If American politicians were at all reasonable, they would stop talking about banning guns vs. making it easier to acquire them. One simple and reasonable solution to the gun problem is to start treating guns like cars. If you want to own a car, you have to register it. You are also required to take a written test, to demonstrate that you know the laws regarding its operation. Then you have to take a driving test, to demostrate that you can safely operate the vehicle. Finally, you are required by law to carry liability insurance, so that if you happen to injure another person while operating your vehicle, the insurance will cover the cost of their medical bills.
When an individual decides that they want to own a gun, they should first be required to produce a license, showing that they have passed a written test, demonstrating that they know the laws about gun use, and that they have demonstrated the ability to safely operate a firearm on the range. The purchaser should also have to provide proof of insurance. Then, the gun ought to be immediately registered in the purchasers name upon sale.
Simply requiring gun-owners to carry liability insurance would make it much more difficult for certain people to acquire firearms. If a person has a history of domestic violence, for instance, insurance companies will be reluctant to sell them liability insurance. The more of a risk the individual is, the higher the cost of insurance will be.
Furthermore, the government could impose a differential sales tax on firearms. There could be a 6% sales tax imposed on the first three firearms one purchases, with the purchase of a fourth firearm raising the rate to 8%, and the purchase of a tenth raising it to 50%. This would effectively discourage the accumulation of firearms. Furthermore, you could encourage people to purchase biometric guns (guns programmed to only fire with the fingerprint of the registered user) by letting the sale of these weapons have a 50% discount on the sales tax rate. You could also give tax credits for the purchasing of gun safes and locks, to encourage best safety practices.
It should also be required for law-enforcement officers to personally carry insurance on firearms issued to them by the police department.
ummm, you know something, I'm not at all against what you propose, I think a quite reasonable approach. I came in here thinking that you would propose a exaggerated tax on the bullets or something else quite crazy, but it is a good approach that you give to the matter, I do not think that it will totally eliminate the weapons problems, but it could reduce them a bit.
Driving a car is not a right, it is a specifically regulated "commercial" activity by law, which is why it requires registration and testing. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right, which means it is an inherent natural law that the government doesn't grant, nor is it able to take it away. Furthermore testing is just more Fabian style regulation opening the door for further manipulation and denial of these unalienable rights.
Registering firearms (which BTW already happens to a large extent with retailers required to keep records and the ATF able to index those at any time), simply creates an easy to use national database of law abiding citizens for any incoming dictatorship to disarm.
Supposedly Trump is a huge Nazi, but you want his government to be the only ones with control over guns right?
/s The logic is strong /s
People have the natural right to move/travel, just as they have a natural right to self-defense. Gun rights are natural rights by extention. Logically, if guns are guaranteed as a right because they facilitate self-defense, it follows that cars are a natural right because they facilitate motion/travel.
Also, however, the U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee gun-ownership as a natural right. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms is guaranteed because a "well-regulated militia" is needed to safeguard the State. Also, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an absolute right and that licensing and testing requirements would be constitutionally acceptable.
Except traveling IS a right. "DRIVING" however is a commercial act which involves interstate commerce which puts it under the firm jurisdiction of Federal law which impose the driver's license requirements on the states. You have the right to travel, not to drive. So no your example does not follow because it is attempting to compare two dissimilar cases.
"The right to bear arms" is pretty clear. Your statement about militias is completely nonsensical, you didn't even bother explaining what you think that means or why you think it supports your argument. Furthermore the right to bear arms is unalienable, which means the supreme court nor the government granted the right, nor can they take it away.
I think the idea of a liability insurance if great. But that alone should be enough. Why force people to take a test? If you have nothing to prove that you know anything about guns, the insurance would simply be more expensive.
Making a test allows the government to make to artificially raise prices and discriminate the poor from having access to guns. The second question is, how hard the test should be. They could effectively outlaw guns without having change any law by gradually making it more difficult and expensive to own a gun.
