Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First require every gun to be bonded or insured based on who owns it.. This now will enable an insurance company decide how much of a risk you are to hurt others and quantify it in the form of a premium. Just like having insurance on a car. You will still have the right to bear arms, but will be required to have insurance on it.
There's that pesky "shall not be infringed" thing...
I am in a family that is full of NYPD and hunters. I think the VAST majority of gun owners are law abiding and not a threat to anyone. I respect gun culture, but also feel too many people have guns who have no reason to have one. That puts everyone in jeopardy, law abiding citizens and police. Generally city people and suburban people don't need a gun as much as someone in the country who needs it against animals and a long waiting time for police response.
Solutions that help are immediately knocked down by left and right in a Pavlovian manner. But I will try:
First require every gun to be bonded or insured based on who owns it.. This now will enable an insurance company decide how much of a risk you are to hurt others and quantify it in the form of a premium. Just like having insurance on a car. You will still have the right to bear arms, but will be required to have insurance on it. Most likely the company will want to see some safeguarding done with a gun safe needed.
Next you aggressively reinstate stop and frisk. Have an illegal gun, you go to jail. Have an uninsured gun it is confiscated.
Third all gun deals must be done at a dealer with proper background check done. Up the penalties on straw man purchases as high as possible.
Fourth you put massive penalties on people who perform crimes using a gun. I would love to see the death penalty but that is not realistic. Terms of at least 20 years should be considered IMO.
Fifth you put large penalties on people who don't safeguard their guns properly. Stolen guns usually are used in criminal activities.
Hopefully this will reduce unqualified people from getting a gun.
Ok I am ready for my ideas to be ripped apart now, lol.
I won't go so far as to rip it apart, but one thing you mentioned would go against the 2nd, as the amendment is interpreted, that being the insurance of firearms.
That is what could be called an infringement, and firearms according to the 2nd are supposed to be a right, that can not be infringed upon.
Some of your ideas have merit, but the insurance one just won't fly.
You would still have the right to bear arms. Second amendment says nothing about it being free. Guns aren't given away.
We can waive the premiums for those in a well regulated militia.
One more thing comes to my mind when trying to investigate people who are the suspects in these mass killings.
Many of these suspects have been found to be wearing body armor, as was the case in both recent incidents.
Body armor should only be available to the military, and law enforcement, and a red flag should be raise when an ordinary citizen is purchasing this equipment, be it online, or brick and mortar.
Perhaps people in the business of selling body armor, should rely on just the military, and law enforcement as their customers.
Private citizens should have no need for body armor.
I would suspect not one person in authority has ever looked into this facet during their investigations.
Bob.
That's ridiculous. Civilians are buying body armor to protect themselves from these killers. Backpacks for children with a protective plate in them for example are quite popular.
We really need to actually talk about and address the underlying social and cultural causes of so many people wanting to kill others in our country. A gun ban won't solve this problem, body armor bans won't either. I've posted before in this forum about the various factors I believe cause these problems (for instance our culture of extreme selfishness, money worship, acceptance of bullying behavior, lack of access to healthcare including mental healthcare, lack of vacation time, lack of job security, and other stresses and culture diseases most other western nations don't suffer from). But that means a collective acceptance of our failures as a nation and I would say the majority of the population is still unwilling to acknowledge that failure. As always, these threads always devolve, as the national conversation does, into left versus right, republican versus democrat, gun control versus not, etc., etc. And nothing changes for that reason.
Washington Examiner reported there was a second shooter shot and killed by police. There is a reason the shooters went to the Walmart in El Paso instead of the closer one in Allen TX. Law enforcement had told another WalMart in Socorro to close as well. Sounds like they got info that Walmart would be a target but didn't know which one.
Also heard the El Paso shooter had been registered Democrat but, strangely, that info was just changed to Republican. Not too fishy, hmm?
I'm not a subscriber to the Examiner newspaper so couldn't do a search for the article. Saw it posted on this news aggregator website. It starts about four minutes in after the Steve Bannon feature.
I won't go so far as to rip it apart, but one thing you mentioned would go against the 2nd, as the amendment is interpreted, that being the insurance of firearms.
That is what could be called an infringement, and firearms according to the 2nd are supposed to be a right, that can not be infringed upon.
Some of your ideas have merit, but the insurance one just won't fly.
Bob.
That’s why it’s called an amendment, it can be changed to suit present day, not 200 years ago.
Although I think digital database tracking sales would do better than insurance.
New guns may be able to have some technology advances like can only fire if proper fingerprint is holding the gun. Maybe some electronic jamming could be done in gun free zones.
Just throwing out ideas here. Fed up with the carnage of both mass shootings and inner city squabbles but want to protect at least some of the gun rights.
I appreciate the conversation and your replies. I am neither a lawyer nor a mechanical engineer.
What would such a database be used for, and how would you get gang members and drug dealers to register their purchases?
Because if the gang members and drug dealers got them from an unscrupulous dealer, or owner, they can trace it. Just like how the ATF does it with paper currently. Except it would be a tad faster to track.
But then we would have to stop police from auctioning the confiscated guns to shady dealers, destroy them, and then find out who is selling the guns to the gangs. Gangs dont need to register their guns, we just stop them from getting the guns in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
