every sale of a gun, ammo, usage of a shooting range, membership in a gun club or shooting-related transaction we can identify. Spreads the cost across every gun user in America to cover the liability of payout for an act of gun violence. Totally involuntary, unquestionably legal. Serious felony federal criminal sanctions for both users and sellers if they attempt to circumvent the liability tax.

[JoePhilly]

29. +1

[Squinch]

2. And to take care of the firearms that are already out there, a voluntary program

to assign serial numbers to already owned guns. Regular ATF visits to firing ranges to see if unregistered guns are being used, and fines for unregistered guns found. Stiff jail sentences added to sentences when unregistered guns are used in crimes. Sentences for owners of guns when their guns are used in crimes by other people.

Legalize drugs to make room in the jails for "responsible gun owners" whose guns have been used to commit crimes.

[melm00se]

5. all firearms made post

Gun Control Act of 1968 have serial #s.

many firing ranges are private property, gonna a need a warrant to enter the premises

[saturnsring]

10. or a law that staters in order to have a firing range you have to agree to unannounced inspections

[Squinch]

18. Meat processing plants are private property. They are routinely inspected.

[whatthehey]

8. I'd be ok with registration but not this lunacy

Sentences for owners of guns when their guns are used in crimes by other people.

Are owners responsible for stolen cars that joyriders use to cause mayhem? Credit cards that thieves use to fund meth ingredient purchases? Is there indeed any other object for which liability survives involuntary loss of possession despite proper storage? Bang goes availability of opioid drugs, effective cold remedies and any meth precursor no matter how useful in that case. There is no feasible security, up to and including iron safes bolted to floors, which has not been defeated manifold times by determined thieves. Punish neglgent possession? The idiots who twirl loaded revolvers on their fingers at drunken family parties then leave them on the kiddie table? Right there with you, but only if negligence is proven rather than sheer bad luck in losing possession.

[Squinch]

17. Oh, dear! Someone suggested that responsible gun owners take responsibility for their guns!

Gungeoneers everywhere go into a panic!

The express purpose of a gun is killing. If you wish to own one, take responsibility for it. If you "lose possession" of your gun, you have shown a depraved indifference to human life. Period. If it is not possible, as you say, to ensure that your gun will not kill someone else, why in gods name do you still think it's OK to own one?

[whatthehey]

21. Until you invent a DNA+vital sign+personal security forcefield you are living in la-la land

As I said ( but grabber wackjobs never read) I'm fine with mandating responsibility. What I'm not fine with is mandating wizard powers that can preclude any and all thefts. Bank vaults are robbed. Prisons are broken out of and in to. World-class museums have priceless art works stolen. Military arsenals suffer inventory loss. Exactly what security apparently unavailable to these multi-million dollar facilities with state of the art security systems do you think 100 million layman gun owners should be forced to provide on threat of imprisonment? Please be specific.

[Squinch]

22. Bank vaults are robbed, and the dollars are not used to kill people. PRisons are broken

into and those doing the breaking get jail sentences, because they have unleashed deadly people and placed the public in danger. Stolen art does not shoot up an office park.

If your gun kills someone, you are culpable. If you can't prevent it, then you should not have a gun. And how are you going to do it? This is your damned hobby, not mine. Take some responsibility and figure out for yourself how to keep YOUR hobby from killing people.

[whatthehey]

34. And this illogical nuttery is why grabbers can't pass shit for a generation and are losing ground

You can't just say "let's agree on UBCs and registration". The first would be an easy sell and the second likely doable. You have to try and suggest laws you know yourself are impossible to comply with (as you, like every other grabber, are unable to suggest a completely safe thief-proof responsible storage measure for the obvious reason that none exists). Learn from the anti-choice crowd who are similarly a minority but far more successful at restircting activities they find unpalatable. They aren't putting up nonsense laws calling for imprisoning anyone who sells a condom that breaks and leads to an abortion.


With that kind of strategy, it's no wonder gun restrictions are dropping like flies.

[Squinch]

37. OK, you know you are being lame now, right? You can keep giving examples like broken condoms and

art theft, but you know that none of those really relates.

These things, though, are true: first, the mere fact that I have stated that gun owners should be held responsible for their guns has sent you into a tizzy and it makes me a gun grabber in your eyes. Think about that: I say, take responsibility for your gun, make sure it can never kill me, and you take that as an extreme insult and threat against you. That is nuts.

And second, as I stated before, it isn't my job to figure out for you how to ensure that your hobby doesn't kill people. That's your problem, and if you can't solve it, the onus is on you. You have chosen to practice the hobby, you need to take responsibility for your choice.

You haven't answered my question: if you truly believe there is no way to ensure that your gun will not kill someone else, why do you think that it is OK for you to own one? Why do you believe that you are entitled to practice a hobby which you yourself have admitted is deadly to others and is impossible to be made safe to others?

[EX500rider]

65. "if you truly believe there is no way to ensure that your gun will not kill someone else,..."

"...why do you think that it is OK for you to own one?"

That's true of lots of stuff people own..

I own matches and lighters....3,000 people a year die in fires...
I own a car....32,000 people die in car crashes..
I have draino and meds...poisoning deaths: 38,851
I own a ladder....over 10,000 people die in falls

etc...

[Squinch]

66. I believe that I CAN guarantee that my ladder and my matches

will NOT kill others. I take the precautions necessary to ensure that they won't.

I believe that there is a slight chance that my car might be involved in an accident that could kill someone. I do all in my power to prevent that, but I understand that if my car were to kill someone, there is a good chance that I could be charged with a crime. I drive the car knowing that is part of the responsibility and risk of owning a car.

Why should your gun be different?

Also, how many massacres were caused in the US last year by cars, matches, ladders, meds?

[EX500rider]

67. "there is a good chance that I could be charged with a crime"

Not in a accident...intentional vehicular homicide is a crime just like murder with a firearm is.

[Squinch]

68. Or depraved indifference. Which is what not securing your gun amounts to.

[JoePhilly]

31. You get 3 days to report it stolen.

If you report it stolen, you're no longer responsible.

Problem solved.

[whatthehey]

35. Not a single problem with that. Heck 3 days is too long.

Within 3 hours of discovery or obvious evidence would be fine by me.

But the fringe grabbers seem to want to legislate that gun owners become deities who can prevent any theft at all or be thrown in prison.

[JoePhilly]

42. I get called a grabber, and I don't think they can prevent all theft.

I also think that if you have more than one gun stolen from you in separate thefts ... that should prevent you from getting any more.

First time, ok. But if you have more guns stolen from you ... I think its time to question whether that's really what's happening.

[whatthehey]

45. You're obviously more realistic than some on this thread then

Not sure I'd personally draw the line at two but yes multiple thefts should indeed raise suspicion. Some people though do live in high-crime neighborhoods and kind of by definition are more likely to need a self-defense weapon than the rest of us so I weouldn't be too dogmatic. Basically how it was stolen is more important to me. A quick opportunistic reach and grab through an open window by a teenager betrays a more cavalier approach to storage than does a down to the studs teardown by a pro outfit. Not too many straw buyers are likely willing to put themselves through the latter just for a cover story.

[Squinch]

40. That seems fine.

[-none]

43. Not quite.

If the thief say you sold it to him, then you still have a problem.

[Squinch]

46. Not if the sale needs to be registered on a database.

If the registered owner reports it stolen, and the thief does not have proof of his purchase of it, then you don't.

[-none]

49. Then the good guy gun owner can sell it to the thief, report it stolen, then walk?

There needs to be an investigation is cases such as this. About the second or third time this happens, the "seller" needs to be looked at closer. This happens more than the good guy gun owners are willing to admit. Selling to dubious buyers that is.

[Squinch]

53. If the gun owner sells it to the thief and the sale is not registered on the database, and the

thief then uses it in a crime and the original owner reports it stolen, then yes. The thief pays the extra penalty. So it is incumbent on the thief to make sure the sale is registered, or to make sure he doesn't get caught, if he doesn't want to pay the extra penalty for the gun.

[Kilgore]

11. It already exists

Here you go

https://www.atf.gov/file/58631/download

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. A big problem for advocacy of registration...

...is that such advocacy has to take place alongside other people advocating for complete bans and confiscation. In other words, when pro-gun people complain about registration because "it will make it too easy for the government to take them away," it's impossible to respond with "no one wants to take your guns" when there are plenty of people advocating exactly that.

