The Thoughtful and Considered Gun Thread

[Jan]

As far as i know there is not any special insurance i have to carry as a home owner with a gun. Its just another possession in it. BUT if you have a nice gun collection, you may chose to insure it separately i would assume.

I'm sure that's true right now. I propose that minimum liability insurance be required of any gun owner unless they can provide witnessed (notorized) proof that it's kept in a safe deposit or other secure off-site place.

Also just saw a headline about a new assault weapons ban. Not sure there are any details on it yet though.

I'm sure there will be many bills proposed, some introduced and few if any actually passed. But then, I'm pretty cynical at the moment.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

I'm sure that's true right now. I propose that minimum liability insurance be required of any gun owner unless they can provide witnessed (notorized) proof that it's kept in a safe deposit or other secure off-site place.

I've seen the insurance proposal in a couple of places, and in general I think it would be a good idea. The only thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is what the liability is. How much would insurance be required to pay to whom under what circumstances. There would need to be some way to assess the risk in order for insurance companies to establish rates.

For example, would they be required to pay the "value" of a life in the case of an insured gun being used to kill someone. There are already actuarial guidelines on how to place a monetary value on a lost life, not that anyone really feels that is the true value of that life. Part of the problem on that is that even a bolt action hunting gun can be used to take a life, so even the most innocuous gun would be a huge monetary risk. Insurance actuarials would need to be very conservative so the rates would likely be through the roof, especially until good actuarial tables can be created to relate environmental factors of the gun owners to risk. Ultimately, the biggest risk factor, though, is the mental of all the people with access. That's very hard to evaluate, especially under health information privacy laws.

The other end of the spectrum is to cap the monetary liabilty to a "reasonable" risk, but in the case of a mass shooting who does the money go to? It could be adding insult to injury to pay a victim's family some token amount representing an nth of the capped liability.

Again, I'm not saying I'm against the idea, it's just that in my limited knowledge of insurance I'm not seeing how you make it work. Anybody have any thoughts?

[Jan]

I'm *not* playing devil's advocate here but I do at least try to have an informed opinion on things and this seems to be a pretty good article for the pro-gun side of things from somebody who at least seems to know what he's talking about.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

It's long.

Jan

[Marsden]

Thanks for posting that, Jan. It was an interesting read and I have to say you have conducted this thread very well, but you always have been my favorite moderator.

[Jonas]

I've been wondering about something. Please don't take this as a provocation or trolling; I'm just honestly wondering.

How do the advocates of less or no gun control believe that the line should be drawn in terms of what sort of weaponry is legal for citizens to own? Mines, grenades, tanks, rocket launchers. Should these things be illegal? If so, how would such laws be justified in your view?

[WorkerCaste]

I've been wondering about something. Please don't take this as a provocation or trolling; I'm just honestly wondering.

How do the advocates of less or no gun control believe that the line should be drawn in terms of what sort of weaponry is legal for citizens to own? Mines, grenades, tanks, rocket launchers. Should these things be illegal? If so, how would such laws be justified in your view?

I think it's a reasonable question. The 2nd Amendment concerns the right to bear arms, and while that might not include tanks, personal arms could certainly be construed to include grenades, hand-held rocket launchers, etc. Since those aren't widely considered a protected arm, the question about how to draw the line seems to be very appropriate.

I'd take a stab and say it's mostly habit. Guns have been around longer than some of the other more dangerous personal arms. People have been thinking about long arms and pistols since the 2nd amendment was authored. Most people probably don't even stop to think about the others. I'm sure there are some militias who like to believe these other arms are covered by the 2nd, but the average person just thinks of guns.

[David Panzer]

I just had to post this

[Chipmunk]

This week, PBS is running a series of gun violence related documentaries.

Tomorrow, "Nova" is going to do something on the science of pre-detecting spree killers.

Tonight's were a mixed bag.

"Frontline" used to be amazing, and still sometimes is, but this episode on the Newtown killer was disappointing. It's clear that there is not yet enough info to warrant what they were trying to examine (background/upbringing of the killer). There was a lot of hand waving and questionable (bias-wise) second hand very vague reports about the kid, mainly by friends of the mother.
There were definite indications of severe emotional abuse, but they didn't pursue that angle.

The big surprise was the excellent "After Newtown: Guns in America".
It was just a straight up history of guns in the US, with no obvious (to me) bias.
Methodical, yet interesting.