Some Gun Regulations to Consider

(Stolen from Scissorhead @Glitterbug on the electic tweeter)

Axios morning email thingie has an intriguing storyline from Andrew Ross Sorkin at the NYTimes:

  • The gist: The idea is for the finance industry to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America.
  • The backdrop: “For the past year, chief executives have often talked about the new sense of moral responsibility that corporations have to help their communities and confront social challenges even when Washington won’t.”
  • Sorkin’s idea: “What if the finance industry — credit card companies … credit card processors … and banks … — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?”
  • The companies could change their “terms of service to say that it won’t do business with retailers that sell assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks.”
  • Why it matters: “Collectively, they have more leverage over the gun industry than any lawmaker. And it wouldn’t be hard for them to take a stand.”
  • What’s next: “I spent the last 72 hours calling and emailing a handful of chief executives to discuss these ideas. … [S]ome said they had already been thinking about it. A few … called their peers to begin a conversation.”

Of course, it would push gun sales into a cash-and-carry untraceable situation, but we kinda have that already. I don’t know what guns cost (and I suppose I could Google it, but I don’t want it in my dossier when Hair Führer comes for me) and if guns are so expensive that they would require financing.

And yesterday I saw a gun post from Dan Savage at The Stranger that I thought was intriguing, too:

“…Whenever there’s a mass shooting—which is defined as any shooting with four or more victims—every gun shop in the country has to close its doors for a month and all trading of stocks in gun manufacturers is suspended for three months. Because if it’s too soon to talk about gun control in the days and weeks after a mass shooting, it’s too soon to sell guns and too soon to buy stock in gun manufacturers. If it’s too soon to talk about gun violence, it’s too soon to profit off gun violence.”

I like that idea, and we could call it the Thoughts and Prayers Act.

I think that there is something here in both these ideas, as it is not regulating guns, it is regulating sellers. And that is something I think we can do.

I also think gun owners should have a license (like driving a car) and that they must carry insurance, and we know what kind of rates those bastards would charge. Republicans love market-based solutions, so let’s give ’em some.

This entry was posted in Guns! Guns! Guns!. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Some Gun Regulations to Consider

  1. donnah says:

    And double the price of ammunition.


  2. Ole Phat Stu says:

    FWIW :
    Thoughts and Prayers
    anagrams into
    Shun Gory Deathtraps

    Liked by 1 person

  3. ming says:

    I have no doubt the financial industry will act in the public’s best interest.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Condi says:

      Yep. That would fall in line with their long and storied history of doing social good works…

      [Sorry – had to run and barf…]

      The gun fetishists are so entrenched, intractable in their religious mania, that it will literally take more and more and more school mass murders to finish raising a generation of citizens who — having always had to hide, fight, run since their pre-K days to high school — will do what the rest of us should have insisted on back in the ’90s – vote the assholes out until they get a crop who will, at a bare minimum, legislate stringent gun control regulations. Banning them would be even better.


      • MDavis says:

        Hey, some of those institutions have stopped advertising on right-whinge-nut sites due to consumer comment. They can be socially responsible if it impacts their bottom line.


      • Osirisopto says:

        I heard them referred to as white-wing-nut sites earlier today.


  4. Sirius Lunacy says:

    I think that the gun fetishists should be allowed to have as many guns as they’d like, with as big a magazine as they’d like. Rapid fire automatic? Sure. But they should only be allowed 6 bullets at a time. (The Barney Fife Rule) If they have 6 shotgun shells and decide they’d rather have bullets for their Glock they’d have to trade in the shotgun shells to get them. They could go to any well regulated and licensed shooting range and be allowed to shoot all they want while on the premises but would not be able to take any bullets away with them when they leave. If they discharge their firearm, using one or more of their allotted bullets, they would have to fill out official paperwork, in triplicate, to say when, where, how and why the gun was discharged before they would be allowed to replace those bullets.

    Problem solved and nobody takes anybodies gun away.


