Limiting Gun Ownership to Registered Gun Clubs

[Inst]

I'm wondering what people think about limiting gun ownerships to collectives instead of individuals. The concept is that individual gun owners are often minimally responsible for their weapons and operate their weapons in ways that encourage various gun control legislation.

The idea is to change the laws to limit gun ownership instead to groups of at least 10 people, who are held liable for the usage of weapons registered to their clique. If someone, say, goes off reservation and shoots up a school, their group is now liable for lawsuits where damages will be collectively absorbed by the group. Of course, they will be legally required to hold liability insurance.

Because the group is now held responsible for the actions of any of their members, a gun club is now incentivized to make sure that all of their members behave responsibly with their weapons; with safe storage; alongside background checks aimed at making sure that members are unlikely to borrow guns and use them to commit a crime.

The best part is that if incidents occur where nutjobs go berserk, instead of the vast majority of gun owners being held liable for the crimes of individuals, individual groups can now be sued for damages so that aggrieved individuals can pick up their torts, whine on the news media for a bit, then go home.

===

Think of it more as an effort to keep weapons out of the hands of people who aren't really fit to own weapons and would just make life difficult for everyone else.

[Doktor]

...individual gun owners are often minimally responsible for their weapons and operate their weapons

So, how am I gonna get more responsible? 9 more people to blame.

The idea is to change the laws to limit gun ownership instead to groups of at least 10 people, who are held liable for the usage of weapons registered to their clique. If someone, say, goes off reservation and shoots up a school, their group is now liable for lawsuits where damages will be collectively absorbed by the group. Of course, they will be legally required to hold liability insurance.

Good luck sending 10 people to jail for a crime committed by one person.

Because the group is now held responsible for the actions of any of their members, a gun club is now incentivized to make sure that all of their members behave responsibly with their weapons; with safe storage; alongside background checks aimed at making sure that members are unlikely to borrow guns and use them to commit a crime.

Does it mean all 10 go everywhere together? Even in their bedrooms?

The best part is that if incidents occur where nutjobs go berserk, instead of the vast majority of gun owners being held liable for the crimes of individuals, individual groups can now be sued for damages so that aggrieved individuals can pick up their torts, whine on the news media for a bit, then go home.

You are proposing Gun ownership socialism, or I am missing something?

Think of it more as an effort to keep weapons out of the hands of people who aren't really fit to own weapons and would just make life difficult for everyone else.

Why not the same for the cars? I know more people with licenses who are not fit to drive then people who are not fit to carry guns.

[Inst]

You have a group of friends who are responsible for your actions. If their judgment turns out to be in error, they'll be subject to negligence lawsuits as part of the gun control system. They pay liability insurance to help ablate the risk of screwing up, and the insurance inspector will show up once in a while to make sure that everyone seems on the level and is responsible enough to take away guns, temporarily or permanently, from people who aren't being responsible.

==

If you're going to check out guns from the club, or you need weapons for home defense or ranch use, the rest of the group needs to approve your action and ought to know you well enough that you won't go bonkers. And if something goes wrong, of course, they can still be sued and be forced to pay out of their tort insurance or out of pocket.

[Doktor]

If you're going to check out guns from the club, or you need weapons for home defense or ranch use, the rest of the group needs to approve your action and ought to know you well enough that you won't go bonkers. And if something goes wrong, of course, they can still be sued and be forced to pay out of their tort insurance or out of pocket.

Many people buy guns for defense. Assuming the state is comfortable with me owning a gun, why should I beg 9 other people to let me have it?

P.S. Sometimes I don't want to be responsible for my actions alone, why would I take the burden to be responsible for 10 other people. Even their parents are not after certain age.

[zraver]

I'm wondering what people think about limiting gun ownerships to collectives instead of individuals. The concept is that individual gun owners are often minimally responsible for their weapons and operate their weapons in ways that encourage various gun control legislation.

Really, care to use any math to prove that?

Are gun crimes going up or down? We both know they are going down- dramatically so. Are guns more or less lethal than say cars? More people die in automobile crashes in the US every year than are killed with fire arms yet there are more than 3 guns for every car...