Just like they used drivers license tests to keep people from being allowed to have cars, I guess.
not sure if that happened anywhere. To my knowledge in most places the cost of operating a car is significantly higher than the cost of passing a drivers license. However, that might change when we will see a push towards driverless cars.
The cost of a firearm safety certificate program should be pretty cheap and accessible too, and maybe the result of that test could also be tied to the cost of the insurance. Gun Safe/etc should be tied to the cost of insurance too.
California, for example, have firearms safety certificate programs for $25 that allows someone to take the test twice, which is much less than the cost of a gun and a gun safe. https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fscpfaqs
Yes, it should be very cheap and any sane person will also agree that this is something incredibly useful. Just if you give something to the state it becomes hard to get rid of it again, even when it becomes prohibitively expensive in the future.
When you regulate everything via competing insurances this will be better. You are free to choose your insurance and they are free to specify which certificates they will accept.
Yeah, that's why regulations must be restricted and limited in scope to things that are really necessary and not excessively burdensome to those that aren't likely to harm others.
The level of regulation for cars seems pretty reasonable. I imagine most people do not want habitual drunk drivers driving or irresponsible gun owners that regularly threaten to shoot others (outside of self-defense) and habitually leave their loaded guns laying around little kids to have a gun.... or a terrorist (whether they're Political or Religious extremists like Nazis, Al Qaeda, etc) having a gun. Focusing on the insurance, incentives, etc on a large part of the effort seems to be a good idea though.
Then we could implement things like 'sunsetting old laws' to limit the ridiculous persistence of old laws that make the law so bloated for no good reason: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/automatically-sunsetting-old-laws/
It's extremely insane that victimless behaviors like possessing marijuana are illegal right now. That's even less harmful than alcohol. People are forcefully jailed and taken out of the workforce, for a victimless crime... ruining their entire life and harming the nation altogether. I've never even smoked them, but it's ridiculous that we have a very expensive mass incarceration system just to enrich lobbyists... rather than for creating a better world and empowering everyone.
We need an e-government infrastructure like Estonia too. It would make so many things like verifications cheaper and more efficient.
Falls involving bed, chair or other furniture, Odds of dying: 1 in 4,238. Yes, this is speaking about falling indoors those are your chances of dying. I only put this in here because I wanted to add some perspective on how much more of a chance someone has of dying from just being in their own home.
The odds of being murdered using a firearm in the US in a given year are about 30,000 to 1. If you aren't engaged in some sort of criminal enterprise, and don't live in a violent domestic situation, your odds are much, much lower, around 150,000 to one.
One would also need to separate out lawful defensive gun uses where someone legally killed someone in self defense, when that is taken out the number of 30,000 to 1 and 150,000 to 1 goes way higher. Then half of gun deaths are suicides, so one would need to remove those stats as well, because the context we are mainly talking about is innocent people being killed by guns.
Certainly mentally ill people should not be allowed to have guns, I agree with you there.
It is actually illegal to have a poll tax or a poll test, they used to do that for poor looking people and mostly African Americans. Had to pass a test in order to vote or they turn you away, or how about they can't turn you away from voting because you don't have ID either(a central argument in why voter ID shouldn't be required is because it costs money/time to go and get an ID). So having these things placed on guns is illegal.
The Bill Clinton administration's study showed that guns were used defensively 1.5million times per year legally, and 200,000 of those times it was a woman protecting herself from sexual abuse(per year). In general, women make less money than men, so requiring extra taxes on guns/taking classes/all this other stuff you mention above would lead to an increase in rape/sexual abuse on women.
I encourage you to do extensive research on this topic. Maybe you didn't know some of these stats, but guns are used 70x to 80x the rate for good then they are for bad.
If you wanted to peruse some posts I recently made, that's where I am drawing those figures from.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Those statistics are misleading. They almost certainly don't include police shootings. But, also, poverty...if you live in poverty, in a poor neighborhood in the city, you're far more likely to be the victim of armed robbery or to be hit by a stray bullet. Criminals can easily acquire guns because there are no registration requirements. And a small tax on firearms sales isn't going to prohibit people from buying guns any more than the gas tax has caused Americans to stop driving cars.
