If you haven't been living under a rock for the past few years and live in the US, you probably have heard of the "gun debate"
I, a centrist, don't have any strong opinions on this issue; but, I have come up with a solution both sides (liberal and conservative), can agree to.

Allow all weapons (not just firearms, this includes grenades and tanks), BUT, force government issued insurance on everyone with a weapon with low monthly payments, like roughly 10-20 USD. If a weapon owner injured a living being, or damaged property, with their weapon, THEY would be liable for the damages caused, b/c of the insurance. The insurance likely won't be able to cover the damage, so people will be deterred from causing the damage in the first place (if they're sane, that is).

Tell me what you think of this idea :
>Is it a good idea?
>Do you think it'll work?
>Would you change anything about it?

I'm open to ideas, as I do not fall on any side of the political spectrum, only slightly left b/c of the current administration.
The gang banger on the street isn't going to care about some government insurance if they are already breaking the law by selling coke.

Best solution: promote education and public services.
MateoConLechuga wrote:
The gang banger on the street isn't going to care about some government insurance if they are already breaking the law by selling coke.

yes, I know mateo, but this assumes people owning weapons are logical, as most are.
It doesn't matter whether most owners are logical. All mass shootings have been committed by someone who was not logical, as it is obviously not logical to kill someone else. If someone doesn't care about the moral or legal implications of killing someone, they are not going to care about insurance costs either.
commandblockguy wrote:
It doesn't matter whether most owners are logical. All mass shootings have been committed by someone who was not logical, as it is obviously not logical to kill someone else. If someone doesn't care about the moral or legal implications of killing someone, they are not going to care about insurance costs either.


actually this makes a lot of sense, and I correct my statement a bout logical weapon ownership.

On the flip side their punishment would be the life of debt ahead of them after their illogical decison to commit mass murder
Izder456 wrote:
On the flip side their punishment would be the life of debt ahead of them after their illogical decison to commit mass murder

Except most mass shooters commit suicide. Or you know there's always the death penalty. I say we just throw them in Siberia.
Australia had a mass shooting in the 90's and the aftermath was a nation wide ban on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons as well as some of the more ridiculous calibers.

The govt paid cash for the affected weapons that you owned and there was an amnesty for a period of time as well for people who had ... unlicensed firearms etc.

You can still possess a firearm now but the licensing is more stringent than it used to be. You can get special permits if you need a certain caliber for some reason (farmers).

Farmers + hunters + sport shooters for example are still able to go about their business - they just have to be a better shot with a bolt action instead.

I grew up on a small farm so my dad hand to hand in what we had, but we moved to the township anyway so it was no major loss. I never really had an inkling to discharge a firearm at all and still dont.
Okay, let's say we pass a law telling citizens to hand in their firearms (or a specific type). Who do you think is going to obey the law and hand in their firearm... the criminal? The only person who would hand in their firearm because the law said so is the law-abiding citizen who wouldn't shoot up a school in the first place because the law said so. And then what? The criminal who shockingly didn't obey the law and pass in his illegal firearm now shoots up a large concert... and citizen Joe no longer has his gun to protect him.
Better background checks? I'm not entirely in the know on this subject, but I do know that a background check is not going to prevent a mass-shooter wannabe with a clean record to buy a firearm.

So what is the solution? I can't honestly tell you that I have a 100% fool-proof way to stop mass-shootings or any type of violence involving a gun. But at the same time, I think I can confidently assert that no-one else does either. That does not mean I advocate doing nothing and seeing another school/concert/university/etc. get shot up. I do like Mateo's suggestion of better education and public services. But that only goes one step.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 1
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement