Orlando

[mrpercentage]

Sadly this is another terrible tragedy that 15 years of war and privacy violations couldn't stop. I think we need an entirely different approach. Instead of panic or giving away freedom or begetting more war, I think we should just give each family that lost someone a million dollars with sincerest condolences for their loss. Tragedies can not be stopped but I think such a display of charity will destroy any image of victory for ISIL. Point to a legitimate charity intending to do that and I will send my share.

God Bless Orlando

103 dead or wounded. Show me where to send $103

[forummm]

Sadly this is another terrible tragedy that 15 years of war and privacy violations couldn't stop.

And actually may have created. ISIL could only exist because of our country destabilizing the area and removing institutions and individuals that prevented the movement from taking hold.

And our prior (and current) policies around Saudi Arabia have enabled them to spread the radical Wahhabism ideology around the world.

And our own domestic policies and politics that encourage more gun violence. The NRA loves it when these shootings happen. Gun sales go through the roof. Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson are both up 10% today.

I think we should just give each family that lost someone a million dollars with sincerest condolences for their loss.

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

[Northwestie]

And another round of applause for the Bush-Cheney team for their dim-witted move in invading Iraq.  Clearly the foreign policy blunder of the past century.    Just awesome results.

[acroy]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

[GuitarStv]

It's a tragedy.  I wish the best for anyone who was connected to this situation.

[Rightflyer]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

[Blonde Lawyer]

Sadly this is another terrible tragedy that 15 years of war and privacy violations couldn't stop. I think we need an entirely different approach. Instead of panic or giving away freedom or begetting more war, I think we should just give each family that lost someone a million dollars with sincerest condolences for their loss. Tragedies can not be stopped but I think such a display of charity will destroy any image of victory for ISIL. Point to a legitimate charity intending to do that and I will send my share.

God Bless Orlando

103 dead or wounded. Show me where to send $103

This doesn't answer your larger policy question but I'm always afraid of new pop up charities surrounding tragedies and mismanagement of funds.

Even though I'm not religious, I support the Lutheran Church Charities Comfort Dogs program.  They have a large team of golden retrievers and handlers and deploy to various tragedies across the country to comfort the victims.  They go to hospitals.  They go to churches.  They go to open venues and invite the public to just come sit, pet the dogs and talk.  I learned about them after Hurricane Sandy and Newtown and started donating.  I then personally benefited from them following the Boston Marathon Bombing.  They are deploying to Orlando now and accepting donations to fund their travel.  When I sat with them following Boston, they never asked my religion, never discussed religion with me, never tried to convert me.  Their webpage and emails are of course full of religion.  They are a church charity.  But they do not impose it on the people they help. They just go and comfort.  I'm forever moved by photos on their Facebook page of victims faces lighting up when a dog puts it's head in their lap in their hospital bed.  I luckily wasn't physically harmed following Boston and just went to heal my emotional harm when they had a public event.  It motivated me to get over my anxiety and back into the city again.  If you are looking for a place to donate $103 that will really help victims, I think it's a good place.

[forummm]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

[Cellista]

Sadly this is another terrible tragedy that 15 years of war and privacy violations couldn't stop.

And actually may have created. ISIL could only exist because of our country destabilizing the area and removing institutions and individuals that prevented the movement from taking hold.

And our prior (and current) policies around Saudi Arabia have enabled them to spread the radical Wahhabism ideology around the world.

And our own domestic policies and politics that encourage more gun violence. The NRA loves it when these shootings happen. Gun sales go through the roof. Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson are both up 10% today.

I think we should just give each family that lost someone a million dollars with sincerest condolences for their loss.

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

One of the great outcomes of Mustachianism is that by getting people out of their cars and to consume less, we weaken the price of fossil fuel that supports so many bad actors - Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, ISIS.

[randymarsh]

I know it's still early so we don't know 100% what happened, but does anyone else think it's odd the police waited 3 hours before going in? I thought active shooter policy was now to go in ASAP and take out the threat? He made the 911 call about ISIS at 2:20. That would indicate to me that negotiation was not an option.

[deadlymonkey]

I know it's still early so we don't know 100% what happened, but does anyone else think it's odd the police waited 3 hours before going in? I thought active shooter policy was now to go in ASAP and take out the threat? He made the 911 call about ISIS at 2:20. That would indicate to me that negotiation was not an option.

