gun control idea that needs to be talked about:

[Sava]

Concealed carry holders should be made to purchase liability insurance in case they kill or hurt an innocent person or cause property damage. In addition, they should face a harsher set of penalties for any unjustified or negligent use of firearms.



Politically, I think this is one of those 95% support ideas. If anything, it should be used to further marginalize the opposition by making their position seem even more extreme and unreasonable.

[ricketyclik]

I realise this is anathema to many Americans, but to most of us non-Americans the idea that concealed carry is allowed at all is just crazy.

But back to the idea, wouldn't existing laws regarding manslaughter and property damage carry harsh enough penalties? The idea that someone could get away with that **** is bewildering to me.

But as I was writing the above, I realise you're concerned about covering the costs of such (in the case of injury or death to an "innocent" - as opposed to an evil burglar who clearly deserved to die for trying to steal that laptop) a tragedy. Again, your "every man for themselves" society doesn't really equate for the rest of us, where victims are generally supported by the rest of us through the state.

[kentonio]

Come on now, without concealed carry how would that woman have been able to try and shoot out the tyres of the car some shoplifters were using to escape their heinous crime?

[Sava]

I realise this is anathema to many Americans, but to most of us non-Americans the idea that concealed carry is allowed at all is just crazy.

CC is crazy to about 75% of americans too

But back to the idea, wouldn't existing laws regarding manslaughter and property damage carry harsh enough penalties? The idea that someone could get away with that **** is bewildering to me.

It's okay to stalk and run up behind a black teenager, attack him, then shoot him and claim self defense. The American system of justice is broken. The best we do is slap insanely draconian penalties on things and forget that people exist when they go to prison... because they aren't human beings if they commit crimes. Animals can't be charged with crimes, but everyone in prison seems to be an animal.

But as I was writing the above, I realise you're concerned about covering the costs of such (in the case of injury or death to an "innocent" - as opposed to an evil burglar who clearly deserved to die for trying to steal that laptop) a tragedy. Again, your "every man for themselves" society doesn't really equate for the rest of us, where victims are generally supported by the rest of us through the state.

I'm interested in making gun ownership cost-prohibitive... among other things.

ironically, every time there's a highly publicized story, gun owners go out and buy up guns and ammo, driving up the price, collectively wasting more of their own money

it's a ****ing fantastic response that I wish was only more pronounced

[Sava]

I want a trip to the range to cost some poor sack his walmart money

[ricketyclik]

OK, I get it now. Basically an expensive tax on CC. Good idea, given where your country's at.

[Sava]

OK, I get it now. Basically an expensive tax on CC. Good idea, given where your country's at.

People hate taxes. But people also hate seeing someone get a "free ride" so to speak.

If the law says I need car insurance because I might crash and hurt someone/damage something, it reasons that weapons should be treated the same. Cars at least have another purpose/use beyond killing/maiming/destroying. I don't think that's a large enough leap for most Americans to drastically change their attitudes on gun control.

People on the fence aren't going to examine a policy like that and think they are personally losing. CC holders are a very small percentage of gun owners.

You could maybe get some of the "tax" angle in some GOP rhetoric opposing such a policy, but I don't think that talking point will move much with anyone who isn't already a complete extremist on guns.

[Thoth]

Cars can't be used to defend your freedom. Guns can.


why do you hate freedom?

[ricketyclik]

Not entirely on-topic, but since this is the latest thread on gun control....

There are some freedoms worth giving up. And access to guns is one.

Georgina Dent

“When there’s a driving accident, you don’t ban cars, you try to prevent drunk people from driving.”

This is the view that Fox & Friends television host Tucker Carlson shared with his American audience on Monday night. Carlson argued that the discussion of gun restrictions in the wake of the Oregon college shooting last week — where nine people died — were an “infantile focus on the tool of the violence.”

“The idea that taking guns away from the law-abiding will make us safer is insane and childish,” Carlson said.

Fox & Friends host Tucker Carlson says Australians “have no freedom”.
When his co-host Clayton Morris countered with the view that Australia has effectively controlled guns and gun violence by limiting access, Carlson was quick to interrupt.

