Oh and that goes for the idiots who allow their guns to be stolen from them as well.
Here is the source for this graphic. (Oops I just noticed that the New York Times piece lists the overall cost at 2.3 billion rather than 2.5, however the cost to the taxpayers remains the same.)
Gun owners should have to buy a $1 million liability insurance policy -- PER GUN.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. And it should be imposed retroactively so that people who are already gun owners should have to get the same kind of insurance. Money seems to be the only thing that matters to many people in this country. Maybe forcing some more out-of-pocket costs on gun ownership as well as a huge gun license fee or gun ownership tax might make some of them come to their senses.
DeleteBeaglemom
This is the single-most reason behind states like California making it a law to have car insurance (basic liability) in order to drive a car.
ReplyDeleteI am the relative of a a big city paramedic and according to her, the amount of tax money we used to spend on uninsured drivers getting into accidents was horrendous. We still have to cover for the occasional slacker, but it's not as bad as it was.
So I don't understand why the same rule for owning a dangerous vehicle can't apply to owning a dangerous weapon.
-OzMud
As long as it isn't the VICTIMS that get screwed with any part of the bill!
ReplyDeleteWe need to force the perps to pay for ALL of it, even if it means making them destitute.
It's the "how" that is the biggest problem. Too many of the perps really don't give a damn and would refuse to do anything at all.
Of course, we could just let them ROT if they refuse, I guess. It would be nice to get them out of society. Too many animals being treated as though THEY are victims of society!
GEE, OFFICER KRUPKE! (So everyone knows, that's from West Side Story.)
I read somewhere that gun ownership be similar to car ownership: written test, license, and liability insurance.
ReplyDeleteSure, and let's start making people carry million dollar policies for having alcohol in their homes. Alcohol is the most destructive and costly item in America. And while we're at it let's do the same with tobacco products, prescription drugs, dogs, bicycles, ladders, glue, hammers or any other item that could be misused.
ReplyDeleteOr, here's a novel idea, lets hold people truly accountable for their own negative actions.
You think the people who illegally misuse guns are going to declare they have them and get stuck with a big insurance bill? And if you think the government can catch them and make them pay, then why can't they already take the bad guys off the streets? Are you advocating having the government search every home for guns and whatever other items they deem to be illegal contraband? Do you really want the government that far up our asses?
What exactly do you mean by "misuse" guns? Guns have one use, to kill (yes, yes, people use them for target shooting, but that is an extension of their purpose and hardly the same as hitting someone over the head with a ladder).
DeleteUsing your gun like a hammer? Misuse
Using your gun to prop open a door? Misuse
Using your gun to threaten, harm, and/or kill someone? You're doing it right!
@7:03. Your argument is illogical. Alcohol, tobacco, "prescription" drugs, dogs, bicycles, ladders, glue and hammers are all legal, thus the statement that "the government searching our homes for illegal contraband" is a red herring. Give it up. Guns need to be regulated because they are dangerous plain and simple. If your worried about legislation getting up an individuals orifice why don't you rail against trans-vaginal probes???
Delete@1:06 In case you haven't heard, guns are also legal to own. You are against them because you perceive them to be a danger. So I was asking, are you also against other dangerous items in the same degree as you are against guns? Alcohol is the single most destructive thing in our country. It causes fights, spouse abuse, car wrecks, shootings, broken families, child abuse, health problems both physical and mental, guys use it to ply women for sex. And it's legal to own, just like guns. Children generally get their first taste of it from their parents' or a friend's parents' liquor cabinet. I'm sure most people who use alcohol believe they are responsible alcohol owners, but somehow kids get their hands on it, even if it's illegal. And the insidious part is, as you use it you lose your inhibitions and judgement. It's a fine line between being responsible and under control and losing it. I see people over the line all the time.
DeleteWhen I talk about being a responsible gun owner, I mean I treat my guns like the dangerous tool they are. I store them where my kids and their friends can't get them. I teach my kids gun safety and stress how dangerous guns are to them. I also teach them if they encounter a gun, they should tell an adult and if a friend shows them a gun, they should leave immediately and tell me about it. I don't make a big deal about owning guns, don't show them off, don't carry concealed. The only time I take them out is to use them. I don't settle my differences with them, but would use them in self defense or to protect my family in a heartbeat. By misusing guns, I mean using them in an unsafe or illegal manner.
