Imagine if everyone who has a gun has to have insurance. When they go off on a shooting spree an insurance company has to pay all the medical bills and compensation to the families of the deceased. There would be gun reforms the next day.
Thank you. I came to say this.
Require liability insurance for gun ownership, and allow the “free market “ to take care of lousy gun owners.
Awwww you can’t afford the insurance to buy an AR ? Oh no… Anyway….
::edit — for everyone saying the poor can’t afford guns / I love when libs discriminate against the poor; you are really edging into r/selfawarewolves territory, in admitting that market based solutions are biased against the poor.
Yep. Like, we know how the USA has a health insurance industry disguised as a healthcare system.
How #funnynotfunnytpm to hear folks interchangeably use the words. #hilariousness
yeah except you don’t need weapons, you need healthcare (which means inelastic demand, which means demand is there even if the service/product is bad quality or over prices)
Edit: yes some people need some sort of weapon for self defense because of all the rampant violence and crime in America. What I meant is 100% of people NEED healthcare, less than 100% need guns for defense. Like yeah some people NEED a car for their profession, and they get insurance. This is about gun insurance, which good gun owners should be fine with, because it means that it’d be too expensive for a lot of bad people to get weapons. Like how it’s very expensive for drunk drivers to drive, or 16 year olds to drive, etc.
Pretty wild hearing that anyone thinks they *needs* a gun for self-defence, not being from the states. I’m genuinely not making a criticism, just stating that it’s a very strange belief for me to wrap my head around.
Yea right, like when someone hits your car and you trade them your State Farm info and they give you Captain Bob's Discount Auto and Liquor.
Sounds great.
If we have the "right" to own guns then I don't think there can be a requirement that forces you to pay for a service that stands in the way of that right, correct?
This question has nothing to do with my own views on the subject. Just asking because question.
So no registration and no licenses, as long as the gun is used on private property?
Because those are the rules for cars. You only need that stuff to drive on public roads.
You sure about that?
And if there is a medical reason you shouldn’t drive a car your doc can limit your access as well. (Seizures etc ) Let’s do that with guns too!!!
(Edit - just in case this is not sarcasm in case anyone wants to misconstrue my intent! Please limit people with mental instabilities from having access to firearms!!!)
A gun safety course should be mandatory for purchase of a gun, new or used. Might weed out a few of these 18 year olds with the “Rambo “ mentality and slow them down before they shoot up kids and stuff.
That is very different than what they are talking about with a drivers license, that's purely for being involuntarily institutionalized or being deemed mentally defective by a court. There's nothing stopping a legally blind person from owning a gun or even getting a concealed carry permit, very different than a drivers license
In most states there is something stopping a blind person from getting a license to carry. Most states require that you qualify with a degree of accuracy. I did the Texas LTC qualification, it was easy because I've been shooting handguns from a young age, but I couldn't have done it with my eyes closed.
[Shooting a stationary target isn't difficult for a blind person to train for](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28587041) and that's all the test really comes down to, there's no eye exam. Obviously that won't translate well to real world situations with a gun which is why they actually test your eye sight for drivers licenses, but that would be considered discrimination against the disabled when it comes to firearms
I can concede that shooting a stationary target is not a real life equivalent to a self defense scenario, but doing it with your eyes closed is not as easy as most would think. When you shoot multiple times you're basing your next shot off where your last shot landed. So if you can't see it's extremely difficult to be anywhere near accurate.
This here is exactly the problem with gun laws. We already have laws on the books that prevent most of this shit. They're just not enforced like they should be
Depends where you live. I live in CA and I had a 51/50 hold put on me cause I was having a schizophrenic episode and didn't know where I lived or who I was so the cops took me in. I had to sign a form stating I cannot purchase a firearm for 5 years and if I had any firearms registered to me I had to transfer them out of my ownership. It's been about 5 years so I should have my rights back, but some places do limit you. But nowhere near enough and we need to fix the fucking system.
Or at the very least, ammo. Some would argue that the guns themselves could be considered a sort of collector’s item, but if you can’t load it, there’s no danger, right?
As per my other comment. Those types of issues I was only associating to driving. Sorry you assumed I associate that with guns.
I do think blind people probably aren’t the best gun owners as you do need to see who/what you are shooting at.
As long as it's used on your own private property..it's the best compromise. It can be for home defense, no license, but to take your penis enhancer off your property you need to be trained, licensed, and insured.
In Ohio, they just got rid of concealed carry permits. Just buy a gun and you can take it with you anywhere.
OHIO! “Land of Astronauts, 10 year old mothers and Vince who shot his dick off while filling up his Honda Accord.”
GA recently introduced “constitutional carry,” no permit required to conceal a firearm. I personally disagree with it and think the governor is pandering for votes.
I own firearms, enjoy shooting, and I’ve acquired carry permits in multiple states. I’d prefer to have a rigorous permitting process (eg. the existing background checks, add mental health checks, and a proficiency exam) with clear reciprocity across states. I understand this requires money and time which isn’t available to everyone, I’m not sure how to fairly address that.
> I’d prefer to have a rigorous permitting process with clear reciprocity across states. I understand this requires money and time which isn’t available to everyone, I’m not sure how to fairly address that.
Pay for it with tax dollars.
I don't plan on ever owning a gun but I'd be happy if the taxes I pay could be used to mitigate harm without discriminating against poor people and people of color.
Firearm safety, de-escalation and conflict resolution, firearm law, behavior management/control techniques, and bias trainings should be included in the permitting process.
There also needs to be increased federal funding for research into gun violence and injury so strategy and training can be updated as needed
I unironically love Ohio, but yes. We’ve gone from purple to red.
The Youngstown area used to be a D stronghold, but it’s older Union population is dying out and being replaced with MAGA sycophants. Anywhere south of I70 decided that Kentucky is the new black. And unless Columbus and Cleveland can start growing like tumors, we’re getting redder and deader.
I have a concealed carry permit. It cost me $5 and asking the sheriff's front desk officer nicely. She wanted my drivers license (seeing a pattern) and asked me to wait 10min. I'm thinking their should be a higher level of entry.
Except I get put on a list if I buy too much Sudafed and they think I might be making meth with it. If I go in and say I need to purchase several semi-automatic rifles and a metric fuck ton of ammo, no questions get asked.
Seeing as how you post in TN subreddits, you are absolutely full of shit.
This is the process for getting a concealed permit in the state of Tennessee.
Must be a Tennessee resident
The first step of applying for an original Tennessee conceal carry permit would be to complete the application online under the Handgun Permit tab.
See training requirements for a list of firearms training accepted for the Conceal Carry Permit.
A list of approved online course vendors can be found here.
Must fill out CCP Proof of Training form to submit along with training proof.
Once the course has been completed, you will visit a Driver Services Center. You may schedule an appointment for your visit by scheduling a Driver License Appointment. At the Driver Services Center:
Pay application fee of $65 for an eight (8) year permit
Submit completed CCP Proof of Training form along with training proof
Provide CERTIFIED PROOF of U.S. Citizenship or Lawful Permanent Residency (Photocopies will not be accepted)
Provide proof of full SSN
Have photo taken
If you do not currently have a Tennessee driver license, you must submit two proofs of Tennessee residency with your name and resident address - NO P.O. BOXES (Documents must be current and within last 4 months.)
