I have one simple question for all 2nd Admendment supporters: What limitations to gun ownership are you willing to accept? Can you accept a limit on the number of firearms that any individual can own? A limit on the amount of rounds that a magazine/clip can hold? A limit on the type of bullets that can legally be purchased? What are you willing to accept?
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is trying to deflect this conversation by saying that each school should have an armed guard. In this era of fiscally strapped school budgets that's a great idea. It won't cost anything at all to post armed guards at every school. Posting armed guards at schools is just a great idea, but I have to ask: Why stop there? There have been shootings in malls, churches and theaters so we have to have armed guards patrolling those places too, right? Oh, and of course, it goes without saying that every place of employment should have an armed guard, too.
The number of Americans shot each year is rising. The NRA likes to say that the number of people who die from gunshots is decreasing. The implication of their statement is that the number of people being shot is decreasing, which is simply not true. In 2008 more than 110 thousand Americans were shot. Between the years 2000 - 2008, approximately 30 thousand Americans died as a result of being shot. More Americans are being shot each year but fewer are dying, primarily as a result of advancements in medical care. So, more people are being shot each year, and the NRA says that America needs more people carrying loaded weapons in public. Hmmm.....what could possibly go wrong. Taking Communion from an armed priest might change the experience of Mass a little. Arming more Americans is not even a realistic proposal, it is just more of the standard lunacy from the NRA.
When will 2nd Admendment Supporters agree that restrictions need to be placed on gun ownership. It's important to remember that the 2nd Admendment is part of the U.S. Constitution written by men, it's not one of the Biblical Commandments carried down from Mt.Sinai by Moses. My question is simple, what restrictions on gun ownership are gun owners willing to accept? America is finally going to have a discussion on the place of guns in our society. If gun owners wish to be part of this discussion they need to answer what restrictions on gun ownership they are willing to accept. If the answer is none, then they can expect to be left out of this discussion.
Comments
Taking my grandson to the zoo - gone for the rest of the day
I'm taking my grandson to the zoo. He's 5 and pretty torqued about the approach of Christmas. He needs to blow off some steam so we're off to the zoo. Just letting everyone know that I'm gone and not to mistake my silence for apathy. I hope everyone has a great day today.
I don't know if this is the right forum to ask. Perhaps Redstate
or Conservative Cave would be better. They would certainly be...interesting.
Strictly speaking for myself, who was raised with guns and owned one or two from time to time, I would accept most limitations. For self-defense, there's really no need for anything more than a revolver or an old-style .45 with one clip. Therefore, I'd definitely accept limits on types of ammunition, the size of clips, and even an outright ban on all automatic weapons.
True sportsmen who hunt with guns wouldn't even by affected by such legal changes.
never heard of conservative cave, sounds grim........
Thanks for reading. I appreciate your comments. I'm not nearly as interested in protecting the rights of the 'responsible' gun owners as I am in protecting the rights of Americans to attend a movie, a church service, a college class or just go to freaking work without being killed.
great question...
i wonder how folks will answer. just put this on my facebook page.... :D
Some Answers
I'm willing to accept restrictions that are reasonable and CAN ACTUALLY protect the American people. I would oppose feel-good restrictions that give people the illusion of safety.
Absolutely not. No way. A person can only fire one gun at a time.
Yes.
The last time I read something on this issue, there was concern about the "cop-killer" bullets that could pierce the protective armor that law enforcement officers use. I certainly wouldn't object to a ban on such bullets.
You didn't ask, but I'd also accept a ban on semi-automatic weapons. That said, such a ban would only drive up prices of existing weapons. The American government would have to invest in a very expensive buy-back program to get a lot of those weapons off the streets. Same with the high-capacity magazines.
At the same time, we also need to reign in the police. No police department needs drones or tanks. Nor is there a need to shoot any single human being 11 times, 19 times (2), 28 times, 43 times, or 46 times.
i think biometric locks would be a good thing...
make it expensive and make it difficult
I don't have a problem with biometric locks. that's an excellent idea. I want to limit the number a person can own. Or, barring an actual limit, I want there to be strict insurance requirements for owning firearms. If you want to own 5 you have to carry this much insurance, own 8 you have to carry this much, etc,. Pitbull owners are charged more for their homeowner insurance, why shouldn't gun owners pay more? I want bullets to be much, much more expensive. But I only target shoot, well, guess what? your plinking hobby just became more expensive. The license to sell firearms should be more expensive than the license required to sell liquor. No more gun show sales between individuals. It's the sale of a gun, not a candle at a flea market. Time to stop pretending that guns don't kill, yeah, they do kill and it's time to treat them as dangerous items and stop pretending that they are just harmless hunks of metal. .
