Gun control

Billy Blaggs said:
Mandatory disclosure to ensure each gun is insured. After a certain date the gun becomes an illegal firearm should you be caught with it.
They do that with people driving with an expired tag or license.
Click to expand...
Just being devil’s advocate here...

Hiding a gun is pretty easy. You’d have to take a metal detector around someone’s entire house and property.
JPRouve said:
That's a big problem whether you ban guns or not, that's why I think you are kind of doomed. Just think about what it means for criminals.
Click to expand...
That’s my point. A lot of the solutions work for new gun sales only. We’ve been without a gun registration system and allowed person to person transfers for so long that it’s impossible to know who has what.
 
Carolina Red said:
Just being devil’s advocate here...

Hiding a gun is pretty easy. You’d have to take a metal detector around someone’s entire house and property.

That’s my point. A lot of the solutions work for new gun sales only. We’ve been without a gun registration system and allowed person to person transfers for so long that it’s impossible to know who has what.
Click to expand...

Well you'd obviously miss some but that solution would be working on the premise that most legal gun owners wouldn't risk it.
 
Listar said:
I think that is what some people wants to achieve. The beauty part is it does not impinged on the second amendment: Right to keep and bear arms.

Also, that means you still can sell, but you must ensure you have a good enough system, whatever it is, to prevent a mass shooting. The prerogative is on you if you want to earn that type of money. I see that as fair trade.

It is not so dissimilar to let's say the BP deep water horizon blowout case. You want to operate an oil and gas company, sure, just make sure there are no blow out. Intended or unintended, if an accident happened, you will be held accountable. It is up to you to have a system in place to prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...
This is not a realistic idea at all. What do you do about the 300 million plus guns already out there? We can’t retroactively charge people with crimes that weren’t crimes when they sold the gun.

Right now, this is how it works - gun is manufactured and the company that manufactures it keeps records of what FFL (distributor or gun dealer) the gun is sent to. The FFL then sells the gun, doing a background check (ATF form 4473, in case anybody wants to see the questions on it). The gun is now in private hands and the FFL has a record of who bought it and has to keep this record for 20 years, then they are supposed to destroy that record. If a gun I bought was used in a crime and recovered, the police are knocking on my door if it’s within that 20 year period. Here’s the problem though - gun show loophole. Police knock on my door and tell me my gun was used in a crime, I say I sold it, the trail is now done. I don’t have to know who I sold it to, don’t have to get any kind of a receipt, just need to think that the person I’m selling it to is not a felon and isn’t going to use the gun to commit a crime.
“ATF” said:
An unlicensed individual may transfer a firearm to another unlicensed individual residing in the same State, provided that he or she has no reason to believe the buyer is prohibited by law from possessing firearms.
Click to expand...

I don’t think your idea is necessarily a good one, and I’m sure you can see why it wouldn’t work. You could start it from today on, and there’s still way too many guns out there that wouldn’t be affected by it.

Gun show loophole is kind of a misleading name because most people selling guns at gun shows are FFLs, so a background check is done. It’s because people try to sell an unwanted gun outside of the show because they know people are there to look at guns. I’ve been to a lot of gun shows and I’ve never seen or been approached by someone trying to sell privately. It should be called ‘classified ad loophole’ or something like that.

adexkola said:
You're not wrong. I think the answer is to move the societal cost of gun violence to gun owners. There is no reason why the non-gun-owning tax-payer has to shoulder the cost of health care, police work, and criminal investigations driven by gun violence. Imagine requiring all gun-owners to carry liability insurance, similar to what we have with cars. That will disincentivize some from owning guns. Which drives a vicious cycle that starts to cut into the percentage of Americans that own guns.
Click to expand...
Never thought about having to buy insurance. That’s a really good idea, in my opinion. I would word the argument different just because it sounds like what the right wing says about health insurance and welfare. Cars get brought up a lot in these arguments so let’s go ahead and make the requirements similar. Need a bill of sale, registration, a license, and insurance to use them.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I can'tsee how teachers unions would accept this. I would expect to see mass walkouts and drops in people training to become teachers if this was implemented.
Click to expand...

It's stupid idea. How will arming teachers stop incidents like Orlando nightclub shootings or Las Vegas shooting or Sutherland Church shooting. Arm all clubbers, gamblers and priests?

It's so stupid that you really have to question if his IQ is actually in the -ve.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
It's stupid idea. How will arming teachers stop incidents like Orlando nightclub shootings or Las Vegas shooting or Sutherland Church shooting. Arm all clubbers, gamblers and priests?