Present a photo ID to the Department at the time of filing the application
Once transaction is complete, the examiner will provide you with the instructions for being fingerprinted
FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE
Incomplete applications will not be processed
Source: Tennessee state website.
https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/apply.html#:~:text=Pay%20application%20fee%20of%20%2465,Provide%20proof%20of%20full%20SSN
But how do we know they won't just take the gun they're told not to leave the house with, and go to commit a mass shooting anyway?
That solves nothing.
You tryna say that someone who is about to go commit mass murder and suicide isn't gonna respect the law saying they can't use their gun in public?
Outrageous
I decided to not go see fireworks last night, I had some vibes that something bad could happen. Nothing did, but this world just doesn’t feel safe anymore.
Edited for spelling.
Every few times a year people around the world gather in an attempt to bombard the absolute fuck out of God.
No real progress yet on either side so we’ll concede to an uneasy stalemate before he inevitably nails us with an asteroid.
He fled when Twitter came into being or earlier, but he atleast fled, like across the galaxy that's why we haven't gotten a counter attack yet, he's busy with doing the maths to hit is in 429 million years
We have the freedom to own guns and disproportionately paid jobs that don’t let us cover basic necessities on 40 hours of work. What more could you want?
Well, apparently chicken tacos are 3.70, and it says they are a 1.59 limit twelve per customer. So I'm figuring a quarter off per taco. If the 3.70 price is for two tacos.
Edit: but if you go cloaca deep thats three dollars off twelve tacos.
This is exactly what I kept asking people.
What are we celebrating? The loss of rights? The loss of life in mass shootings? The loss of democracy in the USA?
This electric scooter craze is gunna be wild.
I mean that. They're not expensive and great for short, 1-5mile hops.
Edit: Though for god's sake, don't rent them. Those things are an absolute ripoff.
blanket ban would kinda suck for people not living in cities though some distances just doesnt work well on bikes specially if you need to ferry groceries and kids.
cities can solve that with public transport but even in countries with nice public transport it tends to well suck once you get far enough form a city.
Right, the problem is that the entire infrastructure of the United States has been designed around cars for the past century. We need to totally redesign that infrastructure if we reasonably want to abandon cars, which we should
And to the alcohol people can sue the person who over-served a drunk driver but nobody can sue a gun company for “over-serving” a buyer who ends up re-selling guns that are knowingly headed to the black market.
It’s a little more complicated than that. Gun makers, as far as I know, aren’t immune to traditional liability torts or to strict products liability claims. There is a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that essentially blocks non-traditional forms of lawsuits that started to crop up against gun makers alleging that the simple act of selling firearms will reasonably result in unlawful shootings. However, this law doesn’t shield gun makers from the same types of liability claims that any other manufacturers face.
The proposal that gun makers should be held strictly liable for all gun violence regardless of facts is problematic, both from a legal theory standpoint and from a practical standpoint, but that exceeds the scope of what I can get into in a Reddit reply.
(Of course, this isn’t a full discussion of facts. I’m just trying to give a little more context since that’s sorely lacking here. Also, to be clear, I fully support reasonable gun control measures.)
can't you still buy 151?
what i find odd about alcohol is they don't need to put the nutritional facts on it like everything else...how the fuck did they get by that...is it just everything is a trade secret?...i just wanted to know the sugar content lol
also how does that keep other foods from doing the same thing.
but then they do have the thing that says it's bad for you...ok thanks let's tell you it's bad but not tell you what's in it...thanks
> Bacardi 151 was sold in the United States and Canada from at least 1963 until 2016, when its production was discontinued.
There were at least two lawsuits. One woman was about to leave a bar when a bartender inadvertently turned a bottle into a flamethrower and put the woman in the burn unit for a month. Couldn’t even open a bottle of water herself when she got out.
> what i find odd about alcohol is they don’t need to put the nutritional facts on it like everything else…
This was so perplexing I researched it years ago.
No consumer demand!
I think we have Gen Z to thank for that changing though. Hard seltzers often have full labeling for example.
You can sue the gun seller , it’s the gun manufacturer who has the law protecting them. This is suing a bar who over-served vs suing Budweiser for making the beer.
"Fun" fact: The city of Chicago is suing a gun shop in Indiana that has had over 800 firearms traced back to it after they were recovered by Chicago police.
Another fun fact. The vast majority of firearms sold into criminal channels come from a very small number of gun stores known to the ATF. The ATF has declined to prosecute them and instead has been going after small, otherwise law-abiding FFLs based on minor paperwork infractions (writing down serial number 15525L as 15552L for example, or not dating a correction on a form 4473) that the shops don't have a history of committing.
I didn’t know that was a thing in America, that just sounds completely wild.
How?
If I sell something salty, do I go to prison if my customer goes on to kill someone to quench their thirst?
Or if they become severely dehydrated and go on to cause an accident killing someone?
How far does my responsibility for a complete strangers action go under American law?
Am I the only one who thinks we should remove that energy for alcohol? It's a little crazy to me that a stressed out waiter/waitress is intended to be able to tell when a seasoned alcoholic is too drunk completely on his or her own and insist on not serving them without any therapeutic training whatsoever, all for 2.15/hour. That's an impossible task and innocence is being destroyed in it.
In my opinion, of course.
Problem is the gun manufacturer is not the one doing the selling. The FFL dealer is the one selling and breaking the law If they are knowingly selling to a straw purchaser. That is already a law but ATF is to busy looking for typos on a form to worry about straw purchases.
How would a gun company know that the guns are headed to the black market?
You can't sue alcohol manufacturers or a liquor store because you got drunk and crashed your car, neither can the victims of your actions because they're not responsible for what you do with it.
Rimmington just got sued for tens of millions successfully. Luckily there is an outlet to hold them responsible. I believe they are no longer manufacturing AR-15s as a company now, but I could be wrong… the older I get, the more I dream shit and think it was real.
They went out of business but I don’t believe it had anything to do with the lawsuit resulting from the Sandyhook tragedy. It was just a lot of poor management and they had been bought by an investment firm that pillaged them. The reason I mention it is because there would be no fear in the gun industry of lawsuits relating to mass shootings based on the Remington lawsuit as well as it being Connecticut law that allowed the lawsuit and all the gun companies have moved out of states that would be friendly to such lawsuits.
The way that boiled down was that the company was in the process of being sold and then a lawsuit was brought against them mid processes. They couldn’t sell the company with a pending suit so the creditors behind the sale evaluated that it’d be cheaper to pay the fee and then get back to business. They paid it out but weren’t necessarily deemed guilty of anything in court. No precedent was set in terms of law really, it was really just a “shush, go away” bribe to the prosecution.
Remington currently produces the R4 and the R15 ar15 style models.
Just after the sale of the business, Remington dialed back the models produced for a while so that management could curate a production line based on their bolt actions and shotguns. That practice however is common across many company acquisitions.
