Comments on: Colorado Dems lead the way on gun safety legislation; who will follow?

By: Cloud

Cloud — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:57:25 +0000

To me, it is a lesser of two evils situation. The way I look at it, I subsidize a lot of crap I don’t necessarily support. In a perfect world, people wouldn’t buy a gun if they couldn’t afford to properly secure it. In practice, a good gun safe is several hundred dollars to over one thousand dollars, so there are a lot of people who won’t do that. If helping people buy a gun safe will help keep their kids from shooting themselves or other people, I’d be willing to do it. Particularly if it is part of a package of laws that gets us limits on magazine size, or introduces liability insurance, or other things like that.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:25:20 +0000

I agree that the insurance angle is at least worth a try. However, subsidizing gun safes? I say that if you can’t afford a safe, you can’t afford a gun, Jack!

In any case, I’m pretty darn sure the insurance industry would figure out a way to incentivize the purchase of gun safes, so requiring insurance might accomplish the same goal without putting the government in the business of subsidizing anything more for gun owners.

By: Cloud

Cloud — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 05:16:15 +0000

My state (California) is considering liability legislation. We already have an assault rifle ban and a magazine limit, and background checks are required at gun shows. And yet somehow we still have gun owners, so I call bullshit on the gun advocates saying these sorts of laws will lead inevitably to a loss of their second amendment rights.

Anyway, I’m really intrigued by this idea- require gun owners to buy liability insurance and let the insurance actuaries sort out what makes a gun owner a higher risk. If we’re lucky, it would push people towards safer behaviors without requiring a lot of really detailed legislation. And in theory, it would be a self-improving system- as the insurance companies gather data on who is the bigger risks and why, they would adjust their premiums accordingly. I really hope that one of the states considering this manages to enact it. And then I really hope someone does a good study to find out if it helps.

Also, I have to share the one promising idea I’ve heard from a gun advocate asked for some alternatives to the current proposals: subsidizing gun safes. Apparently they are really expensive.

By: GlassPen

GlassPen — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:07:06 +0000

So…last night on the news, there was a story about a pizza store owner who packs a sidearm to work every day…and only hires employees (delivery drivers) who will do the same. Maybe necessary in some neighborhoods, but not so much in suburban northern Virginia.

This guy also gives a 15% “Second Amendment discount” to any customer who is also wearing a sidearm or –weenies!– presents a gun permit.

As a non-gunnie…I would have no interest in paying a 15% premium on my pizza. I can only hope that he will soon be selling all of his product at a 15% discount.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:26:37 +0000

HA-ha. What a klassy kompany!

By: truffula

truffula — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:29:51 +0000

From Wikipedia: “Magpul Industries Corporation is a designer and manufacturer of polymer firearms accessories and concept firearms.”

What the HE-double toothpicks is a concept firearm? No wait, don’t tell me, I don’t want to know. In any case, Magpul also manufactures iPhone cases and scantily clad girlie calendars. Nil sine nuda feminam and all that.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:32:11 +0000

Schenectady is a no-go for Magpul: Gov. Cuomo already signed a law limiting the magazine capacity in NY.

I was interested to see that the ban on guns on campus passed with such a large margin. I was also interested to learn that my uni spent $25,000 lobbying for the ban. Of all of the measures, this is the one that will likely have little if any effect, unless my uni is going to spend a HELL of a lot more than $25,000 installing security checkpoints and metal detectors on campus.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:53:28 +0000

A munitions manufacturer “leave[s] the state” if the bill passes. Sounds like win-win to me. If bank and train robbers started leaving Kansas after the territorial legislature cracked down, I’d call that productivity. Maybe the guy could set up shop in Schenectady? If Michael Bloomberg and some of his plutocrat contemporaries are serious about rolling out their bankrolls to steamroll the guns-and-ammoplex, he would have his HR people on hand wherever these layoffs happened to hire people for Bloomberg.com as quickly as they hand in their name badges and leave the premises. Three squares and a three-screen terminal to not-make-guns sounds like a growth industry to me.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:33:28 +0000

Leslie–we’ve got that legislation too in Colorado, but it’s going nowhere because the Republicans don’t run anything (for now).

Koshembos is too cynical even for me. I think it’s worth trying to fight the absolutely insane gun culture in the U.S. Gun safety legislation worked in Australia after their horrible 1996 massacre. I say it’s too defeatist not to give it a try.

By: Leslie M-B

Leslie M-B — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:26:59 +0000

I was so glad to read this news about Colorado and gun control. Meanwhile, in my "Patriotism"-addled western state, the opposite is happening. If I found out my son's teacher had a gun in the classroom, I'd be homeschooling by that afternoon.