As for trans-vaginal probes, what makes you think I don't rail against them? The government has no business involving it's self in women's reproductive choices. And the church has no business pushing it's morals on others by using the government.
As for logic, your logic against guns is about like saying "Penises cause rape! We must take away all the penises to prevent rape. If someone has a penis, it's only a matter of time before they use it!
And I say, "When penises are outlawed, only outlaws will have penises."
Undeniably gun violence by the mentally ill and criminals is rampant, and yes, there has to be better controls on the types of weapons/magazines available to those people. But, instead of continual harping on the gun violence, lets take a look at another societal "illness" that causes an abhorrent amount of tragedy, in lives lost, legal costs, and medical costs in this country - drunk driving. (http://www.insurancequotes.com/costs-of-drunk-driving/) Yet, where is the outrage across society other than by groups like MADD? And the costs are staggering, much more than gun violence.
ReplyDeleteA horrific accident caused by a drunk driver, who kills innocent people, changing the lives of surviving family members forever does not receive nearly the attention of the media that a shooting does. Nor does society as a whole overly react to it, e.g., Congress doesn't propose new laws requiring mandatory safeguards to automobiles to prevent some drunk fool from driving.
To me, comparing gun violence and drunk driving isn't apples and oranges; a drunk behind the wheel of a 3500 lb automobile or a gun in the hands of a criminal or mentally ill person has the same potential to take lives and destroy the fabric of our society by the costs caused by that individual.
As long as the families of the drunks don't actively try to control their family members, the outrage you seek will not happen. Period.
DeleteI had a brother who was an alcoholic. I told him one evening - at a family get-together - that if I saw him driving (he had lost his license) I would definitely turn him in. My family threw me out of the house - despite the fact that I was the ONLY one in the family he could depend on for transportation ANY TIME he needed it.
It was 6 months before any of them would talk to me.
So what happened? He died in an alcohol related accident. (No, ironically, he was NOT driving.)
The family was all boo hooing and crying and raising hell - until I slammed them for hypocrisy. I had to yell at them to get them to understand it was partly their fault he died.
I haven't been back. I will say, however, that his mother called me one day and told me I was right. (By the way, he was my step-brother, but after a certain number of years it makes no difference.)
His children still won't speak to me.
So the outrage won't happen - unless the FAMILIES put their feet down.
Where have you been for the last 30 years 7:06??? Congress has enacted laws to incriminate drunken driving since the 1980's. There have been many safe guards set in place for driving drunk. The zeitgeist of today is gun control. Get with the program.
DeleteGuns don't kill people, bullets do. Tax the bullets!
ReplyDeleteMan with high-powered rifles and ‘tank buster’ bullets arrested for posting liberal ‘hit list’
ReplyDeletePolice in Clarkstown, New York have confiscated a cache of high-powered weapons and body armor from a man who was arrested for posting death threats against against many Democratic politicians and every liberal supporter of President Barack Obama.
According to WCBS, 49-year-old Larry Mulqueen was arraigned on Thursday on charges of “making terroristic threats, illegally possessing weapons and harassment.”
Mulqueen’s landlady had tipped off police after she found a “hit list” posted on Facebook that threatened Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and all members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1A6FV)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/22/man-with-high-powered-rifles-and-tank-buster-bullets-arrested-for-posting-liberal-hit-list/
The fact that the New York Times reports the cost as $2.3 billion doesn't necessarily make it so. The NYT is in freefall regarding its credibility; there seems to be a heavy agenda at work and no one is sure whose it is.
ReplyDelete"...there seems to be a heavy agenda at work and no one is sure whose it is."
DeleteCats. They always wanted to rule the world.
A really basic question for you, 11:09. Are you ready?
DeleteWho the hell cares WHAT the exact figure is? The POINT is that between forty and fifty per cent of the monetary cost of the damage done is eaten by the public!
And a heavy agenda involving WHAT?
You know, it's funny. That's the same crappy technique used by the Repubes. They make a snide comment or an innuendo and sit back and let the ignorant crazies blow it all out of proportion. And if they are called on their comment, they just say "Lighten up! It was a joke!"
You would have been perfectly correct in your comment had you stopped right after saying "credibility".
But the repugnicans who reed "Newsmax" would argue that the gunshot wound givers are actually job creators for people in Health Care. They're GOOD for the economy because they keep doctors, undertakers, coffin makers, cemetery plot sales, grave diggers and houses of worship in business. See how that works? No need to blame the gun owners.They're the good guys!
ReplyDelete