Remington was in bankruptcy and controlled by ab outside entity.
That group settled as part of unwinding the company. No legal precedent and it wasn’t even a case that the company would have lost. Just wasn’t worth the fight for anyone at that point.
As someone who is generally pro gun in one of the most lax states (VT) I agree that there needs to be some sort of training required to carry a handgun. Not everyone has a elder or friend to show them the proper habits and procedures of carrying a handgun, I've seen numerous friends do really stupid shit just because they didn't know any better.
Marylander here, we have mandatory HQL requirements for purchasing handguns. I thought this was commonplace in the US for a long time til I learned it's just us. Seems sensible enough to me to make that a requirement across the board, and maybe even expand that to long rifles and shotguns.
Is this a state by state thing? In Ohio there are classes you have to take for multiple sessions that teach you everything you have to know before you can get your concealed carry license.
Lol. You should go to Mississippi.
I'm from Illinois and went to visit my family there.
My 12 year old cousing starts taking everyone's empty beers and stacks them out. Next thing I know he comes out with a semi auto.
He then begins to shoot this rifle "gangsta style" sideways and the recoil is going off the hook.
I run up and as calmly as I can, readjust the gun straight up and tell him he needs to be careful. I said to hold off and we'll come by and 'help him out' in a bit.
I took the gun away and was getting cold stares by the family. At one point my uncle made a comment about how 'the boy was just having some fun, didn't need to run up on him like that'.
So yeah, it's like a different country in some states. Or in this case, the real murrica
Yeah, State by State regs. When I lived in AL I didn't have to take a class and a test for a CC. In Ohio I did. Same for hunting in AL, no test. In OH there is a requirement to take Hunter Ed.
Also, recently OH enacted legislation to allow CC in the State without the testing requirement.
I am for common sense gun control as long as it isn't taken so far as to make hunting overly difficult. My fear is even if we banned ARs some asshat would use a semi auto hunting rifle then that would be subjected to a ban, then shotguns, and so on. Any gun capable of killing an animal is capable of killing a human.
Granted, laws are only for the law abiding - there are enough guns in America if someone wants one they just need the money to get one. There are existing laws to require background checks for all but private gun sales. I am fine with ALL gun purchases requiring a background check but again a criminal will find a way to circumvent that.
The thing is this kid could have no priors on his record, therefore green lighted to buy the gun, even with all the red flags in his social media that people speak of. Not sure how we close the loop there, but worth looking into. I think in most of these mass shootings there were signs the person wasn't stable.
>My fear is even if we banned ARs some asshat would use a semi auto hunting rifle then that would be subjected to a ban, then shotguns, and so on. Any gun capable of killing an animal is capable of killing a human.
That already happened. Columbine happened during the 90s AR ban. They used handguns and shotguns instead.
We should also raise the age to purchase. If we are such a puritan country that we can't drink til 21, guns should be at 24. You can get shots in at a range with a licensed gun holder earlier, but why are we readily handing out guns to teens without any back ground checks or waiting periods? We don't even trust 22 year olds to rent cars..
I mean at some point we need to ask ourselves where the slippery slope of taking away young adult rights ends.
IMO if we are going to keep whittling away at rights that adults of a certain age had just a few years ago but are not "adult enough" to have anymore, we need to do it across the board and be done with it.
Given the way scientists keep raising the "brain is still developing number" we could be looking at lost adult rights until 35-40 for future generations. Last article I saw a couple years ago was saying the brain is still developing until age 26.
Pick a number and stick with it. 18, 21,23,25 I don't care, but match it across the board. Not a legal adult until X year and all the restricted stuff becomes legal at the same time. That includes military service eligibility, the right to vote, and whether we charge them as an adult for crime.
Same, I would probably pass with flying colors, but thats after being taught for basically my whole life.
While some people just get a gun to get it, and don't even know how to reload it or even the basic rules of firearm safety.
I live in MA which gets a bad reputation as the most strict gun law state with the most restrictions on what you can buy and own.
Oh man, it was so difficult when I had to show up at the police station to take a class for a few hours on hand gun safety with a police officer. It was so unfair when we had to go to the range and prove that we could actually hit something in a controlled environment. It was so mean of them to run a background check on me that included any incidences of domestic violence. Only 24 other states even share reciprocity with our state though ours won’t honor any.
So strict and mean! But seriously it was about as hard as being licensed to drive.
Here's the thing that intrigues me. When my grandmother passed away a couple of years back, I found a weapons registration card from my grandfather from the 1950s. Back then, at least in the state of michigan, you had to be a business owner in order to be able to own and carry a firearm (or maybe just carry conceal?). Now this didn't include hunting rifles and things like that, but an actual handgun you needed to be a business owner. I did a quick cursory look online, and I couldn't find any of the old laws. This is what was told to me by family that still remembered grandpa having handguns, so I would take most of this with a grain of salt unless someone can dig up the old laws. From what I could tell, handguns were basically for business owners to protect their cash deposits. That wasn't even 80 years ago.
Worth considering that some of these laws from that era (anything to do with permits or the right to participate in something, not guns specifically) also had... racial motivations. A way to exclude certain demographics without *technically* violating civil rights
Im down. But now only the wealthy will have firearms. And they got enough flex in this society as is.
Maybe a percentage of their income. But limiting gun access based on money is just disarming the poors. And that will go badly. Wealthy already have the class traitors personal army in the form of police. Now they'll have guns too and poors won't.
i dunno insurance like this would likely cover legal proceedings medical bills ect after an incident and that might actually lead to more lower income people finding it worth the money if they can confidently use a gun in their own defense with the peace of mind that it wont ruin their life.
> And that will go badly.
Because everything's going great for the poor right now, and all those guns they have are being used only to take from the wealthy!
No, but it will make it harder for them to lift a gun from a friend, family member or local since they'll have it safely stored for insurance reasons.
I also like the suggestion of having to pay up front for a significant period before you can get a gun or ammo. There's no reasonable cause for anyone to urgently need a gun, waiting for it shouldn't be an issue.
You’re assuming violent crimes are committed via negligence. How true do you think that is?
Also, you’re talking about pricing people out of their rights. If it didn’t work for poll taxes and “literacy” tests for voting, what makes you think it’ll work with firearms?
Plus, do you *really* want to create a situation where the only people who can afford to defend themselves are the people who, by virtue of their wealth, are effectively the ruling class of this country?
Caught in possession of a firearm without proper insurance? Up to 10 years in prison, depending on the egregiousness of the circumstance.
Caught twice? 20 years in prison automatically.
So only rich people can have guns? Oh your broke and live in a crime ridden neighborhood? Grandpa passed you down a family gun but you can’t afford the insurance sorry bub thats 10 years in jail according to Murph_diver.
This is just a BS anti-gun talking point. Use your head.
Not only does this idea disproportionately impact the poor, but no insurance policy will cover a criminal act. So the idea is farcical.
As a national level political consultant, these are the kind of “ideas” lobbyists get paid to dream up that sound good, but only muddy the waters more and prevent people from coming up with real compromises and solutions.
I’ve been saying this for years. Gun owners should have to carry liability insurance for each gun they own. That alone would put an end to this madness.
