That's not a justification for dispensing with the law.
You're right - he wasn't. But the problem wasn't the law - it was that data needed to allow the law to work wasn't provided. Garbage in, garbage out.
You may have a point there - there may be reasons to structure insurance for guns on other than a no-fault basis. I was advocating no-fault for reasons of simplicity - no fault laws sure help reduce the need for lawyers, and that's usually a good thing.
Insurance companies price on the basis of risk. If as you say owning 100 guns is no less risky than owning one, then objective underwriting will reflect that.
Again, to me the value of registration/insurance is to provide an incentive to report stolen guns, and effect sales and transfers in a way that will lift liability from the seller and transfer it to the buyer - just as is the case today with cars.
Yes, these are obligations imposed on law-abiding gun owners. But they go to the issue of too many guns ending up in the hands of folks who aren't law abiding. Registering and insuring your guns, it seems to me, is far more efficacious in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than blanket bans on certain types of guns. The Dems' proposals are for show; what I propose goes to the heart of the problem - keeping track of guns so the law-abiding can enjoy them, and others can be denied them.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. No one said to dispense with the law, just that no additional law would be effective. And it won't. If the law the Government passed was ineffective because part of the Government that passed that law was not following the law, what makes you think any one else is going to feel bound by an additional law?
As for insurance, let's suppose the shooter had policies on all his guns. Then what? The miracuolous insurance fairy would have just flitted over the scene and restored everyone to life and good health?
No, that wouldn't have fixed anything either, would it?
Perhaps the shooter would have just left the guns uninsured? What's one more broken law when he was bent on murder and mayhem, anyway? If he planned to suicide, what are you going to do to him?
Or maybe he would have gone to Denver and bought one of the firearms stolen by the junkie swarm to get money for their next fix. No paperwork no background check, no muss, no fuss, and
@roamer_1 's point--those who want 'em will find a way to get 'em.
Or maybe they'd just have made one, like these guys (or gone to someone who can):
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/07/30/gunsmithing-in-pakistan/https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4de_1371777808If you think there aren't enough out of work machinists to produce firearms/parts in America, think again.
Insuring guns amounts to registering guns which amounts to an actionable database of gun owners who can be persecuted for whatever reason. History proves such to be the beginning of the end of a free nation. I will not participate.
I have six vehicles on the pavement. Insurance for any one of them costs what it does because, in part, of the paperwork and records which must be maintained for that one insurance policy on that one vehicle. Require a hundred policies for a hundred vehicles, those administrative costs do not go away, they are multiplied an hundredfold. That expense does not go away, whether your record is long and clear of any violations or accidents or not, all that gets less in the amount you pay for the liability aspect because you have been deemed low risk.
I carry personal liability in the unlikely event there is some thing I do which causes injury to another. That insures the actions (or culpable inaction) of ME, not any device which I may be using, or which may be in a closet, on a shelf, parked in a garage, or locked away in a safe instead of in my hand.
You would act as if the device is at fault for the actions of another demented human, and not just his device but the devices that spent their weekend tucked away in gun cases, closets, gun safes, or in a pickup somewhere, and you would shift the onus of the actions of a few who the law was supposed to prevent from doing their particular thing onto the backs of those who are doing no wrong and causing no one injury, who abided by all the laws.
What part of "
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. are you having difficulty with?
It even goes back to Clause 39 of The Magna Carta
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land
Yet another law is not the answer to the problem.