Police went in immediately and rescued people and got into a firefight.  Shooter was barricaded, something (no Monday morning QBing here) led the on scene commander to decide this was a hostage situation and no longer an active shooter.  That changed at some point and SWAT went in.

[Northwestie]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Another silly argument - people die falling of stepladders or using lawn mowers.  The difference is that those are accidents unrelated to the intended use of the tool.  ONE of the purposes of a gun is to kill.

[Midwest]

And another round of applause for the Bush-Cheney team for their dim-witted move in invading Iraq.  Clearly the foreign policy blunder of the past century.    Just awesome results.

I know Bush-Cheney are viewed as Team America World Police, but Clinton's Libya blunder and Obama's drone killings haven't been terribly helpful either.  Our middle east policy is a cluster and it's not just Bush Cheney.

[acroy]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

A person misuses a tool, the maker of the tool get blamed?
OK then, no arguing with that logic!

[GuitarStv]

And another round of applause for the Bush-Cheney team for their dim-witted move in invading Iraq.  Clearly the foreign policy blunder of the past century.    Just awesome results.

I know Bush-Cheney are viewed as Team America World Police, but Clinton's Libya blunder and Obama's drone killings haven't been terribly helpful either.  Our middle east policy is a cluster and it's not just Bush Cheney.

You guys still have your illegal torture facilities running, full of kidnapped people who have been denied a fair trial as well.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Sadly this is another terrible tragedy that 15 years of war and privacy violations couldn't stop.

And actually may have created. ISIL could only exist because of our country destabilizing the area and removing institutions and individuals that prevented the movement from taking hold.

And our prior (and current) policies around Saudi Arabia have enabled them to spread the radical Wahhabism ideology around the world.

And our own domestic policies and politics that encourage more gun violence. The NRA loves it when these shootings happen. Gun sales go through the roof. Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson are both up 10% today.

I think we should just give each family that lost someone a million dollars with sincerest condolences for their loss.

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

Was the NRA responsible for Bataclan too?

[shelivesthedream]

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

I have never heard of this idea before and am very intrigued. Anyone want to talk about what that might look like? Who would pay in - the gun owners? And under what circumstances would it pay out?

[deadlymonkey]

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

I have never heard of this idea before and am very intrigued. Anyone want to talk about what that might look like? Who would pay in - the gun owners? And under what circumstances would it pay out?

I have never heard of it before.  I would think gun owners would have to pay it like car owners do and it would pay out for any damages/deaths caused by the gun owner who would also be liable for damages done by the gun if it was used by an unauthorized user and not sufficiently secured.

It would never pass though because I think the courts would find that an insurance requirement would place an undue burden on exercise of the 2nd amendment and strike it down, just like striking down poll taxes.

[Midwest]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Gun aren't designed expressly to kill people any more than knives are.  Guns accurately shoot a small projectile.  If the projectile hits another human being through carelessness or malice, bad things happen.

Similarly, knives are used to cut and stab things.  If you are careless or have bad intentions, they can hurt people as well.

Are you arguing for insurance on all dangerous inanimate objects? 

Roughly 13% of murders in the US during 2012 were committed with knives.  Should we register and insure those? 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

[Shane]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Mandatory gun insurance is a brilliant idea. How can we not require that those who purchase weapons designed to kill human beings carry insurance to compensate those who are murdered and maimed by the guns in their "collections"?

[GuitarStv]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Mandatory gun insurance is a brilliant idea. How can we not require that those who purchase weapons designed to kill human beings carry insurance to compensate those who are murdered and maimed by the guns in their "collections"?

Given that guns in most places in the US can be bought and sold with no record of transaction (privately), and that there is no database containing a full list of owners/guns, I'm not sure how you could enforce gun insurance.

[Midwest]

Gun aren't designed expressly to kill people any more than knives are.  Guns accurately shoot a small projectile.  If the projectile hits another human being through carelessness or malice, bad things happen.

Similarly, knives are used to cut and stab things.  If you are careless or have bad intentions, they can hurt people as well.

This is categorically false unless you want to go back and rephrase that to say that "[some] guns aren't..." If you are familiar with the development of firearms then you know that some categories of firearms are intended to be strictly used against other humans and have limited utility outside of that.