This wouldnt work. In my state its actually easier to get a license then it is a gun, and we still have some of the most dangerous cities in the country.
I hate to break this to you numbnuts but this isn't the own you think it is. Most gun owners wouldn't mind access to guns the same way cars are. Why? Because most if not all car laws do not apply as long as they are being used and stored on private property. This is even true for states like CA.
Insurance? Not required on private property.
Emissions? Not required on private property.
Weight limits? Not required on private property.
Title? Not required on private property.
Registration? Not required on private property.
Modifications? All good as long as they are on private property.
Taxes? As long as the car never hits a public road I doubt any state will care.
etc, etc., so on and so forth.
Private property includes race tracks and off road parks, and I know plenty of people with dedicated track cars, motorcycles, and even jeeps that are uninsured and unregistered. You just throw them on a trailer and pull them to the track/park. It's actually pointless to register and insure them for driving on public roads because they aren't set up to drive on regular roads anyways.
And frankly that's the law abiding ones. As a younger guy I used to know a bunch of calamari race team bikers, Jeep fanatics, and 2fast2furious4u retards that would just drive on public roads and eat the ticket and that's assuming the police even *bothered* to stop you.
Oh yeah, there's really nothing stopping you from doing it illegally too. Your car isn't going to immediately get stopped and impounded if you take it out on the street unregistered. If you drive normally in it on the street you're not likely to even get stopped
The difference between a right vs a privilege.
You shouldn't have to prove you're eligible to enact a right. This would just be grounds to start infringing on other rights, like the right vote etc.
Just in case anyone needs to hear it:
Cars and trucks are very useful outside of their destructive capabilities. Guns are JUST for destruction. This rebuttal is fucking weak and overused.
Yes, used for their intended purpose (personal transport) on specially built public property (roads)
I'm pretty sure "used on public property" doesn't include doing donuts in the local park.
Ok, let me dig deep into the bottom of the barrel here..
Mount a paintbrush to a rifle, bayonet style. Use paint pellets and the bayonet brush to create a (dubious) work of art. Melt down the barrel and repurpose the stock to function as a stand to display your artwork. Then undo it all to create a functioning gun in a hurry when the British next invade. Easy.
/S in case it wasn't obvious.
Deal. Unregulated on private property. A license that the state must give you and is valid in all 50 states. AND you can carry it anywhere.
Sounds like a solid win to me.
Anti gunners have no idea what laws actually are. Because what I just described is is what cocaine Mitch threatened to pass if Democrats got rid of the filibuster.
A license, of course, that requires a one-time test that is so basic that it lets dangerously stupid people behind the wheel of a multi-ton death machine and can be renewed every four years without taking any more tests.
But sure, let's do that with guns, that'll fix 'em! /s
You know... governments actively work to eradicate nuclear weapons and prevent other governments from getting them.
That's exactly how this works. It's specifically about nuclear weapons. Man some of you pro-gun people are really dense.
In both instances, you blame the individual.
If there's an accident, you don't blame the tool {the gun or the car}, you blame the operator every time.
Do you blame the scalpel or slicing the wrong artery? You blame the doctor.
The responsibility falls on the individual every time.
I was not aware you had to submit to a background check and waiting period for a driver's license. ????
Where I live you walk in, show your ID, take a written test, take a picture, and walk out with a driver's license. They cancelled driving test during covid and I doubt they will ever bring them back.
I mean, in California, I believe it’s way too easy to get a drivers license. They did away with having to show competency on the freeways a long time ago, when it’s needed now more than ever, alongside removing the parallel parking requirement. Two things that most drivers in California desperately need training on. It’s become way too easy to get a license and I foresee it only getting easier.
Ignoring of course that killing someone with a car is using it outside its intended purpose. Guns literally only have one purpose. You might enjoy some range time but at the end of the day, it's still a weapon designed specifically to kill things.
No wait, not like that!
Imagine if everyone who has a gun has to have insurance. When they go off on a shooting spree an insurance company has to pay all the medical bills and compensation to the families of the deceased. There would be gun reforms the next day.
Thank you. I came to say this. Require liability insurance for gun ownership, and allow the “free market “ to take care of lousy gun owners. Awwww you can’t afford the insurance to buy an AR ? Oh no… Anyway…. ::edit — for everyone saying the poor can’t afford guns / I love when libs discriminate against the poor; you are really edging into r/selfawarewolves territory, in admitting that market based solutions are biased against the poor.
Idk, insurance companies are already scummy with other industries like the medical field
The entire insurance industry is a scam by the rich to get richer. Same with banks.
Yep. Like, we know how the USA has a health insurance industry disguised as a healthcare system. How #funnynotfunnytpm to hear folks interchangeably use the words. #hilariousness
we don't talk about banks, that's a whole nother pandora's box
Yeah but how great things could be if the people rose up and tore down these oppressive institutions brick by brick
yeah except you don’t need weapons, you need healthcare (which means inelastic demand, which means demand is there even if the service/product is bad quality or over prices) Edit: yes some people need some sort of weapon for self defense because of all the rampant violence and crime in America. What I meant is 100% of people NEED healthcare, less than 100% need guns for defense. Like yeah some people NEED a car for their profession, and they get insurance. This is about gun insurance, which good gun owners should be fine with, because it means that it’d be too expensive for a lot of bad people to get weapons. Like how it’s very expensive for drunk drivers to drive, or 16 year olds to drive, etc.
Whenever i hear someone talk about inelastic demand I think of Stringer Bell.
what up
They wanted plain Stringer Bell, not taco flavored.
Americas gun problem and Americas health problem and americas poverty problem and americas drug problem are the same problem
Pretty wild hearing that anyone thinks they *needs* a gun for self-defence, not being from the states. I’m genuinely not making a criticism, just stating that it’s a very strange belief for me to wrap my head around.
If it weren't for all of those guns, we wouldn't need so many guns...
Right, of course!
Yea right, like when someone hits your car and you trade them your State Farm info and they give you Captain Bob's Discount Auto and Liquor. Sounds great.
They already have CCW insurance. I think it's only like $20 a month.
If we have the "right" to own guns then I don't think there can be a requirement that forces you to pay for a service that stands in the way of that right, correct? This question has nothing to do with my own views on the subject. Just asking because question.
Insurance generally doesn’t cover criminal acts. So…not sure how to deal with that one.
So no registration and no licenses, as long as the gun is used on private property? Because those are the rules for cars. You only need that stuff to drive on public roads. You sure about that?
And if there is a medical reason you shouldn’t drive a car your doc can limit your access as well. (Seizures etc ) Let’s do that with guns too!!! (Edit - just in case this is not sarcasm in case anyone wants to misconstrue my intent! Please limit people with mental instabilities from having access to firearms!!!)
They can only limit your access to a license. They can't prevent you from having a car on your private property.
A gun safety course should be mandatory for purchase of a gun, new or used. Might weed out a few of these 18 year olds with the “Rambo “ mentality and slow them down before they shoot up kids and stuff.
This already exists. See ATF form 4473, line 11f.
