General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat is the purpose of registering and insuring cars?
If it is to make sure folks follow the laws of the land....why not register and insure guns?
NRA keeps saying we have loads of laws on the books.....but they cannot be carried out, because who knows who owns what gun?
Our auto laws are just fine, cause we have VIN (identifiable info on vehicle) and registration connecting the VIN to the owner..why can't we do that with GUNS????????????????
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)In our case it's cars; other countries use something else. Hell, the default identification medium in the US is the card that shows you can drive a car (only about a third of Americans even have passports). Blame the suburbs.
(Also, registration is closely related to excise taxes on cars in many states; if states start putting an excise on guns, I guarantee you we'll see more strict state registration laws.)
NRA keeps saying we have loads of laws on the books.....but they cannot be carried out, because who knows who owns what gun?
OTOH, in many states driving without insurance rates approach 50%. (For that matter, Virginia doesn't even require liability insurance, a fact that scared the hell out of me when I learned it.) I'm also not sure how blithely that point should be dismissed: we do actually have a lot of laws about who can have guns in what places and times, and law enforcement isn't doing a great job at enforcing them (step 1: get the Republicans to stop blocking ATF funding).
Our auto laws are just fine, cause we have VIN (identifiable info on vehicle) and registration connecting the VIN to the owner..why can't we do that with GUNS????????????????
We could, of course, and in fact guns do have serial numbers, which can be and are used to trace them from time to time. "Ballistic fingerprinting" is another idea, though the last time we looked at it as a country (mid 1990s) the science wasn't quite "there" yet, though I understand it's made improvements since then.
OTOH, cars are large and difficult to conceal when in operation. Guns, in contrast...
Response to Recursion (Reply #2)
DrDan This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Spent millions of dollars, tried for 10 years, didn't solve one single crime.
http://nypost.com/2012/04/02/cuomo-whacks-pataki-gun-law/
GReedDiamond
(5,316 posts)...every gun owned by an individual expressing his/her 2A "Rights" should be subject to insurance coverage.
The more guns, the higher the premiums.
Although, I suppose, we'd end up w/insurance companies offering "bundled" policies, but still, insure them all.
Additionally, the type of gun, as well as its intended use, should be a factor in calculating premiums.
So, hunters and sportsman and legitimate owners of guns for personal security, would have the lowest rates, while paranoid delusional gunnutz/militia members w/arsenals and body armor would pay higher premiums - or - go underground -- which is where they are now, anyway.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just like the AARP, they will simply go into the insurance business. They will tie membership to lower insurance rates and watch their membership (and money from dues) skyrocket.
Secondly, the insurance companies will set the premiums on actual risk, not imaginary fears. I can tell you that I have a safe full of guns and my insurance for them is a pittance.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And is very, very cheap compared to auto, because the risks to the insurer are lower.
Insurance companies are very good at what they are doing, and know how to judge the risk while still making a profit.
A gun owner can buy $100,000 in liability coverage for around $4 a month.
And the NRA makes money off almost all gun insurance policies, and gains members because members get discounts- so if you mandate gun insurance you will be putting money in the NRA's pocket.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)that insure. The NRA's policy sucks in that its like the cut your finger off or stubbed your toe piolicy. My organization switched to one that actually insures.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)You do have to buy health insurance or face a hefty tax penalties
I do support mandatory gun insurance and I think it should go a set further. Refusal to register any gun after the law is put in place should result in a minimum sentence of 10 years.
Handgun insurance should be a min of $2500 a year for each gun, Shotgun insurance $3300 for each gun and Rifle insurance should cost $5,600 for each gun in addition anyone loans their guns to another person without properly transferring through the ATF or has their gun(s) stolen should face a minimum of 3 years in prison and be civilly liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.
Hunters can either pay up or go to the store and buy food like everyone else.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)We don't have gun controls that keep guns out of dangerous hands because of extremist views like what you posted above. You drag down the whole gun control movement by making it about punishing gun owners instead of preventing shootings. The whole insurance proposal is just mental masturbation. It was studied by Connecticut after Sandy Hook and rejected as unworkable since no insurance company would offer it. And it wouldn't survive contact with the courts anyhow. Your stiff sentences are just another rehash of our 40 year failure called the war on drugs. They don't work for anyone but the shareholders of private prison companies.
Extreme views focused on gun owners and not gun violence are why the extreme pro-gun movement has been able to prevent even widely wanted and supported reforms like Universal Background Checks from passing. The extremes feed off of each other, and nothing gets done.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)That's the idea, punish gun owners and remove the threat.
No matter how much background checks, mental health care or intervention exists as long as guns are easily accessible thanks to millions of nutbag gun owners, hunters and the NRA, you are never going to prevent 2 things:
1. You are never going to prevent a mentally ill person who has never sought treatment from buying a gun and gunning down a bunch of people as long as guns are easier to buy than weed.
2. You are never going to prevent a mentally ill person who has sought treatment from "borrowing" or "stealing" weapons from a friend or family member then gunning down a bunch of people which is what happened with Adam Lanza.
Its either make it really expensive to own, keep and maintain one or make it illegal to own any. There is no middle ground here.
Yeah! screw the Victims in Aurora Colorado who died by the hands of James Holmes, The Children at Sandy Hook who died by the hands of Adam Lanza, The Victims in Santa Monica who died by the hands of John Zawahri, The Victims in Seal Beach, CA who died by the hands of Scott Dekraai, The Victims in Orange County, CA who died at the hands of Ali Syed and a double SCREW YOU! to the victims at UCSB who died by the hands of Elliot Rodger.
You ain't a-takin' our gurns! We's gonna fight this in the courts! I need muh gurns to ...hunt deer and such.
Like it or not, sooner or later those guns are going to be taken and there isn't going to be a court on earth that's going to protect gun nuts when that day comes.
That's a promise.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)paleotn
(17,989 posts)....you can understand the relatively simply sentence structure of the second amendment to The Constitution, can't you? Or are you another one of those skeerdy cat gunners, with dirty Harriet fantasies?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Please educate yourself: The RKBA occurs to the "people," not to the militia. The militia is the federal government's justification for 2A in accordence with its limited powers under Article 1. That justification in no way conditions, limits or modifies that right of the people.
You need to get over your animosity and peculiar sexual references in order to understand any sentence structure.
paleotn
(17,989 posts)...The wording in the second amendment is rather simple and easy to understand. I suggest you read it. My animosity is centered on people who think their right to own firearms and contribute to the ocean of firearms in this country trumps every 6 year old's right to live. Yes, it's animosity, because you make me sick. Harry? Is that better? Or maybe I should call you Joe as in Joe the Plumber. You seem to have at least one thing in common with him.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)of the Second. Don't bother with the pretense of intellectual approaches. Your method is outright hostility and insult. It doesn't work, and I think you know it. In fact, it seems more important for you to run down others for personal pleasure than it is to deal with crime and violence.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)The sad part is your zealous extremism justifies the resistance to gun control by many gun owners in this country. You don't want safety, you want to oppress them and make them suffer. You undermine your own movement. Instead of making those who resist gun safety look unreasonable, your extremism justifies their views as they are just defending themselves against people who really do want to financially harm them.
Your emotional reaction to my comment about court action was priceless. Sucks when the legal system gets in the way huh? This is what the courts are for. I'm a card carrying ACLU member because the courts are often the last line of defence for civil liberties against bad laws. Look at 1070 in Arizona. Most of it died from contact with the courts.
That's a promise.
Ah. You going to send in the heavily armored police to smash down my door, shoot my dog and toss a grenade in the babies crib?
hack89
(39,171 posts)paleotn
(17,989 posts)....because apparently it doesn't matter how much blood is spilled in this country. It seems a good portion of our populace really doesn't give a shit about the murder of 1st graders. Instead of doing one damn thing to address the problem, much less something sensible, they'd rather pet their guns, feed their irrational fears and pump up their cold steel manhood. It's rather pathetic, really.
hack89
(39,171 posts)paleotn
(17,989 posts)...it accomplishes nothing other than making me cynical about my own country. If the murder of innocent children is not enough to get my government to do one damn, measly thing about the vast ocean of firearms in this nation falling into the wrong hands, due mainly to the perceived clout of a minority of irrational citizens, I really don't see the point of rational discussion. It's way past that now, and all I can really do is call spades exactly what they are....those who don't give a rat's ass about murdered children.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Have a good evening.
paleotn
(17,989 posts)....watch your back and I'll watch mine.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)paleotn
(17,989 posts)....at least close the gun show, personal sale loophole on background checks.
To make a real impact, open carry anywhere lands you in jail. Period. End of story. Next, end concealed carry except for those who are extremely well trained or show an overriding need to do so. No more Jimmy Joe Bob, the local idiot who shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle, much less get a cc permit because he's the local county sheriff's high school buddy. Ban all semi-auto firearms the same as we have full auto, with the addition of gun buy back. No better use for the potential peace dividend from getting the hell out of the Stan. After the transition period, if you're caught possessing semi-auto, it's significant jail time. No one needs semi auto for any legitimate purpose other than maybe getting their jollies getting high on the smell of cordite. I hunt, so I know. Semi auto is NOT a requirement. All remaining firearms are registered and the owners must carry liability insurance to compensate victims if the insured firearms fall into the wrong hands. How's that for a start? And it's easily constitutional due to that well regulated militia wording so many can't seem to wrap their little brains around.
Pipe dreams, I know. Other countries with gun cultures have taken such rational steps in the face of mass murder. But then again, we don't live in a rational country.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)at least you answered my question. Do not agree with most but that is fine. I agree with UBC and would like NICS opened up to private sales no cost. I favor a licensing system for weapons graduated by type (may be used to bypass NICS if you have the card). This would require slight cost like any drivers license and would require training on use and safety of the firearm. Could agree on limiting magazine size to what is standard for a handgun 10-15 and 20 for rifles. Ensure all current laws are enforced and be very strict in the sentencing. Safe storage requirements and heavy fines for a weapon that was not secured used in a shooting. Do not think open carny is a good thing and should be stopped, however if the weapon is carried concealed no foul if it is inadvertently displayed or printed under a shirt. Allow any police station or fire station to be able to receive any unwanted weapon or ammunition. Improve mental health records in the NICS system. Legalize pot, Increase funding for mental health. Increase penalties and enforcement for gang related crimes. I have no issues with semi-auto rifles as they are very rarely used in crimes.
But to many on this board I am just another "gun humper" "future killer" "Gun lover" "NRA shill"
California already has very strict laws and they were not able to help.
This may be why some of us gun owners do not trust the other side when they say a "good first step"
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Consumption, every year. That's more that 2 and a half the number who die due to firearms.
But hey, people like a drink now and again, so those deaths are worth it, right?
paleotn
(17,989 posts)..., neither are cars, trucks, knives, chainsaws, band saws or louisville sluggers. Guns are. By that way, that's an incredibly tired argument.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)if people are really serious about deaths of people. Are those people not just as dead and do they not have families that are affected?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)What difference does it make!?
Dead is freakin DEAD.
If outrage is based on deaths, then THAT is what matters.
CarrieLynne
(497 posts)I think the reason for mandatory car insurance is so people can take financial responsibility for accidents. Based on the numbers of how many vehicle accidents happen in the US. If half of the drivers that get into vehicle accidents didn't have insurance, that could pose a problem in a few ways. Today, 80% of American adults are living on the edge of poverty. So a lot of those drivers without insurance probably don't have the money to fix someone's vehicle or even there own. That would either put them into debt, out of a vehicle, or in a courtroom.