[bonehead]

In America a person is still liable for their own actions, not someone else's..kids being an exception. Secondly, gun ownership and possession is an individual right, not a collective one. Third. This absurd idea just made millions defenseless to the criminals that would take advantage of this. Fourth, this is why we have rights as individuals to own guns in our home as it is much more difficult for a corrupt government to go door to door when they can take over the few "gun clubs" and leave the law abiding citizens totally defenseless.



By far the better plan is to aggressively go after the violent criminals and keep them behind bars. Overhauling the mental healthcare system will do wonders. It is time people tried to solve the real problems instead of making gun control the solution.

[DonBelt]

More than 200 vehicles involved in Sunday pileups | News - WISN Home
This is a regular occurrence, yearly in every state that has any significant amount of snow or ice. Motor vehicles kill or injure more people by far than fire arms, yet you don't see any call to ban motor vehicles. What you see is a tightening up of mv laws, loss of license for violators or an increase in penalties. In other words, they go after the people who cause problems not the inanimate object that they use, because it is not at fault and others manage to use them without causing problems. It is easy to attackan object because it is just that. Attacking the problem with violent crime however is more difficult because now you have people that you are blaming and they will deny their fault-human nature, but politicians will shy away from it and go after the inanimate object instead. Easier. Tougher sentences and time for violent offenders, rehabbing the whole way that we view and deal with mental health issues and recognizing that we have a culture that finds crass violence entertaining combined with an over inflated sense of entitlement. (and I don't mean welfare, I mean the sense that you have a right to what ever you want simply because you want it with no consideration of the effect on others.) That is what may have some effect, but also recognizing there is a certain demographic to it and that is when the age group of 15-24 yo and in particular 18-20 is predominate, violent crime and gun crimes increases with it. It goes down when this age group decreases. Objects or personal liberties are not to blame for it. People are to blame.

[Tamara]

No.

The others have said it pretty well, but as another example, when I was buying land, I wanted nothing in a Home Owner's Association. There was no way I was going to have my day to day life over to such a group, other people...............what possibly makes one think I would do it for my defense.

Something that one learns in the military is that it is far easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission. If one has to ask the permission of 9 other people, one will probably find at least 1, if not more, of those people who will say "No, I don't think so," because of what it may cost them if it goes wrong......................each and every time, regardless of the situation.

No.

[tuna]

We kind of have that, in a sense right now....with police and it doesn't work at all.

And for all the doom and gloom "blood in the streets over car accidents and cell phones" talk we hear predicted every time gun control legislation is repealed for us subject, I mean citizens, mostly it doesn't come to bear.

Yet, in the few cases where someone can't control their impulses and shoots someone or draw a gun for no reason - it turns out they were the police.

[bonehead]

We kind of have that, in a sense right now....with police and it doesn't work at all.

And for all the doom and gloom "blood in the streets over car accidents and cell phones" talk we hear predicted every time gun control legislation is repealed for us subject, I mean citizens, mostly it doesn't come to bear.

Yet, in the few cases where someone can't control their impulses and shoots someone or draw a gun for no reason - it turns out they were the police.

To be fair there are some shootings ie, crimes of passion and domestic disputes, and even some confrontational shootings, but a great portion are drug/alcohol fueled and the question is would those people have done something differently had they been clean and sober. In the whole scheme of things those shootings are very rare. You want to look at doom and gloom take a peak at what is going on in the Ukraine right now..or any big city in the U.S that has restrictive gun laws.

[Julie]

Aint gona happen.

[Doktor]

Aint gona happen.

Never say never. Many people said the same for what is now known as Obamacare.

[Julie]

Never say never. Many people said the same for what is now known as Obamacare.

It is unconstitutional for individuals to be banned from owning guns. We have discussed this here extensively, Second Amendment, and all that. For all intents and purposes I feel Obamacare is unconstitutional as well, but that's another story.

[bonehead]

We already had to fight because of stuff like this. Battle of Lexington and Concord. A tyrant attempted to disarm the locals by searching for and taking "gun clubs". Why the hell would we even want to take that risk again.

[Julie]

We already had to fight because of stuff like this. Battle of Lexington and Concord. A tyrant attempted to disarm the locals by searching for and taking "gun clubs". Why the hell would we even want to take that risk again.

Out of stupidity, and you can believe I vote that stupidity out at election time. ;)