A very good friend has written a blog with a point of view quite different from mine expressed in my last post (he usually writes about education, with an insider’s view; his blog is well worth reading). Here’s what I put in his comment section:
Here’s a voice of reason… I’ve been thinking over your post and the various comments made in response. I don’t see how a total ban on ‘guns’ would ever work. But I do think there are a panoply of weapons that have no business in the private citizen’s gun cupboard. Hunting guns? certainly. Small hand guns for protection? if you must. But automatic weapons that are designed for a battlefield? no. So why not a partial ban? We do that with fireworks, for heaven’s sake. Small are okay, large, not (because they are dangerous). Then, I also think that anyone who wants to use a gun must prove that s/he knows how to use it responsibly. We have to do that before we are allowed to drive automobiles. People who have guns could be required to carry insurance in case of unforeseen accidents. Perhaps the insurers would be more careful about background and mental health checks than gun stores are! We require our doctors to carry insurance lest they hurt us; we require vehicle drivers to have both licenses (after passing two kinds of test) and insurance. Why should we not regulate guns in the same manner? They are every bit as lethal as cars, and I’m guessing a lot more lethal than your typical doctor. And the regulations would not be any more onerous than those already in place for other situations.
********
I’m willing to back off my No Guns Ever Under Any Circumstances stance because I begin to see it’s probably impractical at the very least. But I think the above are some pretty good ideas!
I promise to return to more light-hearted and on-blog-topic posts very very soon…
An Ex-Expatriate 
Now that the discussion has gone afield (not amongst us certainly, but in the general press) and reached levels of the ridiculous not imagined, I’d like to take the nut-ball and run. Or, maybe this isn’t as crazy as I initially thought . . . .
Fern’s idea about requiring gun owners to have insurance, in the same way automobile owners are required to be insured, struck me as enlightened. Cool it, gun-rightists—I understand that to you gun ownership is a Right, not a Privilege; but, for the sake of discussion let’s agree that both guns and automobiles are potentially deadly instruments. Beside, we are not really discussing ownership; rather it is the use of either instrument that is relevant. Go ahead, gun advocates, buy some guns, even bear them. But when you decide to pull a trigger, I propose that you should be insured for your actions.
In fact, there is already a mechanism in place that can be modified to serve this purpose: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (initially called, with derision, now generally called “Obamacare”). It is already in the works and gun ownership could easily be added as an adjunct to the original idea. Specifically, use of a firearm would carry strict liability–that is, regardless of intent, harm done by a insured shooter would come under the provision. Sure, I know, the outcry would be stronger than the original outburst of indignation to the act from some, but we eventually, as good citizens, fall in line and follow the dictates of our elected representatives, especially when they make good, common sense.
Now, you may ask, why insure everyone for gun ownership when not everyone owns a gun? Well, there are almost as many guns as citizens in the US. That must indicate that a high proportion of citizens owns guns. Besides, the PPACT requirement that everyone in the country must be health-insured has been criticized as too broad—not everyone will need health insurance in his lifetime. For example, someone killed by a handgun will not have to make use of this health insurance. But when a shooting does not result in death, then the main reason for the act comes into play: the wounded victim gets medical care, regardless of income level. See, the act can be enlarged to cover both questions.
The same is true of gun-ownership insurance: not everyone will “need” it. But, the shooters, whether their actions result in death or injury, will need to use the firearms provision. And through the insurance, we spread the costs of whatever damages the shooter incurs, be it property damage, pain and suffering damages paid to the victims’ families, and, I propose, the cost of the resulting incarceration when criminal use is made of a firearm, amongst us all. In a society that places so much emphasis on firearm ownership, This therefore expresses the common good.
The persistent outcry about paying for benefits that do not benefit one directly brings to mind education. I’m not blessed with offspring. But, by paying property taxes for some forty-plus years now I have subsidized the education of numerous students, rich and poor alike. I accept this as furthering the commonweal. Sometimes we simply have to chill out and realize that any government does not fulfill the whole panoply of any one citizen’s desires. I can think of a few recent wars that I helped fund that I would have preferred not to help pay for. I fervently did not think they were remotely beneficial to our society, particularly to all who were killed and wounded. But, good citizen that I am, I paid my part.
So, lawmakers, heed my call. Drop the ludicrous discussions about the capacity of gun magazines and get back to the PPACT–add firearm insurance.
This makes sense to me, too…. I also believe in background checks for ALL sales….
I have to wonder about this, though: if someone sells a gun privately to someone else, and doesn’t “vet” the person, that is, require a background check and make sure the person knows how to use the gun… and then the gun is used improperly — well, I think then the original owner has a share of the responsibility….
I have many friends who are hunters. Heck, we have some hunting guns, though no ammo in the house right now. When one of our sons was really depressed, we moved all weapons off the property, so there wasn’t the slightest chance of their being mis-used — his doctor recommended it…
If Mrs. Lanza had kept her weapons somewhere else for her sport shooting, she might be alive today, along with everyone else…
Thanks for all your posts — and your transparency — and I think it has been pretty civil!! Brava!
Thanks, Kate. You bring up a knotty problem, that being the private sale of weapons. Hmmm. You might find Jim Heath’s p.o.v. interesting; you can see it here: http://cornvillenutmeg.wordpress.com/. I know one side is not going to persuade the other of anything, but there’s value (I think) in the civil discourse. I know I’ve learned a bit just in the last week. Speedy says he used to take out his father’s ‘hidden’ revolver and show it to friends and play with it when he was a little boy – I bet a lot of that goes on that parents don’t realize. Happy Christmas, dears.
Now you’re talking! Many good ideas there.
I thought so! Thanks, John…