The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Sommerswerd]

You can only pull this trick of once. After a while, the "report it stolen" will not get believed.

"Believed"?? That's irrelevant. Either the insurance policy covers it or it doesn't. If there's any gray area, that's a lawsuit which likely gets settled.

Also you do have to fake a break in and if you are found out, the fines will be hefty.

Fines? "Hefty"?? More than a wrongful death lawsuit?? I think not

And that's the argument against your other point as well. It's okay when the instruments aren't a 100% effective. You're already a huge way there when you can clean up the big majority of "normal people". Worry about the next steps after that.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by any of this... and I generally comprehend @Farm Boy very well, so that's saying a lot, in terms of how incomprehensible your point/statement is.

"Report it stolen" would be solved by the liability insurance following the gun after it's stolen. If you lost too many guns, the insurance would crank your premiums

So you just crank your prices to compensate, and keep it moving... Crank the rates? Meh... after multiple people get killed by said gun? That's not a great solution.

 

[El_Machinae]

There will always be a black market for illegal firearms, but making illegal guns more expensive has got to help.
And, more importantly, the victims of those guns at least have an insurance pool that they can sue. Okay, maybe not 'more important', but it's important.

 

[Sommerswerd]

There will always be a black market for illegal firearms, but making illegal guns more expensive has got to help.
And, more importantly, the victims of those guns at least have an insurance pool that they can sue. Okay, maybe not 'more important', but it's important.

"Insurance pool" for ghost guns? How?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ghost guns are a different and separate problem. I think it is foolish to try and include them under the rules of regular guns. Solve one problem at a time.

 

[El_Machinae]

"Insurance pool" for ghost guns? How?

By having the liability insurance continue to be tied to the firearm, though obviously removing serial numbers would prevent it from working as intended. But still, it would work for the subset of damages that include the gun being stolen (as in actually stolen) or lent out.

Canada doesn't have nearly the secondary illegal gun market that the United States has, though I'll grant it's partially because our neighbors work very hard to make their illegal guns cheap and easy to get.

 

[Samson]

removing serial numbers would prevent it from working as intended

In this day and age it must be possible to mark a gun with an identifier that cannot be removed without destroying the gun.

 

[mitsho]

@Sommerswerd yeah, I sometimes get too quickly. Basically, the question is how to get most guns out of circulation, not how to devise an airtight system where no harm can be done. Humans will always find a way to cheat and obtain what they really want. But you can make it a lot harder for the casual users, and that eliminates a majority of police work. First do the easy 80%, then think about the other 20% - that's what I'm saying. (And that will be enough for me ;-))

 

[Sommerswerd]

Ghost guns are a different and separate problem. I think it is foolish to try and include them under the rules of regular guns.

I initially thought the same when I first heard about ghost guns. But I soon realized that it was too big of a factor to ignore, and that I was really just trying to ignore it because it was inconvenient to the "solution" that I had already emotionally committed to. But yes, as you and @mitsho allude to, its probably better to do something, rather than nothing, to reduce gun murders. The measures we are discussing would certainly have come into play in the current Crumbley case.

By having the liability insurance continue to be tied to the firearm, though obviously removing serial numbers would prevent it from working as intended.

That's my point. Ghost guns dont have serial numbers. They are manufactured off the books of any legitimate gunmaker.

In this day and age it must be possible to mark a gun with an identifier that cannot be removed without destroying the gun.

There are millions and millions of guns already in circulation that would not be subject to any such identifier, and they can kill you just as dead as any hypothetical new gun that would carry this proposed universal, immutable identifier.

 

[Samson]

There are millions and millions of guns already in circulation that would not be subject to any such identifier, and they can kill you just as dead as any hypothetical new gun that would carry this proposed universal, immutable identifier.

This is a problem for any administrative measure enforced now, not specifically for the labeling. I am sure one could devise a retrofitted identifier, perhaps a combination of a laser printer and a neutron source. It seems to me that the answer is to take a generational view on the problem, in that you enact laws to control the spread of guns so that our grandchildren get a safer world. Australia managed a buy back program that was successful, but I am not convinced that would work as well in the US.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thanks.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's my point. Ghost guns dont have serial numbers. They are manufactured off the books of any legitimate gunmaker.

That seems to be a separate issue from legitimate purchases being resold on the black market.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Best news of the day.

Newsom Calls for Gun Legislation Modeled on the Texas Abortion Law
Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accused Texas of insulating its abortion law from the courts, and then called on lawmakers to use a similar strategy to go after the gun industry.

Angered by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to continue allowing private citizens to sue Texas abortion providers, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California on Saturday called for a similar law giving ordinary residents legal standing to file lawsuits against purveyors of restricted firearms.

“SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?!” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, tweeted. “If that’s the precedent, then we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets. If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives.”

The governor’s response seemed to contradict his earlier criticism of the Texas law, which Mr. Newsom had previously described as a cynical attempt to undercut federal rights. In a statement released on Saturday evening, Mr. Newsom said he had instructed his staff to work with California’s Legislature and attorney general to write a bill that would let citizens sue anyone who “manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” in California. The governor called for damages of at least $10,000 per violation, plus costs and attorney’s fees.

