Guns and Kids

Posted by Casebier 8 months, 3 weeks ago to Economics
49 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The only system proven capable of controlling gun ownership, or ownership of anything, is the free market. If gun ownership is expensive, then those who don’t really care that much about owning them will give them up, and those who really care about their gun ownership and use will keep them.

The question of gun ownership needs to change to a question of whether or not the gun owner is capable of responsible ownership, not whether the gun is capable of killing how many or how quickly. Owning the means to take a life with little forethought or effort is an awesome responsibility and should be restricted to persons that can show they have the mental capability and training that can assure responsible ownership of a weapon, no matter what the age of the owner.

First, why do we place less significance on the responsibilities that are inherent in gun ownership than we do with the ability to drive a car? All gun purchasers should be required to pass an examination on gun responsibility (safety and use) to be licensed, the same as you have to have a license showing you’re capable of driving a car. The license to own a weapon should be either a federal license accepted by all states, or a state licenses with universal criteria accepted by all states. Separately, a license to carry should remain state determined.

Second, gun owners should be required to carry personal liability insurance the same as vehicular drivers, and the cost of the insurance should be determined by the potential damage that can be caused by the nature or the weapon, and the capability of its user. Therefore, there would be minimal cost for a gun-safety-licensed youngster owning a single shot break-open .410 that is used to hunt rabbits or game birds, than would be the cost to a person with a history of violence, or threatening violence, who owns an AR-15.

If a parent has a weapon for a minor child, that child needs to be covered by the parent's liability insurance, and if the child misuses the weapon then the parent is held liable. If the acts or background of an owner results in their not being able to get a license or get liability insurance for their weapon, they’d either have to sell the weapon to a licensed and insured individual, or store the weapon in a licensed secure facility until they could show proof that they are both licensed and insured for that weapon. The cost of insurance would vary depending on the weapon, the same as liability insurance costs vary depending on the type of vehicle you drive, and on the background and training of the owner, same as you can’t drive an 18-wheeler with an automobile license and without passing a commercial truck driving exam.

Anyone caught with a weapon in their possession without both proof of insurance and a gun ownership license would be subject to a fine and potential confiscation. However, like driving without auto registration or proof of insurance, if the person cited then showed up in court with a license to own the weapon in the citation and proof of insurance, their charges would be dropped immediately, or deferred for a period of time to show no reoccurrence and then dropped.

To summarize, why not develop a competitive private liability insurance market that governs gun ownership economically rather than believing the government bureaucrats will ever get it right?

Now as to the age of a person entitled to buy a weapon of any type. No person under 18 years old should be able to acquire any firearm. It would have to be acquired by that person’s parent or guardian whose gun liability insurance included the minor as an insured. Again, to be covered, the insurance company would have to have proof that both the adult and the minor were certified and licensed to be in possession of that particular weapon. Once the person is over 18, they should be able to acquire any legal weapon they want as long as they are certified, licensed and insured for that weapon.

If you're going to prohibit an 18 year old from buying a weapon of any kind based on his age and assumed immaturity, then you better assume he's also incompetent to vote and take away that right. Next, take away the ability for the justice system to automatically criminally charge him as an adult. And finally prohibit him from being in the military where he might make a childish decision costing the lives of fellow service members. In other words, at some point this country has to decide, once and for all, at what age does a person gain all the rights of an adult and lose all the protections of a minor, then base all its laws on that decision.

At the same time, the gun ownership problem is not age. In our rural history, boys regularly got semi-automatic .22 rifles on their 12th birthday, but they didn't go on killing sprees. Girls regularly married at 16, sometimes as young as 14, and started responsible families. Boys at the same age often took over most, if not all, of a family's financial responsibilities if they lost the male head of household. The problem is not with their age, but with how problem children are raised having little or no moral guidance, and with their beliefs that they deserve everything right now with no concept of deferred expectations. Kids of the past had responsibilities, knew their roles in their families and communities, and were secure in knowing that they belonged. Family, social and religious covenants provided strict boundaries they knew they were expected to live within. Today the erosion and sometimes total loss of those boundaries leaves many youth floundering trying to find their way without the guidance of tradition and rules. Their parents avoid giving them unpopular limitations without understanding that limitations provide easier paths to follow and succeed. Hence failures reinforce failures, leaving them feeling powerless, that they don’t belong, that their lives have little meaning or purpose, that they have no future. When bullied, the little kid used to resort to owning a switch blade knife to make himself feel powerful. Today it is a gun. Until people young and old each feel that they have a place and a purpose and a belief that they are seen as having value, acts of violence will continue, and lest we not forget, the most common act of violence is one perpetrated on oneself.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 13
    Posted by jimjamesjames 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    In a society with guns, there will be atrocities; in a society with no guns, there will be genocides.

    Registration means confiscation.

    If you love your country, never trust your government,
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    The problem is nt the guns. He could have and was making a bomb. He could easily have set off poisonous gas. He could have driven into the schoolyard and killed many. The problem is, he should have had a police record, but Oabma set up a program where infractions were not reported to police, but handled by the, in my estimation, incompetent school. I was taught by my dad at 8, to use a rifle. I was told if I broke the rules he set up, and was not cautious, it would never be in my hands again. By 13, the boy with the locker next to mine at school, brought his hunting gun to school on many days. There were no shooting, because kids knew limits, respected adults' rules and God was still in the schools. Today, teachers are "change agents" (their words), and push kids toward peers and away from respecting parents. I fear the above ideas are a slippery slope and does not solve the problem, but creates others. Insurance can be very prohibitive and a national data base tells a Marxist government who has what. Obama would just love it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jeffdhurley1 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    There is a very robust private liability insurance industry for gun owners that covers any use of deadly force , guns , bats,knives . I would say that anyone who does not have this coverage and carries is foolish in today litiginous society . I can agree on the last paragraph of this tome ,The rest ...to me... smacks of stealth removal of the rights insured by our second amendment . You have the right to bear arms .. upon approval of the type of firearm, your emotional state ,your age , you insurability etc with those guidelines based on the decisions of those the right was implemented to protect against .. henhouse...meet fox ! Also these guidelines would only be followed voluntarily by those who doubtless would not kill anyone in the first place .
    reminds me of a great Randian truth . There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. ....Rand
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Snezzy 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    Where I live boys (and girls) in our rural area often own firearms and learn how to use them properly. I was talking to a gentleman, and his son about 7 years old was standing nearby holding a .22, but had it pointed away from me, at the ground. As I walked about, the boy always moved so that his weapon was pointed away from me.

    In our local city, things are somewhat different. People get shot, usually by someone they know. Sometimes the perp is arrested. They are known felons already, and thus unable to own a gun legally. I don't know where they get them. Probably steal them. So for them, gun ownership is already illegal.