The operation of a firearm is not analogous to voting. A poll tax prohibited voting, but a sales tax doesn't prohibit purchasing. Suppose that a person buys a $250 hand gun. The tax would only be $15. If a person could not afford such a tax, then it would also be the case that they could not have afforded the gun without the tax: the market would have prohibited them from getting the gun in the first place. The tax would only create a disincentive to stockpiling weapons, as the tax rate would increase after the purchase of so many guns. The poll tax is different, because a person has a right to vote regardless of whether or not they have money. You don't have an inherent right to own a gun. You have a right to self-defense, and a right to property, and a right to use your property for self-defense; and the right to bear arms extends from that. If you cannot afford a gun and cannot convince someone to give you one for free, then you have no right to gun-ownership abstracted from ability to acquire a gun on the market.
The statistics I gave are your overall chances of dying from being shot by a gun, I said you need to take out a lot of things to get to the actual number. And by the way, justified police shootings in self defense are the super majority percentage wise, it is the minority that isn't. You get what you pay for, police officers don't make that much and its like a 6 month training course to be one. It should be more trianing than that and it should pay more as to attract more tempermental/calm/reasonable/good under pressure people to the job.
You are arguing against something else though. Right to own firearms is the same thing as the practical cost of owning them. Most people don't have any money in their savings account, as you noted above poor people have a higher chance of needing a gun to defend themselves, therefore it is extremely illogical to put a tax on it as poor people represent the largest group in America it would be a net negative on the macro scale. Which is why Imentioned the poll tax and how they made it illegal, because poor people literally couldn't pay the 5 or 10 bucks to vote, that is how poor they are. I went to a public high school and elementary school and there were many people soo poor they had to come in for free breakfast in the morning, free lunch, and they didn't have anything to eat for dinner when they went home. They don't have 10 dollars for a gun, they don't have 1 dollar to ride the bus to school to get the free food so they get free bus passes, they don't have 1 dollar to live in an apartment so they live in ghettos the govt pays for, they don't have 1 dollar to buy food from the grocery store so they need the govt to give them Food Stamps/WIC/Snap, they don't have 1 dollar for electricity so they get free electricy by govt paying their bills. They don't have anything and those are the most infested crime ridden neighborhoods. I am straight up telling you as someone who has seen it all around me + multiple friends who were in that situation.
There are a lot of factors you are not taking into account that need to be, and that is ok that maybe you didn't live through an exepreince like that.
I get 40% more likes than you for my comments and therefore I write better. Also, the fact that I'm a better writer makes me 23% a better lover because there is definitely causality between the two.
A friend of mine has attended a school in West Virginia and he isn't as great of a writer as I am, so his school teachers and himself are worse lovers than I am.
In conclusion, it is I who should take the blame for being a greater writer and lover and I am by no means the product of the society which educated me.
Since I am not sure what exactly you are saying, I won't respond to it. Sarcasm and humour does not translate well over the internet.
The reason I wrote my comments is because I am using data/context/facts/logic to talk about the real world.
In a vacuum doing the things the poster said makes sense, in reality it doesn't.
The facts are 310,000+ sexual abuses happen to men and women each year, and each year 200,000 women prevent that from happening, while only 1/3 of all americans own guns(about 70million). Guns are used for good/legally 70x to 80x the rate(47x going by Bill Clinton Administration's study) than for bad/illegal purposes.
Poll tax is illegal because people don't have money to pay to vote and it discriminates against poor people, while more minorities are generally poor. Therefore, by putting more taxes on guns, you are directly making it harder for poor people to defend themselves. As we have already established that guns are in the super majority used for good, and that poor people shouldn't be penalized to pay a poll tax(or extra gun tax as the poster implies).
If the facts were the reverse, and showd that guns are used 70x to 80x for bad more than good, I would be aligned with banning guns.