“If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” Mr. Newsom said in the statement. The governor’s response seemed to explicitly position California opposite Texas in the divisive battles over abortion rights and gun control — and to position him personally on a national front in the culture wars.

 

[Zkribbler]

Best news of the day.

Newsom Calls for Gun Legislation Modeled on the Texas Abortion Law
Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accused Texas of insulating its abortion law from the courts, and then called on lawmakers to use a similar strategy to go after the gun industry.

Dang it. I wanted to post this. But I snoozed and losed.

 

[Sommerswerd]

"Snoozed and losed" @Zkribbler that's funny

Best news of the day.

Newsom Calls for Gun Legislation Modeled on the Texas Abortion Law
Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accused Texas of insulating its abortion law from the courts, and then called on lawmakers to use a similar strategy to go after the gun industry.

One problem I can already foresee with this approach, besides the obvious hypocrisy of it... is that the right to guns is a Constitutionally enshrined right. Sure there is a Constitutional right to abortion for now, but that is being undone and may be struck down outright pretty soon. Once there is no Constitutional right to abortion, the Courts will be able to strike down any anti-gun laws modeled after the Texas anti-abortion law while still upholding the anti-abortion law, without even having to engage in a double standard... because one will involve a Constitutional right, while the other will not.

 

[amadeus]

Aside from the constitutionality issue, are “assault” weapons and ghost guns (not really sure what that is) the biggest source of gun crime? I mean, from everything I see the biggest threat to public safety is handguns in the hands of young men.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"Snoozed and losed" @Zkribbler that's funny One problem I can already foresee with this approach, besides the obvious hypocrisy of it... is that the right to guns is a Constitutionally enshrined right. Sure there is a Constitutional right to abortion for now, but that is being undone and may be struck down outright pretty soon. Once there is no Constitutional right to abortion, the Courts will be able to strike down any anti-gun laws modeled after the Texas anti-abortion law while still upholding the anti-abortion law, without even having to engage in a double standard... because one will involve a Constitutional right, while the other will not.

We'll have to see. Yes, there is a difference, but court cases can take a while to resolve and meanwhile we can all get rich reporting folks who have assault rifles or ghost guns. If a state/federal can ban types of guns (machine guns, ghost, fully automatic firing) then such a narrow law can work when focused specifically.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Aside from the constitutionality issue, are “assault” weapons and ghost guns (not really sure what that is) the biggest source of gun crime? I mean, from everything I see the biggest threat to public safety is handguns in the hands of young men.

Ghost guns are those often 3D printed without any identifying numbers or names. If they are plastic, they can go through detectors.

The point of such a law is two fold: get some guns off the streets and payback to the GOP and their supporters.

Now I wonder if a state could make a law limiting campaign contributions to any race in the state and allow any citizen of the state to collect a bounty for reporting such a violation. I'm sure a smart lawyer could write up such a bill that bypasses federal statutes or federal courts. A work around for the Citizens United would be nice.

 

[amadeus]

Ghost guns are those often 3D printed without any identifying numbers or names. If they are plastic, they can go through detectors.

The point of such a law is two fold: get some guns off the streets and payback to the GOP and their supporters.

Now I wonder if a state could make a law limiting campaign contributions to any race in the state and allow any citizen of the state to collect a bounty for reporting such a violation. I'm sure a smart lawyer could write up such a bill that bypasses federal statutes or federal courts. A work around for the Citizens United would be nice.

It sounds like the point of the law in CA isn't anything about gun violence but just "sticking it to the cons." I'm against gun violence, but this is just poisoning the political well even more: how many corpses are to be collateral damage in this ridiculous game?

Disclaimer: also fully condemn the TX abortion law.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The GOP wants to play hardball. It is time for the Dems to do the same.

 

[uppi]

"Snoozed and losed" @Zkribbler that's funny One problem I can already foresee with this approach, besides the obvious hypocrisy of it... is that the right to guns is a Constitutionally enshrined right. Sure there is a Constitutional right to abortion for now, but that is being undone and may be struck down outright pretty soon. Once there is no Constitutional right to abortion, the Courts will be able to strike down any anti-gun laws modeled after the Texas anti-abortion law while still upholding the anti-abortion law, without even having to engage in a double standard... because one will involve a Constitutional right, while the other will not.

Yes, but they need to actually strike down the constitutional right instead of letting the law stand on the grounds of some technicality involving this private citizens suing nonsense.

It sounds like the point of the law in CA isn't anything about gun violence but just "sticking it to the cons." I'm against gun violence, but this is just poisoning the political well even more: how many corpses are to be collateral damage in this ridiculous game?

Disclaimer: also fully condemn the TX abortion law.

This is not about sticking it to the cons, but rather a dire warning in direction of the cons. I think the intention is to make clear to everyone what the collateral damage would be, if SCOTUS upholds this workaround for constitutional rights. You could essentially toss the Bill of Rights into the bin if states can make laws like this to circumvent constitutional rights. And if Republicans don't want to acknowledge this, they need to be shown how this could be used to circumvent rights they care about.