    Suppose I want a gun, but can't buy one because it's against the law. Can I make one myself? Or is there some secret formula that nobody except the government knows? Well, I have made my own explosives, out of materials that any child can obtain, and could make my own gun if I wanted to. Should the government require me to give up that knowledge, or forbid me to talk to others about weapons? Should my shovels, pitchforks, pickaxes and slingshots be regulated? What about my chainsaw?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 months, 2 weeks ago
      Under current law, it's perfectly legal for you to construct a firearm for yourself, and you can make as many as you desire. They must comply with firearm regulations (no automatic weapons, e.g.), and you shouldn't sell them to another party too soon. There is no time period by law, but building and selling a "ghost gun" (so called because they usually have no serial numbers) within a short period of time may wind you up on federal charges. The most popular ghost guns are the AR-15 and the Colt 1911 45 ACP, and there are firms that make what is called an "80%" frame that must be milled with the proper openings and slots, and equipped with the trigger and hammer mechanisms before they can function as a firearm. No background checks are currently required for purchase of the materials to make a ghost gun.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Snezzy 8 months, 2 weeks ago
        You or I could easily make a gun out of materials available in any hardware store.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 months, 2 weeks ago
          True. There are plans available on the internet, but most of those are smoothbore weapons, and some are for illegal automatic weapons (it's actually easier to make a strictly automatic weapon). Zip guns are old simple arms that are single shot, using rubber bands and car antennas to fire a 22 LR round.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by scojohnson 8 months, 2 weeks ago
          Field stripping my Glock 19, I’m always kind of struck by how simple of a device it is. 4” barrel, a recoil spring, upper reliever slide (just a piece of square iron with appropriate cutouts) and a plastic lower receiver. While the trigger & feed function is a little more complex, the basic pieces that make it go “boom” could be made in abou an hour in any high school shop class with less than $10 worth of parts.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    You can't enforce culture by law. And the problem of violence is universally a cultural one. We used to have a culture in the United States where gun ownership was a standard staple of life and every kid knew that you never touched Dad's guns without his permission or you would never get your own! My dad had a .22 he would go out with nearly every day when he was 12, yet he never shot anyone. My kids go out with me at least once a year and are required to properly care for and fire ALL my firearms. They each have their favorites of my collection (which is still very small), but they can also recite the basic four laws of gun safety (because they are required to before they pick up a firearm).

    In today's culture, the only firearms kids ever pick up or actually handle are digitized ones, where death and wounding are abstracted and "head shots" are the ultimate mark of skill in first person shooters (and I have a brother and a brother-in-law who are very good). And so kids are either desensitized to the realities of the violence in firearms, or they are cavalier in their realm of "Oh, I'll just re-spawn." This could be seen in the heckling and jeering that occurred at the scripted CNN bloodfest where high school students were given scripted remarks calling Senator Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch murderers because they support they NRA. Anyone truly horrified at the murder they had just undergone at that Florida high school would have recoiled - not cheered - at the prospect of an actual murderer standing before them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    gun ownership is a "natural" right...outside of govt...period...as with "individual " right...it is yours at birth...as is all responsibilities that come with it...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    I'd like to add an observation here that I think some will find interesting. Currently, schools actually protect bullies. Oh sure...you hear about all the "anti-bullying" programs, blah, blah. But, they protect bullies. As a result, some bullies fester into a serious problem. Another result is that some kids (like the kid in Florida) have absolutely zero protection from bullies. As is this case, if the school won't protect a kid and the kid's parents are not able or willing to, it gets really bad. In this case the kid's parents were gone, dying, dead. There are many other factors, as I've mentioned with the young guys on psych meds (often with some correlation to bullying).

    In a side note...I think boys are not really encouraged to be men. There's this concept of "toxic masculinity", me-too, feminism, etc. (not the type of feminism I practice, I actually want strong women). On and on...these are very challenging, confusing times for kids unless their parents are very with it and play an active role.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  nickursis 8 months, 2 weeks ago
      Heard the "men are disappearing" argument in several places so far and that has a lot of validity to it. Males are now ostracized and abused at many levels, caught by special interests and liberal manipulators who pit one special group or another, usually against the male minority. The result is the imposition of the feminine emotional side of decision making and that has become the "snowflake". Even the laws and moral structure is feminized, with no accountability because we have to "protect" everyone from everything. So, if you are a loon with a gun ( like the school teacher with the pistol) you can have your rifles pulled by the cops, but no mention is made of your looniness to the people who need to know (like schools and gun sellers and background checks). because they are "protecting" you. All this protection has led to basically a complete stop in any actions for almost anything, until someone goes off the rails and does something, then the "protectors" want to take all the offending items away to "protect" everyone. It is so illogical as to almost be a plot, it makes no sense at all, given that they will protect you from evil guns, but will scream to legalize drugs, even when young girls get tainted drugs and claw their eyes out, blinding themselves. But they won't take the drugs away, they want you to have more. You can drive at 18 and text and kill peopple, and get a fine, yet no one wants to take cars away. You can smoke and get sick, but they come up with even better ways to poison yourself, and thats ok, and they then have a schizoid argument about why you can't smoke, but want to legalize pot to smoke, because it is "better". The society is fundamentally insane, and mainly because no one is personally responsible for their own selves, there is a line a mile long of people wanting this or that to be responsible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    Sounds like something made up by an urban dweller. The gun violence problem, while not exclusively, is almost entirely an urban city issue. None of these offenders have had any clue about gun safety, there hasn't been a father in the picture to-date, and the common thread has been a strung-out single mom somewhere in the works.

