Statistically guns are not the problem

[Need answers]

You cant take my guns. The constitution says so. Road crashes are the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people aged 1-54. But no one cares enough to ban cars or at least lower the speed limit.

 

[stevil]

Agreed, wouldn't it be great if we had a way to cut that number in half, save 18,000 lives a year.

That would be an improvement.

The problem is that the focus on gun control has the opposite effect, telling people this might be your last chance to buy a gun is a great sales tactic.

Do people really need to have access to every type of gun?
Do they really need semi automatics with large magazines? For what purpose is this function required?

Sure if you advertise that a type of gun will no longer be sold then there will be a short term spike, but then for years/decades later people will no longer be able to purchase them.

Also, if there are 393 million guns in this country how do you take them away?

A buy back scheme maybe, given that people bought them legally, it doesn't seem fair simply to take them away and not compensate the owner.

So the second problem with most people focusing on "gun control" is they have no practical or plausible way to do that.

Depends on which controls you are talking about. Many countries have enforced gun control methods in place.

But there is a very simple way to cut these deaths in half, simply require every person who purchases a gun to show proof of insurance.

????

Why does this solve the problem? First, most of these 36,000 deaths are from criminals and gangs.

????

The NRA says it is a unlawful to digitize the records of the guns in a government database because that is the first step towards seizing the guns.

The NRA isn't a government agency. They don't get to define the laws (unless politicians are at their beck and call).

If we think that a gun registry would help solve the problem then create a gun registry. This won't cause the government to seize everyone's guns. (despite the fears that the NRA are promoting)

But if the records were digitized in a variety of insurance agencies that were not government there objection would evaporate.

Insurance agencies don't work for the government, they aren't interested in managing gun control. They are there purely to make a profit, they sell insurance policies.

Then when a gun is used in a crime police could immediately notify the various insurance agencies and they could identify the owner.

Does this have something to do with an insurance claim?
Why would the insurance agency be looking up information and sharing people's private data with the police? How does the insurance agency make money out of providing this service and how does this relate to insurance or insurance claims?

This would help greatly in gang related deaths, as well as catching the people involved in trafficking guns.

I assume that you are saying a gun registry will help track guns used in crimes to the registered owner and this would reduce gun related deaths. Seems like the police force should be managing a gun registry, then.

Second, if a legitimate gun owner had to pay liability insurance on their gun there would be financial incentives to have the gun locked away safely thus reducing the accidental deaths that take place.

Are you saying that if a person's registered gun was used in a crime then the gun owner should have to pay a fine to the government and so you would have insurance agencies that allow gun owners to pay for insurance and then if their gun is used in a crime the insurance company will pay the fine???

Most gun owners don't expect to commit crimes, so they won't be interested in paying the insurance.
If a gun owner gets angry at their wife or girlfriend and uses the gun on them in their moment of anger, I'm pretty sure that a gun crime fine will be the least of their worries. It's not really something to get yourself insurance for.

Obviously if someone has criminal intent for their own gun, they won't be interested in getting it insured and getting their gun registered.

Third, it is hard to imagine a criminal would actually have insurance

Criminals are people too you know. They can get sick, so they probably have health insurance. They can have accidents so they probably have car insurance. But of course, if they buy a gun to commit crimes with, they won't be interested in getting it registered and insured.

so if police catch a person with a gun but have nothing else, at least they would have some violations that would allow them to hold the suspect for months, giving them a chance to check DNA and fingerprints against open cases.

What violation?

 

[ZNP]

If we think that a gun registry would help solve the problem then create a gun registry. This won't cause the government to seize everyone's guns. (despite the fears that the NRA are promoting)

We know it will help solve crimes. When a gun is used in a crime we can identify the bullet to the gun, and we can identify the shell casing to the gun. If this were on a computer we could be able to make this identification within hours. Then we can trace that gun through the system. It will either lead us to the owner of the gun, or to the last legitimate purchase of the gun which is a gun trafficker. Gangs have people without a criminal record that buy 100 guns at a time for them "collectors". Shutting down this pipeline will significantly put a crimp in the gang activities and will also lead to many prime suspects as these dealers only work with certain gangs. However, the records are not digitized so this ability is virtually useless. It takes so long to track down a gun with a paper trail that many police forces don't even do it, they are undermanned.

