Who can argue that it’s crazy or wild to suggest that the “registration, license and insurance“ that every cop asks for at every traffic stop wouldn’t be reasonable when somebody is found with a gun?
Of course once again Thom has riddled his post with a common sense approach to a complex problem wholly created and implemented by the Republican Party.
It makes total sense and it’s a logical approach to gun safety that includes revenue for states and profits insurance companies. In fact it’s so logical my brain is spinning around in my skull trying to find any argument against it.
There is none, other than the Party of Death and Destruction won’t do anything that could upset it’s base.
States could pass legislation just like they do with cars. PA needs a state inspection every year for vehicles, while other states have different requirements.
This is the place we start to make our families safe from gun violence. It’s reasonable, revenue producing, profitable and fairly easy to implement. Most people would be happy to comply for safety reasons. Republicans will hate it.
In Germany people are required to have 1.1 million € worth of liability insurance to own a gun. Guns are required to be kept locked up and police can randomly check that they are. A family who did not do this properly, had a son who went and shot multiple people in a school in 2011. His parents and sister changed their names afterwards and moved away. Life would have been much simpler if the dad who was licensed had just locked up the guns properly. His son would not have gotten permission to use one because one must be licensed and under the age of 25 must pass a psychological test. However, Germany still has people committing suicides with guns, which is just higher in households with guns in general. Roughly 1 million people of the 84 million in Germany own guns. There are around 5 million guns. So, all of these people are paying for liability insurance, and have had to get licensed to carry a gun, which includes training. To do so, they have to be hunters, join a shooting club, or prove that their life is in danger. I have read that in Switzerland the vast majority of firearm related deaths are suicides. They have few restrictions on gun ownership, but more than the US. All Swiss males have mandatory conscription so they learn to use arms because they get formal training between the ages of 18 and 34. So, while they are a neutral country, they are also prepared to have every male of those ages do battle.
Thom has made this commonsense argument time and time again. How could anyone not be onboard with it? Cars have myriad uses, only 1 of which is to kill or injure. Guns have a total of 2 uses: Training and field implementation (killing/ incapacitating). Vehicles are regulated fairly comprehensively, while gun regulation is virtually nonexistent. Why?
I suspect the "why" is what we're really after, and I'm fairly certain it contains some very sinister and cynical purposes.
Thanks Thom, I have thought this for a long time. The absurdity is breathtaking when it’s looked at like that! Seems like this needs to be repeated over and over.
And the chorus from the gun lobby screeches ‘I have a Right to won a gun as stated in the Constitution! There is no Right to own a car!!’ Repeat over, and over and over and…
I agree with the proposal! Never going to be put into law by the maga rats who hold office in state and national legislatures
Now that there are SIX Republicans on the US Supreme Court, we have some prework to do in preparation for reforming US firearms regulations.
I agree - many people are not aware that LBJ tried to get universal gun registration and insurance requirements into the 1968 Gun Control Act, but those provisions were not adopted. To be frank, gun bans will not work, because almost no one will vote for them. When writing the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), Congress originally proposed a straight ban on private ownership of machine guns and sawed-off rifles and shotguns. But they were afraid the conservative Supreme Court of that time would overturn the law, so they instead laid out requirements for registration with the ATF, a full background check and a $200 transfer tax to purchase such restricted weapons. That approach passed muster with the Court. My feeling is that all high-capacity semi-automatic weapons would be covered by the NFA under the term "Paramilitary weapons" and otherwise treated as currently restricted weapons are handled by the NFA. In addition, all Glock pistols would be brought under this "new NFA" because there is a device (called a "Glock switch") that turns all Glocks into true machine guns. Adding an insurance requirement should be easy - the extremely destructive effect of these weapons is very well documented. The advantage of a national law is that it will affect every such weapon in the country. With our current Supreme Court, no attempt to ban any weapons will succeed, but a rational attempt to control the illegal and irresponsible use of such weapons should pass muster.....
Thom's rationale, while perfectly reasonable to rational people who believe in a government of, by, and for All the people, will not alter the mindset of the pro-fascist, anarchist right-wing who see guns as essential to their plans to bring about an end to democracy and to protect and defend fascism once established.
They see the Second Amendment as essential to protect themselves from a tyrannical government
which they see the U.S. government as being. This is just ONE MORE reason why those of us who believe in Democracy must continue to understand and shout from the rooftops what is at stake in the present moment. Once again "these are the times that try men's souls", and once again we must "resolve that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Completely logical and reasonable.
What a great idea! We should all write our legislators in US and State Capitols.
Mr. Hartman. Occasionally the simplest, most obvious arguments are also the most perspicacious. They seem simple and obvious to the rest of us only after a brilliant individual voices them. Only then is it easy for us to see through the fog. Thank you for this idea.
I never get it why we don't pay attention to Japan that has no school shootings. Maybe you could write about American myopia, where we ignore what other countries do that works, the Norwegian criminal justice system also being on that list. Here's a post I put out a while back that covers both of them: "Our Shocking Ignorance about Guns & Prisons": https://suespeaks.org/shocking-ignorance-guns-prisons.
The GOP is pushing anarchy to prove democracy can't work. The GOP has been doing this for the last 50 years and giving the rich tax breaks. When they come to power, they will probably round up all the guns first thing. Nobody is going to like raw capitalism, except the 1 percenters.
Happy Thanksgiving, to you and yours Thom.
I agrée with you Thom, but
A judge (judges?) just decided that Maryland can no longer force people to be fingerprinted and undergo gun training before buying a gun…
I think I read once that legally blind people in Michigan can own guns (& go hunting!)
I can’t imagine the insurance industry would want to come between someone and a gun.
If it’s common sense, Repubs won’t want any part of it. Our only chance is to vote in Dems, but not the corporate oligarchs like Manchin…
We all tend to agree about politics, and none of us own firearms. My brother and I especially loathe Trump, so we don’t have arguments.