Gun control

Mike Schatner said:
Well he obviously has no clue what gun laws we already have. You can't carry a gun in an establishment that serves alcohol.
Click to expand...

Umm...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/u...&gwh=CF0D9BA67A830AD82F7BB238519A9F46&gwt=pay
--Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.)-- Note: This was in 2010 - may be more states permitting such now, or these particular states may have altered said laws.

Except Georgia for sure... http://lawcenter.giffords.org/other-location-restrictions-in-georgia/
--In 2014, Georgia enacted a law allowing individuals to carry firearms in bars.--


Living in this right-wing nutty state, I've noticed most bars have elected to post restrictions as the law permits a business to do such. Though I'm sure there are some bars in sticksville that don't mind patrons coming in with firearms.
 
MrMarcello said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah It's been like this for years in the UK and Canada.

As someone who works behind7 a bar you cannot knowing serve alcohol to anyone who is drunk, nor can you serve anyone you know will be driving home or wherever.

If you do serve them and they have or cause an accident to themselves or anyone else then you can be liable for prosecution.
 
Looking at the idea of deterrents, surely mandatory liability insurance would work. In the case it would be you can buy any gun that is available now, but have to take out a liability insurance policy so that if you were to commit an act of violence, the victims would be able to claim on your insurance.

Doesn't infringe the right to bear arms, simply makes you have to take responsibility for bearing arms.

(And I know that I don't know anything about the intricacies of insurance but this is a theoretical idea.)

Also, ban private sales. Ensure that private sales are illegal but allow any gun supplier / shop etc to be able to buy back your gun if you want rid of it. That way they can then re-sell it to another but again have to do they official paperwork.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

I don't think victims care about the sum of money they could get for being dead if they were still alive simply because it's impossible to show up in court if you're dead and fwiw legally speaking dead people cannot claim anything since that ability is tied to personhood (ie being a human being, breathing and stuff).

Liability has to be quantifiable because there is no point in trying to determine something that is not quantifiable and if it can't be determined then it's only the most fundamental premise of the business of insurance that is missing which is lessening the financial burden of any type of risk for the individual by paying it collectively. In essence this means that in order to claim liability you have to show evidence for your damage which legally defined can only be of tangible value.

Re: @adexkola's idea I think it certainely merits a closer look, although my take is that the mechanism "shooting = rate hike" cannot be executed that easily because the govt. cannot demand it (economic liberty) and competitive pressure will not allow it to happen just like that. Economically it would only make the rates go up if it exceeded the forecast insurers factored in when calculating premiums.

I do wonder though if it would make legal gun owners more careless when handling their gun because in case of a genuine but maybe fatal accident the gun owner wouldn't be liable for civil suits like he is right now (ie with everything he possesses above a minimum rate) but is insured and thus lacks financial incentive to be careful. I guess you could try to bring criminal charges for being careless but with no intent there is only so much you can do.

Additionally I have my doubts that it's a good idea to make insurers pay for police work because that would skew invested resources of budget-savy states towards that particular type of crime because they could claim the money back from insurance, I also have my reservations that it fits with Equality before the law.
 
MrMarcello said:
Umm...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/u...&gwh=CF0D9BA67A830AD82F7BB238519A9F46&gwt=pay
--Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.)-- Note: This was in 2010 - may be more states permitting such now, or these particular states may have altered said laws.

Except Georgia for sure... http://lawcenter.giffords.org/other-location-restrictions-in-georgia/
--In 2014, Georgia enacted a law allowing individuals to carry firearms in bars.--


Living in this right-wing nutty state, I've noticed most bars have elected to post restrictions as the law permits a business to do such. Though I'm sure there are some bars in sticksville that don't mind patrons coming in with firearms.
Click to expand...

Its about seven years since I renewed my CWP. Back then I don't think many States had such daft laws. I think its still illegal in Florida, which is where the event Trump was talking about took place..

But it just goes to show the NRA and gun movement is winning the battle and we are getting further away from gun control and not closer. :(
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Also, ban private sales. Ensure that private sales are illegal but allow any gun supplier / shop etc to be able to buy back your gun if you want rid of it. That way they can then re-sell it to another but again have to do they official paperwork.
Click to expand...