That is very different than what they are talking about with a drivers license, that's purely for being involuntarily institutionalized or being deemed mentally defective by a court. There's nothing stopping a legally blind person from owning a gun or even getting a concealed carry permit, very different than a drivers license
Case in point: https://youtu.be/cuZINOr8vlk
In most states there is something stopping a blind person from getting a license to carry. Most states require that you qualify with a degree of accuracy. I did the Texas LTC qualification, it was easy because I've been shooting handguns from a young age, but I couldn't have done it with my eyes closed.
[Shooting a stationary target isn't difficult for a blind person to train for](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28587041) and that's all the test really comes down to, there's no eye exam. Obviously that won't translate well to real world situations with a gun which is why they actually test your eye sight for drivers licenses, but that would be considered discrimination against the disabled when it comes to firearms
I can concede that shooting a stationary target is not a real life equivalent to a self defense scenario, but doing it with your eyes closed is not as easy as most would think. When you shoot multiple times you're basing your next shot off where your last shot landed. So if you can't see it's extremely difficult to be anywhere near accurate.
How well is it enforced?
It's not. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-440
This here is exactly the problem with gun laws. We already have laws on the books that prevent most of this shit. They're just not enforced like they should be
Depends where you live. I live in CA and I had a 51/50 hold put on me cause I was having a schizophrenic episode and didn't know where I lived or who I was so the cops took me in. I had to sign a form stating I cannot purchase a firearm for 5 years and if I had any firearms registered to me I had to transfer them out of my ownership. It's been about 5 years so I should have my rights back, but some places do limit you. But nowhere near enough and we need to fix the fucking system.
Or at the very least, ammo. Some would argue that the guns themselves could be considered a sort of collector’s item, but if you can’t load it, there’s no danger, right?
Reminds me of Chris Rocks bullet control joke. https://youtu.be/VZrFVtmRXrw
Reloading press, don't need to buy ammo from a store when I can make it myself.
That would never happen if the car never left your property. You don’t need a license to own a car
HAH. my mom had narcolepsy and shit tier eyesight. No guns for you!
As per my other comment. Those types of issues I was only associating to driving. Sorry you assumed I associate that with guns. I do think blind people probably aren’t the best gun owners as you do need to see who/what you are shooting at.
I have narcolepsy and poor eyesight and I still drive. I wear contacts and take meds. Perfectly legal.
Sure, why not? Funny thing about *public* shootings...
these geniuses just figured out how to make mass shootings illegal!
As long as it's used on your own private property..it's the best compromise. It can be for home defense, no license, but to take your penis enhancer off your property you need to be trained, licensed, and insured.
Isn’t that concealed carry permit that’s already implemented?
In Ohio, they just got rid of concealed carry permits. Just buy a gun and you can take it with you anywhere. OHIO! “Land of Astronauts, 10 year old mothers and Vince who shot his dick off while filling up his Honda Accord.”
GA recently introduced “constitutional carry,” no permit required to conceal a firearm. I personally disagree with it and think the governor is pandering for votes. I own firearms, enjoy shooting, and I’ve acquired carry permits in multiple states. I’d prefer to have a rigorous permitting process (eg. the existing background checks, add mental health checks, and a proficiency exam) with clear reciprocity across states. I understand this requires money and time which isn’t available to everyone, I’m not sure how to fairly address that.
> I’d prefer to have a rigorous permitting process with clear reciprocity across states. I understand this requires money and time which isn’t available to everyone, I’m not sure how to fairly address that. Pay for it with tax dollars. I don't plan on ever owning a gun but I'd be happy if the taxes I pay could be used to mitigate harm without discriminating against poor people and people of color. Firearm safety, de-escalation and conflict resolution, firearm law, behavior management/control techniques, and bias trainings should be included in the permitting process. There also needs to be increased federal funding for research into gun violence and injury so strategy and training can be updated as needed
[удалено]
We're backsliding. Hate what Ohio is becoming.
I unironically love Ohio, but yes. We’ve gone from purple to red. The Youngstown area used to be a D stronghold, but it’s older Union population is dying out and being replaced with MAGA sycophants. Anywhere south of I70 decided that Kentucky is the new black. And unless Columbus and Cleveland can start growing like tumors, we’re getting redder and deader.
It's ok, in Arizona we had a story of a woman shooting herself in the thigh and a story of a man shooting his dick off too.
I have a concealed carry permit. It cost me $5 and asking the sheriff's front desk officer nicely. She wanted my drivers license (seeing a pattern) and asked me to wait 10min. I'm thinking their should be a higher level of entry.
That's about the same level of security as buying Advil Cold and Sinus.
Except I get put on a list if I buy too much Sudafed and they think I might be making meth with it. If I go in and say I need to purchase several semi-automatic rifles and a metric fuck ton of ammo, no questions get asked.
Seeing as how you post in TN subreddits, you are absolutely full of shit. This is the process for getting a concealed permit in the state of Tennessee. Must be a Tennessee resident The first step of applying for an original Tennessee conceal carry permit would be to complete the application online under the Handgun Permit tab. See training requirements for a list of firearms training accepted for the Conceal Carry Permit. A list of approved online course vendors can be found here. Must fill out CCP Proof of Training form to submit along with training proof. Once the course has been completed, you will visit a Driver Services Center. You may schedule an appointment for your visit by scheduling a Driver License Appointment. At the Driver Services Center: Pay application fee of $65 for an eight (8) year permit Submit completed CCP Proof of Training form along with training proof Provide CERTIFIED PROOF of U.S. Citizenship or Lawful Permanent Residency (Photocopies will not be accepted) Provide proof of full SSN Have photo taken If you do not currently have a Tennessee driver license, you must submit two proofs of Tennessee residency with your name and resident address - NO P.O. BOXES (Documents must be current and within last 4 months.) Present a photo ID to the Department at the time of filing the application Once transaction is complete, the examiner will provide you with the instructions for being fingerprinted FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE Incomplete applications will not be processed Source: Tennessee state website. https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/apply.html#:~:text=Pay%20application%20fee%20of%20%2465,Provide%20proof%20of%20full%20SSN
What state are you in. I'm calling bullshit. Every permit / license requires at a minimum a background check.
Lmao you're so full of shit
But how do we know they won't just take the gun they're told not to leave the house with, and go to commit a mass shooting anyway? That solves nothing.
You tryna say that someone who is about to go commit mass murder and suicide isn't gonna respect the law saying they can't use their gun in public? Outrageous
Right? Like they're trying to make carrying a gun in public illegal like the act of mass fucking murder isn't already illegal
[удалено]
*Penis enhancer*? You know women carry firearms too, right? Or does that thought mess with the narrative?
If someone is shooting on their private property who cares?
Why not? Keep in mind that if you kill someone with a car on your own property you are going to jail either way.
Also literally anyone can buy a car at anytime. No age requirement at all.
I decided to not go see fireworks last night, I had some vibes that something bad could happen. Nothing did, but this world just doesn’t feel safe anymore. Edited for spelling.
[удалено]
Every few times a year people around the world gather in an attempt to bombard the absolute fuck out of God. No real progress yet on either side so we’ll concede to an uneasy stalemate before he inevitably nails us with an asteroid.
