@semck - the gun owner doesn't become liable the insurance company does. Insurance will be mandatory

Maniac,

Right, but that is just legally absurd. There is no instance of somebody being required to carry insurance for something for which they are not themselves legally liable.

Just because something doesn't happen in your country doesn't make it legally absurd. In the UK we insure our cars, if someone steals my car and hits another car, i'm not liable but the insurance company pays out because all policies carry an uninsured driver (the theif) excess. No liabilty but still the innocents get protection - this makes sense in as much as the victim can not possibly know (a) who is going to run into him and (b) whether or notthat person is insured. The damage done to the victim is the same and he should be covered in any event.

Yes, Maniac, but there IS liability. What happens, for example, if you (illegally) didn't insure your car and that happened?

The insurance companies carry the liability of the uninsured drivers or of uninsured vehicles. They do so as insurance is manditory (their benefit) and build this additional risk into the premiums they carge. In effect it becomes a third party benefit contracturally given by the insurance companies. Totally legal and enforcible.

According to this article, the insurance company is then allowed to sue the person for whom they had to pay out:

http://www.rcsolicitors.co.uk/RTA-claims/RTA/RTA-liability/mib-claims/mib-uninsured-driver-claim.htm

In other words, the ultimate liability IS with the uninsured driver -- as I was claiming.

In any case, of course, I was assuming we were talking about the laws of the United States (for obvious reasons). In the US, it would be absurd to have such a requirement without actual liability.

semck - if i'm hit by an uninsured driver I can claim from the MIB which weren't liable for the accident. They have resources provided to them via the insurance industry. It is true that they can then also try to reclaim the amount from the person liable, nut their ability or inability to obtain payment does not alter my payout.

If you think that anything that happens outside the US is absurd, it is difficult for me to counter that view. All I'm saying is it is possible to mandate the insurance of guns, it is possible for that money or a proportion of that money to be pooled and paid out to onnocent victims. The process would be legal and acheivable if there was a will to make it happen.

Maniac,

"If you think that anything that happens outside the US is absurd, it is difficult for me to counter that view."

I always appreciate having my words twisted -- thanks.

What I meant was _in the context of US law_, such a thing would be absurd. I don't mean that other alternatives are absurd in other contexts, or that other contexts are themselves necessarily absurd (though I do think this one kind of is, that's just because of its substance and not because it is not in the US).

"It is true that they can then also try to reclaim the amount from the person liable, nut their ability or inability to obtain payment does not alter my payout."

Right, and I didn't say it did. My point was that even this IS predicated on an underlying system of personal liability. No personal liability, no insurance liability. It's true that in Britain, apparently one is forced to pay insurance rates for the damage of possible thieves (though, again, they can be sued). But even there, that is very clearly (I looked up the statute, the Road Traffic Act 1988) an incidental in the context of making drivers provide for the payment of their own liability -- an incidental that is there so that people can assume cars are insured.

And an incidental, by the way, which isn't here in the US (by and large -- I've looked it up for some states, and broadly, but I haven't looked up each state), for exactly the reasons I'm mentioning.

I'm curious, by the way, as to why you're not just saying, "OK, fine, change the liability law, and then require insurance." I mean, I can guess -- it's such a clearly outrageous result that you realize nobody would support it, and people could only be made to go for it in small amounts, by making them pay collectively for what would be more obviously outrageous to make them pay individually.

Fortunately, there are various Constitutional challenges that one could imagine bringing (depending on the exact structure of the statute, but particularly if there were no liability attached), so even if it were passed, there's at least a decent chance it would be struck down.

@ obiwanobiwan

Once again, define "military-grade weapon". Most standard-issue military weapons right now are either fully-automatic capable or three-round burst capable. Name *one* weapon widely available to civilians that shares this capability.

(1) Should a gun totting tyrannical minority of 5% be able to ride roughshod over the wishes of the 95%?

