From sokol at jhu.edu Fri May 7 12:36:43 1999
You point to the existence of certain legal restriction on gun
ownership and claim that these stand for one of the most heavy
type of regulation.
In contrast to your characterization of 'virtual laissez faire,' yes.
If you think guns are 'virtually' unregulated, autos are even moreso.
You said specifically:
The absence of such regulation can be clearly demonstrated by
comparison with driver licensing.
Hah!
My reply: I am not sure what's your definition of heavy
regulation, but in my view these so-called regulations are
designed to harass unpopular groups of people (the usual way
our so-called elected 'representatives' to gain popularity),
they are burdensome and completely ineffective.
All the examples I listed do indeed bind quite a bit to more than simply 'unpopular groups of people' -- the prohibition from federal buildings, schools, commercial airliners: they all are quite effective against lawbreaker and non-lawbreaker alike.
I understand there are more than 28,000 gun laws on the books. I think that qualifies as 'heavy regulation' especially in regard to your characterization of 'virtual laissez faire' ...
There are even 'car laws' that only apply to guns! For instance, it's a felony to shoot through the window of a moving auto. Name one other thing that it's illegal to do in a moving car that it's otherwise legal to do if the car is stopped. C'mon, I dare you. You might get close with something like 'drinking alcohol' but then it's all about the driver.
Admit it: likening guns and cars was a bad idea on your part.
By using car registration as an example, I wanted to point to
the fact that once you are a registered owner, you are
responsible for what the violations and damages involving using
that vehice (the degree of that responsibility may vary from
state to state).
You presented this example as though this were some kind of 'tougher' stand on responsibility, as though the laws regarding the ownership and use of firearms were 'virtual laissez faire' in comparisson. I think I've made it clear how this is incorrect.
Specifically, you are liable for letting unauthorized persons
using that vehicle, parking violations,as well as certain types
of moving violations. The registred owner, or rather his/her
insurance is, also liable for damages resulting from using the
vehicle.
This is already true with guns, and to a greater extent than with cars. If you let a 14 year old use your car and he crashes it and kills someone, you are typically liable for civil damages in a wrongful death suit. If you let a 14 year old use your handgun and he kills someone, you are also guilty of a criminal felony and will (besides going to jail) lose your gun rights *for life* ...
The guy who killed the bicyclist the other day with his SUV will drive again one day.
I interpret your comments on liability insurance that you do
not oppose such liability in principle, but you question the
extent of cases that may be covered by such insurance.
There are many states whose CCW policies require additional liability insurance for those who wish to carry. I'm not sure whether a normal liability insurance policy covers such things. I'm mixed about the idea of requiring liability insurance for things like guns and cars. On the one hand, you ought to be able to pay damages for your actions if they result in monetary awards. On the other, I think we do quite a bit more suing in this society than we ought to, and having liability insurance certainly makes one a bigger target.
That being said, I should note that the current estimate of the number of drivers in my county (Alameda, CA, which includes Berkeley & Oakland among others) driving without state-mandated liability insurance (all $5k worth) is about 50%. The claim is that if people are too poor to get their cars tuned up, they sure are too poor to get some insurance.
They are probably also too poor to bother suing.
I've noted some interest in insurance-at-the-pump, but it too has problems of not being progressive enough. Similarly, ammo insurance would penalize those who choose to practice, which, ironically, would lower your chances of being the cause of a covered event.
---
I'm not sure there's a good answer to this question, but I do note that the number of cases where liability could be established is low. Which would necessarily mean high premiums and, unless mandated and enforced, might just be a big *different* problem.
I agree that drawing a boundary between unintentional (covered)
and intentional (not covered) may be tricky, but not
impossible. So it is a technical issue, not the matter of
principle.
I'm still not sure how much good it would do. The thing you seem to continue to ignore is that most gun violence is perpetrated by criminals in the course of criminal behavior with illegal or illegally gotten guns. Insurance in this context is nearly meaningless.
You claim that mandatory gun training would require teaching
kids how to kill.
No, no. I'm sorry to not be clear on this point: I fully support safety training for children in the proper handling and storage of guns as soon as they are interested/curious about guns. Most of the accidental shootings among and by children come from kids not knowing the difference between a real gun and a toy. Teaching this difference is a great way to prevent such tragedies. If the parent is involved in the training, it also helps to raise awareness of the issues regarding having a gun in a house with children.
I meant to say that if you support training for kids you'll get branded as someone who advocates teaching kids to kill. It's almost exactly the same situation as sex education: detractors will say you're encouraging kids to have sex. I think if you're pro-sex-ed then you'd be well advised to have your kids go through something like Eddie Eagle. It's not a question of "if" kids will encounter guns, but rather "when" -- and knowing what to do when you encounter one (Eddie Eagle has four points: Stop; Don't touch; Leave the area; Tell an adult) is important.
It's too bad that the NRA has such a bad rep from the political side of the house; their education activities are very good, especially for children.
Possession of a weapon gives power, and with power comes
responsibility. I see noting wrong with instilling such
responsibility through formal and mandatory training. Alas, I
do not think you objected to the idea of training in
principle.
Not only do I not object to it in principle, I think it's something I'd reccomend to everyone: learn to use any item you have in your reach responsibly. Learn all you can about the car you drive, the gun you shoot, the drugs you take, and the sex you have.
---
By the way, in all the cases where you are wrong about the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership, your understanding could be cleared up just by taking 20 minutes and reading the booklet that is available for those taking the Basic Firearm Safety Certificate test here in California. It's about a 40 page 'pamphlet' that will remind you of the 'rules of the road' book that most DMVs publish in both it's coverage and quick-reading attributes.
If you give me your US Mail address, I'd be happy to track one down and pop it in the mail to you. I'm sure, living in Maryland, that there are some differences, but I bet if you used California as the standard, you wouldn't be far from wrong: California has some of the toughest (and at times confusing) gun laws in the country.
I guarantee it'll be a good read for you, or your money back :)
/jordan