Skip to main content

View Diary: "You'll Shoot Your Eye Out, Kid" By Joe Biden (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Standardized nationwide compliance (0+ / 0-)

    of every sale requiring a 4473 would count as registration.

    Though unquestionably there are straw purchases and gun running, the assertion of many people claiming theft so as to launder guns is not supported by facts.

    And again, insurance is a government mandated financial barrier that disproportionately favors the wealthy.

    Yes, people should be made aware of their responsibility for securing their weapons - to keep them out of the hands of children or those who might harm themselves or others, and there should be stricter criminal penalties for reckless disregard of safe practices.  

    I don't know the specifics in Lanza's case, of how he was able to access the guns;  but I wholly blame his mother, knowing what she did of her son, for retaining guns in the house.

    I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

    by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 12:05:19 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Glad to hear you support registration, so 4473 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity

      would be filed on every firearm sold/transferred, even private sales and gun shows?  Now that would be progress.

      Do you also support licensing to make sure people are "aware of their responsibility for securing their weapons?" I don't expect you need any lessons on this issue, but many people that don't know any basics of gun safety buy firearms all the time - the only way I can see that all are made aware of basic safety rules is some licensing system where people have to pass a test to prove they can handle and store a firearm safely.  I have seen plenty of dangerous handling and reckless storing that, even if it is a minority, is a very large number in absolute terms.

      I agree that a lot of the blame in the Newtown case lies with Lanza's mother for keeping this small arsenal in their home, but pretty much any teenager will get access to their parent's gun if they want to, regardless of safe storage (my dad knew that I had played with loaded revolvers at neighbors' houses when I was 4-5 years old - they hid them and we always found them - so he when he got a 9 mm Parabellum he had a special locked case for it and I just stole the keys one time and made a copy, so as a teenager I had access to this pistol pretty much any time I wanted and my dad was not around. Luckily none of my friends/family ever got hurt, but I do know many that were.)

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 02:18:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll disagree with the implication (0+ / 0-)
        ...but pretty much any teenager will get access to their parent's gun if they want to.
        I will not presume to speak for the upbringing of anyone that I wasn't there to witness, but in households that I knew where guns were present, there was one absolute, inviolable edict - DO NOT FUCK WITH THE GUNS.  EVER.

        Me and my friends were no angels, our respective parents were not cut from the same cloth, but there were lines, and there were LINES.

        Guns weren't treated as some mysterious taboo, eliciting natural curiosity, but presented as extraordinarily dangerous tools, but tools just the same.  Just as a circular saw unplugged on the workbench can do terrible damage, it is not imbued with some sort of self-possessed intent (actually I was more interested in power tools growing up, than guns).

        To reiterate, I don't think that any of my friends would rather be fucking with a gun on their own than being caught by their parents while drunk driving.  So maybe that's the prism through which I see the current state of parenting, where criminal carelessness is in abundance compared to what I knew of in 1980's suburbia.

        I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

        by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:52:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  coming back to the idea (0+ / 0-)

        that so-called licensing will insure awareness...  I'll only point to every idiot on the road today to refute that presumption.

        I want prophylactic solutions that will abate violence.  There are many here who are arguing what color to paint the barn after the horses took off.

        I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

        by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:02:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Buy a cheaper gun and pay for the insurance (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry, but car insurance also favors the wealthy, as do homeowner's insurance, renter's insurance, event insurance, business insurance, health insurance, ....

      But here's the thing: liability insurance for guns ensures that victims (or their survivors) can be compensated for any misuse of a gun.

      Car insurance is mandatory, not because we want bad drivers to be able to repair their cars, but because the victims of traffic accidents generally need at least car repairs, and at worst funeral coverage, with a whole range of possible medical expenses in the middle ground.

      The mandatory insurance is not to protect the car owner, and won't be to protect the gun owner, but rather the potential victim(s) of the gun. Their rights also cannot be infringed, but irresponsible gun owners seem to do an awfully good job of infringing those rights all the time - currently with little to no recourse for the victims.

      Accidents happen. Intent happens. A gun owner who chooses not to ensure that people who may be accidentally or intentionally injured by the owner's gun can be compensated to help recover from their injury is not taking responsibility for the risk they've created.

      An AR-15 is $2k, at least, other guns vary in price from "insanely cheap" to "you could buy a car for that!" So, people can buy a gun that's cheap enough (or whose liability coverage would be inexpensive enough) that they can afford it. They don't get to back out on the liability insurance, though. They choose to create the risk, they must be responsible for that risk, via insurance.

      •  since when has the cost of insurance been (0+ / 0-)

        commensurate with, or should be (in the case of a Constitutionally protected right) the actual cost of exercising that right.

        Driving a car is not a right.  Ask anyone who's been convicted of a DWI.

        Government mandated financial barriers to exercising a right must be viewed as unconstitutional.  That is unless you're the type that believe CU is a good decision.

        I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

        by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:57:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then I suggest you find a way to make it cost-free (0+ / 0-)

          For people who can't afford it. Shifting the cost to the victims is not acceptable.

          •  um, ok (0+ / 0-)

            kind of pie in the sky, considering we can't even get single-payer going.

            Although, that really wouldn't be much of a problem then, medical bill wise, would it?  And settlements won't bring back loved ones anyway.

            This is getting all Rube Goldberg-y to be a reasonable method of the goal of violence abatement, considering the deplorable priorities we have that healthcare is not a right in the first place.

            I'll stipulate if healthcare WAS a right in the same way that gun ownership is currently a right, there'd be a basis for a grand debate worthy of consideration by all.  But as it stands, perversely as most might see it, healthcare is not a right, and is not afforded the same level of consideration without a compelling public need that outstrips the Constitution as it stands.

            I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

            by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:58:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The right to not be killed or injured by another (0+ / 0-)

              Takes precedent over the right to own a gun.

              There is a compelling state interest to prevent death and injury of innocent people, and the supreme court has set many a precedent in which that compelling interest is allowed to put limits on a right (the most commonly noted: not falsely yelling fire in a theater).

              •  two different things (0+ / 0-)

                you have a right not to be harmed by malicious intent or willful negligence, but that does not afford you the right to proactively deprive the liberties of those who take reasonable care to avoid such harm in an absolutist manner without due process.

                The right to own a firearm is, and has always been, throughout the history of our country, affirmed.  Seeking to utterly nullify the 2a is political suicide.

                You cannot point to someone with a car and say that you believe they will drive in a reckless manner that may injure you or someone else even though the car is capable of being used irresponsibly or dangerously.

                Also, "innocent" is a red herring.  what does that have to do with anything?

                I believe in limits, I just don't agree with, nor the justifications that you present as the reason for yours.

                I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

                by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:31:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  looking back (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radical simplicity

            it was unfair to even allude to the fact that because you believe in one thing, you'd support the CU decision.

            them's nasty, fightin' words, and I apologize for the mere association.

            I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

            by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:36:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site