    I have a lot of rifles in my collection and a couple of handguns, and my CCW weapon. Someday I'll inherit 50+ more from my father. Thanks to the liberals, it's not really cost-effective to sell the stuff I would be willing to, so they take up gun safe space. Am I supposed to have 100 "insurance policies"? That's absurd, I have a 1968 Ruger Deerslayer that has never been fired (ever) in the 50 years it sat in a box in a safe, compare that to some thug in Miami walking around with a handgun hanging from the boxer shorts.

    Similar insurance is already available, CCW insurance - including NRA Carry Guard. Unfortunately Carry Guard was just ended because the Florida assholes blamed the underwriter (Chubb) for some weird 20-steps removed liability for Nikolas Cruz and shamed them into dropping coverage. Cruz certainly did not have a CCW, nor had he ever been to NRA firearms training, and I seriously doubt he was an NRA member. He was a horrible result of liberal ideas of family units, having been adopted by senior citizens and the father dying of natural causes when the kid was 4... Ask any sheriff deputy, the CCW background check and marksmanship training is top-notch, you need 97/100 rounds dead-center, and CCW people are anything but a risk to society. But the insurance is still around $250 a year - it's not about liability from the victim, it's primarily for legal defense because you will be arrested if you discharge a firearm and someone is injured or killed, self-defense doesn't matter, you will be charged- maybe not found guilty, but only after a million dollars in legal costs... That's why there is CCW insurance. I don't actually carry mine - mostly for that reason, and also because I don't really go anywhere that I perceive to be dangerous. I have a CCW because "I can". I only carry when I'll be in a remote area with $100,000 worth of RV and tow vehicle on a hunting trip, self-defense if stumbling on a gang of tweekers from the 'hood out where they shouldn't be cooking their brew. I don't need it when out for dinner.

    For the most part, accidental discharge and the like are already covered by homeowner's insurance, and I have a separate policy covering my high-value items in my collection (from theft). The argument here makes it sound like just because I have a couple of AR-15s for range use, that by definition, I am a "higher risk" of deciding to open up on people just because - like an 18 year old with dad's corvette. That's absurd. It's funny, no one mentions an AR-10 in the mix... probably 4 times as powerful as the lowly 55 grain .22 caliber projectile that an AR-15 is throwing. An AR-10 is a .30 caliber .308 round at 168 grains and comparable velocity. But the writer here seems to think that the notoriety of the "AR-15" should be a higher priced insurance policy? It also outsells almost everything else 10 to 1, so yeah - a single broadly-interpreted model with 3 million loosely-defined copies on the streets, compared to 1000s of other market choices sold in small quantities - I would expect to see a spike in the statistics looking at individual "models". Why don't we use some granularity? Was a Del-Ton $399 plastic AR-15, a $1000 Bushmaster, $700 Colt, or a DIY with composite furniture? Do I have to add cost to your insurance policy scheme because I prefer to have a $1700 vintage M1 Garand in the collection instead of a Walmart $169 Marlin lever action 30/30?

    Do I have to have an insurance policy on a musket wall-hanger? I guarantee your average idiot-thug that broke into my home would have no idea how to use it. Do I have to have more insurance on my hand-loaded ammunition (which is probably 5-times more accurate than store-bought)? Is that a "risk factor" compared to someone that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside? Maybe I get a huge discount for being a veteran? Or the libs don't like Vets because we only vote GOP and would want it to be "unavailable" to Veterans because we all have PTSD in their eyes, because their safe spaces at Berkeley didn't really paint them a picture of the way the world really is.

