I think we should draw a distinction between the manufacturer and those that sell guns. Those that sell guns should have to have limits on who they sell them to (and are sueable if they sell it to people that don't meet certain requirements). Those that manufacture guns should only be sueable (is that even a real word or am I making it up?) in their role as a manufacturer if the guns are faulty, or, connected to this thread (so in the case of crimes committed), if it is their fault guns fall into hands without checks - i.e. they for some stupid reason leave guns in the public domain/don't have reasonable security at their factories.

Real control should be achieved through the requirement of a gun license (which expires after a period of time whereafter you are required to get a new one), harsh punisments on irregulated sales of guns, and harsh punishments on the failure to report the theft (and perhaps loss) of a gun.

Gun registration, like car registration, is also a great idea. And part of that registration could be a ballistics test on the gun. Of course, anyone can alter the ballistics readings of the gun by simple running a drill bit up the barrel to alter the rifling and putting a slight bend or nick in the hammer to alter it's orientation where or how it strikes the round. But most stolen weapons are used quickly and discarded, so the criminals probably wouldn't bother with that.

The only reason this even comes up is because of $. The mom who had the gun: IF she had insurance, it wouldn't have paid out because it was taken without her consent. (Arguable since she's dead) She could have renewed her license and given a test shot for ballistics. The son stole the gun and used it in commission of a crime. The manufacturer is protected for the reasons you all used to support licensing and liability insurance. The arms dealer is protected because he followed the law and sold and reported the sale to the government. The perp is dead. His estate has no $. So who listed has the deep pockets? That's the problem. All your solutions won't work because people want $$$$$$$$$. And perps and the people they steal from to get their weapons from don't have $$$$$. Solve that!

@Socrates - The dealers *do* have limits. We have a system in place for them to do background checks and all sorts of shit. The problem is that right now the sale of a gun isn't monitored between private individuals. What we need is the requirement to register a gun like we have with cars and titling of guns also like we do with cars. And we need an easy way for gun owners to go about checking a potential buyer of their private firearm out, like a simple web site where you plug in a social and name and it does the background check. With modern technology having wireless virtually everywhere, every person at a swap meet looking to sell or trade a weapon could do the preliminary check, not just the big dealers who happen to be there.

The one thing I could see where guns should vary from cars is that all transactions should have to be done in front of a registrar, not with a simple signing over of the title an a notary seal like cars are. Bill of sale isn't enough, it needs someone to run a background check. So gun and knife shows could be set up with an official registrar and any deals going down could be concluded on the way out (much like collecting your goods from the duty-free shop as you board your international flight or as you arrive in your cabin on your cruise ship).

@Czech - There is no solution to that. If someone steals my car and runs down a bunch of kids in a crosswalk drunk, he is liable. But odds are he doesn't have money either. Money doesn't bring back the dead. Money doesn't ease the pain of losing them. So why focus on money to begin with? If you want money cause your kid got killed, by life insurance for them. It's real damn cheap for kids and will pay out for expenses burying them and more. But it still isn't going to ease the pain of their loss.

"My gun is locked in a gun case"

Whoopty fucking do. Thanks for making my point, a gun should be locked up and safer. So if people not as responsible as you get their gun stolen and it kills someone then they should be forced to pay.

And yes, only the gun, because the gun is an instrument created to kill people, and if it is used for its purpose because it wasn't protected it should be your ass

Agree with Draug's posts at 8:07 and 8:10 completely. Also I'm not sure someone living with a son with mental health issues should be able to have a gun, but that's just me. What we need to understand is that there is no way to fully get rid of gun crime (that could actually happen), and that any attempt to fight gun crime is only to minimize the damage. To that end there's no point bringing up ways in which gun crime still will exist, we should only focus on which system has/would have less gun crime

"And maybe we can all give DNA samples too. (Sarcasm) This is a police state you are describing. (Not sarcasm)"

Got forbid we actually know who have killing instruments around. It isn't a police state at all its prudent. What exactly is distopian about having the ability to know who shot somebody? DNA can be used for several purposes including violating someones privacy, ballistics one purpose

"And we need an easy way for gun owners to go about checking a potential buyer of their private firearm out, like a simple web site where you plug in a social and name and it does the background check. With modern technology having wireless virtually everywhere, every person at a swap meet looking to sell or trade a weapon could do the preliminary check, not just the big dealers who happen to be there."

Excellent, a private backgound check for all. Conservative principles there!. Or how a yearly registration so when you sell your weapon you have to change registration just like a car so we actually know where the gun is. And if your gun "goes missing" under mysterious circumstances, its your ass.

Wouldn't define it as a conservative principle, you can only do them to people who are trying to buy a gun off you, and they are giving their consent buy trying to purchase said gun. I agree on the registration and missing under mysterious circumstances.

Compelling someone not accused of a crime to provide DNA is a violation of the constitutions protections against unlawful search and seizure. You can have my DNA off my dead body, if you live long enough when you come to take it cause my shotgun will be firing as you come in the door without a court order.

As far as the background check system, it would only be available via social and password to a registered owner of a firearm

@Draugnar. That's my point. 100,000,000 is teh amount they want for their little girl's suffering and trauma. She IS ALIVE. So why are they suing? And why 100,000,000? It IS about $. Otherwise they would be counting their blessings.

Czech - no one thinks gun liability insurance will solve all problems, but just because all problems aren't solved doesn't mean we should try to limit some problems.

Gun liability insurance will put the onus of background checks onto insurers and all transactions will be covered because if a cert of insurance can't be produced the sale can not take place. Again, this isn't meant to solve all problems, but the hunter who has clean gun history for 20 years will get insurance no probs, but someone with questionable mental health won't get insurance for an assault rifle as the premium will be too restrictive.