Insurance agencies don't work for the government, they aren't interesting in managing gun control. They are there purely to make a profit, they sell insurance policies.

If I have sold a million dollar liability insurance to someone with a gun, then I will create an algorithm that will calculate the risk of this person costing us 1 million. Requiring insurance for cars has had a tremendous impact on reducing the fatalities of cars and making them safer. They lobbied for seatbelt laws and for air bags, they created a rating for cars based on safety. They encourage people to buy safer cars by cutting rates. Right now the problem in the US is that there is no counterweight to the NRA lobby. The Insurance industry is the 500 pound gorilla compared to the NRA which is simply a bully.

Does this have something to do with an insurance claim?
Why would the insurance agency be looking up information and sharing people's private data with the police? How does the insurance agency make money out of providing this service and how does this relate to insurance or insurance claims?

A crime is committed with a gun. The police test the gun and bullet and then subpoena the records from the insurance companies for any company that is insuring this gun. They run the subpoena through their computers and identify the gun and who is insuring the gun.

I assume that you are saying a gun registry will help track guns used in crimes to the registered owner and this would reduce gun related deaths. Seems like the police force should be managing a gun registry, then.

At present it is ruled unconstitutional as an unlawful warrant.

Are you saying that if a person's registered gun was used in a crime then the gun owner should have to pay a fine to the government and so you would have insurance agencies that allow gun owners to pay for insurance and then if their gun is used in a crime the insurance company will pay the fine???

Liability insurance. If you shoot me while robbing my house there is a criminal case and I can also sue you for damages. If you have insurance the insurance company has to pay the liability. So, just like a driver's license, the government for the most part lets anyone who can pass the test get a license. But you still need insurance and if they deem you unsafe that insurance could become very expensive, even impossible to get.

Most gun owners don't expect to commit crimes, so they won't be interested in paying the insurance.
If a gun owner gets angry at their wife or girlfriend and uses the gun on them in their moment of anger, I'm pretty sure that a gun crime fine will be the least of their worries. It's not really something to get yourself insurance for.

Sure they would. Suppose there was an accident and a neighbors kid was killed with this man's gun, maybe when he wasn't home. In the lawsuit he loses everything. If he has insurance the insurance company pays. People with swimming pools have insurance, people with cars have insurance, no different.

Obviously if someone has criminal intent for their own gun, they won't be interested in getting it insured and getting their gun registered.

Unless they are using a homemade zip gun it won't matter, it will have to be purchased and insured by someone. No doubt at some point the trail will go cold with the legal owner claiming the gun was lost or stolen. But if you are supplying 100 guns to a gang on a regular basis you will be making this claim multiple times. As a result the insurance company will drop you as a high risk client and you will no longer be able to be a mule for the gangs.

 

[stevil]

A crime is committed with a gun. The police test the gun and bullet and then subpoena the records from the insurance companies for any company that is insuring this gun. They run the subpoena through their computers and identify the gun and who is insuring the gun.

Yeah, but why do the insurance companies provide this service? How do they make money out of it?

Liability insurance. If you shoot me while robbing my house there is a criminal case and I can also sue you for damages. If you have insurance the insurance company has to pay the liability.

Surely the insurance companies will write clauses so that they don't have to pay if you (the insurer) incur damages while intentionally committing a crime.

So, just like a driver's license,

If you intentionally plow your car into a crowd of people, surely your third party insurance doesn't cover damages.

the government for the most part lets anyone who can pass the test get a license. But you still need insurance and if they deem you unsafe that insurance could become very expensive, even impossible to get.

People don't have to get car insurance.