    This sounds a lot like infringing "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "might be", it says "shall not".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 months, 2 weeks ago
      Good response. Thank you. First, I am an urban dweller, but grew up on a family farm in Texas.
      I'm also a Vietnam vet, so I'm very familiar with and have used M-16's, M-14's, M-1's, and .45 and .38 sidearms. I was also a combat medic so I believe I am far more familiar than most with what these weapons can do. After military service I got a degree in economics and have full faith in our economic system, especially the ability of our free market to handle complex problems involving the distribution of goods and services.
      The purpose of the piece was to introduce the concept of using the liability insurance industry as the risk arbiter for firearms much like it is for drivers. I have great confidence in profit motivation and the ability of the insurance industry to assess risk and either deny access, or to limit access, to weapons the same as they risk assess drivers and the vehicles they own. I have no confidence that any government controlled entity will have, nor should any ever have under our 2 Amendment, the ability to deny ownership of a weapon. In my world travels I've seen firsthand the easy rise of tyranny in an unarmed citizenry, and don't buy for a minute that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect hunters. It was written to assure our citizenry could protect liberty from being abridged, and by armed revolt if necessary - exactly why the left wants our weapons removed. And removal is their ultimate aim.
      I also have faith that in a profit motivated competitive insurance industry that is used to writing insurance based on risk assessment, will quickly be able to come up with criteria for writing such insurance that takes into account the nature of the weapon, and more importantly, the nature of the insured. In doing so, I believe that they will ignore the unreasonable characterization of weapons like the AR-15 as being uniquely "weapons of war" when equally lethal weapons are available that look very little like the AR-15 because they lack the visual characteristics that cause the AR-15 to resemble the M-16. Further, an insurance company would certainly not rate someone that is a collector with no history of problems the same as they'd rate someone like Cruz. For that matter, I doubt they'd rate Cruz at all, or if they did, his rating would make his insurance prohibitively expensive. So had he walked into the gun shop to purchase the AR-15 and couldn't show proof of insurance, the gun shop wouldn't have sold it to him. I’m also in favor of a short waiting period when buying a weapon because I believe someone who has to have any weapon “right now” is more likely to use it to remedy a slight or to commit suicide, while someone planning a hunting trip or for home protection can easily accommodate waiting a few days before they obtain their weapon. My nurse practitioner still suffers night terrors years after discovering her husband who had shot himself. One of my best friends all through school found his father after he bit the end of his 12 gage. And one of my Vietnam friends killed himself 40 years after coming home. None of these would have been saved by a waiting period, but I’m willing to give up a few days on the chance it might help someone else. (Perhaps that’s not a fair observation. At my age I seriously doubt I’ll not be buying any more weapons as I now rarely use the ones I have.)
      My example of someone with an AR-15 vs a break-open .410 (I used a break-open O/U .22/.410 for rabbit hunting and killing barn rats when I was a kid) was because of their obvious difference in potential lethality, including by accident. When in high school, one of my buddies was hunting with another, and when stupidly trying to climb over a wire fence with his deer rifle in hand, discharged it killing the friend he was hunting with. The accident destroyed both families and, because both boys were popular at our high school, was a tragedy that it took the school and the whole town a long time to get over. Clearly, the boy who was shot would have had a much better chance of surviving had he been peppered with .410 bird shot, and I think it reasonable to rate weapons differently in terms of their potential risk when used. And surely an insurance company would assess risk differently for the same weapon in the hands of someone who has little or no training in its use vs someone who does.
      Finally, I have no doubt that implementation of such a system would have a million details to be resolved. It's just that, again, I have confidence in our profit motivated insurance industry to resolve them much more effectively and economically while NOT abridging our rights of ownership (and I own a bunch, a .30-06, .222, .243, .410, 20ga, 12ga, and a 9mm, plus several more I inherited from my grandfather but have never fired). Would I be concerned with registering my weapons? Some, but I wouldn't be that concerned. Unless the 2nd Amendment is overturned, I have no fear that that knowledge would be used to confiscate my or anyone else’s weapons because I think it would trigger an armed revolt by gun owners, me included.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 months, 2 weeks ago
