General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Banning assault rifles will do no good. [View all]libdem4life
(13,877 posts)family and society. (and why the crowbar and rope and knife discussion was tongue in check) In the colonial past, or even the Victorian past, no weapon could take out a room of kids, or theater goers. Likely neither a car today. To imagine to count up the social and physical costs of just the Sandy Hook disaster, can't imagine...but some can, and will. Every day there are more reports of the gun crazies....which haven't been publicized before. Drip, drip, drip on the public's stomach for this continual carnage.
And since I don't need a gun, I resent paying the costs through my taxes, for those who do...most, like Nancy Lanza, with the best of intentions, if not gullible paranoia. Yet, if I or one of mine are injured by one of these products, I will sue everyone...shooter, shooter's estate if s/he suicides, manufacturer, ammo, place where it happened, school district...whatever.
It is liability insurance for the financial results/costs of the product. Those responsible owners who keep their guns locked up will likely only be inconvenienced as to their initial purchase cost and legal maintenance...perhaps a preference for smaller gun count and less calibers will do. The user will be judged under another set of rules ...were they drunk, under age, unintended, accident, stolen ... the legal system.
But when families are bereft of members, disabled, psychologically damaged, can't work and go on unemployment, have to go on food stamps and welfare, broken up, have long hospital stays, expensive surgeries ... lest I get carried away ... these are real financial costs to our society/taxpayer...costs of the results of a product that has liability...along with, yet separate from, the shooter. Health insurance may bear some of these costs but it runs out...and can ultimately fall to Medicare, Medicaid and SSDI (disability). Geometrically higher than a car accident. But as in any serious physical or psychological injury, the buck stops with the taxpayer, earlier or later.
Mark my word...noticed there is a thread here on DU about a Boston paper coming up with the same insurance ideas...it is coming. And it may be possible much of this can be set up by Executive Order or just retail insurance product...price increases, taxation, registration, insurance, re-registration at intervals with periodic background checks ...definitely NOT within the reach ... or the dismissal ... of the 2nd Ammendment...no matter how "liberally" it is interpreted.