Sure they would. Suppose there was an accident and a neighbors kid was killed with this man's gun, maybe when he wasn't home. In the lawsuit he loses everything. If he has insurance the insurance company pays.

USA is big on this suing thing, I don't know much about it.

If you have a gun and it isn't properly stored surely you get done by the law.
If it is properly stored but it is stolen anyway, surely it is the neighbor's kids fault for stealing it and accidentally shooting himself???

Unless they are using a homemade zip gun it won't matter, it will have to be purchased and insured by someone.

Are you saying that the govt would force firearms purchasers to get insurance?

No doubt at some point the trail will go cold with the legal owner claiming the gun was lost or stolen. But if you are supplying 100 guns to a gang on a regular basis you will be making this claim multiple times. As a result the insurance company will drop you as a high risk client and you will no longer be able to be a mule for the gangs.

Surely if you onsell your gun, you are no longer culpable for its misuse???

 

[ZNP]

Yeah, but why do the insurance companies provide this service? How do they make money out of it?

It has already been pointed out that there are 300 million guns that would need to be insured and that there are only 30,000 killings, a very small fraction. In addition it has been pointed out that most criminals intending to commit a crime with their gun would not have insurance. This would be a very profitable business for the insurance company.

Surely the insurance companies will write clauses so that they don't have to pay if you (the insurer) incur damages while intentionally committing a crime.

Of course, if you were committing a crime when you were injured they may decline to pay, but they would still be liable to damages caused to others.

If you intentionally plow your car into a crowd of people, surely your third party insurance doesn't cover damages.

My understanding is that if you have a million dollars in liability insurance they pay a million, after that you are sued.

People don't have to get car insurance.

It is the law where I live.

If you have a gun and it isn't properly stored surely you get done by the law.
If it is properly stored but it is stolen anyway, surely it is the neighbor's kids fault for stealing it and accidentally shooting himself???

You are supposed to have a gun safe. If you have a gate up around your pool and the neighbors kid sneaks in, swims and drowns you are still liable.

Are you saying that the govt would force firearms purchasers to get insurance?

Of course, car dealers get insurance, why shouldn't gun salesmen.

Surely if you onsell your gun, you are no longer culpable for its misuse???

Yes and no. It turns out that a very small number of gun dealers are the ones who sell all the guns that go to gangs. This is generally a result of them playing fast and loose with the rules. Calling a guy who buys 100 semi automatic weapons a "collector", selling repeatedly to the same guy like this every few months. So if it turned out that 100 guns used by gangs to commit crimes were all sold to the same person that person would likely be charged as an illegal gun dealer, meanwhile the store that sold to him may also lose their license and be prosecuted for various violations.

 

[Larniavc]

I agree that guns are not the problem. Things like gang violence are the problem.

We have gangs in England. Gangs (or in fact any baddy) with guns in the problem.

A lot of Americans are baddies. They have guns. But the full picture is more like this:

(Suicide x guns)+(Baddies x guns) +(Children x guns) = gun deaths

If only there was an easy way to manipulate that equation to get fewer gun deaths?

It’s a real poser: America has tried nothing and it’s all out of ideas.

 

[ZNP]

It’s a real poser: America has tried nothing and it’s all out of ideas.

Not true.
1. We put microphones up in major cities. Now when a gun is fired we can identify the gun that fired the bullet, the location, and the exact time. Second most cities have thousands of cameras on the street run by the police and more than that run by private entities. Third we can track people by smart phones. Fourth, we have police cars equipped with technology that reads license plates and puts down the time and gps location on a spreadsheet. Fifth, if you are a "baddy" we can get a warrant and convert your smart phone into a microphone. Sixth, if we arrest you as a suspect we can go through your phones history and retrace your steps, where you were and when. We can cross reference that with the cameras we have and support that data with photos. Seventh we have mathematicians who can predict when and where a crime will be committed and by whom. This is because most gang violence is tit for tat.