        The insurance industry is a drain on the economy. It has a profit motive as you indicate that drives its actions. However, instead of creating and producing a valuable product it chips the pot of the misfortune of others. A bigger pot (more misfortune) means more profit. A smaller pot means lower profit. Promoting actions that lower misfortune is counter productive to the insurance "industry." Insurance is a vampire on society.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 months, 2 weeks ago
          You're fortunate to be wealthy enough to not need insurance, and have never had an auto insurance claim, a homeowners claim, a health insurance claim, or any other insurance claim. Insurance is a valuable hedge against risk for us less well off, and you're blessed to have such good fortune.that your can self-insure. Historically, when insurance companies have been allowed to be competitive with their markets unrestricted and their coverage not mandated, their costs have also been economical. You're probably also too young to remember when full coverage health insurance with no deductible was $40 a month, but then their coverage wasn't mandated, It was also a time when doctors didn't have to carry malpractice insurance or be at risk of losing their practice resulting from a claim by an aggrieved patient funded by personal injury attorneys.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 8 months, 2 weeks ago
            I do remember when I thought insurance was useful, and I agree that it could be, but today it is one of the most corrupted businesses. I also blame government for some of it, but the insurance companies are at least as guilty of interfering with the free market as government. And on the original topic, insurance is not a solution unless it is fixed first, and then the second amendment would not be an issue if the insurance agreement is a free will contractual matter without government mandate or interference.
            Full health coverage at $40 is in my memory, and it is a primary reason that we have the mess in health care today. It (along with government "free" health insurance) eliminated the vital feedback of cost to the patient that kept medical expenses down. I might even believe there was a conspiracy between politicians, insurance execs, and health care execs if there was any direct evidence.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 months, 2 weeks ago
              It is corrupted, but so are almost all businesses due to government interference and regulations, and it's foolhardy to think that will change absent a total revolt. But of the insurance industries, surely health insurance is the most corrupted by far, and for that reason I used auto insurance as the closest to the concept. You're required to carry it in virtually all states, it is more competitive than other insurance industries, and if you are stopped without proof of coverage your vehicle is subject to being impounded. Also virtually all states require that vehicles pass an annual inspection for road-ability and exhaust emissions. Proof of insurance is required to get the inspection completed, and proof of the inspection is required to get the vehicle's license renewed. That's not to say auto insurance hasn't been corrupted - collusion between it and auto manufacturers to assure a continuous demand for new parts, years of failure to install cheap anti-theft mechanisms equally assured demand for new replacement vehicles, required safety equipment added thousands to the costs of vehicles, and auto manufacturers were better off financially paying loss-of-life claims until Nader spawned a whole new industry of $billion dollar class action suits. Had the government not protected the auto industry with tariffs on better engineered and manufactured European imports, the auto industry would have had to correct their manufacturing and design deficiencies without being forced to do so by ever mounting liability claims. Instead they paid the claims, or rather the insurance companies did, were forced to install a host of safety equipment by government mandate, and the result was that both insurance and manufacturing costs for vehicles increased with wealthier consumers able to afford them while poorer Americans found purchasing affordable new, or like new, vehicles moving further and further from possibility. Even with over 80% of personal driving being local, there has ceased to be any inexpensive commercially produced vehicle that can be bought without government mandated safety equipment.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 8 months, 2 weeks ago
        So riddle me this... I live in California, so I already know the answer - what exactly does “registering” a firearm do? It’s not for a ballistic “fingerprint” - that’s bullshit, I can change the barrel and/or bolt and screw up that idea anyway. To track who bought what? Why? You just went through a background check. Does it make any difference what serial number you bought?