    • 9thousandfeet says:

      I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume this is just (understandable) venting, and that you don’t really mean any of it.

      If that’s wrong, and you do mean it, well, take a minute to think through what powers of intrusion would be needed by law enforcement. And what scary levels of citizens ratting each other out to that law enforcement, would be also be needed to make this work.

      Then contemplate the inevitable “mission creep” that all such enterprises always exhibit.
      You’re taking the Stasi on steroids for crissakes.

      Count me out.


      • tengrain says:

        OK, 9K, on this issue we count you out.

        But tough luck, we count you IN on so many more. We can disagree on this one and still be friends.



      • Sirius Lunacy says:

        Nah, I figure if we legalize marijuana at the same time we impose these restrictions on bullets it will all even out. Only a lot fewer people will die each year.


      • 9thousandfeet says:

        Of course we can be friends, we’re on the same page about almost everything.
        But this is enormously disappointing to those of us who are detail-oriented, because now you’re wanting to just move on without addressing the nightmare of “search and seizure” and “probable cause” issues this fucking lunatic idea would engender.

        This is twitter-style sensibilities; first make some kind of emotional feel-good point, then decline to get into the details—which is where the devil always resides—then briskly move on to the next topic, or next facet of the same topic.

        Look, without completely dismantling the architecture of our political system—and throwing out some of the best and most vital parts—this idea is bullshit and you know it.
        I know you do.

        If you want to talk about getting AR-15’s and their clones completely out of civilian hands unless they’re regulated, at a bare minimum, as effectively as machine guns and plastique are now regulated, then let’s go. I’m all for it.
        100 no foolin’ percent.

        But letting a batshit notion like this “just four bullets for everyone” fly without challenge is ridiculous unless we’re supposed to check our intellectual faculties at the door.

        Yes, we’re friends.
        Friends don’t let friends talk shit without challenging them, right?

        Liked by 1 person

      • tengrain says:

        9K –

        True, friends do challenge each other.

        I don’t think anyone is advocating search and seizure, and the Barney Fief bullet law was clearly for humor. Keep your perspective as well as your sense of humor.



        Liked by 1 person

      • 9thousandfeet says:

        If it really was for humor, my apologies.

        Tonally it all seemed too much in earnest to my ear, especially in it’s level of detail, to be intended entirely as jocularity, but I’ll take your word that I completely missed the “clearly” part.

        Onward then, toward suggestions for getting these fucking AR15 and their clones off the streets that will; a) pass constitutional muster, and b) stand a chance in Congress.


  5. roket says:

    If Congress refuses to act, then the people must find another way.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Nangleator says:

    You touched on regulating the sellers, and that brings up an interesting idea. Keep it legal to own guns, buy guns, and give them away, but make it illegal to sell. No problems with the Second there. How to justify the sales ban? National fucking security, that’s how.

    Not gonna stop shootings immediately, but definitely would ease us into a gun-free society in time.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Osirisopto says:

    Sorry, but I don’t think legalizing rape, as long as the rapist wears a condom is a solution.

    In 56.5 years I have never once been in a position where I needed or even wanted a gun of any kind.

    You hunt? Ok an AR-15 is not a hunting rifle, nor is a handgun. (No, you don’t need a handgun to “finish the job”. You have a fucking hunting rifle.)
    Those weapons are designed and capable of doing one thing, and one thing only. Killing people.

    It’s not the 19th century. People who own one or fantasize about needing or using one need counseling. People who stockpile guns need intensive treatment in secure buildings, to keep us safe from them. They should not be allowed near children, sharp objects, small animals, or matches.


    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Some New Ideas On How To Regulate Guns – Liberal View News

  9. Pingback: Some New Ideas On How To Regulate Guns – NEWSFUZZ

  10. paul fredine says:

    somehow i think ‘moral responsibility’ isn’t even in the vocabulary of gun manufacturers.


Comments are closed.