The same thing applies to knives. There are entire categories of them that can be used against humans, but others that are designed for it are much better at the job.

I have an AR, is it malfunctioning when it only puts holes in paper?  My knives must be malfunctioning as well as all they do is cut steak and vegetables.

[Chris22]

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

I have never heard of this idea before and am very intrigued. Anyone want to talk about what that might look like? Who would pay in - the gun owners? And under what circumstances would it pay out?

I have never heard of it before.  I would think gun owners would have to pay it like car owners do and it would pay out for any damages/deaths caused by the gun owner who would also be liable for damages done by the gun if it was used by an unauthorized user and not sufficiently secured.

It would never pass though because I think the courts would find that an insurance requirement would place an undue burden on exercise of the 2nd amendment and strike it down, just like striking down poll taxes.

Really guys?  Mandatory insurance?  Given that the vast, vast, vast majority of gun crimes are committed with a weapon obtained illegally, do you really think those people are then going to go obtain insurance on their guns? 

[Blonde Lawyer]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Mandatory gun insurance is a brilliant idea. How can we not require that those who purchase weapons designed to kill human beings carry insurance to compensate those who are murdered and maimed by the guns in their "collections"?

It's not mandatory but if you have homeowner's insurance or renter's insurance it would cover you for negligent discharge of a firearm.  No insurance would cover intentional acts.  But there is already "gun insurance" as part of your regular property insurance that covers your negligent acts.  It's just not a separate policy. 

[forummm]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Gun aren't designed expressly to kill people any more than knives are.  Guns accurately shoot a small projectile.  If the projectile hits another human being through carelessness or malice, bad things happen.

Oh, come on. Guns are explicitly designed to kill or seriously injure living beings. And certain guns are explicitly designed to kill or seriously injure human beings. You don't take a machine gun to hunt a deer.

Knives are much less deadly and have many other useful purposes. Some nut could kill 50 people with some guns on one evening. It would take someone with incredible skill to kill 50 people with some knives.

[forummm]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Mandatory gun insurance is a brilliant idea. How can we not require that those who purchase weapons designed to kill human beings carry insurance to compensate those who are murdered and maimed by the guns in their "collections"?

It's not mandatory but if you have homeowner's insurance or renter's insurance it would cover you for negligent discharge of a firearm.  No insurance would cover intentional acts.  But there is already "gun insurance" as part of your regular property insurance that covers your negligent acts.  It's just not a separate policy. 

I just threw the idea out there in response to a facetious comparison about cars. But the idea is somewhat intriguing. It would be hard to enforce under current laws. But current laws should also be changed to have universal registration of guns. And guns should also not function except when held by the owner or another individual the owner has authorized. If you want to be a responsible gun owner (by which I mean want it for protection or sport and want to keep it from being used accidentally or maliciously by someone), fingerprint matching smart gun technology shouldn't bother you.

[Midwest]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Gun aren't designed expressly to kill people any more than knives are.  Guns accurately shoot a small projectile.  If the projectile hits another human being through carelessness or malice, bad things happen.

Oh, come on. Guns are explicitly designed to kill or seriously injure living beings. And certain guns are explicitly designed to kill or seriously injure human beings. You don't take a machine gun to hunt a deer.

Knives are much less deadly and have many other useful purposes. Some nut could kill 50 people with some guns on one evening. It would take someone with incredible skill to kill 50 people with some knives.

Of course you don't take a machine gun to hunt deer.  If I owned a machine gun (I don't), I wouldn't use it to kill people either.  I might, however, use it to shoot targets. 

I suspect the real purpose of mandatory insurance is to make owing a firearm cost prohibitive.  If my loved one were killed by a firearm (or any other means), getting a big payday wouldn't be the top of my priority list.

With regard to knives, there were 1600 murders committed with knives in 2012 and 500 with clubs/hammers.  If you took every gun in america away, I suspect knife and hammer murders go up significantly.  Then we could go round and round about knife bans.

On training, I suspect we'll find out the Orlando shooter was well trained as well. It takes practice to perform horrific acts at that level.  While I realize the AR is a death machine, it sounds like he was making fairly rapid magazine changes.  If he weren't skilled, I think he would have been overpowered.

[GuitarStv]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Gun aren't designed expressly to kill people any more than knives are.  Guns accurately shoot a small projectile.  If the projectile hits another human being through carelessness or malice, bad things happen.