You don't need to ban private sales you just have to ensure that any sales occur through a licensed firearms dealer. If i buy a gun online from a private seller it gets shipped to a firearms dealer near my home. Then I go in and fill out the paperwork and have the background check done just like buying a new gun. The dealer charges a small fee, $20-30 plus teh $5 background fee. If I want to sell/buy a gun from someone locally the sale should occur in a gun shop.
 
Mike Schatner said:
You don't need to ban private sales you just have to ensure that any sales occur through a licensed firearms dealer. If i buy a gun online from a private seller it gets shipped to a firearms dealer near my home. Then I go in and fill out the paperwork and have the background check done just like buying a new gun. The dealer charges a small fee, $20-30 plus teh $5 background fee. If I want to sell/buy a gun from someone locally the sale should occur in a gun shop.
Click to expand...

Now that just makes too much sense to not be enacted.
 


Yet more pressure!

Tourism to the states is way down anyway. I saw reports on C4 news the other night saying UK to USA is down as much as 57%. So many refusing to visit under Trump. Add me to that list too.
 
Find it a bit pathetic what the likes of Legum are doing. The partnership these companies have with the NRA benefits the grassroots membership which is full of decent people.

The issue is with the NRA leadership who are the loathsome ones.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Find it a bit pathetic what the likes of Legum are doing. The partnership these companies have with the NRA benefits the grassroots membership which is full of decent people.

The issue is with the NRA leadership who are the loathsome ones.
Click to expand...

That's true but the members shouldn't be paying into the NRA if it is not serving their needs and is basically being coopted as a political arm of right wing elites.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Find it a bit pathetic what the likes of Legum are doing. The partnership these companies have with the NRA benefits the grassroots membership which is full of decent people.

The issue is with the NRA leadership who are the loathsome ones.
Click to expand...


If they were decent people they would stand up and support the gun control ideas being put forward and speak out against assault rifles, they would also let the NRA know this and they would say that they don't speak for them when they spit bile and hatred like in the CPAC speech.

Staying silent and continuing to pay their membership is making them as complicit as those in charge.
 
langster said:


Yet more pressure!

Tourism to the states is way down anyway. I saw reports on C4 news the other night saying UK to USA is down as much as 57%. So many refusing to visit under Trump. Add me to that list too.
Click to expand...


Maybe you guys can help the cause and petition to put the US on the UK do not visit list until they introduce strict gun laws.
 
Mike Schatner said:
Maybe you guys can help the cause and petition to put the US on the UK do not visit list until they introduce strict gun laws.
Click to expand...

We petitioned to stop Trump from visiting the UK and got well over 3 million signatures, It was completely ignored. The Tories will never listen. When we get a Labour government back in charge then public opinion will be listened to and considered.
 
Raoul said:
That's true but the members shouldn't be paying into the NRA if it is not serving their needs and is basically being coopted as a political arm of right wing elites.
Click to expand...

A lot of the people are members because of the benefits. Things like safety classes/courses, insurance, firearm training and educational material.
 
MrMarcello said:
"That's misusing the weapons! That's not using for what they're for." At 3:30 or so.

Da'fuq? The sole reason behind a weapon is to deter, maim, or kill another.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's stunning really. The mental gymnastics needed to come to the conclusion that weapons are made for your "enjoyment", hobby or whatever instead of being tools to kill other people, may it be in self dense or not, is amazing. But then again these people will literally blame everything from rap music to movies for these shootings instead of guns. :wenger:
 
Raoul said:
In response to the NRA not taking action about sensible gun regulations.
Click to expand...

Also the hateful, paranoid rambling speech at CPAC the other day didn't help at all. The members should stand up and say that their beloved leader Wayne wasn't speaking for them at CPAC!

feck their benefits, morals and peoples lives are worth more than a discounted flight or cheaper insurance.
 
Fergies Gum said:
A lot of the people are members because of the benefits. Things like safety classes/courses, insurance, firearm training and educational material.
Click to expand...

Then it’s incumbent upon them to exert pressure on the leadership to change their policies. Ultimately the NRA isn’t exempt from public pressure campaigns.
 
Mass stabbings and mass road rage will just replace them. We need to talk about the real issue and that's mental health.
 
Quality control
langster said:
No, they really won't. They haven't anywhere else in the world. Mental health is a problem for sure and yes needs to be tackled but so does gun control.
Click to expand...

It's not the right time to talk about gun control, we need to pinpoint the root cause. Sensible gun owners do not want their rights infringed and they shouldn't have to defend themselves due to the mentally ill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.