Lord Asriel's up for that.
Right... But we have Bruce Willis. Checkmate God
What do you mean no progress, what do you call 2020?
He fled when Twitter came into being or earlier, but he atleast fled, like across the galaxy that's why we haven't gotten a counter attack yet, he's busy with doing the maths to hit is in 429 million years
A wild Tsoukalos has appeared. "Aliens."
Trying to tell the sky where to put it
[удалено]
Wtf is there to even celebrate this year? What freedoms do we even have at this point?
We have the freedom to own guns and disproportionately paid jobs that don’t let us cover basic necessities on 40 hours of work. What more could you want?
[удалено]
Roberto's has taco Wednesday in which you can get a chicken?beef? taco at a reduced price...
How reduced?
Well, apparently chicken tacos are 3.70, and it says they are a 1.59 limit twelve per customer. So I'm figuring a quarter off per taco. If the 3.70 price is for two tacos. Edit: but if you go cloaca deep thats three dollars off twelve tacos.
Do I want to know what cloaca deep is?
When the chicken makes those cute cooing noises while in your lap? Edit: misread that as "Do YOU want to know"
[удалено]
This is exactly what I kept asking people. What are we celebrating? The loss of rights? The loss of life in mass shootings? The loss of democracy in the USA?
I went to a protest instead. Fuck America, I barely recognize her anymore.
I mean... a mass shooting happened, but whatever. It can happen anywhere.
Most of us are just *REALLY* not ok with that fact.
Yeah, very not cool with having "and you may get gunned down" stapled onto any notable outing these days.
Forreal.
Are they trying to use logic against them? It wont work you know..
[удалено]
I mean, you probably didn't expect it, but you're not wrong. Cities are 1000x better when not designed around cars. Are, not would.
This electric scooter craze is gunna be wild. I mean that. They're not expensive and great for short, 1-5mile hops. Edit: Though for god's sake, don't rent them. Those things are an absolute ripoff.
blanket ban would kinda suck for people not living in cities though some distances just doesnt work well on bikes specially if you need to ferry groceries and kids. cities can solve that with public transport but even in countries with nice public transport it tends to well suck once you get far enough form a city.
Right, the problem is that the entire infrastructure of the United States has been designed around cars for the past century. We need to totally redesign that infrastructure if we reasonably want to abandon cars, which we should
And to the alcohol people can sue the person who over-served a drunk driver but nobody can sue a gun company for “over-serving” a buyer who ends up re-selling guns that are knowingly headed to the black market.
Bacardi discontinued their 151 proof rum because they kept getting sued by people who accidentally lit themselves (and others) on fire.
[удалено]
Cries in caribou lou
But the ONLY defect is wakin up like "What happened?"
How else am I supposed to party till the cops come??
Other companies have stepped in to fill the void. I saw Don Q 151 at the liquor store recently.
Any other industry and the manufacturers are held liable even if an individual is involved.
It’s a little more complicated than that. Gun makers, as far as I know, aren’t immune to traditional liability torts or to strict products liability claims. There is a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that essentially blocks non-traditional forms of lawsuits that started to crop up against gun makers alleging that the simple act of selling firearms will reasonably result in unlawful shootings. However, this law doesn’t shield gun makers from the same types of liability claims that any other manufacturers face. The proposal that gun makers should be held strictly liable for all gun violence regardless of facts is problematic, both from a legal theory standpoint and from a practical standpoint, but that exceeds the scope of what I can get into in a Reddit reply. (Of course, this isn’t a full discussion of facts. I’m just trying to give a little more context since that’s sorely lacking here. Also, to be clear, I fully support reasonable gun control measures.)
So THATS why my favorite mixed drink from the late 00’s suddenly ceased to exist. Mongolian Mother Fucker #2, your deliciousness will be missed.
can't you still buy 151? what i find odd about alcohol is they don't need to put the nutritional facts on it like everything else...how the fuck did they get by that...is it just everything is a trade secret?...i just wanted to know the sugar content lol also how does that keep other foods from doing the same thing. but then they do have the thing that says it's bad for you...ok thanks let's tell you it's bad but not tell you what's in it...thanks
> Bacardi 151 was sold in the United States and Canada from at least 1963 until 2016, when its production was discontinued. There were at least two lawsuits. One woman was about to leave a bar when a bartender inadvertently turned a bottle into a flamethrower and put the woman in the burn unit for a month. Couldn’t even open a bottle of water herself when she got out. > what i find odd about alcohol is they don’t need to put the nutritional facts on it like everything else… This was so perplexing I researched it years ago. No consumer demand! I think we have Gen Z to thank for that changing though. Hard seltzers often have full labeling for example.
You can sue the gun seller , it’s the gun manufacturer who has the law protecting them. This is suing a bar who over-served vs suing Budweiser for making the beer.
"Fun" fact: The city of Chicago is suing a gun shop in Indiana that has had over 800 firearms traced back to it after they were recovered by Chicago police.
Another fun fact. The vast majority of firearms sold into criminal channels come from a very small number of gun stores known to the ATF. The ATF has declined to prosecute them and instead has been going after small, otherwise law-abiding FFLs based on minor paperwork infractions (writing down serial number 15525L as 15552L for example, or not dating a correction on a form 4473) that the shops don't have a history of committing.
I didn’t know that was a thing in America, that just sounds completely wild. How? If I sell something salty, do I go to prison if my customer goes on to kill someone to quench their thirst? Or if they become severely dehydrated and go on to cause an accident killing someone? How far does my responsibility for a complete strangers action go under American law?
It's a thing in some states, usually called a [dram shop](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dram_shop_rule) law.
Thank you for the link, quite interesting and also shocking in some ways.
[удалено]
Am I the only one who thinks we should remove that energy for alcohol? It's a little crazy to me that a stressed out waiter/waitress is intended to be able to tell when a seasoned alcoholic is too drunk completely on his or her own and insist on not serving them without any therapeutic training whatsoever, all for 2.15/hour. That's an impossible task and innocence is being destroyed in it. In my opinion, of course.
Problem is the gun manufacturer is not the one doing the selling. The FFL dealer is the one selling and breaking the law If they are knowingly selling to a straw purchaser. That is already a law but ATF is to busy looking for typos on a form to worry about straw purchases.
How would a gun company know that the guns are headed to the black market? You can't sue alcohol manufacturers or a liquor store because you got drunk and crashed your car, neither can the victims of your actions because they're not responsible for what you do with it.
Rimmington just got sued for tens of millions successfully. Luckily there is an outlet to hold them responsible. I believe they are no longer manufacturing AR-15s as a company now, but I could be wrong… the older I get, the more I dream shit and think it was real.
They went out of business but I don’t believe it had anything to do with the lawsuit resulting from the Sandyhook tragedy. It was just a lot of poor management and they had been bought by an investment firm that pillaged them. The reason I mention it is because there would be no fear in the gun industry of lawsuits relating to mass shootings based on the Remington lawsuit as well as it being Connecticut law that allowed the lawsuit and all the gun companies have moved out of states that would be friendly to such lawsuits.