I am aligned to the truth only, doesn't matter what party or who advocates it. The truth is the truth.
You're not concerned about the truth. You have a conservative agenda and are citing statistics that support your position, while ignoring the research and statistics that contradict your position.
“The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.”
“The US also has by far the highest number of privately owned guns in the world. Estimated in 2007, the number of civilian-owned firearms in the US was 88.8 guns per 100 people, meaning there was almost one privately owned gun per American and more than one per American adult.”
“In 1996, a 28-year-old man walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, Australia, ate lunch, pulled a semiautomatic rifle out of his bag, and opened fire on the crowd, killing 35 people and wounding 23 more. It was the worst mass shooting in Australia’s history.
Australian lawmakers responded with legislation that, among other provisions, banned certain types of firearms, such as automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The Australian government confiscated 650,000 of these guns through a gun buyback program, in which it purchased firearms from gun owners. It established a registry of all guns owned in the country and required a permit for all new firearm purchases. (This is much further than bills typically proposed in the US, which almost never make a serious attempt to immediately reduce the number of guns in the country.)
Australia’s firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 percent in the seven years after the law passed, and its firearm suicide rate fell by 57 percent…”
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the [Australia gun control law], resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
“One study of the program, by Australian researchers, found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/2/21/17028930/gun-violence-us-statistics-charts
“The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.”
That is convenient wording that allows you to ignore per-capita statistics of mass shooting showing the USA is not #1 in mass shootings by far.
By comparing global population to US population rather than a statistically accurate per-capita analysis compared by country you create an illusion of extremes while ignoring genuine statistical analysis.
The fact you think this is an argument shows you don't give statistics too much credence yourself.
In the USA there were roughly 185 million firearms in 1993, with the homicide rate being 7 out of every 100,000.
In 2013 the number was 357 million firearms and the homicide rate dropped to 3.6 out of every 100,000.
We all need to learn what the truth is in this world for us to get along. The corporate elites and leftists and rightists don't want the average every day person to reach across the aisle and be friendly.
I don't have a label.
Yeah but driving a car is a privilege and owning defenses is a Constitutionally protected Right.
Who cares? The Constitution also says that black people are only 3/5ths of a person. Also, the 2nd Amendment is an ammendment, but the right to impose taxes and regulate commerce are part of the original Constitution, so there is nothing unconstitutional about my proposal. And, if there were, then a Constitutional amendment would be desirable.
Lol. "Who cares?"
Show me the amendment that took away or restricted citizens and I'll show you the amendment that repealed it. There was exactly one and it didn't go well.
The 3/5s compromise was repealed by amendment. The Constitution doesn't give us our rights, it protects them from the government.
And if you think that your tax scheme is just fine then apply it to the first amendment. Should I only be allowed so many words online and then be required to pay the government for the privilege of saying more? No, because that's insane.
You're free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to your representatives. You do know it takes 67 Senators, 290 Representatives, and 38 states to amend the Constitution, right? I'm sure you can find 357 politicians that are just fine never being elected again, should be easy, right? Good luck with those states though, I'm not sure even California would be that dumb.
welcometodiowa, you know what I find funny about SteemIt is everyone likes to tell US how to run our country and they aren't even citizens!?! They would't know freedom if it came up and bit them. Following you!
Yeah, there's very little that's as disingenuous as pretending American law is comparable to other countries. It's not. That was the entire point of the Constitution.
Oh, and followed back. :-)
So do something about it and I'll continue to counter your argument.
Except that we already have restrictions on who can buy firearms. Specifically, your assertion about making it more difficult for domestic abusers to purchase. They're already prohibited possessors.
Your "guns are cars" idea isn't new. It comes up every single time. Guns are a Constitutionally protected right. Cars are not.
If you're going to compare subjects then compare subjects as they actually are.
Apply your insurance idea to 1st Amendment rights. Does that seem reasonable to you? Legal? Possible? Even remotely a good idea? Because it's none of those things.