And that situation sucks, because a national-level database would have plenty of non-nefarious uses. Obviously criminals will never register their weapons, but knowing just where the paper trail stops with a crime gun would be useful for investigators, I'd think.

[Squinch]

20. What you are saying is tantamount to saying, for example, that women cannot

push for more liberal abortion laws because there are people who want to abolish abortion. Or one can't ask for climate change laws because there are people who own oil companies who don't want them. Or, people exist who want America to be a theocracy, therefore it is no use to protect separation of church and state.

That's just asinine.

[truedelphi]

30. I find that whole idea to be exactly what has happened.

If you push for gun registration, with a national database, you won't turn to folks who are part of the NRA to help you get the legislation[passed.

So who do you turn to? The people who want to have every gun in the USA confiscated.

So then there is the blowback because of that.

[Squinch]

33. Well, then, the folks who are part of the NRA should get on board so confiscation doesn't happen.

If that is what they are so afraid of.

But it isn't.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. sure, and there are some radical environmentalists who would like to take away all the cars, too.

it doesn't mean there's a snowball's chance in hell- even on a warming Earth- that that is going to happen.

Probably saying "no one wants to...." reflexively in these sorts of situations is a mistake, because yeah, I'm sure someone wants to... whatever it is. "We need to take away all the guns" is a position that sits on one end of the spectrum, and on the other end is the position that there can never be even the slightest bit of additional regulation, ever, about any of it.

I have to think there's some middle ground.

[Squinch]

19. As some have already suggested, there are serial numbers, however the thing that is

missing is a database that records those serial numbers, as there is for VIN numbers.

The sale of any gun must be recorded on that database, and if the seller fails to record the sale, he becomes responsible for any crimes that are committed with his gun subsequent to his letting it leave his hands and his not recording it's new owner. If he DOES register the sale, he has no problem.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

24. Not all vehicles are registered.

Only vehicles that use public roads need to be licensed. Vehicles that are used exclusively off-road, like in a mine, don't need plates.

So why would a gun need to be registered? And, would your "similar system" require annual registration with a fee paid to the government?

[-none]

44. If you get caught with that gun off your property, it is an unregistered weapon.

If you want to use it off your property, or sell it or whatever, you get a form and fill it out and take it, with the gun, to a federally licensed firearms dealer and get it registered.

[MGMT]

25. This already exists.

All manufacturers of firearms are required to keep records of where they're distributed. FFLs (gun dealers) are required to keep logs of their sales. All the ATF has to do is run the serial number to find out where the gun was distributed to, then go to that FFL and have them turn over their bound book.

[Renew Deal]

28. Isn't there a gap when a private sale takes place?

[Renew Deal]

27. Yes. It's illogical not to.

[Waldorf]

32. Every new firearm comes with a unique serial number. Since new firearms must be seld by a FFL

they will record the information on the buyer. Say I am the buyer. If I have sold the firearm or it was stolen, and then found at a crime scene, they will go down the list and get to me asking questions about it.

[linuxman]

36. Serious question: What would that accomplish?

Canada had one for years. It didn't solve dick, thus they ended it.

[L. Coyote]

41. With a manufacturer's ballistic record required before point of initial sale.

No firearm should be in the hands of the public without a record of the ballistic pattern.

[Lee-Lee]

47. Lol. Several states tried this, spends millions over many years

Not one crime solved.

Keep advocating proverb failed ideas...

[demwing]

50. Why is that funny?

Seriously, what is it about this conversation that makes you fucking laugh?

[Lee-Lee]

55. People pushing an idea that had been tried and proven a total failure

as if it's a great idea still.

It's funny because it shows how ignorant of gun laws and what has been tried most of the restrictionists are- just repeating stuff that sounds good no matter if they have any clue if it actually works.

[demwing]

61. It's an emotionally charged issue, you do get that, right?

You might want to try a little empathy.

[GGJohn]

70. A little empathy towards those that are attempting to restrict a right?

Would you say the same if it involve the 1A? How about the 4A?

Sorry, but I have no empathy with those that want to restrict my rights, all of them.