 

[Larniavc]

Not true.
1. We put microphones up in major cities. Now when a gun is fired we can identify the gun that fired the bullet, the location, and the exact time. Second most cities have thousands of cameras on the street run by the police and more than that run by private entities. Third we can track people by smart phones. Fourth, we have police cars equipped with technology that reads license plates and puts down the time and gps location on a spreadsheet. Fifth, if you are a "baddy" we can get a warrant and convert your smart phone into a microphone. Sixth, if we arrest you as a suspect we can go through your phones history and retrace your steps, where you were and when. We can cross reference that with the cameras we have and support that data with photos. Seventh we have mathematicians who can predict when and where a crime will be committed and by whom. This is because most gang violence is tit for tat.

Utter fantasy.

 

[stevil]

They have guns. But the full picture is more like this:

(Suicide x guns)+(Baddies x guns) +(Children x guns) = gun deaths

Not to mention all the wives and girlfriends that get murdered with guns. The attacker's gun or their own "protection" gun.
Good guy in an angry state = a temporary bad guy (just for long enough to pull the trigger in a meaningful way).

 

[Larniavc]

Not to mention all the wives and girlfriends that get murdered with guns. The attacker's gun or their own "protection" gun.
Good guy in an angry state = a temporary bad guy (just for long enough to pull the trigger in a meaningful way).

All true. If only there was some way that America could divide by guns?

 

[ZNP]

Utter fantasy.

Can you be specific as to which point I made you feel is made up. I will be happy to supply references.

 

[Larniavc]

Can you be specific as to which point I made you feel is made up. I will be happy to supply references.

1 and 7

 

[stevil]

Of course, if you were committing a crime when you were injured they may decline to pay, but they would still be liable to damages caused to others.

This "insurance" is really strange.
So if I rob a bank at gun point, lets say I steal $5,000 but I have insurance. Then I get to keep the money I stole and my insurance company pays the bank the $5,000' back?

It seems that banks would then be fine being robbed. It was nice of me to go to the bother of getting insured, that way my victims just get their money back, as long as I own up to the crime and fill out the insurance claim details (very nice and thoughtful of me).
Although it is a lot of hassle for me, when I don't personally benefit from it.

I really think this idea is faulty. If I intentionally commit a crime, no insurance party is going to pay out!
If I am in my car, without a warrant of fitness, or speeding or drunk, my car insurance company won't pay if I damage my own car or if I crash into someone elses car and damage that. I would be liable, not my car insurance company, they only cover accidents which happen while I'm not breaking the rules or committing crimes.

Unless of course USA is very different to where I live.

You are supposed to have a gun safe. If you have a gate up around your pool and the neighbors kid sneaks in, swims and drowns you are still liable.

Wow, that's weird, and just seems very wrong.

Of course, car dealers get insurance, why shouldn't gun salesmen.

Car dealers get insured incase cars are stolen from their yard or damaged while people test drive the car. Once ownership changes hands the car dealer is no longer culpable.

Yes and no. It turns out that a very small number of gun dealers are the ones who sell all the guns that go to gangs. This is generally a result of them playing fast and loose with the rules. Calling a guy who buys 100 semi automatic weapons a "collector", selling repeatedly to the same guy like this every few months. So if it turned out that 100 guns used by gangs to commit crimes were all sold to the same person that person would likely be charged as an illegal gun dealer, meanwhile the store that sold to him may also lose their license and be prosecuted for various violations.

It would make sense that the store owner, if not following the gun laws, may lose their license to sell guns. It doesn't make sense that they are culpable if a gun they sold is used for a crime or causes damage to people or property when used by the new owner.

 

[ZNP]

1 and 7

1 --

90 Cities Install A Covert Technology That Listens For Gunshots - Slashdot

7 --

The Mathematics of Crime

 

[ZNP]

This "insurance" is really strange.
So if I rob a bank at gun point, lets say I steal $5,000 but I have insurance. Then I get to keep the money I stole and my insurance company pays the bank the $5,000' back?

