I prefer the term mushroom to sheep.

YOU'RE ALL MUSHROOMS!

@MiMan

That's cute. Do you really think your Smith and Wesson is going to mean jack shit if the Government goes after you?

abe, I think what MM is trying to say, if the government turns the military on the people, that themilitary wont 100% go with the government, and certainly teh National guards and Reserves of each state, will probably side with the state in question.

taliban seems to put our military on edge, and they dont have a lot of weapons.

There is a distinction Michigan Man. Tyrants by their very nature are going to do terrible things to the population. The odds of such a thing happening in the US (where a wide spread assault against the government by the people would be justified, ie like in tyrranies) is so slim as to be non existant due to the checks on government power caused by democracies. Having said that the people still could do nothing against the US military. To think that an event of tyrrany will happen where someone in power suddenly has the power to disregard democracy and terrorise the people leading them to need to take up arms is false. To think that if such an unlikely ecvent happened the highly trained military could be stopped by people who have next to no training in fire arms is absurd.

@Demos:
1. the number of fatal accidents are year are exaggerated
2. I didn't imply that, but the American culture wont give up their guns and given that there are so many it wont be hard for people to find guns illegally if they start getting banned.
3. In the states, but the first half of the post shows that I don't completely agree.

Australia for the first 4 years saw an increase in crime after enacting gun control, the no questions asked buy-back program installed then fixed this homicide spike.

However Australia had few fewer guns then America so I am not convinced such a policy would work there.

and yes, sniping from 600 meters is a huge moral thing. Snipers sap moral faster than anything, because there is nothing to take your frustration out on.

A single botl action rifle, with a scope is capable of causing severe moral issues, to a military that is not going to be exactly 'gung ho' about killing its own people

"where a wide spread assault against the government by the people would be justified, ie like in tyrranies"
Michigan mans point is that you need guns if you're going to have any success in a wide spread assault. Your arugment totally misses his point, and I don't even agree with him.

I recognise that, but say no amount of guns would lead to such a situation and also such a situation will not arrise where they are needed. His argument is that blood should be spilled to avoid an absurd hypothetical.

I know where you are going with it demos, but as a Military and combat vet, I know that a singlesniper can have an effect, not on actual #s, but on fighting spirit.

I'm arguing this on another site here is a hilarious response I got far arguing for gun control:
In the UK we have very strict gun control. The only gun the general public are allowed to own is a doubled-barreled shotgun (not pump-action) and even then you need a licence from the police (interview, doctor's letter, yearly inspection, locked steel gun cabinet bolted to wall).
After guns were banned in 1997, gun crime doubled.
In the US half of all murders are committed by African Americans - the US has a 12% black population compared to UK with about 1.5%. Guns are only part of the picture.

Now, how to respond? lol

@draugnar - not sure if it is the same in the US but everyone is covered if an uninsured driver hits someone. The injured party may be a pedestrian with no insurance, they are still covered. This makes sense in so far that it is the people who obtain the dangerous machine (cars) cover the inconvenience caused to the innocents. I don't think the premium is massive and it does ensure all victims, drivers or otherwise are treated equally. I don't see why the same thing can't apply to guns.

@stressedline - I take your point about violence being committed by people who steal guns. Having insurance may make people secure their guns better. However, guns will still be stolen, we can't stop that. What we can try to do is allow citizens to own guns but make them all responsible jointly for any harm done.

The gun owner in a rural area shooting rabbits will have a low insurance premium, and people with semi-automatics will have a higher premium. Insurance companies will become adept at screening out risky individuals, and the higher cost of ownership may put some casual users off.

This policy isn't a magic bullet solution, but it could reduce gun ownership whilst still allowing it to be legal. Not a great policy for pro or anti lobbyist, but a middle compromise that might be worth a shot.

What I'm hearing at the moment on this forum and elsewhere is the status quo or banning gunning altogether - neither are realistic proposals - we need solutions not more arguement and debate.

Demos,

First, the US is not a Democracy, it's a Republic. Second, what you say is impossible has happened is nearly every nation in the world at one point in time. Thirdly, you're obviously NOT paying very close attention to what is taking place in the US at this time. The slippery slope is getting ever more slippery by the day. Tyrants LOVE people like you as you tell everyone that everything is ok, that it cannot happen here, turn your weapons in, trust the government! How many like you were there in Germany, the USSR, China, Burma, Cambodia, etc.

In 2006, there were 400,000 violent crimes commited with a firearm. With a populace of 350,000,000 people, that's about 1 violent crime for every 800 people. That is total violent crimes involving guns, not just homicides which will be even lower. The UK actually has a higher violent crime rate and those homicide stats include a lot of non-gun realted homicides (which include the most common one, vehicular manslaughter, and the second most common domestic violence - a crime usually commited with ones bare hands or household utensils like kitchen knives).