I'm a believer in natural rights and the non-initiation of force principle, in that every individual has, inherently, the rights to everything within their domain, and that domain extends out in a metaphorical sense until it hits someone else's. The government is both an arbiter and a grand actor in the web of relationships created, and as such it needs to be held to strict limits to not -needlessly- encroach on them. The government, by default, violates non-initiation because it operates under an implication of coercion, therefore it should keep its number of coercive actions to a minimum to maintain legitimacy. In matters relating to natural rights like the ownership of property, the government is- or at least should be- very limited in its reach, and in the US we have the Second and Fourth amendments to guarantee this. If your theoretical split was 99.5/0.5, it would still violate the natural property rights of the individual, and thus would not be ethical. At the same time, the rights of the gun owners thus protected end completely when they encounter another individual, or their rights. Once the gun owner violates those rights, it is then ethical to act with force, and as much force as is necessary to completely solve the problem (proportionality). The problem with making laws is it infringes also on the rights and lives of innocent people, those who have not committed any crimes. As I pointed out before, murder is already illegal. If that isn't deterrent enough, what do criminals care about breaking a few more laws? Any laws you put on top of it are both redundant and encroaching on the natural rights to a person's private property. The government should tread exceedingly carefully where these laws and rights are concerned.

(2) Should we now decide not to pass any new laws about anything anywhere as all points have already been discussed and decided?

Ideally, the use of passing laws wouldn't be something done willy-nilly and a great deal of debate would go into them from both a systems design standpoint (as government is a system, as any other) and philosophical standpoint (because political differences come down to philosophy- the nature of man vs man, man vs community, man vs state) and laws would only be passed in the direst circumstances. Imagine if government was run not by politicians but instead by programmers, engineers and philosophers! In my answer to #1 I already pointed out that government is a good thing, but should also be a very limited thing. I support many community-based and voluntary solutions, and I see this everywhere in daily life. I volunteer at a food shelf, and there we operate much more efficiently than most any of the government's food distribution/discount programs; we're the first stop for most of the people on food stamps and we don't even charge them said food stamps, they simply take food. I think at a community and town level, people can be much more effective at regulation that at the federal level.

Part of this is regional differences as well (and I am willing to believe, in fact, that the ENTIRE difference in statistics between the US, UK, and CH originate in regional differences, as you say, which is why when I plotted my detailed analysis I only did it between US states- more accurate and relevant comparison) and because of this different regions need different solutions, some legal and others moral and community in origin. The US is comprised of many different regions, and one blanket 'solution' would not be nearly as effective as solution at the community level, and at the community level it could be judged whether or not a solution is needed at all.

But those are philosophical points. I also take issue with the proposed laws from a system-design standpoint. As I'm an engineer by trade, it is in my nature to look at things as components in an overall system, and the government is definitely a system. As my scatterplot showed there's no correlation between gun control laws and % firearm homicide rates, therefore it can be concluded the laws do not impact those rates. In fact when I put a trendline to it, the rate INCREASES slightly with further legislation, but I believe this would be because areas that fall victim to higher rates are more likely to legislate against it (and the data delay between my sources likely emphasizes this relationship), whereas in areas where it isn't a problem few laws are needed- two of the three states with a control score of 0 (effectively no control) are in the bottom ten states of % rate of homicides by firearms.

If the proposed change to a system would have little or no effect to the problem the system is experiencing, then logically it is not the appropriate change to make. If you cannot find an EFFECTIVE solution to the problem the system is experiencing, then you should either not change the system at all, or if the problem is crippling the system, you should redesign the system. Gun control laws or the lack thereof are not -crippling- the nation (not that the issue itself cannot cripple a nation, I'd argue that with the various African nations this problem IS crippling, it just isn't crippling the US) so the system does not need to be REDESIGNED around this flaw. So until we find an -effective- course of action, from a systems design standpoint we should not act at all. Again going back to how laws are grave, serious things, it would be a frivolous law if it did not achieve its own aims, and I believe I have demonstrated that in the case of America, gun control laws would not achieve their aims.