Constitutional rights cannot be subject to barriers to exercise. That's kinda the point of the Constitution, it doesn't give us those rights, it protects us from the government restricting those rights.
The only good idea you've presented is tax breaks/credits for safe storage purchases. Absolutely fantastic idea that has incredible support from gun rights organizations.
I'll repeat my comment above: "Who cares? The Constitution also says that black people are only 3/5ths of a person. Also, the 2nd Amendment is an ammendment, but the right to impose taxes and regulate commerce are part of the original Constitution, so there is nothing unconstitutional about my proposal. And, if there were, then a Constitutional amendment would be desirable."
Something being in the Constitution doesn't make it right. Also, the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is basically predicated on formation of national guards ("well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State"). Contrary to conservative narratives, the right to bear arms actually has nothing to do with home defense, or security against government tyranny, but rather to ensure strong national defense and keep the State from being overthrown by invaders. The logic was actually that the central government ought not to have any standing army in times of peace, so well-regulated Militias (national guards) at the state level were necessary to national defense. Also, the right of interpretation goes to the Supreme Court, which has ruled that 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute, so government can regulate firearms (it just cannot outright ban them). So, constitutionally speaking, my proposals are all on strong footing, regardless.
Also, you are wrong when you say "Except that we already have restrictions on who can buy firearms. Specifically, your assertion about making it more difficult for domestic abusers to purchase. They're already prohibited possessors."
That is totally untrue. Domestic violence doesn't generally result in felony charges, so people who regularly beat their wives and get arrested for domestic violence are still allowed to own guns.
LOL, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yeah, I responded to that ridiculous sentiment there. Let's address the other one.
First, the militia clause isn't a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The milita is necessary for a free state SO the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You're vaguely correct that the purpose was to avoid a standing army. However, you are grossly mistaken about the purpose of the Constitution in general if you think it allows state militia formation. The National Guard is a state entity that can be called to federal service, which is actually a separate organization than the State National Guards.
The National Guard is also separate, legally, by federal code, from the unorganized militia which consists of every male aged between17 and 45.
There is no such thing as a militia requirement to keep and bear arms. Per SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, protected but not granted by the Constitution, and applies to the states just as it does to the federal government. Heller, Cruikshank, and McDonald.
And you're still ignoring taxing a Constitutional right. Apply your idea to the first amendment. Legal? Not a chance in hell.
Okay, whatever...
Back to the point, SCOTUS' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does allow for everything I have proposed.
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/356087-gun-control-is-constitutional-just-ask-the-supreme-court%3famp
Gun control, per the Supreme Court, does not violate the Constitution, so long as gun control doesn't take the form of outright banning firearms.
I'll just point out that when your argument has to be "who cares" and "whatever," you might wanna reassess your original ideas. "Reasonable restrictions" are as minimal as possible.
Full on literal taxation of a fundamental, Constitutional right is neither minimal nor reasonable. You have no idea of the reach and ramifications of your proposals, let alone anything beyond a vague knowledge of the second amendment or any knowledge whatsoever of Constitutional authority.
Also, that article is an opinion piece by someone with a very obvious agenda that is attempting to boil an intricate and complicated issue to "the NRA sucks."
There is no expert opinion there, just someone that really really wants gun control.
Hmm show Reality Your post sir thanks for sharing woth us..
Upvote resteem
Thanks for sharing this @ekklesiagora. . . with your post I remember a quote That
" If Guns kill people then
The pencil misspell the words
Car make people Drive Drunk
And spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat "
i must say helpful post i mean i know i am againts guns and weapons but still if there are something wich can ham us then we should know about them
You are right bro
Very happy you liked them! Nice pictures. Thank you!
wow when everyone is on a blame game you have come up with something great was missing your post's from quite a long really liked your idea
no one came up with such a idea with the advance technology this could be implemented
sensor idea is a genius idea man if this gets enforced with strict action there will not be any such incidents
but the administration is full of foolish people :(
yeah,right you are