Oh, come on. Guns are explicitly designed to kill or seriously injure living beings. And certain guns are explicitly designed to kill or seriously injure human beings. You don't take a machine gun to hunt a deer.

Knives are much less deadly and have many other useful purposes. Some nut could kill 50 people with some guns on one evening. It would take someone with incredible skill to kill 50 people with some knives.

Of course you don't take a machine gun to hunt deer.  If I owned a machine gun (I don't), I wouldn't use it to kill people either.  I might, however, use it to shoot targets. 

I suspect the real purpose of mandatory insurance is to make owing a firearm cost prohibitive.  If my loved one were killed by a firearm (or any other means), getting a big payday wouldn't be the top of my priority list.

With regard to knives, there were 1600 murders committed with knives in 2012 and 500 with clubs/hammers.  If you took every gun in america away, I suspect knife and hammer murders go up significantly.  Then we could go round and round about knife bans.

Someone really needs to tell the US military that knives are as effective as guns for killing people.  They've been wasting so much time and money on guns!

[Chris22]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Mandatory gun insurance is a brilliant idea. How can we not require that those who purchase weapons designed to kill human beings carry insurance to compensate those who are murdered and maimed by the guns in their "collections"?

It's not mandatory but if you have homeowner's insurance or renter's insurance it would cover you for negligent discharge of a firearm.  No insurance would cover intentional acts.  But there is already "gun insurance" as part of your regular property insurance that covers your negligent acts.  It's just not a separate policy. 

I just threw the idea out there in response to a facetious comparison about cars. But the idea is somewhat intriguing. It would be hard to enforce under current laws. But current laws should also be changed to have universal registration of guns. And guns should also not function except when held by the owner or another individual the owner has authorized. If you want to be a responsible gun owner (by which I mean want it for protection or sport and want to keep it from being used accidentally or maliciously by someone), fingerprint matching smart gun technology shouldn't bother you.

Ever used an iPhone with the fingerprint reader?  I use one all the time.  Anything on your hands at all and it doesn't work.

Also, what are you going to do with the ~300M non-smart-guns out there in circulation today? 

[Cyaphas]

Mandatory gun insurance is a brilliant idea. How can we not require that those who purchase weapons designed to kill human beings carry insurance to compensate those who are murdered and maimed by the guns in their "collections"?

I think it's much more logical to have the people who stripped the victim's rights to defend themselves how they saw fit cover all of the expenses. Clearly their gun free zones are working miracles. Maybe the terrorist just didn't see the sign when entering the establishment that weapons weren't allowed on the vicinity. I know, we could mandate larger font!

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

I have never heard of this idea before and am very intrigued. Anyone want to talk about what that might look like? Who would pay in - the gun owners? And under what circumstances would it pay out?

I have never heard of it before.  I would think gun owners would have to pay it like car owners do and it would pay out for any damages/deaths caused by the gun owner who would also be liable for damages done by the gun if it was used by an unauthorized user and not sufficiently secured.

It would never pass though because I think the courts would find that an insurance requirement would place an undue burden on exercise of the 2nd amendment and strike it down, just like striking down poll taxes.

Really guys?  Mandatory insurance?  Given that the vast, vast, vast majority of gun crimes are committed with a weapon obtained illegally, do you really think those people are then going to go obtain insurance on their guns? 

The only purpose would be to punish people they don't like and turn some fraction of previously law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

I just threw the idea out there in response to a facetious comparison about cars. But the idea is somewhat intriguing. It would be hard to enforce under current laws. But current laws should also be changed to have universal registration of guns.

Look up the compliance rate New York and Connecticut got with their new registration requirements. Take a look at the estimated compliance rate Australia got with its confiscation, for that matter. These policies are fantasies.

And guns should also not function except when held by the owner or another individual the owner has authorized. If you want to be a responsible gun owner (by which I mean want it for protection or sport and want to keep it from being used accidentally or maliciously by someone), fingerprint matching smart gun technology shouldn't bother you.

Except that it doesn't work very well - and there's already hundreds of millions of guns in the United States without it.

Also keep in mind that guns aren't very hard to make. They're pipes and springs.

Edited to add: For that matter, the Orlando shooter bought his guns legally from stores, passing a background check in the process. Magical hand-recognizing guns would have worked for his sick purposes.

[Chris22]

Mandatory gun insurance is a brilliant idea. How can we not require that those who purchase weapons designed to kill human beings carry insurance to compensate those who are murdered and maimed by the guns in their "collections"?

I think it's much more logical to have the people who stripped the victim's rights to defend themselves how they saw fit cover all of the expenses. Clearly their gun free zones are working miracles. Maybe the terrorist just didn't see the sign when entering the establishment that weapons weren't allowed on the vicinity. I know, we could mandate larger font!

I will say, as much as I'm a proponent of CCW, in general I don't think this was the place for it.  I'm assuming it was a club full of people partying and drinking, and I'm in favor of a .00 BAC when carrying a weapon.  The club also had armed security, and unfortunately it just wasn't effective. 

[Midwest]

I think the NRA should create just such a charity, and have the manufacturers fund it. That would provide real incentives to the industry to reduce their facilitation of this kind of murder. Of course they won't do that.

And require the manufactures of anything improperly used in death or murder to do the same.
88 Americans died in car wrecks on Sunday. Another American is killed by a car every 20minutes. The auto manufacturers must take responsibility for this river of blood.
Do we want to get into this?

Only in the cases where their cars are used as murder weapons.

Yes, when their cars are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people, and then people intentionally use those cars to murder people, the car manufacturers should fund a similar charity. But we already have a system setup to compensate victims for their losses that occur in automobile collisions--mandatory insurance. If we had mandatory gun insurance, that would be a good alternative solution.

Gun aren't designed expressly to kill people any more than knives are.  Guns accurately shoot a small projectile.  If the projectile hits another human being through carelessness or malice, bad things happen.

Oh, come on. Guns are explicitly designed to kill or seriously injure living beings. And certain guns are explicitly designed to kill or seriously injure human beings. You don't take a machine gun to hunt a deer.

Knives are much less deadly and have many other useful purposes. Some nut could kill 50 people with some guns on one evening. It would take someone with incredible skill to kill 50 people with some knives.

Of course you don't take a machine gun to hunt deer.  If I owned a machine gun (I don't), I wouldn't use it to kill people either.  I might, however, use it to shoot targets. 

I suspect the real purpose of mandatory insurance is to make owing a firearm cost prohibitive.  If my loved one were killed by a firearm (or any other means), getting a big payday wouldn't be the top of my priority list.

With regard to knives, there were 1600 murders committed with knives in 2012 and 500 with clubs/hammers.  If you took every gun in america away, I suspect knife and hammer murders go up significantly.  Then we could go round and round about knife bans.

Someone really needs to tell the US military that knives are as effective as guns for killing people.  They've been wasting so much time and money on guns!

Steve - I never said knives are as effective as guns.  I did say if there were no guns, many of the people killed by them would be dead via other means.  The gun control people act as if all gun homicides and suicides magically disappear if guns are gone.  Those acts will still occur just via different mechanisms.

[GuitarStv]

I think it's much more logical to have the people who stripped the victim's rights to defend themselves how they saw fit cover all of the expenses. Clearly their gun free zones are working miracles. Maybe the terrorist just didn't see the sign when entering the establishment that weapons weren't allowed on the vicinity. I know, we could mandate larger font!

Haha, yeah . . . the fact that we're a giant gun free zone must be the reason that the US has so many more mass shootings than Canada does! 

Wait.

Shouldn't that be the opposite if what you're proposing were true?

[Midwest]

I think it's much more logical to have the people who stripped the victim's rights to defend themselves how they saw fit cover all of the expenses. Clearly their gun free zones are working miracles. Maybe the terrorist just didn't see the sign when entering the establishment that weapons weren't allowed on the vicinity. I know, we could mandate larger font!

Haha, yeah . . . the fact that we're a giant gun free zone must be the reason that the US has so many more mass shootings than Canada does! 

Wait.

Shouldn't that be the opposite if what you're proposing were true?

Mexico is a giant gun free zone as well.  Works great for the cartels.

[GuitarStv]

I think it's much more logical to have the people who stripped the victim's rights to defend themselves how they saw fit cover all of the expenses. Clearly their gun free zones are working miracles. Maybe the terrorist just didn't see the sign when entering the establishment that weapons weren't allowed on the vicinity. I know, we could mandate larger font!

Haha, yeah . . . the fact that we're a giant gun free zone must be the reason that the US has so many more mass shootings than Canada does! 

Wait.

Shouldn't that be the opposite if what you're proposing were true?

Mexico is a giant gun free zone as well.  Works great for the cartels.

So we're in agreement . . . it's idiotic to try and blame the situation on a club that told people to leave their guns outside?

Steve - I never said knives are as effective as guns.  I did say if there were no guns, many of the people killed by them would be dead via other means.  The gun control people act as if all gun homicides and suicides magically disappear if guns are gone.  Those acts will still occur just via different mechanisms.

Valid points.  There's always going to be murder, assault, and suicide.  No regulation improves things 100%.  If we accept that guns are more deadly than knives though, then it makes sense to regulate guns more heavily than knives . . .

[Shane]

Given that guns in most places in the US can be bought and sold with no record of transaction (privately), and that there is no database containing a full list of owners/guns, I'm not sure how you could enforce gun insurance.

Not sure we'd have to "enforce" gun insurance. It could be voluntary and still work. Holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed using their weapons would make people much more careful about how they stored their guns. It would also make it much more likely that that gun owners would immediately report a theft or disappearance of one of their firearms, because failure to promptly do so would make them liable for any crimes committed using their gun(s). People who wanted to own guns and also wanted to protect their assets, would choose to take out gun liability insurance.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Given that guns in most places in the US can be bought and sold with no record of transaction (privately), and that there is no database containing a full list of owners/guns, I'm not sure how you could enforce gun insurance.

Not sure we'd have to "enforce" gun insurance. It could be voluntary and still work. Holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed using their weapons would make people much more careful about how they stored their guns. It would also make it much more likely that that gun owners would immediately report a theft or disappearance of one of their firearms, because failure to promptly do so would make them liable for any crimes committed using their gun(s). People who wanted to own guns and also wanted to protect their assets, would choose to take out gun liability insurance.

I think you'll find that the overlap between people with substantial assets and people who commit murder is very low.

[Cyaphas]

I think it's much more logical to have the people who stripped the victim's rights to defend themselves how they saw fit cover all of the expenses. Clearly their gun free zones are working miracles. Maybe the terrorist just didn't see the sign when entering the establishment that weapons weren't allowed on the vicinity. I know, we could mandate larger font!

Haha, yeah . . . the fact that we're a giant gun free zone must be the reason that the US has so many more mass shootings than Canada does! 

Wait.

Shouldn't that be the opposite if what you're proposing were true?

This was a terrorist act. Are you going to brag when some Jihadi Johnny blows up a night club in Toronto with some home made  napalm? Maybe a propane tank? Canada has gone fairly unscathed so far... this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

[Shane]

Steve - I never said knives are as effective as guns.  I did say if there were no guns, many of the people killed by them would be dead via other means.  The gun control people act as if all gun homicides and suicides magically disappear if guns are gone.  Those acts will still occur just via different mechanisms.

If there were no guns, some people would still die by "different mechanisms," but many people who currently die from guns would not die if guns didn't exist or were less available.

Most people are cowards. They can hide behind a gun and pull the trigger to kill themselves or someone else, but give most of those same people a machete, a knife or a hammer and tell them to go ahead and try to kill themselves or another person, and they wouldn't have the balls to do it.

Also, fewer guns in circulation would give the people who are currently being killed by guns a little more of a fighting chance. I'd rather have somebody come after me with a knife than a gun, any day. At least in a knife attack I'd have a chance of being able to fight the guy off, disarm him and maybe kill him with the knife.

[Midwest]

I think it's much more logical to have the people who stripped the victim's rights to defend themselves how they saw fit cover all of the expenses. Clearly their gun free zones are working miracles. Maybe the terrorist just didn't see the sign when entering the establishment that weapons weren't allowed on the vicinity. I know, we could mandate larger font!

Haha, yeah . . . the fact that we're a giant gun free zone must be the reason that the US has so many more mass shootings than Canada does! 

Wait.

Shouldn't that be the opposite if what you're proposing were true?

Mexico is a giant gun free zone as well.  Works great for the cartels.

So we're in agreement . . . it's idiotic to try and blame the situation on a club that told people to leave their guns outside?