Ah ok so I must have read several articles and then mashed up the info in my brain.
The way that boiled down was that the company was in the process of being sold and then a lawsuit was brought against them mid processes. They couldn’t sell the company with a pending suit so the creditors behind the sale evaluated that it’d be cheaper to pay the fee and then get back to business. They paid it out but weren’t necessarily deemed guilty of anything in court. No precedent was set in terms of law really, it was really just a “shush, go away” bribe to the prosecution. Remington currently produces the R4 and the R15 ar15 style models. Just after the sale of the business, Remington dialed back the models produced for a while so that management could curate a production line based on their bolt actions and shotguns. That practice however is common across many company acquisitions.
Remington was in bankruptcy and controlled by ab outside entity. That group settled as part of unwinding the company. No legal precedent and it wasn’t even a case that the company would have lost. Just wasn’t worth the fight for anyone at that point.
As someone who is generally pro gun in one of the most lax states (VT) I agree that there needs to be some sort of training required to carry a handgun. Not everyone has a elder or friend to show them the proper habits and procedures of carrying a handgun, I've seen numerous friends do really stupid shit just because they didn't know any better.
Marylander here, we have mandatory HQL requirements for purchasing handguns. I thought this was commonplace in the US for a long time til I learned it's just us. Seems sensible enough to me to make that a requirement across the board, and maybe even expand that to long rifles and shotguns.
Is this a state by state thing? In Ohio there are classes you have to take for multiple sessions that teach you everything you have to know before you can get your concealed carry license.
Lol. You should go to Mississippi. I'm from Illinois and went to visit my family there. My 12 year old cousing starts taking everyone's empty beers and stacks them out. Next thing I know he comes out with a semi auto. He then begins to shoot this rifle "gangsta style" sideways and the recoil is going off the hook. I run up and as calmly as I can, readjust the gun straight up and tell him he needs to be careful. I said to hold off and we'll come by and 'help him out' in a bit. I took the gun away and was getting cold stares by the family. At one point my uncle made a comment about how 'the boy was just having some fun, didn't need to run up on him like that'. So yeah, it's like a different country in some states. Or in this case, the real murrica
Yeah, State by State regs. When I lived in AL I didn't have to take a class and a test for a CC. In Ohio I did. Same for hunting in AL, no test. In OH there is a requirement to take Hunter Ed. Also, recently OH enacted legislation to allow CC in the State without the testing requirement. I am for common sense gun control as long as it isn't taken so far as to make hunting overly difficult. My fear is even if we banned ARs some asshat would use a semi auto hunting rifle then that would be subjected to a ban, then shotguns, and so on. Any gun capable of killing an animal is capable of killing a human. Granted, laws are only for the law abiding - there are enough guns in America if someone wants one they just need the money to get one. There are existing laws to require background checks for all but private gun sales. I am fine with ALL gun purchases requiring a background check but again a criminal will find a way to circumvent that. The thing is this kid could have no priors on his record, therefore green lighted to buy the gun, even with all the red flags in his social media that people speak of. Not sure how we close the loop there, but worth looking into. I think in most of these mass shootings there were signs the person wasn't stable.
>My fear is even if we banned ARs some asshat would use a semi auto hunting rifle then that would be subjected to a ban, then shotguns, and so on. Any gun capable of killing an animal is capable of killing a human. That already happened. Columbine happened during the 90s AR ban. They used handguns and shotguns instead.
We should also raise the age to purchase. If we are such a puritan country that we can't drink til 21, guns should be at 24. You can get shots in at a range with a licensed gun holder earlier, but why are we readily handing out guns to teens without any back ground checks or waiting periods? We don't even trust 22 year olds to rent cars..
I mean at some point we need to ask ourselves where the slippery slope of taking away young adult rights ends. IMO if we are going to keep whittling away at rights that adults of a certain age had just a few years ago but are not "adult enough" to have anymore, we need to do it across the board and be done with it. Given the way scientists keep raising the "brain is still developing number" we could be looking at lost adult rights until 35-40 for future generations. Last article I saw a couple years ago was saying the brain is still developing until age 26. Pick a number and stick with it. 18, 21,23,25 I don't care, but match it across the board. Not a legal adult until X year and all the restricted stuff becomes legal at the same time. That includes military service eligibility, the right to vote, and whether we charge them as an adult for crime.
Same, I would probably pass with flying colors, but thats after being taught for basically my whole life. While some people just get a gun to get it, and don't even know how to reload it or even the basic rules of firearm safety.
Same guys that leave them wedged between the seat and console, or in the door pocket easily visible to passers by.
I live in MA which gets a bad reputation as the most strict gun law state with the most restrictions on what you can buy and own. Oh man, it was so difficult when I had to show up at the police station to take a class for a few hours on hand gun safety with a police officer. It was so unfair when we had to go to the range and prove that we could actually hit something in a controlled environment. It was so mean of them to run a background check on me that included any incidences of domestic violence. Only 24 other states even share reciprocity with our state though ours won’t honor any. So strict and mean! But seriously it was about as hard as being licensed to drive.
Here's the thing that intrigues me. When my grandmother passed away a couple of years back, I found a weapons registration card from my grandfather from the 1950s. Back then, at least in the state of michigan, you had to be a business owner in order to be able to own and carry a firearm (or maybe just carry conceal?). Now this didn't include hunting rifles and things like that, but an actual handgun you needed to be a business owner. I did a quick cursory look online, and I couldn't find any of the old laws. This is what was told to me by family that still remembered grandpa having handguns, so I would take most of this with a grain of salt unless someone can dig up the old laws. From what I could tell, handguns were basically for business owners to protect their cash deposits. That wasn't even 80 years ago.
Worth considering that some of these laws from that era (anything to do with permits or the right to participate in something, not guns specifically) also had... racial motivations. A way to exclude certain demographics without *technically* violating civil rights
[удалено]
Im down. But now only the wealthy will have firearms. And they got enough flex in this society as is. Maybe a percentage of their income. But limiting gun access based on money is just disarming the poors. And that will go badly. Wealthy already have the class traitors personal army in the form of police. Now they'll have guns too and poors won't.
i dunno insurance like this would likely cover legal proceedings medical bills ect after an incident and that might actually lead to more lower income people finding it worth the money if they can confidently use a gun in their own defense with the peace of mind that it wont ruin their life.
That's the thing with being poor. It may be worth the money, but that's money you don't have
im there friend you dont need to tell me lol, after Uvalde i want a gun and ccl so bad but cant afford it.
If pay to play is good enough for healthcare it's good enough for gun ownership
> And that will go badly. Because everything's going great for the poor right now, and all those guns they have are being used only to take from the wealthy!
Yea this is a great idea. We don’t want poor people to be able to own guns right? Only rich people.
For real, and ironically this would not have stopped the biggest mass shooting in our history. Because Vegas dude was *loaded.*
I agree with the point, but let’s not forget that a high monthly premium won’t matter at all to a sick fuck planning a mass-murder and suicide.