Draugnar and Santa open another bread for DNA database, the issues arn't related

So was it just a rhetorical question then? Solving the money problem? Cause it isn't a real problem. This particular case is about money, but that's because they are greedy assholes and they won't get it. Problem solved. Assholes told to go bugger off and be glad their child survived and the state, county, and city, who could not have possibly foreseen this occurrence, can focus on improving security further.

Draugnar, I would agree with you except... Because there have been several shooting at schools (different levels, college, high school, middle school, Jr. high, elementary) it could be argued that the "should have known" it could happen. And somewhere in that jurisdiction there might be enough jurors who feel moved to award $ with their hearts and not logic. The problem then becomes, how much $ are taxpayes willing to pay to have "safe" schools. And if it happens again ( a shooting) the victims will sue saying that the schools didn't do enough. Seems like a downward spiral and soon education won't be considered teh priority.

@czech - getting guns registered and maybe ballistic testing is more like ensuring cars have registration plates rather than suggestion people should give their DNA to a database. Car and gun registration do not equal a police state.

I believe most states already have gun registration laws. I'm not an expert in this. The gun in this case was registered. So, again, IF everything were done as those on this forum suggest 1) registartion, 2) ballistics 3) background check, 4) liability insurance, how would that change things in Newtown? The gun was stolen, the children shot, the perp killed. Who pays teh victims?

@Czech - Our suggestions wouldn't have changed the Sandy Hook incident except that one of the suggestions was a background check on the whole household. His mother should not have been allowed to have the guns if the reports of his known mental instability are true.

As far as the security factor at the school, more and more things are put in place every time an incident happens including training police in new tactics and responses to these situations.

But you are correct that it comes down to how much security is the tax payer willing to pay for. Here in Butler County, OH, there is a push to put armed personnel in every school. Not a new guard or set of guards, but having teachers and administrators willing to and qualified to carry a gun armed.

The Czech, I've said more than once that liability insurance isn't going to resolve all incidents, but are you seriously arguing that as Newtown was the result of a stolen gun therefore we need do nothing?

I think liability insurance will put the onus on insurers to do background checks properly and all transactions will be recorded. I think this will lead to less gun crime without too adversely affecting responsible gun owners or violating their 2nd amendments rights. Do you agree that it worth a try?

@Maniac I didn't say do nothing. I am questioning what it is you want to do. What is the purpose of all the regulations you are wanting to put forth? If it doesn't prevent the situation from occuring or at least minimize the chances of it occuring then what's the point? In FL we have a law that says the parents are responsible for their weapon and ifa child uses that weapon the parent can go to jail. Same is true if a parent doesn't place their child in a carrier or doesn't have their child use a seatbelt and teh child is injured or dies in an accident. They sound liek great laws, but they aren't enforced. The child who shot his sibling because he found daddy's gun (I don't remember the exact case) wasn't prosecuted nor was the father. The family had suffered enough already. Same is true for the family who didn't havetheir child buckled up and teh child was thrown from the car and died. Tragedy, the family suffered enough. No charges. What are you proposing that would 1) minimize Sandy Hook from happening again and 2) that would be enforcibile if it did happen again?

This lawsuit is a complete joke, and will be squash quickly.

@Maniac, I suggest that spend a little time researching the long history of product liability law. What you're suggesting in some of your early posts pretty much is the complete antithesis of how the American legal system works.

Further, although I think that, at first blush, your "gun owner's insurance" idea is intriguing, the implementation of such a plan would be completely untenable and no insurer would participate.

The lawyer is never going to be able to prove the necessary "foreseeability" to support the claim. This guy is taking the parents for a ride.

The biggest problem with the insurance idea is that insurance companies need to be able to evaluate and determine a profitable rate for them. Remember, they have to take in more in premiums than they pay in claims as they are a for profit business. But with no data to go on, they would be hard pressed to determine an appropriate rate or even that factors that go into computing that rate. As MichMan says, they'd just not offer it. If there were money to be made, they would already be offering it.

I can't believe you two, MM and Draug. OF COURSE insurance companies will cover it. As sson as the government legislates it. It will be a tax and the Supreme court will go along with it. Since private insurance companies would chhose not to participate and threaten to stop doing business in the US , the Fed will get involved and cover everyone just like flood insurance.

Insurance companies cannot be forced to carry a product. They can only be forced to make that product meet certain minimum standards should they choose to carry it. So no, they won't carry it if they can't find a way to make it profitable. Some have already dumped carrying healthcare coverage because Obamacare made the cost to high and they couldn't make a reasonable profit so they dumped the line.

And you clearly don't understand how insurance works. Obamacare was an exception the court went along with, but the federal government doesn't mandate auto insurance. States do. And they would be hard pressed to mandate gon insurance. When the SCOTUS let Obamacare stand, they did so with a stern warning subtly included in the majority opinion and not so subtly stated in the dissenting opinion. That warning was essentially "don't try this again" and clearly stated that it was only passing as a tax and not as a penalty because the feds had no right to force people to buy something, only tax people and give those who bought the product a tax break. Gun insurance would only be a requirement for gun owners and therefore couldn't be sold as a tax with a break for purchasing it. So the feds would get smacked down if they tried that again.

I take the points about how insurers would determine premiums. How about setting max payout tariffs, say $1m per death (of an innocent) this would allow insurance companies to quantify the premiums.

At czech, whilst I'm not trying to solve every gun related incident, it is possible that mother of Newtown perb might have decided against owning a gun, or so many guns. It is possible that if her son had a history of mental illness that insurance company would have discovered this and denied her insurance or granted insurance with conditions, ie that her gun was kept at a gun club armoury.

Re: product liability, I agree that making gun manufacturers liable is difficult, but making gun owners carry insurance introduces a contract between insurers and owners with third party benefits. Such contracts are enforcible.