I was surprised that so few people responded to this essay. What we have been doing has failed. As a country we either have to say that gun owner's rights supercede the rights of everyone else, or we have to make serious reforms to gun ownership.
Everything, and I mean everything, that we as a nation have done in the area of guns has been an abject failure.
everybody is shopping
I don't support a ban on a number of guns, but I believe an insurance company would make it very expensive. That's fine with me. I only own a slingshot myself, which is plenty deadly.
Also I see no need for a cartridge loaded weapon. Revolvers a and bolt action or pump action covers 100% of sport hunters. When I owned a pistol I loaded it with bird shot, the perfect home defense ammo.
Oh yeah
I'm cool with an ammo surcharge (call it the Sandy Hook fund), but bird shot shouldn't be part of it. People don't spree kill with shotguns generally.
you make an excellent point, it's a fluid discussion
Once upon a time a person complained that every single thing that came out of my mouth was not legislatively feasible. I agree with that 100%. I'm not sitting here believing that I'm single handedly solving the problems of the world. I'm trying to put my ideas out there and here the ideas of others. You are 100% correct that birdshot should not be part of any ammo surcharge. What we do need, however, is a real discussion on this issue. The only way that the politicians are going to do anything is if they realize that, we the voters, see this as an important issue. Ever wonder why the odious NAFTA treaty was never revisited? Polling shows that it's not an important issue for the average voter. Politicians care more about polling than they do their own children. As long as we are discussing this issue and keeping it front and center then they will pay attention. That's all I'm doing here, and I sincerely appreciate your participation.
you make an excellent point, it's a fluid discussion
Once upon a time a person complained that every single thing that came out of my mouth was not legislatively feasible. I agree with that 100%. I'm not sitting here believing that I'm single handedly solving the problems of the world. I'm trying to put my ideas out there and here the ideas of others. You are 100% correct that birdshot should not be part of any ammo surcharge. What we do need, however, is a real discussion on this issue. The only way that the politicians are going to do anything is if they realize that, we the voters, see this as an important issue. Ever wonder why the odious NAFTA treaty was never revisited? Polling shows that it's not an important issue for the average voter. Politicians care more about polling than they do their own children. As long as we are discussing this issue and keeping it front and center then they will pay attention. That's all I'm doing here, and I sincerely appreciate your participation.
Is there a need for insurance?
Car accidents damage cars. Fires destroy home and property. Guns injure people, and those injuries are covered by health insurance. If the only purpose of health insurance is to make gun ownership more expensive, I would absolutely oppose it.
yes, there is a need for insurance
Car insurance also covers medical costs. Say me and you are in a car accident and you have to go to the hospital. If it is determined that I was at fault, then, generally speaking, my insurance will be billed for your medical care. Your insurance would most likely pay initially, then they would bill my insurance for reimbursement. Why shouldn't the gun owner be required to provide proof of insurance to purchase a gun? If their gun or their actions result in an injury or death of another person why shouldn't they pay? These are questions and I'm curious as to your reasoning.
If somebody is injured by a gunshot,
accidental or intentional, why doesn't the health insurance company sue the shooter? Does that happen?
I think
We need to indemnify society for the true danger guns cause. It isn't strictly to cause hardship on the owners. Owning a gun makes you exponentially more likely to be involved in gun violence either through theft, or whatever. My friend bought a saturday night special .25 for plinking cans. His daughter's boyfriend stole it and used it to rob an arby's. My friend is partially responsible for that crime because he didn't secure it. Insurance companies have actuaries and know how to use rates to affect behavior.
Whoa!
So if somebody steals your car and injures somebody in an accident, that is your fault?
I'm not a lawyer, however, it is very complicated
The situation you described happens more frequently than you can imagine. There are several events that would determine what would happen to you and your car. Say that a person steals your car and commits a crime. Depending on the crime you could end up forfeiting your car to the police, have your car impounded to use as evidence, or you could simply have your car returned to you but you could still be liable for impound and other legal fees. If a person is caught in a drug related crime while using the car that they stole from you, then you could very likely have your car forfeited.