It's so stupid that you really have to question if his IQ is actually in the -ve.
Click to expand...
Thats exactly what the NRA wants. More guns on the street so more money and profits for them. I just dont know when common sense will prevail.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
No insurance company will touch this. For a car, the damage is quantifiable as in cost of damages, replacement etc and value of premiums are tailored to factor in age, vehicle type, driver quality etc. None of those are available for guns. Also imagine families of victims lodging a claim on insurance company for value of lives lost....how does one even put a monetary value to that?

You can consider something like a Gun tax or something. If already exists, then may be hike it drastically. I just looked it up and an AR-15 seems to sell for about $500 average. Have a 25% of value tax for all small guns (hand guns etc) and increase it to 50% if it's a higher class of gun (semis, AR15s etc).
Click to expand...

You underestimate the ingeniuity of acturial mathematicians/scientists and/or quants at quantifying risk. Every obscure project/product gets insured, from offshore oil rigs, to CDOs, to celebrity property and movement, to festivals and raves, etc... It's a complicated problem, but to some measure the actual cost to society can be captured in a figure, and flowed down to the risk pool of gun-owners.

The gun tax doesn't solve the issue. It's a one time cost hit. More than paying for the actual cost of having guns in society, forcing the gun-owners to bear the cost of guns dis-incentivizes gun hoarding. If you have 30 guns, now you have to shell out $12000 per month for coverage. Shit, now you can't afford to hold them. You sell them off, or otherwise dispose of them. People who would otherwise buy a gun now have to factor in annual costs, and decide they can't afford to have one. As the pool of gun-owners decrease in size, premiums go up as insurers adjust. Eventually the equibrilium point is a small number of rich folk like Dan Bilzerian who can afford to pay the premium for a small arsenal, and the vast majority of Americans that have their small revolvers in the cupboard, and pay for it.

Impose punitive fines on anyone found with an un-insured weapon. If they can't pay, seize the weapon and destroy it. If you decide to run the risk of not insuring your gun, you'll hide it where it can't be easily accessed or found. Require any gun purchase to come with proof of insurance (effectively creating a record trail and closing the private sale loophole). Insurance lapses get reported to the ATF or state equivalent, the same way Geico reports car insurance lapses to the department of motor vehicles. Criminals can't go to Kentucky now and buy loads of guns and drive them up to Chicago or NY, as proof of insurance is required at POS.

Finally, make every gun owner feel the pain of every mass shooting through a rise in rates. If Geico determines that men below the age of 30 are causing more accidents, regardless of how well I drive, my rates are going up. Hurt the pocket of every responsible gun owner. Eventually some will decide it's just not worth it to have a gun in the house.

The legal and infrastructural challenges would be huge. But creating financial incentive for not owning weapons would drive feedback loops that would eventually stem the tide of the gun problem.

I'm sure I'm missing something and I just wasted 15 minutes typing this.
 
adexkola said:
You underestimate the ingeniuity of acturial mathematicians/scientists and/or quants at quantifying risk. Every obscure project/product gets insured, from offshore oil rigs, to CDOs, to celebrity property and movement, to festivals and raves, etc... It's a complicated problem, but to some measure the actual cost to society can be captured in a figure, and flowed down to the risk pool of gun-owners.
Click to expand...

You are talking about Liability Insurance...which means Insurance Companies get premiums from Owners and pays out the victims in case of claim. It won't work simply because because the liability cannot be quantified...as in...There is no way to estimate how many victime there would be in an incident. Let's say for example, we come up with some ingenuity that a person's life is valued at $1m (which in itself is very arbitrary/controversial). For Florida, the claim would be $17m as 17 people died, for Sutherland Church, it would be $26m as 26 people died, For Las Vegas it would be $58m as 58 people died.Alternatively, say if Insurance Companies cap their liability to $1m. That means if the owner is involved in a shooting, the victims all get pro-rate spilt of the benefit. You have deaths, injuries, physical and mental strain etc, which would be a mess to handle.

And as a bottom line, people don't really feel safer because they get payment. Take driving a car as an example, you feel driving is safer in US as opposed to Thailand or Vietnam because of road rules and people following them. Not because of Insurance (which you have in both countries). Guns have no rules, so just tacking on an Insurance payout will not people feel any safer.

Keep it simple and get the 2nd amendment withdrawn. As long as that stays live, any amount of work arounds will just be messing, time consuming, expensive and just plain ineffective. I
 
Last edited:
@Edgar Allan Pillow it doesn't have to be like pure liability coverage, analogous to car insurance. It would be a large scale inplementation of an exotic offering, if you will.

