• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Semper-Fi, Feb 7, 2021.

  1. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +8,383
    Christian
    Married
    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?
     
  2. Jamdoc

    Jamdoc Watching and Praying Always

    +1,409
    United States
    Baptist
    Single
  3. 98cwitr

    98cwitr Lord forgive me Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    +3,151
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Constitution
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  4. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +8,383
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    You live in the city then?
     
  5. 98cwitr

    98cwitr Lord forgive me Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    +3,151
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Constitution
    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.
     
  6. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +4,505
    Christian
    Married
    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: Feb 9, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. Zergling Rush

    Zergling Rush New Member

    78
    +52
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  8. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +8,383
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. Zergling Rush

    Zergling Rush New Member

    78
    +52
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  10. Zergling Rush

    Zergling Rush New Member

    78
    +52
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    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.
     
  11. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +4,505
    Christian
    Married
    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 Informative x 1
    • List
  12. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +4,505
    Christian
    Married
    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: Feb 9, 2021
  13. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +4,505
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  14. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Part of the IT crowd Supporter

    +10,314
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    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: Feb 9, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  15. Zergling Rush

    Zergling Rush New Member

    78
    +52
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    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"
     
  16. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +4,505
    Christian
    Married

    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.

    [​IMG]

    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: Feb 9, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  17. tall73

    tall73 Sophia7's husband Supporter

    +4,505
    Christian
    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.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    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: Feb 9, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  18. Jamdoc

    Jamdoc Watching and Praying Always

    +1,409
    United States
    Baptist
    Single
    since 2020 carjackings have gone up, and some of them fatal
     
  19. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +8,383
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    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
     
  20. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,808
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    Well they are certainly sensible provisions. I hope that is enacted for your country's sake.
     
Loading...