        In California - we have our answer, it’s just a slush fund - the state got busted pissing hundreds of millions of background check fees collected into public welfare spending.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by scojohnson 8 months, 2 weeks ago
        That is a ridiculously long way of describing your scheme to outsource the denial of 2nd Amendment rights to the private sector.

        Your "risk" approach is bullshit. The old and sick pay a pittance for healthcare insurance in comparison to their risk and consumption of it, while soaking the youth. The insurance market has been a scam for decades... they have consumed enough of the earlier competitors so as to not really have a legitimate marketplace anymore.

        This isn't a difficult problem, hold medical providers financially liable for failing to report a mental illness to the background check system.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  kddr22 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    I have seen many teens in my office on pysch meds who have no business having guns and know many younger children who hunt responsibly. Any laws have to be clear concise and standard. Parents also have to have responsibility for their own children. The real error of this last shooting was the poor handling of real preventive/ credible tips given to the FBI that they ignored. This was a preventable case.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bobsprinkle 8 months, 2 weeks ago
      The last part of your post about the failure of the FBI is right on. I would say 85% fault. Maybe more. This so called "promise program" is still providing cover for more potential deadly problems.
      Also dangerous is using psychological evaluations to determine rights to own a weapon.
      I KNOW it is a factor. But, I can see how some would avoid counseling out of fear of losing their right to own a weapon. Then there could be "shrink shopping" to find a doctor that might not report them as dangerous.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  kddr22 8 months, 2 weeks ago
        The patients I am referring to are generally way past counseling. These are the hard core pysch patients that are not stable at all, but thanks to a severe shortage of qualified mental health professionals many other professions are having to cover e.g. pediatricians, mental health issues that are outside our field. I support the right to have guns but these individuals are hard to trust even with everyday activities
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 months, 2 weeks ago
      The idea is the the liability insurance company would not risk insuring someone on pysch meds, or at a cost that would be prohibitive, similar for auto liability insurance for a high risk operator. Without insurance, no gun license. No gun license, it's illegal to have it in their possession. And while the government won't take the time to check out the gun owner (that is unless it's the ATF regarding the transfer of a registered machine gun) a liability insurance company will before they take a multi-million dollar risk.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    I have passed exams on gun skills, and laws. So...it's not like buying a stapler. Guns aren't the problem, really. The problem is men on psych meds between the ages of 16 and 23 with access to guns. Often, these shooters have already broken enough laws or simply demonstrated instability to the point that they shouldn't have the guns at the time of the incident. (the laws are already in place). Affecting my use of firearms won't help anybody. Of this, I'm sure.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 months, 2 weeks ago
      The Las Vegas shooter doesn't fit the profile, except for his gender. He was a successful, seemingly normal older man, with no criminal record, and no medical record that indicated intake of suspect medications. It's possible to go nuts without the help of prescription meds, I guess. This seems to be a case of a girlfriend who should have reported him.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Abaco 8 months, 2 weeks ago
        Yes. But if we were to use my profile we'd probably prevent 90% of the mass shootings in the country over the past 2 decades - just a guess. Yeah, the Vegas shooter is quite a story. I believe he was on meds, though. I think it's about 17% of all Americans on these meds now. They know that a certain percent will flip out. The numbers indicate that we'd see what we're seeing.