On the flip side of it though, I do not like how the insurance companies have it so rigged to fuck us.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Really very cheap insurance.
madokie
(51,076 posts)registering to me sounds like a good idea. Trouble is guns last a long time and are easy to hide so how would they implement this
I lost interest in 'guns' somewhere along the 'war'
Sweet Freedom
(3,995 posts)If you purchase ammo, you have to provide proof of ownership of said gun and are limited to the amount you can purchase.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)For example I might be willing to give up some privacy as to what gun I own and register the gun that I carry, like registering the car I drive.
But in return I want my newly registered gun and accompanying CCW (just like a drivers license, but harder to get) from NC to have automatic recognition and validity on all 49 other states and DC.
Or are we just cherry picking some of how we treat cars in this analogy, and ignoring things like automatic reciprocity that comes with how we treat them? Because if so then we are not actually having an honest discussion about treating guns like cars, we are just using this as a dishonest excuse to pass only the restrictive parts.
So what do the anti-gunners here say- I'm willing to register any guns I carry with my CCW just like cars I drive in exchange for nationwide recognition of my CCW and gun registration just like my drivers license and car registration have now.
Fair deal? Or are we not really honestly talking about treating guns like cars?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 08:46 AM - Edit history (1)
My guns are not taxed therefore they do not need to be registered.
Secondly, my cars only need to be registered if I take them on public roads. If they stay on my property they do not need to be registered. I have a car in my garage that has not been registered for over a year.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)so I have no real problem with it. Just remember though that no insurance company will cover a criminal or criminally negligent act so they will only pay out for true accidents.
Insurance companies know risk better than anyone else - and guns in the house have no impact on home owners insurance. That should tell you something about the actual risk.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)For $100,000 in liability it can be had dirt cheap. As an Instructor I have a $1,000,000 liability policy in case someone gets hurt at one of my classes and it costs me only $300 a year.
I just looked at current rates, $100,000 in liability for a CCW holder breaks down to $13.75 a month. Far less than auto insurance, and since we are talking about making it like cars that exceeds what most states require for minimum liability. For non-self defense coverage just covering accidents it is just $47 a year for $100,000 in liability- $4 a month.
And it also covers legal expenses in the event you must use your firearm defensively, so it really is a wise thing to a CCW holder to have. I advise all my CCW students to consider it.
And yes, most of the policies are NRA endorsed or affiliated, and NRA members get discounts- so if you mandate firearms liability insurance the NRA will make a boatload of money in memberships and commissions. It is possible to buy them without being an NRA member too, of course.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just like the AARP, they will simply go into the insurance business. They will tie membership to lower insurance rates and watch their membership (and money from dues) skyrocket.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)As such, I think your analogy fails.
-Laelth
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)...Like cars you can be non-road worthy, high-speed vehicles unregistered for use on private property.
treestar
(82,383 posts)in crime investigations and accident investigations. Or auto theft.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Time for ol' Mr. DeMontague to go to the eye dr.
Turbineguy
(37,372 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)It has nothing to do with safety.
Guns have serial numbers, like cars have VINs. The purchasers of the guns are already recorded and saved; there is just no central database for quick lookups.
Lots of the previous replies have nicely covered the insurance angle that I am too lazy to type about.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)...inspections and emissions testing. If people didn't have to have their vehicles inspected, they wouldn't. I'm glad it's the law, or there would be a whole new definition for the word 'hooptie.'
TYY
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and not in a lot of the USA are you required to have emissions or safety inspections.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)I think safety inspections are a good idea. I didn't realize that there are states that don't require it.
TYY
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)while stationed in Ohio, or in my present state of Oklahoma. In all locations police can still pull you over for equipment and safety violations.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Connecticut only requires emissions tests.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)When it comes to guns in this country, a lot of people have a difficult time finding that mentality.
valerief
(53,235 posts)DireStrike
(6,452 posts)It is far too broadly written.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Why can't we all just ride bicycles?