It seems that banks would then be fine being robbed. It was nice of me to go to the bother of getting insured, that way my victims just get their money back, as long as I own up to the crime and fill out the insurance claim details (very nice and thoughtful of me).
Although it is a lot of hassle for me, when I don't personally benefit from it.

Yes, banks are insured if they are robbed.

I really think this idea is faulty. If I intentionally commit a crime, no insurance party is going to pay out!

That is a misunderstanding of what I said. Who buys a gun with the stated intention of committing a crime. So let's look at the legitimate purchases first since that is over 99% of gun owners. I buy a gun to protect my home. I think someone is breaking in but it is a mistake and I shoot my daughters friend. I am covered by insurance.

Now lets discuss the criminals, the 1%. If you have felony record you can't buy a gun, so you have a gun runner, a friend from the hood who has a clean record. He goes and buys guns for the entire gang, say 50 semi's and calls himself a "collector". The gun dealer knows who he is, very few dealers will sell to someone like this. Now this guy has to buy the guns legally and will therefore have to insure all of them. A week later he'll report that they were all stolen. A few weeks later many of them start popping up in crimes. Every time this happens the police contact him because he was the last known owner. His story becomes thin and thinner. Perhaps a suspect in one of the crimes can be tied to this guy, they both went to the same high school the same year. Perhaps an IRS audit shows he has much more money than he has claimed. Perhaps they offer a deal to another criminal take years off if he testifies this guy sold him the gun. Charges are brought and whether or not he is convicted he is now a very high risk. Suppose in the future the police put surveillance on him and prove he is a gun runner. Now the insurance company can be held liable for every crime the gang commits with guns he provided because by now they should know. Therefore he is no longer eligible to get insurance. The gang's network to supply guns has just been closed.

 

[Larniavc]

1 --

90 Cities Install A Covert Technology That Listens For Gunshots - Slashdot

7 --

The Mathematics of Crime

The shooter was never found.

A blog

smh

 

[ZNP]

The shooter was never found.

smh

In more than 90 cities across the US, including New York, microphones placed strategically around high-crime areas pick up the sounds of gunfire and alert police to the shooting's location via dots on a city map... ShotSpotter also sends alerts to apps on cops' phones. "We've gone to the dot and found the casings 11 feet from where the dot was, according to the GPS coordinates," Capt. David Salazar of the Milwaukee Police Dept. told Business Insider. "So it's incredibly helpful. We've saved a lot of people's lives."


When three microphones pick up a gunshot, ShotSpotter figures out where the sound comes from. Human analysts in the Newark, California, headquarters confirm the noise came from a gun (not a firecracker or some other source). The police can then locate the gunshot on a map and investigate the scene. The whole process happens "much faster" than dialing 911, Salazar said, though he wouldn't disclose the exact time.

It is a tool. It helps police respond faster than 911, it gives a precise location, you can identify a gun or rule out a gun from the recording (.45 vs .38 vs shotgun, etc), and it gives a precise time. All of these are important pieces of evidence that will help to convict a suspect. Combine this with the other tools we have that I mentioned it greatly helps us solve a crime, get the actual perpetrator, and then once we have him collect sufficient evidence to convict him.

 

[Hank77]

Third, it is hard to imagine a criminal would actually have insurance, so if police catch a person with a gun but have nothing else, at least they would have some violations that would allow them to hold the suspect for months, giving them a chance to check DNA and fingerprints against open cases.

Failing to have insurance and possession of an uninsured gun would not keep someone in jail for months without a bail hearing and/or a trial.

We know it will help solve crimes. When a gun is used in a crime we can identify the bullet to the gun, and we can identify the shell casing to the gun. If this were on a computer we could be able to make this identification within hours.

If you have the gun yes, you can say that a bullet came from that gun.

The gun manufacturer knows exactly which licensed gun dealer bought that gun from them.
The licensed gun dealer knows who they sold that gun to and they have to retain those records for 20 yrs. For them to maintain a digital record of the information on the gun and who bought it would be simple, efficient, and easily accessed.

Involving insurance companies would just burden the process and cause hardship for lower-income people, exactly the people who hunt to feed their families.