I agree that a straight 2nd amendment repeal and ban of guns would be the cleanest option. It's also the most infeasible one at this point in time. Struggling to think of any state government that would ratify a 2nd amendment repeal.
 
I think they should introduce a protection tax to all children above the age of 3 months and an additional fee for introducing security measures at school. It’s not the guns at fault, it’s the children.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
You are talking about Liability Insurance...which means Insurance Companies get premiums from Owners and pays out the victims in case of claim. It won't work simply because because the liability cannot be quantified...as in...There is no way to estimate how many victime there would be in an incident.
Click to expand...
Car companies are doing it. How do they quantify anything?
 
adexkola said:
@Edgar Allan Pillow it doesn't have to be like pure liability coverage, analogous to car insurance. It would be a large scale inplementation of an exotic offering, if you will.

I agree that a straight 2nd amendment repeal and ban of guns would be the cleanest option. It's also the most infeasible one at this point in time. Struggling to think of any state government that would ratify a 2nd amendment repeal.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think a Brexit style referendum will be the way to go here. NRA might have money power and lobbyists, but if to comes down to popular vote, they'd lose. You can even have it by states. Just a simple "Do you support an amendment to the 2nd amendment to enable more proactive controls in the ways guns are sold and used? Yes or No."

Use democracy to our benefit.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Honestly I think a Brexit style referendum will be the way to go here. NRA might have money power and lobbyists, but if to comes down to popular vote, they'd lose. You can even have it by states. Just a simple "Do you support an amendment to the 2nd amendment to enable more proactive controls in the ways guns are sold and used? Yes or No."

Use democracy to our benefit.
Click to expand...


Not allowed in the US.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Honestly I think a Brexit style referendum will be the way to go here. NRA might have money power and lobbyists, but if to comes down to popular vote, they'd lose. You can even have it by states. Just a simple "Do you support an amendment to the 2nd amendment to enable more proactive controls in the ways guns are sold and used? Yes or No."

Use democracy to our benefit.
Click to expand...

That's not how the law works here. People elect representatives to Congress and the President, who can change laws (as well as the Constitution) on behalf of the voters.
 
Raoul said:
Individual states allowing referendums is unfortunately not the same thing as changing the constitution.
Click to expand...

It's just the first step and most referendums may not even be legally binding. But having one clearly would eliminate any ambiguousness surrounding the issue. If the vote is overwhelmingly in favour of gun control, then it'd put the representatives/senators in a spot where they need to explain why they are not doing what the people who elected them want them to do. It's not the end in itself, but just a start.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
It's just the first step and most referendums may not even be legally binding. But having one clearly would eliminate any ambiguousness surrounding the issue. If the vote is overwhelmingly in favour of gun control, then it'd put the representatives/senators in a spot where they need to explain why they are not doing what the people who elected them want them to do. It's not the end in itself, but just a start.
Click to expand...

Why would individual states who are run by Republicans (most states are) have any incentive to hold a referendum over gun control, when they already have the policy they want in place.
 
Raoul said:
Why would individual states who are run by Republicans (most states are) have any incentive to hold a referendum over gun control, when they already have the policy they want in place.
Click to expand...
Carolina Red said:
There’s no reason to waste political capital doing something futile and pointless.
Click to expand...

Not sure where to go from here. If most states want it, then it's how it will be. Seems only minority want actual control.

And I really don't see any value in trying to impose insurance etc unless you can restrict sales.
 
Trump actually said if there were more armed people in the Pulse nightclub that the shooter would have been stopped. He didn't realise there were at least 2 armed guards present. Also who could possbly envisage anything going wrong if you let drunk and fecked up clubbers have weapons.

Drunk fights would be no more but there would a huge surge in murders. Ecstasy heads would just love and cuddle the guns leading to a huge jump in accidental suicides, acid heads would shoot the shit out of everything thinking ze aliens were coming. And coke heads would walk around much like they already do with a grimace and feck you look on their faces. Only the smack heads would be too fecked to fire a gun and the stoners would to refuse to becoming conscientious objectors.

Seriously, what could go wrong?
 
langster said:
Trump actually said if there were more armed people in the Pulse nightclub that the shooter would have been stopped. He didn't realise there were at least 2 armed guards present. Also who could possbly envisage anything going wrong if you let drunk and fecked up clubbers have weapons.