“They also have no freedom,” Carlson said.

“You can go to prison for expressing unpopular views in Australia and people do… No one ever says that.”

It is true that here in Australia we don’t have ready access to guns, but it’s a freedom worth waiving. It comes with a compelling upside.

In 2012, a total of 226 Australians were killed with guns. In America in the same year, 33,536 were killed with guns.

Australia is estimated to be home to three million firearms owned legally and illegally. America is home to between 270 million and 310 million firearms. America’s population is roughly 13 times Australia’s. They have almost 300 times as many guns and 148 times as many gun-related deaths.

At the end of the segment in which Carlson criticised Australia’s lack of freedom, he referred to an article he’d read in which the author had proposed banning guns.

“She asked rhetorically, ‘what about the second amendment? It was written by white men 200 years ago. Who cares?’ That’s where the left is right now. It’s scary,” Carlson said.

Here in Australia, guns laws weren’t overhauled by the left. It was the decisive action of John Howard, a conservative Prime Minister, that resulted in a rapid and sustained reduction in gun violence. And as strange as it might seem to many gun-loving American citizens, strict guns laws are far from ‘scary’.

The truth is we’re pretty free because of it.

We are free to send our kids to school everyday safe in the knowledge that a mass shooting is highly highly unlikely. We are free to drive, knowing it’s very very unlikely that our fellow drivers will be armed. We are free to head to the shopping centre or go to a football game or visit a uni, without giving gun violence a second thought. And that’s pretty liberating.

Of course, Australia is not free from gun crime; the shooting of police accountant Curtis Cheng in Parramatta on Friday is a tragic reminder. But gun deaths are rare and they will remain rare if we remain committed to gun control.

This is anathema for Americans and obviously the fact we don’t have a bill of rights that enshrines the right to bear arms, like they do, makes this easier for us to accept. But the truth is some freedoms are worth trading in for others.

Australia is, on the whole, tightly regulated. Earlier this year Canadian journalist and publisher Tyler Brûle delivered a pretty scathing assessment of Australia’s ‘Nanny state’. He highlighted fastidious rules around lockouts, airport curfews and council regulations for alfresco dining as proof.

“This country is on the verge of becoming the world’s dumbest nation. There will be a collapse of common sense here if health and safety wins out on every single discussion,” he said while speaking at the Vivid Ideas festival. “People think it’s a little bit nuts here.”

It’s a very valid point. Do we want to live in a total nanny state? Nope. But are there exceptions? Absolutely.

All in favour of a total-nanny-state in relation to guns, say ‘I’.

The comments section addresses the "I" mistake.

[Sava]

EYE EYE EYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


but yeah, that piece is totally right

we, in the US, just need a constitutional amendment since the heller case practically invented personal gun ownership... officially...

that's just a reality of the SC... not complaining, necessarily

GOP won't have the presidency for a good long time, god willing

alito is really the only bit of judge ****ery to worry about long term, but he'll flourish writing the occasional dissenting opinion for the next few decades


when thomas and scalia are off the court, it will be like when the emperor was overthrown in star wars

a great amount of evil will be released, but the energy will ultimately spread out and fade away... perhaps their old seats having merely a trace amount of dark side left

[kentonio]

GOP won't have the presidency for a good long time, god willing

If they continue to hold the senate though, can you imagine the confirmation hearings?

[Sava]

If they continue to hold the senate though, can you imagine the confirmation hearings?

aside from delaying the inevitable and pissing everyone off, I'm not sure what they accomplish by doing that

but it would be fun for sure

[kentonio]

aside from delaying the inevitable and pissing everyone off, I'm not sure what they accomplish by doing that

Remember this is the same party that wants to shut down the government on the basis of a fraudulent video.

[giblets]

Cars can't be used to defend your freedom. Guns can.


why do you hate freedom?

You can run over enemies of freedom, seems pretty effective to me.

[Sava]

GTA MOTHER****ER

i mean reallly