Hammer and the Gun

Before we try, we need to look at the system and see if it would actually address the points that we agree is the problem.

Do you really think that there will be agreement on what is the problem? I don't. I also think that it will stall out in that stage.

How about this? Would you support a bill where everyone who owns a gun must carry insurance, basically pay into a fund that would be used for the medical bills or expenses of anyone harmed by a gun?

gillyflower wrote:Do you really think that there will be agreement on what is the problem? I don't. I also think that it will stall out in that stage.

How about this? Would you support a bill where everyone who owns a gun must carry insurance, basically pay into a fund that would be used for the medical bills or expenses of anyone harmed by a gun?

No.

I do not see how that attempts to limit the access to firearms of either the violently mentally ill, or to convicted felons. It would however, serve to essentially fine the many for the actions of a few.

Would you support revamping the mental health system and actually enforcing the already conceived of and passed laws against those who are not currently legally allowed to possess a firearm for reasons of mental health or criminal behavior?

gillyflower wrote:Do you really think that there will be agreement on what is the problem? I don't. I also think that it will stall out in that stage.

I do not know if there were be agreement. I think that we haven't tried for agreement. I think that before we try something willy nilly, we should try for agreement first.

All, I get fined every month by my insurance company. I've never had a ticket or an accident and yet I have paid *ten of thousands* into my insurance company over the years to cover those drivers who aren't as safe as I am. Do you think my insurance company is going to refund all that money when I quit driving or die?

No. It is the price I pay for driving an automobile, a machine that can kill or maim by accident or design. I pay for all the fools on the road who don't act in a responsible manner.

I am fined for the actions of a few.

I see no reason that gun owners can't pony up to cover the actions of a few.

I heartily would support revamping the mental health system. I would support as well enforcing the laws already on the books.

If we need more law enforcement personnel or mental health people or institutions to deal with keeping the guns out of their hands who is going to pay for it? But isn't that going to fine the public to support the gun toting few?

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

gillyflower wrote:Do you really think that there will be agreement on what is the problem? I don't. I also think that it will stall out in that stage.

I do not know if there were be agreement. I think that we haven't tried for agreement. I think that before we try something willy nilly, we should try for agreement first.

Very well. What would you support and who would pay for it?

gillyflower wrote:All, I get fined every month by my insurance company. I've never had a ticket or an accident and yet I have paid *ten of thousands* into my insurance company over the years to cover those drivers who aren't as safe as I am. Do you think my insurance company is going to refund all that money when I quit driving or die?

No. It is the price I pay for driving an automobile, a machine that can kill or maim by accident or design. I pay for all the fools on the road who don't act in a responsible manner.

I am fined for the actions of a few.

I agree, you are fined. There is a distinction here.

You may or may not be aware of this, but you are not legally required to purchase insurance for the ownership of a vehicle. You are required to purchase it for the use of that vehicle on state owned and maintained roads. If you do not plan on using it on state roads, you do not have to have insurance.

Pursuant to this line of discussion, if you were suggesting a one dollar "tax" per hour of time spent at the range, I would not be happy about it, but it would be a compromise that could be made, as that is for use, not for ownership.

gillyflower wrote:
I see no reason that gun owners can't pony up to cover the actions of a few.

I don't see why gun owners need to be singled out. Do knife owners need to be singled out for those that get cut? Do football owners need to be singled out for concussions?

gillyflower wrote:

I heartily would support revamping the mental health system. I would support as well enforcing the laws already on the books.

If we need more law enforcement personnel or mental health people or institutions to deal with keeping the guns out of their hands who is going to pay for it? But isn't that going to fine the public to support the gun toting few?

Based on surveys, it is estimated that 40-45% of American households have a firearm. I don't think this qualifies as the "few".

Besides, any legislation passed without increasing the amount of money to finance implementing it will only serve to penalize those that voluntarily comply with it.

In other words, you want the privilege of gun ownership without paying anything to cover the costs to society guns cause.

I would be fine with you not paying a monthly or yearly insurance fee if you fill your barrels with lead so that they cannot be fired. Otherwise, your gun could be used to harm someone. In that way, you would not have to pay a tax.

We are not talking about knife owners. If you would like to talk about them, that would be a separate issue.

It doesn't matter if it is a few or the majority. You play you pay. Just like with autos. Why should I pay for you to have a gun?

Increase the money, just don't ask me to pay. I don't own a gun. You do. Why should I pay? Why not the gun owners?

gillyflower wrote:In other words, you want the privilege of gun ownership without paying anything to cover the costs to society guns cause.

It works for everything else.

gillyflower wrote:You play you pay. Just like with autos. Why should I pay for you to have a gun?

I proposed a compromise that was "just like autos", and yet you chose to ignore it. Are we attempting to have a discussion on this?

gillyflower wrote:

Increase the money, just don't ask me to pay. I don't own a gun. You do. Why should I pay? Why not the gun owners?

Why not for use? Why ownership?

gillyflower wrote:In other words, you want the privilege of gun ownership without paying anything to cover the costs to society guns cause.

Is it guns that cost society, or criminal activity?

All, how much insurance do you have to pay as a doctor? Or your company pays? I have to have insurance in case my dog bites someone or in case someone might trip and fall at my house. I have to pay for the privilege of dog and house ownership. Why not insurance for a gun?

In my state, and it may be the only state like this in the nation, you pay a registration fee for your car whether you drive it or not and every single year there is a tax on it as personal property. Driving it causes another fee for road use. Everyone is required to have insurance on the car, which will be low if you don't drive it, I'm sure. You must show proof of insurance to get it registered.

The compromise you proposed means that you are never going to turn your back for an instant and there won't be an accident. That you won't let a friend hold the gun and it goes off because they don't know what they are doing. You won't trip and fall and shoot someone. No one will break into your house and steal your guns and shoot someone with them. You cannot promise that nothing bad will ever happen with your guns.

Unless the guns don't function.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

gillyflower wrote:In other words, you want the privilege of gun ownership without paying anything to cover the costs to society guns cause.

Is it guns that cost society, or criminal activity?

Is it cars that cost society or criminal activity in cars? Same/same. A little of both I would say.

gillyflower wrote:All, how much insurance do you have to pay as a doctor? Or your company pays?

I pay a substantial amount, however, it is to practice, not because I am a doctor.

gillyflower wrote:
I have to have insurance in case my dog bites someone or in case someone might trip and fall at my house. I have to pay for the privilege of dog and house ownership.

I do not know the specific rules for every state in the nation, however here you are not required for owning. Here, home insurance is required by mortgage lenders, and not for ownership.

gillyflower wrote:
Why not insurance for a gun?

There are many factors. Guns as personal property are already insured under home and renters insurance. The NRA also offers a policy to specifically insure them such as one might other items of high value. I myself, since I do value them have several of the firearms that I own are insured through the same company that has my home owners policy. However, that is against loss, and I feel that you are referring to something different. That is different. You were talking about having gun owners pay a fee for the "harm guns cause society". That would be akin to having car owners take out a separate policy based on ownership to cover the eventuality of someone stealing there car and driving it though a school. Can you imagine the outcry if someone suggested that owners of an object be liable for the actions of a separate party who stole that object?

gillyflower wrote:

In my state, and it may be the only state like this in the nation, you pay a registration fee for your car whether you drive it or not and every single year there is a tax on it as personal property.

I'm not going to get into the "only state in the nation" game, but here, I had a 72 Blazer that was sitting in my garage while I was working on it that was neither driven, taxed, or registered.

gillyflower wrote:
The compromise you proposed means that you are never going to turn your back for an instant and there won't be an accident.

The way I see it, the compromise that I proposed, having a dollar per hour of range time to pay for the enforcement of current laws, offers both a solution to the current problem, and the financial means to achieve it. It offers one other thing that your does not. A chance of being taken seriously by firearms owners.

gillyflower wrote:
You cannot promise that nothing bad will ever happen with your guns.

I don't intend to. What I will promise is that while I am in control of them, nothing bad will happen with them.

!. Great don't pay insurance on a non-working gun. Pay insurance on a working gun.

2. I pay insurance so that if anyone is harmed on my property or by my property, their bills will be covered.

2. If my dog runs away and bites someone, I am still liable. I own the dog.

3. As I said, in your state the rules are probably different. Or you chose to ignore the law or did not know it. If someone is going to disable their gun so that it cannot be used/fired then the rules need to be different.

4. I am well aware that no firearm owner is going to want to pay to play. If you gave car owners the choice they won't want to pay either. Neither do I want to pay taxes.

5. Unfortunately, your guns are not always in your hands and you are not always under control. Accidents happen.

gillyflower wrote:

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

gillyflower wrote:In other words, you want the privilege of gun ownership without paying anything to cover the costs to society guns cause.

Is it guns that cost society, or criminal activity?

Is it cars that cost society or criminal activity in cars? Same/same. A little of both I would say.

I would say it is negligent activity in cars/criminal activity in cars. Not the cars themselves.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

gillyflower wrote:

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

gillyflower wrote:In other words, you want the privilege of gun ownership without paying anything to cover the costs to society guns cause.

Is it guns that cost society, or criminal activity?

Is it cars that cost society or criminal activity in cars? Same/same. A little of both I would say.

I would say it is negligent activity in cars/criminal activity in cars. Not the cars themselves.

If there were no cars there would not be any car accidents, correct?

If there weren't any guns then there wouldn't be any gun accidents.

Reductionist thinking at it's best.

We do live in a world with cars and guns, I for one, use both, you use one. There is a great a likely hood of us getting rid of either of them.

I went for a jog with the puppy in between posts here, and I thought of another aspect. If one was going to mandate an insurance for ownership, one would need to find all in existence. That would mean starting a registry, and we have seen how well starting a gun registry goes over.

Not a great likelihood of us getting rid of either. Sorry.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Before we try, we need to look at the system and see if it would actually address the points that we agree is the problem.

Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make. My saying that I personally would like to see guns banned is just philosophical in nature. As you know I've stated many times in this thread alone why a ban would never work. In this I'm being a realist.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Reductionist thinking at it's best.

We do live in a world with cars and guns, I for one, use both, you use one. There is a great a likely hood of us getting rid of either of them.

I went for a jog with the puppy in between posts here, and I thought of another aspect. If one was going to mandate an insurance for ownership, one would need to find all in existence. That would mean starting a registry, and we have seen how well starting a gun registry goes over.

I did not suggest that we get rid of either. Cars are now registered and once they weren't. I am suggesting that we start registering guns and the fees would go to helping those people harmed by guns. I suggested insurance because the insurance companies would have higher rates for people who own guns but treat them in an unsafe manner. Those that are safe would have lower rates.

What do you think would happen if insurance companies said they would no longer cover guns of any type (if stolen) or cover you and your family if someone was hurt using one of the guns you own?

If you don't like registering guns, then place a large tax on each one sold or put a hundred dollar tax on each gun manufactured in the US or brought in and a big tax especially on every box of ammunition. Something like what is done with cigarettes. There are many ways to do it.

gillyflower wrote:

What do you think would happen if insurance companies said they would no longer cover guns of any type (if stolen) or cover you and your family if someone was hurt using one of the guns you own?

I think that a company would set up an insurance plan specifically cover firearms and gun owners would flock to it. Then the NRA would create an outcry and demonize elected officials until they made it illegal to do so.

gillyflower wrote:

If you don't like registering guns, then place a large tax on each one sold or put a hundred dollar tax on each gun manufactured in the US or brought in and a big tax especially on every box of ammunition. Something like what is done with cigarettes. There are many ways to do it.

It's not going to happen. Putting aside my personal understandings, realistically, it is not going to happen. Any attempt or proposal in that direction is going to get killed and quick. They try to push gun control through, and the NRA gains a million members in 3 months. A large tax runs the risk of turning this difference in understanding ugly. It's just not going to happen. It doesn't punish anyone but the law abiding.

warlordofks wrote:

Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make. My saying that I personally would like to see guns banned is just philosophical in nature. As you know I've stated many times in this thread alone why a ban would never work. In this I'm being a realist.

I think the difference in understanding is a difference in perspective. The idea of banning something, anything, is just abhorrent to me.