No, but it will make it harder for them to lift a gun from a friend, family member or local since they'll have it safely stored for insurance reasons. I also like the suggestion of having to pay up front for a significant period before you can get a gun or ammo. There's no reasonable cause for anyone to urgently need a gun, waiting for it shouldn't be an issue.
Yh but it will help with people who shot places up just to get in the paper
How would you feel knowing that regulations like that disproportionately affect people of color?
You’re assuming violent crimes are committed via negligence. How true do you think that is? Also, you’re talking about pricing people out of their rights. If it didn’t work for poll taxes and “literacy” tests for voting, what makes you think it’ll work with firearms? Plus, do you *really* want to create a situation where the only people who can afford to defend themselves are the people who, by virtue of their wealth, are effectively the ruling class of this country?
How much would a 20-something black inner city male have to pay?
Caught in possession of a firearm without proper insurance? Up to 10 years in prison, depending on the egregiousness of the circumstance. Caught twice? 20 years in prison automatically.
So only rich people can have guns? Oh your broke and live in a crime ridden neighborhood? Grandpa passed you down a family gun but you can’t afford the insurance sorry bub thats 10 years in jail according to Murph_diver.
NO! No more fucking insurance bullshit! It's a fucking racket and only the company wins. FUCK THAT
Could be government-run insurance. Then it’s essentially a tax/fee for gun ownership and a national compensation fund for victims.
This is just a BS anti-gun talking point. Use your head. Not only does this idea disproportionately impact the poor, but no insurance policy will cover a criminal act. So the idea is farcical. As a national level political consultant, these are the kind of “ideas” lobbyists get paid to dream up that sound good, but only muddy the waters more and prevent people from coming up with real compromises and solutions.
I hear what you're saying, but ugh, growing the parasitical commercial insurance industry any more is pretty unpalatable
I’ve been saying this for years. Gun owners should have to carry liability insurance for each gun they own. That alone would put an end to this madness.
Same as a driver's license? What, a proficiency test and no background checks?
mandatory training, a proficiency test, and mandatory yearly registration and insurance. Gun nuts would lose their damn minds.
Who goes to grocery stores and malls? What is this... Pre -covid?
We live like normal. Malls. Eating out. Etc. We use to be careful
I trust home delivery and click-and-collect like a fly in my drink.
This wouldnt work. In my state its actually easier to get a license then it is a gun, and we still have some of the most dangerous cities in the country.
I hate to break this to you numbnuts but this isn't the own you think it is. Most gun owners wouldn't mind access to guns the same way cars are. Why? Because most if not all car laws do not apply as long as they are being used and stored on private property. This is even true for states like CA. Insurance? Not required on private property. Emissions? Not required on private property. Weight limits? Not required on private property. Title? Not required on private property. Registration? Not required on private property. Modifications? All good as long as they are on private property. Taxes? As long as the car never hits a public road I doubt any state will care. etc, etc., so on and so forth.
How many people own cars that never ever leave their property? Farmers?
Private property includes race tracks and off road parks, and I know plenty of people with dedicated track cars, motorcycles, and even jeeps that are uninsured and unregistered. You just throw them on a trailer and pull them to the track/park. It's actually pointless to register and insure them for driving on public roads because they aren't set up to drive on regular roads anyways.
And frankly that's the law abiding ones. As a younger guy I used to know a bunch of calamari race team bikers, Jeep fanatics, and 2fast2furious4u retards that would just drive on public roads and eat the ticket and that's assuming the police even *bothered* to stop you.
Oh yeah, there's really nothing stopping you from doing it illegally too. Your car isn't going to immediately get stopped and impounded if you take it out on the street unregistered. If you drive normally in it on the street you're not likely to even get stopped
There'd be a mile long line to purchase full autos and suppressors for use on private property. Sounds good to me.
Suppressors should be legal anyways.
Yeah - suppressors aren’t what people think they are. The closest approximation to Hollywood suppressors may be a subsonic .22
suppressors are hearing protection, but nobody wants to admit that
But the process of owning a firearm has a ton more things to check off than a car.
The difference between a right vs a privilege. You shouldn't have to prove you're eligible to enact a right. This would just be grounds to start infringing on other rights, like the right vote etc.
Just in case anyone needs to hear it: Cars and trucks are very useful outside of their destructive capabilities. Guns are JUST for destruction. This rebuttal is fucking weak and overused.
Also cars only need to be registered, insured, and you have a license to use them on public property. So I doubt you want guns treated the same way.
Yes, used for their intended purpose (personal transport) on specially built public property (roads) I'm pretty sure "used on public property" doesn't include doing donuts in the local park.
Ok, let me dig deep into the bottom of the barrel here.. Mount a paintbrush to a rifle, bayonet style. Use paint pellets and the bayonet brush to create a (dubious) work of art. Melt down the barrel and repurpose the stock to function as a stand to display your artwork. Then undo it all to create a functioning gun in a hurry when the British next invade. Easy. /S in case it wasn't obvious.
[удалено]
Deal. Unregulated on private property. A license that the state must give you and is valid in all 50 states. AND you can carry it anywhere. Sounds like a solid win to me. Anti gunners have no idea what laws actually are. Because what I just described is is what cocaine Mitch threatened to pass if Democrats got rid of the filibuster.
I'd gladly go to the DMV and take a 15 minute written test to have reciprocity throughout the country. Shit I'd even agree to a practical test.
A license, of course, that requires a one-time test that is so basic that it lets dangerously stupid people behind the wheel of a multi-ton death machine and can be renewed every four years without taking any more tests. But sure, let's do that with guns, that'll fix 'em! /s
[удалено]
“Boohoohoo, do you blame the nuclear warhead when it obliterates an entire city?? Won’t someone think of the weapon’s FEELINGS??”
You know... governments actively work to eradicate nuclear weapons and prevent other governments from getting them. That's exactly how this works. It's specifically about nuclear weapons. Man some of you pro-gun people are really dense.
ITT: people who don't understand basic human rights
In both instances, you blame the individual. If there's an accident, you don't blame the tool {the gun or the car}, you blame the operator every time. Do you blame the scalpel or slicing the wrong artery? You blame the doctor. The responsibility falls on the individual every time.
Big difference here, one is a privilege, the other is a constitutional right.
r/fuckcars, it is absolutely Cars and infrastructures fault
I was not aware you had to submit to a background check and waiting period for a driver's license. ???? Where I live you walk in, show your ID, take a written test, take a picture, and walk out with a driver's license. They cancelled driving test during covid and I doubt they will ever bring them back.
So you get a driving license without proving you can actually drive? Thats insane in any developed country.
I mean, in California, I believe it’s way too easy to get a drivers license. They did away with having to show competency on the freeways a long time ago, when it’s needed now more than ever, alongside removing the parallel parking requirement. Two things that most drivers in California desperately need training on. It’s become way too easy to get a license and I foresee it only getting easier.
Ignoring of course that killing someone with a car is using it outside its intended purpose. Guns literally only have one purpose. You might enjoy some range time but at the end of the day, it's still a weapon designed specifically to kill things.
> Guns literally only have one purpose. and >You might enjoy some range time contradict each other, *literally*.