(3) Do you think gun insurance could address some of the problems without violating the constitution?

@Semck, Maniac; it seems your disagreement is one of semantics and not at the issue at hand. Either way if we treated firearm policies like automobile insurance, I think it would be an interesting measure for assisting victims of gun crime. When we get down to it however I doubt that criminals will insure their guns, so this would basically amount to just another charge on their records when we bring them into court. As I can't see the law being effective, I'd instead opt to strengthen current procedures such as background checks when buying firearms. There's many holes in the current system and I feel those holes should be patched before we go looking to add more onto it. There is a large debate-within-the-debate inside this issue about the appropriateness of a national firearms registry. While that has it's own flaws I feel that as long as an innocent owner is not held liable for damage by stolen equipment, that might at least be an appropriate target for a cost/benefit analysis and debate over the ethical implications inherent in its application.

Maniac, I feel I should elaborate a bit on my first answer to that question; Essentially I am saying, not that you hold this view explicitly but I feel it is a natural consequence; that NO group should be bound and held responsible for its criminal element, which is the issue at point here. This question more or less resolves to "A subset of this group creates a negative impact on society, should we punish the whole group for it"? I feel the answer to that question should be "No".

This point probably runs into a fundamental difference on our concept of what government is. You believe government should be concerned and care about its citizens, and therefore take a more active role in their direct protection. I feel isntead a government's only responsibility- and therefore the boundary of it's authority- is to uphold societal order. That means in the case of gun crime its duty is to punish those who use the force that guns provide them with against other individuals. Again, murder, assault, and all related crimes are already illegal. As long as the government is fair and firm in enforcing these crimes I believe its obligations to be filled.

To return to a language of neutral ideological territory, we are looking at legislation that impacts ALL gun owners in order to target CRIMINAL gun owners. It would be a better idea to target a solution at criminals specifically, but as I have pointed out criminals are ALREADY breaking the law (as, and rightly so, the acts of using force against another are already illegal) so what will further laws burdening that specific subset achieve? Background checks are SUPPOSED to catch these people when they attempt to purchase a firearm, but there are holes in the current system. We should look to repairing these holes first.

"Once again, define "military-grade weapon". Most standard-issue military weapons right now are either fully-automatic capable or three-round burst capable. Name *one* weapon widely available to civilians that shares this capability."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

James Holmes used an M-16...

"The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is the United States military version of the AR-15 rifle."

...and Adam Lanza used an AR-15.



How about those, for a loosely-defined start?

The former is by definition a military weapon, and the latter the version it's derived from.

And for the legendary triplepost, my deference to the Founding Fathers exists mostly on the standpoint that they are the ones who designed the system, and were also the ones involved with a great deal of the theory that led to its inception. Their undeniable position as members of the American Enlightenment and as decedents of the Enlightenment as a whole means they were prime movers in the creation of the ideologies that this nation was founded upon. This creates a double effect I can relate to you better with another example.

Wernher von Braun is the man that is responsible for much of both Germany and the United State's rocketry programs during and after World War II, and went on to be a big name in NASA for many years. He created a lot of the theory behind rocketry and is responsible for many rocket designs. Therefore if it came down to a debate about the design of rockets, I believe he would have a great deal of authority on the issue, even as time and technology moves on. If you were to try and upset work he did in the field of rocketry, it would not do simply to ignore what he achieved. You would have to confront his theories on the matter directly and then disprove them, in order to make your point, and accordingly have the field of rocketry amended in your favor.

In the same respect, the Founding Fathers (and other members of both the European and American Enlightenment periods from which their work was derived) hold great authority on the matters that we face even today regarding the systems they designed. And as they were the designers of those systems, they are the ONLY ones that could be said to escape the 'local knowledge problem', that is, they are in a prime position to know as close to -everything- about a system as is possible. Remember philosophy, just as science, is formulated on theories and debated with great rigor. Those who participated in the Enlightenments are the ones who formulated- and in the creation of this country and the others during the Age of Revolutions many others- practiced and applied these theories and doctrines. While it is correct they are not infallible, until one can debate on their merits the very points the Founding Fathers advocated in their creation of the Constitution- that is if one can not shove the Father's reasoning aside but directly confront and disprove the Father's reasoning on a point, I again refer to the parable of the gate- the Fathers as the creators of the system and the theory behind it are likely correct.