Now, we're getting a little off track here. The entire reason I brought up insurance is that I don't understand why gun owners should not need to pay for any damages caused by their guns. Why should the state (i.e., the rest of us) have to pay for the medical treatment of a person shot by another person's gun? Should the Lanza estate be used to reimburse the families of the 26 victims of Adam Lanza's crime?
"Why should we have to pay for....."
That can be a very dangerous game. I can think of quite a few lifestyle choices that people make that increase the likelihood of accident and disease. Should everybody who does or owns anything dangerous have special insurance for it? Maybe everybody who likes to drink should have to buy special insurance that will cover any injuries caused by their alcohol consumption. Why should non-drinkers have to pay higher insurance premiums for injuries caused by alcohol consumption? I suffered an injury in September that landed me in the ER. It would not have happened if I hadn't been drunk. Maybe I should have to buy special drinker's insurance in case my stupidity causes me to harm myself or others.
Should the Lanza estate reimburse the families? Criminals should always reimburse their victims for expenses. That's a no-brainer for me.
demands for gun owners to carry liability insurance growing
Illinois Rep proposes Mandatory Liability Insurace Requirements for Gun Owner Rep. Dunkin proposed this back in 2009.
Congress should push for mandatory gun insurance December 17, 2012 opinion piece by Reuters staff.
Hugh LaFollette Insurance Proposal from 2000 Hugh LaFollette from the University of Chicago Ethics journal.
This is not a new idea and actually seems to be gaining traction. I think we have both made our points and I can see that this particular horse is too tired to sustain anymore beating. Here is some additional reading on the subject if you’re interested. Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully, out of this tragedy real reform can be enacted.
I agree.
I just hope that whatever reform is passed, it is something that will actually address the problem, not a "feel-good" measure to make politicians look good and give the public the illusion of safety.
Statistically True
You are correct, "owning a gun makes you exponentially more likely to be involved in gun violence...."
Gun owners have escaped responsibilty for the damage caused by their firearms. I'm not saying a person cannot own a gun, I'm saying that it is unreasonable for gun owners to expect the rest of society to pay for the damage caused by their guns.
proof of insurance
or warrant will be issued for your arrest.and your arms confiscated. If I can be mandated to buy insurance just to live in this country, gun owners can be mandated to cover society for the risk they add. Can you imagine how fast trigger locks would be a condition of coverage' etc?
100% agreement. Provide insurance or go to jail.
Hey, I'm not saying a person cannot own a gun, I'm just saying that it has to be done in a responsible manner. No right is absolute. It's time to seriously regulate gun ownership in America. Thanks for reading, Nemesis. Your contributions are always appreciated. Like your new avatar.
Thanks
Your essays are exceedingly well written and thoughtful. You are one of my favorite writers anywhere.
thank you
I'm glad that you enjoy my writing, that's very kind of you to say. This is a great site and I'm grateful for the opportunity to express myself and interact with other like minded people such as yourself. I'm on central time and it's closing in on Midnight (nearly Christmas Eve!). Thanks for reading and participating. Have a great evening, and Merry Christmas.
My answer is "none"
Look at the Bill of Rights. Go to Wikipedia and look at them. At least five of them have been have been severely weakened since the 9/11. I want them back and I don't want to give up any of the others.
Link: Sic Semper Tyranis
you're willing to accept no limitations on gun ownership?
Well, that's one perspective, albeit, not one that addresses the fact that the number of Americans who are the victims of gun violence continues to increase. However, thank you for commenting and reading.
That ship has sailed
You already can't own a machine gun or surface to air missile. There are restrictions now. What we're really asking ourselves is what level of violence is acceptable? Shooting up a school full of babies jumped the shark for me. Is there ever a point in which it would become acceptable to you? Armed gangs of tea baggers mowing down democrats, say?
there was a great line in the West Wing that could apply...
to this debate. it was when the president of NOW was deciding who to endorse: the pro-choice GOPer or the Dem.
she said to the Dem candidate "we don't support any limitations on abortion." and the Dem pres said "so you support abortion in cases where you don't like the sex of a fetus?" she said no and he said "well you already support limitations on abortion."
if you do not think it's ok for someone who just got released from a mental institution or prison for a violent felony to go right out and get a gun, then you already support gun control.
that is a great point
Excellent point, poligirl. Let convicted felons and children of any age own a gun. What could go wrong, eh?