        I remember talking to a guy who, right after going on Efixer, found himself waking up in his truck across town with his loaded rifle at his side. He didn't remember driving there. In another instance, a friend was talking to his buddy on the phone, having a regular conversations..."see you at church later..." His friend hung up the phone, got a rope from his garage and hung himself under a tree in the park. They figured out he was taking more Prozac than his prescription required. Can these meds be helpful? I think so. Are they almost always a component in these shootings? Yes. Is it causation or correlation? I don't know...but I know what the warnings say.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by scojohnson 8 months, 2 weeks ago
          And it can be prevented by requiring health providers to report in, or take responsibility.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Abaco 8 months, 2 weeks ago
            Yeah, that's a tough one. We are certainly in a paradigm in America now where people, in general, see their doctors more than they see many family members. With federal funding of health care I have see some interesting questions on the patient sheets...questions about guns, etc. We really do have government healthcare now.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    I agree with the tenor of this, but I'm always afraid increasing gov't power is a slippery slope. I definitely agree that age is not the way to go. It feels like a slippery slope. Plus we already have a problem of people not becoming men and women fast enough, IMHO. We have teenagers who need their parents to go with them to do basic things, and we have people up to 26 on their parents' health insurance. I think the age thing is just an attempt to ban guns, one they can pass right now because many young adults today admit they struggle with "adulting".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    Casebier, my reading of your post brings me to a conclusion that you completely fail to understand the principle and purpose of the Second Amendment and, very likely, the entire Bill of Rights. You ask, "why do we place less significance on the responsibilities that are inherent in gun ownership than we do with the ability to drive a car?" - Because driving a car is not a Right. If a person or even a group of people do not drive a car, that is in no way a path to a dictatorship and tyranny, when as the Second Amendment was crafted specifically to prevent the government becoming tyrannical. You must understand that the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a verbal agreement limiting the government from certain acts. There are no punishment clauses in the Constitution; there is nothing to prevent any of the branches of the government from ignoring any of the restrictions that the Bill of Rights places on the government - except for the Second Amendment, which keeps the people empowered to be the last arbiter. The Second Amendment is the teeth of the Constitution; without it, as the Founders recognized, it is only a matter of time before the American experience turns into what all other previous forms of government have always devolved into - tyranny. That is why the Second Amendment was written in categorical terms - any infringement will surely lead to eventual erasure. Your "common sense" restrictions today will be the path to eventual eradication of the Second Amendment, and with it, the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If you find my reasoning hard to agree with, let me remind you that Stalin's Constitution was remarkably similar to the American Constitution - except that it didn't have the Second Amendment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    In a land of rational people, firearms are no more scary than an axe or a knife. Merely tools for specialized purposes. The problem is the irrationals among us. We must devise a way to identify and take care of them before they act out. It can be done, it must be done, it shall be done.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    I'm not sure what the answer is to prevent these shootings. It seems that the knee jerk reaction is not only to blame the shooter but now the NRA. One thought is that if you purchase a firearm you should be purchasing instruction on the operation of the firearm from a certified instructor. A similar scenario that states have for CCW. You get a permit after training. Of course the cost for instruction should be reasonable. Right now such programs like that are prohibitive in cost. Except for CCW in Arizona.
    Arizona has a very poor mental health programs and are rigidly controlled by regional authorities like in Arizona. Those who need the help can't get it, again because of the cost despite the scaling of payment. The ohter problem is that these facilities will dispence psych medication as if that's the panacea for a cure. Many patients will stop taking these meds once they start feeling better or they quit because the meds numbs thems to the world around them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    All the hoo-ha about guns is just so much unneeded nonsense. Guns are inanimate objects. they have no evil or good inherent in them.We must pay attention to the good or evil of the owners. Never mind trying to fix them. Broken owners can be fixed once they've been sent to the big, barred multi-room house by a jury of their peers. The thing we have to devise is a system that identifies likely shooters, and locks them up BEFORE they can do their dirty deeds. I think it is possible. Even probable. Don't you?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by pamzt 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    That sound all well and good. But it puts additional burden on those who are already responsible gun owners. The criminals will continue to procure and use weapons illegally. They don't work within the constraints of the law and would continue to not do so even with more laws and regulations. So why are we trying to burden the law abiding gun owners?

    It sad that when these terrible events occur, we immediately look to restrain the rights of citizens rather than address the core of the issue ( as suggested by others on this thread) such as the lack of respect for humankind.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  elfshelf2 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    Brilliant. I’ve been failing to imagine a logical progression of potential gun lethality vs. required testing/permitting licenses since Valentine’s Day. Adding liability requirements solves everything. ‘Tis a lovely dream.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 8 months, 2 weeks ago
    Do you have any young children of your own at this time? It's not like when I was a kid. The kids are very different now. Society is also. Man...we could talk for hours over a beer on this...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo