STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
yeah. I'm not a gun guy really; I'm all about utility though. My brother and dad were hunters. I hope to get into it (though I'm late and slow) and I REALLY hope if its something my son loves that he will also get into.

Assuming you hunt where you are, what do you go for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 98cwitr
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
yeah. I'm not a gun guy really; I'm all about utility though. My brother and dad were hunters. I hope to get into it (though I'm late and slow) and I REALLY hope if its something my son loves that he will also get into.

Assuming you hunt where you are, what do you go for?

Man, I haven't been hunting in years. When I did, it was mostly deer or squirrel. Granddaddy tried taking me dove and quail hunting on occasion, but I was never fast enough to master that art. Now, I own guns for self defense purposes, albeit I have passed down heirlooms from my grandfather that I hope to keep that tradition alive with my kids.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Man, I haven't been hunting in years. When I did, it was mostly deer or squirrel. Granddaddy tried taking me dove and quail hunting on occasion, but I was never fast enough to master that art. Now, I own guns for self defense purposes, albeit I have passed down heirlooms from my grandfather that I hope to keep that tradition alive with my kids.
You live in the city then?
 
Upvote 0

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You live in the city then?

On the outskirts, but most of our hunting expeditions were done when we would go down to my grandmother's family farm in south Georgia. Learned to fish and hunt on that land every fall. Those were some good times indeed.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Any piece of equipment I own which can pose a danger to others requires liability insurance--a car, a plane, boat, even a steam boiler. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement which does not infringe on my right to own any of those things. It should be the same with a firearm. Own any gun you want. If it's a handgun for home protection and if the owner has training and stores it properly the cost of insurance would be nominal--that's something the free market can figure out. And there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment, express or implied, which confers the right to own a gun in secret from the government.

What exactly is gun insurance supposed to cover?

There is a big difference between a car, a boat, etc. and a gun. Auto insurance and such work under the premise that damage caused is accidental. Policies do not cover intentional acts.

I worked as an auto liability adjuster for an insurance company, and, while rare, we did have times where people intentionally struck another vehicle, etc. There are exclusions for such incidents.

In dealing with firearm use you can have accidental and intentional discharges. If someone is using the firearm to commit a murder, mass shooting, etc. I am not aware of insurance that will cover it. The purpose of insurance is to be a risk mitigation tool for spreading small risks across large pools of people. Intentional criminal acts are a whole other ball game and the costs escalate in a hurry. So companies are certainly not going to sell a policy for that.

As far as unintentional harm there may already be some coverage under many personal homeowners or rental policies under the liability section. And you can get umbrella policies for additional liability coverage which is excess in case you run into limits issues. Such liability coverage generally applies to temporary guests in the home or people outside the household. Here is a discussion:

Background on: Gun Liability | III

Personal insurance: Insurers rarely offer any separate gun liability insurance policy. Most individuals have some property and liability coverage for firearms in their standard homeowners’ policy. Additional liability coverage is available through a personal umbrella policy. A few policies cover losses from accidental shootings in excess of the homeowners’ coverage.

When there is liability insurance, it only covers accidental shootings and in some cases, acts of self-defense. There is no coverage for criminal or other intentional shootings.

Although every insurance company adopts its own policy, many companies use standard homeowners and personal umbrella policies written by Insurance Services Office (ISO). The standard homeowners policy is known as an HO-3. That policy specifically mentions firearms once, as property that is covered if stolen. Firearms are not mentioned in the liability section of the policy, implying that firearm liability would be covered. A homeowners’ policy covers all liabilities that are not specifically excluded.

Not all accidents are covered, per the terms of the policy. For example, if a relative living at the same home were accidentally shot, the accident would not appear to be covered.


The policy explicitly says it will not cover “expected or intended injury.” The policy is designed to cover accidents, not intentional, criminal actions, such as a homicide or an attempted homicide. A mass shooting would not appear to be covered. A critical point is that covering an intentional, illegal act like armed assault would violate standard underwriting principles.

There are also organizations that people can belong to that you can pay for coverage of some legal costs in defensive shootings, etc.


The portion of the bill that addresses insurance states:


“(d) Firearm insurance.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall issue to any person who has applied for a license pursuant to subsection (c) and has paid to the Attorney General the fee specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection a policy that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins with the date the policy is issued.


“(2) FEE.—The fee specified in this paragraph is $800.”.


The bill indicates that this is for "liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of" any firearm by the person.

So it looks like it would be starting its own federal program, with a recurring $800 fee each year, for each person who is so licensed.

This is certainly not analogous to your car or boat policy. Policies and premiums are often regulated on the state level, and are generally tied to the risks posed by the insured. This, however, is a flat fee.

My personal view is that this fee is high enough that it may make legally owning a firearm very difficult, or impossible, for some poorer families. People in this thread can debate the necessity of a firearm in regards to the low risk of someone being in a position to defend themselves against criminal activity. However, the neighborhoods with extremely high violent crime rates are often quite poor.

Moreover, this is asking law abiding gun owners to pay for intentional criminal acts of another party.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Zergling Rush

Active Member
Sep 23, 2004
78
53
✟18,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's also why one of my cars is a beater (body wise). I'm not afraid to be hit by another car or be forced to plow through something to prevent me from being pulled out of a stopped car, unarmed. I'm more likely to stop if I'm driving my sports car. But at least it does have a gun in the door panel that I've never had to use and I probably never will.

Do you live in Johannesburg or something? I can't imagine living somewhere I would feel so unsafe. I live in a large city and there might be 20 or 30 carjackings per year.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Do you live in Johannesburg or something? I can't imagine living somewhere I would feel so unsafe. I live in a large city and there might be 20 or 30 carjackings per year.
If someone tries to jack my car, they can. I'll take the insurance money then. Not sure why i'd want to shoot someone over it.

It's just a freakin' car.
 
Upvote 0

Zergling Rush

Active Member
Sep 23, 2004
78
53
✟18,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If someone tries to jack my car, they can. I'll take the insurance money then. Not sure why i'd want to shoot someone over it.

It's just a freakin' car.

Plus having a shootout with someone who already has a gun pointed at you is rarely a good idea. Not even starting about what you might do if your family is nearby.
 
Upvote 0

Zergling Rush

Active Member
Sep 23, 2004
78
53
✟18,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is a big difference between a car, a boat, etc. and a gun. Auto insurance and such work under the premise that damage caused is accidental. Policies do not cover intentional acts.

I worked as an auto liability adjuster for an insurance company, and, while rare, we did have times where people intentionally struck another vehicle, etc. There are exclusions for such incidents.

In dealing with firearm use you can have accidental and intentional discharges. If someone is using the firearm to commit a murder, mass shooting, etc. I am not aware of insurance that will cover it. The purpose of insurance is to be a risk mitigation tool for spreading small risks across large pools of people. Intentional criminal acts are a whole other ball game and the costs escalate in a hurry. So companies are certainly not going to sell a policy for that

.......

Moreover, this is asking law abiding gun owners to pay for intentional criminal acts of another party.

If most gun owners are law abiding and criminal acts are excluded, why would insurance be a problem? Gun owners are covered for potential damages, people who use their guns for criminal acts pay into the scheme but aren't covered, those who don't pay at all can be charged and hopefully the law mandates that they lose their guns.

Surely that's a win-win.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you live in Johannesburg or something? I can't imagine living somewhere I would feel so unsafe. I live in a large city and there might be 20 or 30 carjackings per year.

Car jackings are certainly more prevalent in Johannesburg than in American cities.

An elite helicopter force is fighting South Africa's carjacking epidemic

However, they are behind several cities in the US for homicides.

List of cities by murder rate - Wikipedia

Homicide rate per 100k.

St. Louis United States 64.54
Baltimore United States 58.64
Detroit United States 40.74

Johannesburg South Africa 36.21

And if you are unfortunate enough to live in some neighborhoods in the US the rates are ridiculous.


From a 2018 article:
What’s the Homicide Capital of America? Murder Rates in U.S. Cities, Ranked.

Last year in St. Louis, most killings were concentrated in neighborhoods like Greater Ville and the adjacent JeffVanderLou, which sit just a few miles from the city’s downtown, and each recorded a murder rate of 162.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If most gun owners are law abiding and criminal acts are excluded, why would insurance be a problem? Gun owners are covered for potential damages, people who use their guns for criminal acts pay into the scheme but aren't covered, those who don't pay at all can be charged and hopefully the law mandates that they lose their guns.

Surely that's a win-win.

As referenced, some do get insurance for legal costs for defensive shootings, etc. through gun groups designed for that purpose. They usually offer educational material as well to let their members know what legal hurdles to avoid, and what comprises proper use of force within legal guidelines.

But that is not what is proposed by the bill.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If someone tries to jack my car, they can. I'll take the insurance money then. Not sure why i'd want to shoot someone over it.

It's just a freakin' car.

Plus having a shootout with someone who already has a gun pointed at you is rarely a good idea. Not even starting about what you might do if your family is nearby.

Yes, I had a relative who carries a gun for defense purposes and was still car jacked and was not able to get to his gun. So they took the car and the gun.

He was looking to move. The problem is for those who cannot afford to move.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Dems have full control of 2 of the 3 branches. If Biden packs the court this is very likely to be enacted. That's the concern. In 2019 it had zero chance...now it's got quite a good chance.

The current composition of the various branches is something Skopos Labs takes into account...they still gave it only a 3% chance. That's not what I would call a good chance.

In fact, as I noted, most bills don't have a good chance. Only 4% of proposed bills turn into law, and only 6% make to phase of getting a vote.

If they were that anxious to pass it, why is it not passed already given they have the majority in the house, the tie-breaker in the senate, and a democratic president?

A bill lasting longer than a few days in a sub-committee is basically the graveyard for the overwhelming majority of bills.

It's worth looking at the usual turn around time for the process for bills that do end up becoming law. For the ones that do, it's typically a somewhat quick turn around time. It doesn't get referred to a committee, and sit there with no action whatsoever for over a month.

As a good comparable example (referring to the same subject matter)

Let's look at the Clinton-Era assault weapons ban (a piece of legislation that did actually pass), under the similar circumstance of Democrats having control of the presidency, house, and senate and consider the differences...

HR 127 (2021).
A rehash of an old failed legislative attempt, by a single house rep, with no cosponsors.
Gets Immediately referred to a sub-committee (like the last time), absolutely no movement on it for over a month.

HR 4296 (April 25th, 1994)
Chuck Schumer (at that time a house rep) introduces it on 4/25, with a list of 61 bipartisan cosponsors.

Get's referred to the same subcommittee (house judiciary). They held a hearing on it that the very next day. Within two days, they had the recommended amendments and changes to it agreed upon. The changes were made that day, and the next day it was put up for a vote, passes, and shipped off to the senate 3 days later.

Or, to put a visual element to it...

This is how legislation that's going to pass looks when the parties involved know the numbers are in their favor:
upload_2021-2-9_19-16-24.png



Not this:
upload_2021-2-9_19-16-57.png


A bill they're anxious to push through (when they have their numbers in their favor and could easily force it through if they wanted to) doesn't sit in a subcommittee for a month with no movement.

Another example would be the Affordable Care Act. It was introduced in the house on 9/17/09, made it through the subcommittees, all agreed upon amendments were made, returned for a vote, and received in the senate by 10/8/2009.

If they can get something that sweeping and big through all of the house processes and to the senate in just over 2 weeks... Why is it that if they're so anxious for a gun grab, that they'd be procrastinating for over a month on a bill that's so short, that it could be read in 10 minutes?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Zergling Rush

Active Member
Sep 23, 2004
78
53
✟18,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
List of cities by murder rate - Wikipedia

Homicide rate per 100k.

St. Louis United States 64.54
Baltimore United States 58.64
Detroit United States 40.74
Johannesburg South Africa 36.21

And if you are unfortunate enough to live in some neighborhoods in the US the rates are ridiculous.


From a 2018 article:
What’s the Homicide Capital of America? Murder Rates in U.S. Cities, Ranked.

Last year in St. Louis, most killings were concentrated in neighborhoods like Greater Ville and the adjacent JeffVanderLou, which sit just a few miles from the city’s downtown, and each recorded a murder rate of 162.

Meanwhile the homicide rate in Australia sits at around 0.9. We continually hear that easy availability of guns will prevent crime and yet the statistics simply don't back this up.

Surely there comes a point where you have to stop doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The US managed to introduce a whole raft of security measures after 9/11 killed 3,000 people, yet more children than that are killed by guns each year and the response is always "nope - too hard, can't do anything about it"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Meanwhile the homicide rate in Australia sits at around 0.9. We continually hear that easy availability of guns will prevent crime and yet the statistics simply don't back this up.

Surely there comes a point where you have to stop doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The US managed to introduce a whole raft of security measures after 9/11 killed 3,000 people, yet more children than that are killed by guns each year and the response is always "nope - too hard, can't do anything about it"


I am afraid it is a bit more complicated than that.


Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2019
Homicides 13,927
Firearm homicides 10,258
Non-firearm homicides 3,669

Homicide rate per 100k--4.2
Firearm homicide rate per 100k--3.12
Non-firearm homicide rate per 100k--1.11

The rates are my calculation based on an approximate 2019 US population of 328,200,000 from Google. I think the final numbers were a bit higher as I don't think they have weapons data on every homicide.

We have more murders by means other than firearms than Australia does as a whole. We have a violence problem. And I don't think that even if we were able to eliminate all firearms over night that we would eliminate all of the homicides previously associated with firearms. Drug violence would still occur. Domestic violence would still occur. Guns are our preferred means, but not the driver of the violence.

In contrast, in Scottland for instance most violence was driven by sharp items rather than guns, even before gun control.

As bad as that is, amazingly, our murder rate went down considerably from the 90's while numbers of guns went up. So it is not just a matter of the number of guns. We historically have a very violent culture. It was high to start with, then went higher towards the 90s, and even after declining considerably is still way too high.

ucr-national-2017-1280x0-c-default.png


Part of the problem now, as I detailed in an earlier post, is that we have more guns than we do people in the United States, and it would be nearly impossible to remove them all from criminals.

What might be helpful is to look at what impact gun reform had on overall homicide numbers in nations such as the UK, Australia, etc. Last I looked at the numbers for Australia they were trending downward, which is great. And I was impressed by their data system as well. It is easy to find detailed information. I was also impressed with how they are working to reduce domestic homicides, which drive a lot of their deaths.

However, the question is how much the overall homicide rate was impacted by gun control. It probably helped, but not by a ton.

In the UK homicides went up for a time after gun control, went down a bit, and now is going back up again.

We have a much higher baseline historically. We need to find out what factors are driving that, and little progress is being made.

Part of why little progress is being made is that many of those who are making the decisions live in areas with very good crime rates. They are not personally impacted by the poverty and crime driving much of the violence and even the deaths of despair from alcohol, drug use, suicide, etc.

Much of the violence is confined to known areas that people avoid when they can.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is the historical data. We see a similar trend in the USA and UK, with spikes in the early 90's with then decreasing violence.

The UK is per million rather than 100k.

Perhaps the largest gun measure in the UK went through in 1997, but the homicide rate continued to go up for a while, then back down. It didn't go much below 1997 levels and then recently started going back up again in the last couple years.

So overall the impact on homicides was not much. If anything they went up for a while.

ucr-national-2017-1280x0-c-default.png


343031_168cf148c075600a8dacd3fbd931ea01.PNG



There are some confounding factors.

The UK goes by when the crime was officially put on the books. So the 2003 spike is not totally accurate. That includes data from a serial killer who's crimes were all put on the books that year but occurred over a span of years.

From the office of statistics:
Results for "homicide " | Search - UK Government Web Archive
(download first result titled "homicide")

Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place, this is not always the case. Caution is therefore needed when looking at longerterm homicide trend figures. For example, the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003.

Moreover they indicate that homicide data waits for cases to pass through the judicial system:

The circumstances surrounding a homicide may be complex and it can take time for cases to pass through the criminal justice system (CJS). Due to this, the percentage of homicides recorded in the year ending March 2016 (and, to a lesser extent, those recorded in earlier years) that have concluded at Crown Court is likely to show an increase when the next figures from the Homicide Index are published in 12 months’ time. Conversely, the proportion of cases without suspects or with court proceedings pending is expected to decrease as police complete more investigations and as cases pass through the CJS (see What do we know about suspects section for further details).
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,369
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,882.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
If someone tries to jack my car, they can. I'll take the insurance money then. Not sure why i'd want to shoot someone over it.

It's just a freakin' car.

since 2020 carjackings have gone up, and some of them fatal
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Here is the historical data. We see a similar trend in the USA and UK, with spikes in the early 90's with then decreasing violence.

The UK is per million rather than 100k.

Perhaps the largest gun measure in the UK went through in 1997, but the homicide rate continued to go up for a while, then back down. It didn't go much below 1997 levels and then recently started going back up again in the last couple years.

So overall the impact on homicides was not much. If anything they went up for a while.

ucr-national-2017-1280x0-c-default.png


343031_168cf148c075600a8dacd3fbd931ea01.PNG



There are some confounding factors.

The UK goes by when the crime was officially put on the books. So the 2003 spike is not totally accurate. That includes data from a serial killer who's crimes were all put on the books that year but occurred over a span of years.

From the office of statistics:
Results for "homicide " | Search - UK Government Web Archive
(download first result titled "homicide")

Homicide Index data are based on the year when the offence was recorded as a crime, not when the offence took place or when the case was heard in court. While in the vast majority of cases the offence will be recorded in the same year as it took place, this is not always the case. Caution is therefore needed when looking at longerterm homicide trend figures. For example, the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003.

Moreover they indicate that homicide data waits for cases to pass through the judicial system:

The circumstances surrounding a homicide may be complex and it can take time for cases to pass through the criminal justice system (CJS). Due to this, the percentage of homicides recorded in the year ending March 2016 (and, to a lesser extent, those recorded in earlier years) that have concluded at Crown Court is likely to show an increase when the next figures from the Homicide Index are published in 12 months’ time. Conversely, the proportion of cases without suspects or with court proceedings pending is expected to decrease as police complete more investigations and as cases pass through the CJS (see What do we know about suspects section for further details).
That plummeting murder rate through the 90s though

Logically you know that means that out of work and struggling computer programmers finally getting on their feet would mean they could stop killing and thieving
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
H.R.127: Is this Unconstitutional overreach from
authoritarian socialists bent on gun confiscation?
Text - H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
-

STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127
jbs.org/alert/stop-extreme-gun-control-bill-h-r-127/

"Members of Congress are seeking to pass an extreme and unconstitutional
gun control bill that would effectively nullify the Second Amendment.

Here are the highlights of H.R. 127’s provisions:

It creates a national firearm registry that anyone – including every
level of law enforcement and the military – can access.

The registry would require one to tell the government exactly
where one’s firearms are stored.

One would need a license simply to own a firearm.
Mandatory “psychological evaluations” are required receive this license.

One would need to pay $800 for “firearm insurance.”

It would enact extreme ammunition restrictions, including
a ban on magazines more than 10 rounds.

Violating the above provisions could lead to a prison sentence
of up to 40 years and a fine of up to $150,000."
Well they are certainly sensible provisions. I hope that is enacted for your country's sake.
 
Upvote 0