 

[stevil]

Yes, banks are insured if they are robbed.

Banks pay for their own insurance.
They don't expect the bank robber's insurance to pay for it.

That is a misunderstanding of what I said. Who buys a gun with the stated intention of committing a crime. So let's look at the legitimate purchases first since that is over 99% of gun owners. I buy a gun to protect my home. I think someone is breaking in but it is a mistake and I shoot my daughters friend. I am covered by insurance.

You should go to prison.
The girl's family are not going to be grateful for you having insurance. They will want to see you locked up.
Insurance is the least of your worries. I wouldn't buy insurance for this purpose.
Instead I'd be very careful who I point a gun at.
How much money do you think a gun owner is willing to pay per year on the off chance that they might "accidentally" murder someone?

Always, always identify your target. Never shoot at unarmed people, always use a gun as a last resort. If someone is stealing your stuff, it isn't worth killing them over. If you are so scared that you will shoot at things that go bump in the night, then maybe you shouldn't have a gun.

Now lets discuss the criminals, the 1%. If you have felony record you can't buy a gun,

No point getting insurance then.

so you have a gun runner, a friend from the hood who has a clean record. He goes and buys guns for the entire gang, say 50 semi's and calls himself a "collector".

Does he onsell the gun to you or just "loan" it to you? Who is the owner of record of the gun??

The gun dealer knows who he is, very few dealers will sell to someone like this.

Because of course criminals are ugly and they wear a black hat and have tattoos?

Now this guy has to buy the guns legally and will therefore have to insure all of them.

And every year they keep paying insurance premiums???? on guns they don't have, and don't know who is using them or where they are? They just keep paying insurance, year after year on hundreds of guns??????

A week later he'll report that they were all stolen.

This guy reports hundreds and hundreds of guns stolen????
So insurance no longer makes any sense.
But you think insurance companies should still keep these records rather than purge them, for guns they are no longer insuring??? Just in case the police subpoena them, and then they have to go to the effort to look them up and provide information to the police for free.
Wow, so the insurance company becomes a pro-bono department for the police, out of the goodness of their hearts, for free.

A few weeks later many of them start popping up in crimes. Every time this happens the police contact him because he was the last known owner.

Well, the police wouldn't know that because they don't have a registry.


They would have to contact ALL the insurance companies and hope they keep records on previously recorded stolen guns that they no longer insure. They would need to provide subpoenas to ALL these insurance companies on each instance of a gun crime. The courts will be busy and this will cost the police force a lot of money and time. The insurance companies will be busy doing free work for the police as well. All because for some strange reason the USA won't allow a police gun registration system so they instead force it onto insurance companies who get no benefit in insuring these guns and force gun owners to insure their guns for things that they don't want to insure for.

 

[ZNP]

Failing to have insurance and possession of an uninsured gun would not keep someone in jail for months without a bail hearing and/or a trial.

It's enough to keep them custody long enough to check fingerprints and DNA.

If you have the gun yes, you can say that a bullet came from that gun.

The gun manufacturer knows exactly which licensed gun dealer bought that gun from them.
The licensed gun dealer knows who they sold that gun to and they have to retain those records for 20 yrs. For them to maintain a digital record of the information on the gun and who bought it would be simple, efficient, and easily accessed.

Educate yourself

The ATF's Nonsenical Non-Searchable Gun Databases, Explained

Involving insurance companies would just burden the process and cause hardship for lower-income people, exactly the people who hunt to feed their families.

Liability insurance is based on sound mathematical models calculating risk. If you have been hunting your entire life, had a gun for all that time without any accidents then your risk would be extremely low and the cost for the insurance would also be very low. Do you ever wonder why Katrina hit the poor harder than anyone else? The insurance companies knew that their neighborhood would be destroyed in a hurricane. The yearly cost for flood insurance in 9th ward was 1/3 the total mortgage on the house. Do you know why the poor are dying at a much higher rate from Covid19 -- don't have insurance.