Steve - I never said knives are as effective as guns.  I did say if there were no guns, many of the people killed by them would be dead via other means.  The gun control people act as if all gun homicides and suicides magically disappear if guns are gone.  Those acts will still occur just via different mechanisms.

Valid points.  There's always going to be murder, assault, and suicide.  No regulation improves things 100%.  If we accept that guns are more deadly than knives though, then it makes sense to regulate guns more heavily than knives . . .

Steve:

I think bars should have the option to prohibit firearms and if you are drinking in public you shouldn't be armed.  I'm not blaming the club or the patrons for this massacre.

With regard to regulation and a comparison of guns/knives - There are tons of regulations on guns now in the US.  The argument (with me) is not whether guns should be regulated or not, it's whether the additional regulation being proposed will have a material impact.  If the law will have no material impact, you need to weigh the cost against the benefit to law abiding citizens.

I can walk into a hardware store and buy and knife or a hammer without a background check despite the fact there were 2100 murders with these implements in 2012.  Many knives (and all hammers) can be carried anywhere.  There are no identifying marks, no background check, few laws.

Contrast that to a gun - You must be 21 to buy a handgun/18 for a long gun.  Guns have serial numbers.  if purchased at a dealer you need an background check.  Lots of regulations on the gun itself.  If you want to carry concealed, you need a concealed carry permit in most states.

Since much of the knee jerk reaction to the Orlando event has been about the AR-15, rifles were used in 322 murders in 2012 versus 6400 murders for handguns.  Why the hell are people so focused on the AR-15 given those stats?  Remember, the Orlando shooter had a pistol as well (I think it was a glock which might have a 16 round magazine). 

If you think my stats are full of it, check this out -

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

I cannot stand illogical ill informed people with strong opinions.  Lawmakers are even worse.  Alan Grayson was on TV last night saying the AR-15 fires 700 rounds per minute.  Is this an automatic belt fed ar-15? 

[Midwest]

Steve - I never said knives are as effective as guns.  I did say if there were no guns, many of the people killed by them would be dead via other means.  The gun control people act as if all gun homicides and suicides magically disappear if guns are gone.  Those acts will still occur just via different mechanisms.

If there were no guns, some people would still die by "different mechanisms," but many people who currently die from guns would not die if guns didn't exist or were less available.

Most people are cowards. They can hide behind a gun and pull the trigger to kill themselves or someone else, but give most of those same people a machete, a knife or a hammer and tell them to go ahead and try to kill themselves or another person, and they wouldn't have the balls to do it.

Also, fewer guns in circulation would give the people who are currently being killed by guns a little more of a fighting chance. I'd rather have somebody come after me with a knife than a gun, any day. At least in a knife attack I'd have a chance of being able to fight the guy off, disarm him and maybe kill him with the knife.

I'd rather avoid the situation to begin with.  If the situation occurs, I'd rather put down the aggressor with the knife from a distance with my firearm.  Emphasis on the first part, carrying a gun shouldn't feel like a license invite trouble.

[Shane]

Given that guns in most places in the US can be bought and sold with no record of transaction (privately), and that there is no database containing a full list of owners/guns, I'm not sure how you could enforce gun insurance.

Not sure we'd have to "enforce" gun insurance. It could be voluntary and still work. Holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed using their weapons would make people much more careful about how they stored their guns. It would also make it much more likely that that gun owners would immediately report a theft or disappearance of one of their firearms, because failure to promptly do so would make them liable for any crimes committed using their gun(s). People who wanted to own guns and also wanted to protect their assets, would choose to take out gun liability insurance.

I think you'll find that the overlap between people with substantial assets and people who commit murder is very low.

Agreed that most murders are not committed directly by people with substantial assets.

Many legal owners of guns do, however, have substantial assets. If those people were held legally accountable for crimes committed by others using their guns (family members, friends, burglars, etc.), they would have much more incentive to secure their guns in a safe at all times except when they were actively using them.

[dandypandys]

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/australia-enjoys-another-peaceful-day-under-oppressive-gun-control-regime/

[Fishindude]

Gun insurance?   
Great idea ..... penalize millions of law abiding gun owners for the acts of one nut case.

The problem is not guns.  The problem is that crazy, godless, blood thirsty savages are walking the streets of our country, and we are allowing more in on a daily basis.