Drunk fights would be no more but there would a huge surge in murders. Ecstasy heads would just love and cuddle the guns leading to a huge jump in accidental suicides, acid heads would shoot the shit out of everything thinking ze aliens were coming. And coke heads would walk around much like they already do with a grimace and feck you look on their faces. Only the smack heads would be too fecked to fire a gun and the stoners would to refuse to becoming conscientious objectors.

Seriously, what could go wrong?
Click to expand...


Well he obviously has no clue what gun laws we already have. You can't carry a gun in an establishment that serves alcohol.
 
langster said:
Trump actually said if there were more armed people in the Pulse nightclub that the shooter would have been stopped. He didn't realise there were at least 2 armed guards present. Also who could possbly envisage anything going wrong if you let drunk and fecked up clubbers have weapons.

Drunk fights would be no more but there would a huge surge in murders. Ecstasy heads would just love and cuddle the guns leading to a huge jump in accidental suicides, acid heads would shoot the shit out of everything thinking ze aliens were coming. And coke heads would walk around much like they already do with a grimace and feck you look on their faces. Only the smack heads would be too fecked to fire a gun and the stoners would to refuse to becoming conscientious objectors.

Seriously, what could go wrong?
Click to expand...
Sounds like we should make weed part of a balanced breakfast.
 
Carolina Red said:
Sounds like we should make weed part of a balanced breakfast.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Damn android phone. I actually typed "refuse to carry" but this thing constantly corrects me because it knows what I am writing or spelling better than I do. (Does it feck) I should just use the voice translator instead. That works perfectly, but its odd as hell speaking my posts to my phone. Just doesn't feel right at all. Or WhatsApp or messenger whatever.
 
Raoul said:
Well yes, if you're a criminal or a headcase then you are disqualified. We also disqualify people from voting while in jail or on probation. That however has nothing to do with gunshop owners being able to legally sell a gun to a normal citizen.
Click to expand...
If this where the case 80-99% of current NRA members would be disqualified... You need to have proven that you're a headcase beyond any possible (not reasonable) doubt and become a criminal of some sorts in doing so to be barred (in many/most states where i'm "aware" of current regulation).

Pogue Mahone said:
The whole arming teachers thing is just a diversion. It’s not meant to be taken seriously. They’re doing exactly what they always do after one of these shootings. Spew a load of hot air until the initial outrage dies down and/or some other big story breaks and the gun control issue fades into the background.
Click to expand...
I hope it's just a diversion. I can actually see Republicans/Right wing media going for this in reality :(.
Raoul said:
Click to expand...

Do you know of a reliable source that exposes all companies that contribute/do business with the NRA? (Asking out of personal interest, I would certainly try to avoid them).
 
Abizzz said:
If this where the case 80-99% of current NRA members would be disqualified... You need to have proven that you're a headcase beyond any possible (not reasonable) doubt and become a criminal of some sorts in doing so to be barred (in many/most states where i'm "aware" of current regulation).


I hope it's just a diversion. I can actually see Republicans/Right wing media going for this in reality :(.

Do you know of a reliable source that exposes all companies that contribute/do business with the NRA? (Asking out of personal interest, I would certainly try to avoid them).
Click to expand...

Check out Judd Legum's twitter. He's doing an hour by hour tracking of which companies are dumping the NRA.

 
Raoul said:
Check out Judd Legum's twitter. He's doing an hour by hour tracking of which companies are dumping the NRA.

Click to expand...


Thanks. Seems most of these seem to have given NRA members better deals of some sort, thereby not really having any danger of being associated with them by non-members.
 
Raoul said:
The point is you can't sanction someone for legally selling a product. Once it is bought, the seller is no longer responsible for it and the purchaser assumes all the risk.
Click to expand...

They started holding bars and restaurants accountable for inebriated customers killing civilians on the drive home.
 
Raoul said:
If true, that's pretty silly. People have to bear responsibility for their own actions.
Click to expand...

While my comment was apples to oranges in some ways, I believe the reasoning behind such* was said establishment must be held accountable to contributing to said inebriation when glaringly obvious said patron was getting more and more intoxicated, and then not taking control of the situation by cutting off drinks, calling a cab, withholding keys, calling someone to get the person, anything to avoid said person getting behind the wheel. If memory serves, I believe what I'm speaking stems from civil and criminal courts cases naming the establishment in a suit and possibly even criminal charges against.

*Unsure if this is a county-by-county or state-by-state thing, and if it's strictly lawsuits not law. Heck, may have been a one off incident or a rare event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.