[GGJohn]

69. Because most here have no fucking clue about firearms.

that's what's so fucking funny.

[theboss]

51. That program existed and was a total disaster

I feel like we're advocating for things that already exist.

And I'm not sure what any of this accomplishes.

"Solving" mass shootings is generally not very difficult generally.

[belcffub]

60. NY got rid of their ballistic database

after a decade or so without a single hit...

the problem is the ballistic pattern changes... it doesn't work like the movies...

[hack89]

63. That ballistic record is useless after a couple of hundred rounds

the barrels wear down and the pattern changes. It would be useless.

[X_Digger]

72. New York and Maryland have scrapped both their 'ballistic record' systems.

The thing about a 'ballistic fingerprint' is that unlike the fingerprints on our hands, 'ballistic fingerprints' change with use of the firearm and cleaning. Fire 500 rounds of ammunition in an afternoon through a handgun, and the 'fingerprint' will have changed.

They're completely destroyed by replacing the barrel on the gun (a 5 minute procedure for many guns), something that many gun owners do to increase precision or to reduce wear and tear (like changing tires on a car.)

Matching a casing to a gun works when you find a freshly used gun on a suspect, and you have casings recently fired from it to compare to. With any length of use between the first point and the second, the 'fingerprint' match becomes inconclusive. Imagine a 'tire fingerprint' on your car as it rolls off the lot, and compare to the 'tire fingerprint' after 30,000 miles-- or after you get a new set of tires from Pep Boys.

The whole CSI / NCIS / Law & Order slew of tv shows have given folks an unrealistic expectation for the science of criminal forensics.

[Lee-Lee]

48. Did you know you can't require person barred from owning to register if they own guns?

That pesky Fifth Amendment.

Yep, quite literally any nationwide registration scheme would only apply to law abiding gun owners. Anyone not legally allowed to own guns can't be required to register and can't be punished for not registering or owning an unregistered firearm.

Long settled case law....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

Talk about spending huge, huge sums of money trying to accomplish something that can't even target the people you need to target.

[Initech]

52. Yay the inevitable guns - cars comparison is back!

[mwrguy]

54. Hell yes. We need to make sure they all get melted down.

[backscatter712]

59. In related news, the NRA moves to repeal all traffic laws.

Because the only answer to a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car!

http://thisshouldbethenews.com/2015/10/05/nra-demands-repeal-of-all-traffic-laws-says-laws-wont-stop-bad-drivers/

NRA DEMANDS REPEAL OF ALL TRAFFIC LAWS, SAYS “LAWS WON’T STOP BAD DRIVERS”
October 5, 2015 · by Mark Pants · in Automotive, Justice, national, news, politics, Travel.

Washington, D.C. – The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre is on the offensive following the nation’s most recent gun tragedy. This time LaPierre is doubling down on his belief that any kind of gun law is a violation of the second amendment and a step towards a tyrannical Nazi-esque America, regardless of statistical evidence, the opinion of the NRA’s own members, his wife, the Pope, his butcher, the American people or plain old common sense.

LaPierre paints a picture that any kind of gun control will result in unarmed, helpless “good guys” being flanked by armed “bad guys.” He is ready to apply that same ironclad logic to repealing all traffic laws – age limits on licensing, registration, speed limits, manufacturing safety requirements, seat belts, child seats, traffic lights and standardized signs. “People are going to break the law anyway so we can no longer bother with laws that just impede the right-away of good guys. These restrictive traffic laws, even those designed for safety only oppress the GOOD drivers. Therefore I anticipate a 0% increase in fatalities, in fact, I think these newly liberated good drivers will help keep the bad drivers in check. Especially if they have a gun.”

[Squinch]

73. Awesome!

[hack89]

62. Want to compare guns to cars? Ok

I do not need a license and registration to keep and drive a car on private property, only to drive on public roads. Lets do the same for guns - don't need a license or registration to keep a gun in my home. If I want to carry a loaded gun in public I will need a license (we can call it a concealed carry permit) and the government can know what gun I will carry in public. That way we can maintain anonymous gun ownership while directing increased attention on those that carry in public.

Sound like a good compromise to you?

[aikoaiko]

71. Your premise is incorrect.