Gun Control Proposal for Hawaii

[PaulW]

This "mentally ill" issue is just yet another red herring IMHO. It's too vague. I'm sure many perfectly sane people decide to finally put their guns to some use. Only afterwards are they declared mentally ill. Like the guy in Vegas.

Anything, like Rob's suggestion, to decrease the number of guns would help.

[birdmove]

I'm against making a gun owner responsible for anything done with a firearm that is stolen from him. Is a car owner to be charged with something done with a car stolen from him? I am also against a gun maker being liable for misuse of a product they manufacture. I am very much FOR a gun maker being responsible for injuries or deaths caused by a defect in one of their products.
In my view, I am very much for banning any semi or fully automatic rifle designed as a military weapon. Ban any rifle that has, or has available, after market or OEM high capacity magazines. That would still leave bolt action single shots (which may hold 4-5 rounds in a fixed magazine), lever actions, pump actions, or small capacity semi autos available for hunting, target shooting, self defense, etc.
Guns like the ever popular AR-15, whose design purpose was to kill a large amount of people quickly and efficiently (there just is no other way to say this) should not be in civilian hands.
Tom's idea of insurance for gun owners is worth looking into. But, if it is too expensive, then firearm ownership may not be an option for poorer citizens.
You can, right now, as far as I know, sue Remington for a defect that causes injury or death. You should not be able to, however sue Remington for someone killed in a robbery or other crime. It's not up to the maker to decide who qualifies to buy their firearm from a gun store. That is up to the state and the feds, and they better start doing their jobs better. If a gun store sells a gun without performing whatever background check is the state and federal law, then they may be liable for that misused gun and whatever crime the original owner does with it.
These are my opinions. As a shooter for 50 years now, and as a gun owner that used a firearm in self defense once (no shots fired), I'm entitled to my opinions. Your mileage may vary.

Jon in Keaau/HPP

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

The agent might well be saying: "Sure you can have an AR-15 young man, but the premium will be $50k per year, up front".

Yes, that would be a good start.
Like cars, you pay a lower premium for a 10 year old minivan, higher for a new Corvette.
With guns, you pay a minimal premium for a hunting rifle, an appropriately high rate for an AR-15.

You wanna play, you're gonna pay.

Recycle Puna. Humans, although probably not you personally, have already left 400,000 pounds of trash on the moon. - YouTube's Half As Interesting

[knieft]

Wow, Rob. I have never heard of this insurance angle. Is it original with you? I don’t think I’ve had a more than couple/few truly original thoughts in my life, and even those are probably illusory. Just that you brought it to the table, original or not, is more than cool.

In any case, your post was generous and so chock full of ideas that it will take a long while to digest, and to figure if I have anything to actually add to the discourse.

One idea pops right up, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

Using the profit incentive a pragmatic insurer could effectively rate the inherent risks of a 60 y.o. Colorado rancher with a varmint gun compared to a 19 y.o. gang banger from Chicago with a criminal record compared to anyone else you might think of

---

This seems to be the crux of the idea. And you are right.

Yet your feedback #1 resonates with me. I’m not sure that there would be a decrease in illegal weapons. Indeed there might be an increase as they may become more valuable and black market trade would increase ala rhino horns. Except in this case there would be an outside supply from other countries.

In essence, those Windy City gang bangers are so far out of the system, that the insurance idea would be laughable for them.

In any case, I hope the thread works out!

Cheers,
Kirt

[MarkD]

From Rob: "My goal ultimately is to fund a study seeking to prevent or minimize further deaths.....I do not assume nothing can be done."

Good thoughts in your plan, Rob. Is Hawaii the best place to advance this? Hate to say it, but proposals like this often do not get traction unless they are raised in a place where the community is energized by a mass shooting.

There is argument that Hawaii's strict gun laws are satisfactorily preventing such events.

[Kapoho Joe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

The agent might well be saying: "Sure you can have an AR-15 young man, but the premium will be $50k per year, up front".

---

Still have not solved the problem. There will always be those who can afford it. Maybe just shifted the problem from one class to another.

[Mac2017]

Still 300 million guns.

Guys this problem is not solvable. For the sake of conversation, even if we deployed the almighty United States Military to seize all guns by going door to door, it would not work.

We invade countries with thousands upon thousands of troops. With all their guns, equipment and power do we see any less death from all the guns they seized?

Here is one study....While the U.S. houses less than 5 percent of the world's population, the country has approximately 35-50 percent of civilian-owned guns worldwide, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

This problem has past the point of no return.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Guys this problem is not solvable.

I'd be happy if we were able to manage the problem and hopefully reduce the problem somewhat, because, how many other problems are solved 100%? People will find a way around anything. Let's just figure out a way so fewer people are murdered by this minimally regulated nightmare.

If Hawaii already has a good track record with gun fatalities, we might be the best place to start. We may also have one of the few state legislatures that hasn't been bought off by the NRA. That alone might make such an action possible here.

Often gun debates go off the rails when people try to compare single shot rifles with an AR-15. "When I was in high school, kids had a rifle on the rack behind the seat." Obviously not an AR-15, so why even make such a disingenuous statement? Because comparing apples with oranges can derail the conversation.

Rob's idea will make it very clear at every step in the discussion that a rifle is not a shotgun is not an AR-15. Insurance companies and their actuaries will make that fact very clear. One is a far greater risk than another. Insuring different types of weapons will help end the phoney pretense that all guns are the same. They clearly are not, and it's time we stop pretending they are.

[glinda]

I'm against making a gun owner responsible for anything done with a firearm that is stolen from him.

I am all for it. You want a gun, realize there are all sorts of unintended consequences. Hopeful it would discourage some to actually get rid of their guns.. ie it's not worth the risk.

[MarkD]

This problem has past the point of no return.

Disagree. We might not see major change in our generation, but down the road it seems probable. Societies have ended or greatly suppressed all sorts of things over time. Slavery. Imprisoning people without trials. Bear baiting. Spraying DDT all over the place.

We can allow every NRA supporter alive today to keep their guns until death. The real battleground will be future generations.

It helps that fewer people hunt every year (big fall in numbers here), fewer people grow up on ranches or on farms. (I find these 2 trends somewhat depressing, having spent time in rural hunting areas as a kid in the 60s). There is some linkage from these two things to gun ownership.

Put another way, it makes a much less sense for city dwellers to be allowed to have concealed carry permits and handguns than it does for a rural dweller to have a hunting rifle.

NRA supporters are working hard to indoctrinate their children in their ideology. Conversely, liberal city dwellers against guns do the same (though IMO much less persistently than the pro-gun crowd). We'll see how the demographics go.

Perhaps the Florida shooting is a tipping point, compelling many young people nationwide to realize the idiocy of allowing people to possess rapid-fire military capable weapons like the AR-15.