License, register, and require insurance for guns

[gulliver]

There's no good argument against that, and it would solve the problem as much as it can be solved.

We need to focus on concrete action or we're just going to see the usual political bonfire that burns down to the usual result: no change.

[librechik]

1. yup, they do it for cars for god sake. They sound feeble talking against this solution

and change the subject right away.

Nobody has a constitutional right to own the deadly weapon that is a car. But we have made it less deadly over the years with regulations.

Why not guns? They admit it now. They're keeping their guns to shoot the government they don't like. They want to kill Democrats.

We can't let them keep thinking like this.

[gulliver]

4. Just like for cars

The licensing is an accepted burden for cars, and it could be made just as acceptable for guns. On-line registration and licensing are becoming the norm too, so it can be easy to license and register any guns you have.

Most gun owners should see it as a way to make sure only "good guys" have guns. It will give an advantage to law-abiding gun owners over the non-law-abiding.

Insurance companies would find it a lucrative market considering how many guns there are in the U.S. The law could provide for a legal cap on liability at, say, $10M per victim plus actual damages. Possibly more importantly, the insurance industry would be incentivized to reduce costs by politically supporting and building a relatively airtight, highly up-to-date background check system.

As to what some of the dumber, more paranoid Republicans think about protecting themselves from the government or Dems, I don't care. Eventually they'll snap out of it. If they have to pay $10 per month for insurance on their gun, their economic thought processes might have a chance to override their fantasies.

[Thunderbeast]

9. NO to liability caps!

Do not subsidize the carnage by subsidizing externalities in the the true cost of gun ownership.

Mandatory insurance on each and every weapon. If gun is lost or stolen, the owner must insure against any actions involving the gun into perpetuity. Posession of an uninsured gun should be a felony, with ownership rights surrendered for life.

Let insurance actuaries determine the true cost of gun ownership and place it squarely on owners...not taxpayers or victims.

Assault weapons and handguns must be banned and confiscated.

Tell me it's impossible. I don't care. I am proposing that the United States join the civilized world. If you want a meaningful solution, you have to think big. Half measures will not save the lives of our children.

[gulliver]

11. Without liability caps you eliminate the industry and the gun safety with it

There's no point in having a gun insurance industry if one lawsuit can bankrupt it. A gun insurance industry that supports licensing and standardized, constantly up-to-date background checks is thinking big.

On edit: It's also good to have the private sector involved. That helps get the public sector off the hot spot all the time and might increase support for and decrease antagonism toward it.

[Thunderbeast]

20. Let the actuaries decide the true costs.

Nothing more "free market" than that.

The alternative is government and victims continuing continuing to subsidize the fetish.

If it's too expensive, gun numbers will be reduced. Gun owners will find a new mythology...perhaps a safer one.

[Runningdawg]

2. It would only work if enforced.

Background checks aren't enforced. I could buy any gun I could afford, no ID and no questions, before the sun sets on the "Nations Largest Gun Show" in Tulsa today. And I could do it in the parking lot while the cops watched.

[gulliver]

6. It would take some time before strong enforcement would take hold

AR-15s would stay legal, at least until the law-abiding gun population grew sour on them and their market dissipated. I despise these assault weapons, but the current political approach seems ineffective. Calling for a ban that doesn't happen is worse than not calling for a ban at all. It just increases sales. (I'm for a ban if the current situation creates one that can happen, but I don't yet have high hopes for that.)

The enforcement would initially be highly voluntary by law-abiding gun owners who have something to lose if they get arrested for violating the law. As the current gun rights folks like to say, criminals would ignore the law. Quite a few self-deceived patriots would also ignore the law.

Over time, attitudes would begin to change as gun owners confront the physical reality of their own lives, the costs and time burden of insurance, and compare it to the thinking that drives their gun purchase. Real money paid out and real time spent on real citizenship responsibilities might help sober some people up about their fantasy life.

The immediate effect would be that gun dealers would be checking licenses and insurance (and thus well-funded background checks). Part of the current protection they have from lawsuits could be made contingent on it.

[Runningdawg]

7. How long have background checks been the law?

There are fewer cops willing to enforce them now, not more. And you really expect gun nuts to police themselves? That's like waiting for the church to stop child abuse.

[gulliver]

8. They're missing the monetary incentives.

If someone is making money because of background checks and losing money if they're not done, then we'll start to see a lot more action. A multi-billion-dollar insurance market is a good thing to have on your side. Right now, these checks can be treated as just bureaucratic red tape and unwelcome regulations. Get salaries depending on the checks and lawsuit protection depending on the checks.

[Runningdawg]

12. Paying people to follow the law? LOL No thanks.

LOCK THEM UP.
The gunners and shops who refuse to comply AND the cops who refuse to enforce.

[gulliver]

13. Right now they just vote not to have a law they have to follow

It's a democracy. Good thing.

[rurallib]

3. might I add thumbprint or fingerprint recognition

in case a gun gets stolen.

[Trailrider1951]

5. Absolutely! And I would add two things:

1) Raise the purchase age to 25 for ANY person to purchase a gun, be it rifle or hand gun. This along with the background check for ALL gun purchases.

2) Computerize the purchase records so law enforcement has quick and easy access to information in the event of a crime committed with said gun. Include in these records any tips from relatives, as they are the most likely to KNOW the gunner. (The "Red Flag" law)

Your suggestion for license, registration, and required insurance is absolutely spot on.

[Turbineguy]

10. If cars were designed to kill people

you would not need insurance.

[48656c6c6f20]

14. Require proof of insurance to buy ammo or powder

These gun humping Nazis can still buy guns from each other. I don't think many make their own ammo. But just to be sure prrof of insurance for powder.

And not this cut rate bullshit insurance by the General, I mean on the scale of malpractice insurance docs pay. 100k a year is fine with me.

[crickets]

15. Proof of insurance to buy ammo or powder is a great idea. nt

[Joenobody]

16. Basically you want to make sure

That only rich people have guns.

Because only poor people are violent?

[gulliver]

17. I'd expect the cost to be affordable

So we're not talking rich vs. poor. Accommodations could be made for the few very poor who qualify for licenses (due to successful background checks) but can't afford the insurance and want a gun.

But if you can afford a gun, you can afford insurance. That's part of the cost. And it's right that it be that way, because the insurance is not for the gun owner. It's for the people the gun owner is liable to. We don't give guns away to the few very poor who want them, and no one thinks that's unfair.

[Joenobody]

19. But unbalance in any case wouldn't cover

Murder. So, it would basically only cover true accidental shootings or legal shootings by people defending themselves. Whats the point of it?

[gulliver]

21. Why would you say that?

When a drunk driver commits a crime by driving drunk and killing somebody, their policy pays. It all depends on how the policy is written, and the law would require a gun policy to cover those injured through criminal acts and the survivors of murder victims.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Consider that the public does not have unregulated free speech

Even in public venues there may be permit requirements.

[Amishman]

22. Insurance would probably either not deter or would be overturned

If the insurance cost is high enough to deter gun ownership, it probably wouldn't survive legal challenge as it would then be a major financial obstacle to something that is currently considered a constitutional right.

[albacore]

23. License, register, and require insurance for gun owners, too. nt