Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
dckingsfan wrote:Great article in the WSJ today, "Why America Is Going Broke". If you don't think this is THE issue in the US - read the article (maybe even with an open mind) to understand why. It is balanced - it shows why both parties are complicit in bankrupting the country. It touches on why increased taxation or increased spending to cover that debt will bury us.
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Thursday touted his country's gun control laws ahead of a meeting with President Trump while declining to specifically weigh in on the intense gun control debate in the U.S.
"It’s not for me to get involved in a contentious domestic political debate here, but Australia’s experience in gun law reform, of course undertaken so courageously and effectively by John Howard more than 20 years ago, is a very powerful demonstration of the success of our policy," Turnbull said at a news conference in front of the White House.
dckingsfan wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Great article in the WSJ today, "Why America Is Going Broke". If you don't think this is THE issue in the US - read the article (maybe even with an open mind) to understand why. It is balanced - it shows why both parties are complicit in bankrupting the country. It touches on why increased taxation or increased spending to cover that debt will bury us.
My actual start of the thread before I started going back and forth with SD
Only daughter Lisa from the long-running series “The Simpsons” is a Democrat, Cruz insisted. “I think the Democrats are the party of Lisa Simpson and Republicans are happily the party of Homer and Bart and Maggie and Marge,” Cruz said at the CPAC gathering in National Harbor, Maryland
Zonkerbl wrote:nate33 wrote:Here are some interesting graphs comparing national homicide rates to those in various localities that enacted significant gun legislation:
It looks to me that the data supports the pro-gun narrative in Washington, Chicago and Florida, and gun measures seemed to have little or no effect either way in Michigan and Texas.
So what you're saying is, after several years of rising gun violence, people institute gun controls, and after the gun violence slows down, they get rid of the controls?
Ok. Yeah, I agree that none of the typical gun control tools that the NRA allows us to use are effective. I like the idea of controlling the sale of semiautomatic guns more carefully and asking (requiring really) that people get insurance policies that pay out if their gun is used for a crime or to commit suicide.
Zonkerbl wrote:Wizardspride wrote:
So much for good guys with guns.
It's like we've woken up from this long nightmare, looked around and gone "what the hell were we thinking?"
Gun nuts are still asleep it seems.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
Zonkerbl wrote:Thinking through how gun insurance would work. It would have to cover all instances where someone is injured or dies as a result of the gun being used for any purpose other than hunting, recreational use, or self defense.
Who gets the payout if your toddler picks up your gun and kills himself with it? Not you obviously. That defeats the purpose of getting you to internalize the cost to others you inflict on the country when you buy a gun.
The nice thing about insurance is you should be able to convince the insurance company you are a law abiding citizen and get a lower rate. But you would still have to pay for suicide coverage and crimes of passion coverage, essentially.
dckingsfan wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:Thinking through how gun insurance would work. It would have to cover all instances where someone is injured or dies as a result of the gun being used for any purpose other than hunting, recreational use, or self defense.
Who gets the payout if your toddler picks up your gun and kills himself with it? Not you obviously. That defeats the purpose of getting you to internalize the cost to others you inflict on the country when you buy a gun.
The nice thing about insurance is you should be able to convince the insurance company you are a law abiding citizen and get a lower rate. But you would still have to pay for suicide coverage and crimes of passion coverage, essentially.
This could actually be done through the commerce clause. Guns are sold across state boarders and there is a negative impact on the economy. So, forcing gun owners to have insurance could actually allow this to work (much like the ACA). If you own a gun and don’t insure then you would pay a penalty. And if you aren’t routinely tested then your insurance would go up.
cammac wrote:Australia's Prime Minister meets with Trump tomorrow and will be interesting would like to be a fly on the wall.
Some of the things I like about Aussies is that they have a law that every citizen must vote. This is a progressive law and the oxymoron to what the Repugnant Party wants in limiting the voting rights to a demographic which is most favorable to them. Obviously gun control it is a very rigid system that has reduced gun violence again the opposite of the USA. Australia is one of it's closest allies and in a part of the world that the USA needs support. They are member of the 5 EYES and informed the USA & FBI about George Papadopoulos. Australia has fought in American wars in Vietnam and Iraq 2 which Canada didn't and like Canada when we do sent troops they fight and take casualties.Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Thursday touted his country's gun control laws ahead of a meeting with President Trump while declining to specifically weigh in on the intense gun control debate in the U.S.
"It’s not for me to get involved in a contentious domestic political debate here, but Australia’s experience in gun law reform, of course undertaken so courageously and effectively by John Howard more than 20 years ago, is a very powerful demonstration of the success of our policy," Turnbull said at a news conference in front of the White House.
He will be polite to General Bone Spurs but sure deep in heart contemptuous of him.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/375206-australian-leader-touts-countrys-strict-gun-laws-ahead-of-trump-meeting
Zonkerbl wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:Thinking through how gun insurance would work. It would have to cover all instances where someone is injured or dies as a result of the gun being used for any purpose other than hunting, recreational use, or self defense.
Who gets the payout if your toddler picks up your gun and kills himself with it? Not you obviously. That defeats the purpose of getting you to internalize the cost to others you inflict on the country when you buy a gun.
The nice thing about insurance is you should be able to convince the insurance company you are a law abiding citizen and get a lower rate. But you would still have to pay for suicide coverage and crimes of passion coverage, essentially.
This could actually be done through the commerce clause. Guns are sold across state boarders and there is a negative impact on the economy. So, forcing gun owners to have insurance could actually allow this to work (much like the ACA). If you own a gun and don’t insure then you would pay a penalty. And if you aren’t routinely tested then your insurance would go up.
Nice, instead of saying "if you don't have insurance, you can't have a gun" you say "if you can't get insurance, you have to pay a tax equal to twice the highest insurance rate" or something like that.
Zonkerbl wrote:I would say "if you purchase a gun," not "if you own a gun." Would be incredibly difficult to enforce for all existing guns and I don't think it's necessary.
Zonkerbl wrote:It's important that there always be a payout, otherwise the insurance company won't pass that cost on to the gunowners. Maybe put it into a gun buyback fund?
dckingsfan wrote:Zonkerbl wrote:dckingsfan wrote:This could actually be done through the commerce clause. Guns are sold across state boarders and there is a negative impact on the economy. So, forcing gun owners to have insurance could actually allow this to work (much like the ACA). If you own a gun and don’t insure then you would pay a penalty. And if you aren’t routinely tested then your insurance would go up.
Nice, instead of saying "if you don't have insurance, you can't have a gun" you say "if you can't get insurance, you have to pay a tax equal to twice the highest insurance rate" or something like that.
Exactly. Up to this point - there has been no way forward on the gun issue.
One can talk all day long about banning guns - not going to happen because of our constitution. You could talk about banning certain types of guns - there are most likely more than 600M guns, that type of legislation will do nothing - just more blathering.
This however, would have teeth and would be enforceable. A weapon without insurance could be immediately impounded if the individual didn't have insurance or hadn't paid the penalty on their taxes.
The payout issue would need to be clear and solid - the who on the payout. And also when there isn't a payout (as you penned earlier about the toddler).