[shelivesthedream]

I wonder how much gun insurance would cost the average gun owner. If shootings done by guns owned by responsible gun owners are so rare, surely it wouldn't cost very much at all. But it could certainly be an incentive to store guns safely (discount on your insurance if it's in a gun safe with ammunition in a separate safe, that kind of thing). However, surely it would need a corresponding law which mandated compensation by the gun owner to the victim whether the gun owner was insured or not. Otherwise insurance only has downsides, as the uninsured wouldn't have to pay out. So $100k to every gun victim paid by the owner of the gun...or their insurance?

[Chris22]

I wonder how much gun insurance would cost the average gun owner. If shootings done by guns owned by responsible gun owners are so rare, surely it wouldn't cost very much at all. But it could certainly be an incentive to store guns safely (discount on your insurance if it's in a gun safe with ammunition in a separate safe, that kind of thing). However, surely it would need a corresponding law which mandated compensation by the gun owner to the victim whether the gun owner was insured or not. Otherwise insurance only has downsides, as the uninsured wouldn't have to pay out. So $100k to every gun victim paid by the owner of the gun...or their insurance?

Put it this way: I have a $1M+ umbrella policy, and my insurance company has never bothered to ask me if I have any firearms, how I store them, etc.  I'm thinking if they're worried about a payout of $1M+, they would be interested in that sort of thing.  They aren't worried about it.  It's not common.  And BTW, my insurance company is USAA, which is only for the military and their families, a group much  more likely than average to own firearms. 

[Chris22]

There statement wasn't wrong, but most people aren't going to understand the nuance. The rate of fire for the AR-15 is limited to how fast you can pull the trigger. Some people that are quite good at it achieve some high figures, as per this Quora thread. Modifications such as the Slide Fire allow for rates of 900 rounds per minute to be achived as well.

They may accurately state the RATE of fire, but to actually fire 700 rounds in a minute involves a hell of a lot of reloading (23.3 times to be exact).

[Midwest]

Since much of the knee jerk reaction to the Orlando event has been about the AR-15, rifles were used in 322 murders in 2012 versus 6400 murders for handguns.  Why the hell are people so focused on the AR-15 given those stats?  Remember, the Orlando shooter had a pistol as well (I think it was a glock which might have a 16 round magazine).

When people are aruging about the AR-15 platform part of it is the "big scary gun" factor and part of it is the ammunition capacity. There really isn't much need for a thirty round magazine outside of military fire tactics. Sure reloading on the range is annoying, but that's not much of an argument. Generally high-capacity magazines tend to be overkill for civilian uses.

I cannot stand illogical ill informed people with strong opinions.  Lawmakers are even worse.  Alan Grayson was on TV last night saying the AR-15 fires 700 rounds per minute.  Is this an automatic belt fed ar-15?

There statement wasn't wrong, but most people aren't going to understand the nuance. The rate of fire for the AR-15 is limited to how fast you can pull the trigger. Some people that are quite good at it achieve some high figures, as per this Quora thread. Modifications such as the Slide Fire allow for rates of 900 rounds per minute to be achived as well.

Radical - No one is going to shoot 700 rounds per minute from a magazine fed semi automatic rifle.  Grayson is misinformed/liar. 

With regard to the big scary gun comment, long guns (AR included) are used in a small proportion of the murders in the US.

[Chris22]

There statement wasn't wrong, but most people aren't going to understand the nuance. The rate of fire for the AR-15 is limited to how fast you can pull the trigger. Some people that are quite good at it achieve some high figures, as per this Quora thread. Modifications such as the Slide Fire allow for rates of 900 rounds per minute to be achived as well.

They may accurately state the RATE of fire, but to actually fire 700 rounds in a minute involves a hell of a lot of reloading (23.3 times to be exact).

True, but it is a fairly standard convention for firearms in general. 100 round drum magazines exist for the AR-15 platform along with belt-feed modifications so in theory someone that was motivated could hit those numbers.

Yes, but clearly it was to hype and exaggerate the capabilities of the weapon.  It's like saying a Honda Accord can go 200mph.  Yeah, it probably could if you put a big enough supercharger, upgraded the suspension, etc etc etc, but it's not an accurate description of the car's capabilities in 99.99% of circumstances.  It's intentionally misleading.