So compare apples to apples: gun-related homicides between nations, and we don't see near the disparity onw would expect. Next, compare those gun-related homicides only with legal and valid firearms. The number drops dowen to damn near nill. Illegal guns exist even where there is the strictest gun control laws and, in fact, more exist per capita where guns are outlawed, hence the saying if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Just like cars, where the owner has a car is important in the cost of insurance. If you own a car in detroit, your insurance is much higher than if you own a car where I live, because, the chances for something bad to happen,t hat triggers the use of the insurance is higher.

Same should apply to guns, if such a law was put in place. My area has a VERY high gun ownership per capita, easily over 5 guns per home in my county, but we have no gun related crimes here. Why should we pay the same as someone in chicago or New york, where strict gun laws have done nothing to stop gun crimes.

@Maniac - No it isn't the same. We have special uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Likewise, if you only have liability, you have no coverage if someone without liability hits you. You are shit out of luck and have to sue and good luck collecting if they are so irresponsible as to not have liability insurance.

@draugnar - your are being selective with your stats. If the UK has a higher violent crime rate including domestic violence, then I would say we have something to learn from the US. In fact for the first time ever this year the UK has directly elected police commissioners following research about how the system works in your country.

However, gun related homicides in the UK are a fraction of what they are in the US. Choosing to ignore that fact doesn't help your case.

The solution is liability insurance for gun ownership. Your insurance covers any damage your gun does in your posession. And, just as insurance rates vary for vehicle ownership base don location, age, credit rating, and other factors, it should vary for gun ownership. But, just like in the case of a stolen car, this doesn't cover a stolen gun.

@draugnar - surely it is better to cover all innocents rather than those just 'fortunate' enough to be hit by insured drivers? Likewise all innocent victims of gun crime should be able to claim from a pool which the insurered owners contribute too.

But they aren't currently, Maniac. Stop comparing the US to some other coutnry. We have laws that forbid compelling one person to pay for another's actions. What you propose isn't even covered in our automotive insurance coverage and is why we have life insurance and D&D coverage that the individual who wants to protect themselves and their families buys. If someone is uninsured and hits you, a pedestrian, with their car, they get charged with a crime, but you don't get to collect unless you go to court and sue them. That is how it works over here.

@draugnar - if you think that some kind of insurance is a possible solution, then you need to look at practicalities. I don't think a law that gives one set of victims a payout but forces another set of victims to sue a perp isn't logical. I'm looking from the victims point of view.

From the gun owners point of view, I accept that law abiding gun owners will be asked to pay something extra on their insurance to cover the lawbreakers. I think on balance the cost should fall upon those who want to own guns rather than innocents who pay a much higher cost all too often.

I'm not trying to impose another countries policies, as far as I'm aware no country has a law requiring guns to be insured. I'm just blue sky thinking here, I did say in my orig post that this idea is a work in progress.

In Mass everyone is required to have car insurance. Seems to work just fine. Why can't it be the same with guns?

@Maniac - But you aren't adressing the fact that the law is already that way for the nation's top killer, automobiles. Any gun insurance law is bound to either follow other liability insurance laws or force those laws to change and the direction you are pushing for is a socialized insurance direction which will never happen for two reasons. 1) Insurance here is a for profit venture. That is, insurance companies are like banks. They are in business. Not government run. And 2) the people would never stand for having to pay for other people's criminal actions.

I believe the gun incurance is a good idea. I believe implementing it in the manner auto insurance is implemented is also the only way to go about it. I just also think there needs to be something more, like the person convicted of a gun crime being forced to pay resitution from his meager earnings in prison and not being set free until paid in full. Return tot eh days of the debtor's prison. It may sound absurd, but it will bring about a certain personal responsibility that seems to have gone missing in the last 50 years.

@ Draugnar

On an earlier post you compare homicide rates in different countries. Assuming all of what you say is correct what about the misery caused by accidents besides homicides by guns?

@Demos - You confuse homicide with murder. Negligence, an act like you are talking about, that results in someone's death is still a homicide. You need to research your words a little better.

@ Draugnar

That's certainly an embarassing slip. What nations do you refer to when you compare these homicide rates? All the evidence I have seen suggests otherwise. So accidents caused by guns in the U.S. will cause many deaths, which just isn't possible when way fewer number of citizens own guns.

Id din't. The stats to which you refer were provided by someone else. I only provided the 62% of gun owners owned more than one gun to counter the 88 guns per hundred citizens and show that the numbers mean less than 1/3rd of US households own a gun.

I also pointed out that, per an earlier post or other thread, the violent crime rate in the UK overall was higher per capita than in the US and that homicides aren't a) all murders and b) all done with guns. In fact, in the US, cars kill mor epeople than guns. Cars are the biggest tool in our arsenalk when we commit homicides.

"So compare apples to apples: gun-related homicides between nations, and we don't see near the disparity onw would expect" Surely this implies you know statistics to back up this claim? I was just wondering which nations you are comparing.

No, this is an inference that an apples to apples comparison will be more balanced. It is based on the previosuly supplied stats that per poipulace, the UK has a higher incidence of violent crime than the US.

How can you infer that, because overall the uk has more violent crime, that it will also not have a great disparity in terms of gun-related homicides?