Again I emphasize it is not enough to simply push aside their logic, as happens with nearly every case of people asking "Well they died two hundred years ago, why should we listen to them?". You must DISPROVE their logic in order to prove your case is superior. You cannot ignore what they said but instead confront it directly if you are to show that you have the greater insight into the issue at hand. Most people are unwilling to do this because a philosophical debate is nowhere near as clear-cut as a scientific one, so isntead they seek to simply ignore the points within, despite the fact that in the end we're all speaking of philosophical constructs.

obiwanobiwan, have you formulated a rebuttal for my evidence against the effectiveness of gun control laws in the United States yet? Or have I adequately displayed that such laws would have little to no effect in their implementation, thus should not be implemented?

Clear Skies, I've already made my argument...

And your "evidence" is all a song and dance I've heard before.

So, at least while the 49ers/Falcons game is ongoing, you'll forgive me not repeating myself when I've already addressed your points with my own as a great deal of it's rhetorical and, again, arguments I've heard and addressed before, so I refer you back to my previous remarks (for now, at least.)

Obiwanobiwan, the AR-15 fails in the provided definition because it is neither full-auto capable nor burstfire capable, it can only operate in semiautomatic mode.

Obiwanobiwan, the data I provided is in no way at all rhetorical; it is concrete, empirical observation on the effectiveness of gun control laws. It does you disservice to simply dismiss evidence out of hand, and as a key piece of supporting factual evidence for my premise, in formal debate environment would lead to your forfeiture.

Do you forfeit the debate?

Clear skies, that's a definition YOUR side came up with.

I don't acknowledge defeat as there IS no defeat in not meeting the standards you create...

As when, by its own definition, it IS a military-grade weapon.

If you disagree, tell that to the militaries which use it/use its variants (including the US and the M-16 variant which, I notice, you fail to address.)

For all your bluster about my dismissing evidence out of hand, you are the one here dismissing definitions out of hand simply because they do not conform to standards you and gunfighter came up with.

"ONLY" semiautomatic mode...

Tell that to the 20 kids and 6 teachers Lanza's AR-15 killed as he got of QUITE a few rounds in quite a period of time...

"ONLY" a semiatuomatic assault rifle.

^A bit like saying an atomic bomb is "only" a 1950s-era a-bomb and not as big a destructive force as an H-bomb, so, meh...no problem there, right?

How about a very simple form, obiwanobiwan, stripped of all rhetoric, and presented in simple logical form:

Premises:

1) There is little to no point to passing laws that have little to no effect
2) It would be improper to make a modification to a system that has no point

Argument:
Gun control laws have little to no effect on incidence of firearms-related homicide.
Supporting Evidence:
http://i.imgur.com/CRHlUje.jpg

Therefore;

Y) It would be improper to pass further gun control laws.

Simple logical reasoning and conclusion. Now, you could rebut my evidence, or you could cede the point.

"1) There is little to no point to passing laws that have little to no effect"

Explain the UK, then.

Their gun control laws have had GREAT effect.

And, again:

The states with the 10 strictest gun control laws have, on average, less homicides than the states with the 10 most lax laws.

Your first premise is flawed.

As for #2...lowering gun violence sees a perfectly valid "point."

Firstly, that would be counterevidence to my argument, not a flaw in my premise. The two premises remain intact unless you feel there is a point to passing laws with no effect, or it is not improper to make a modification that has no point.

Secondly, the UK does not support your reported stance: You said before that you accept the validity of a handgun as a personal defense weapon, and you believe that handguns should not be banned. The UK has a ban on handguns. Therefore the UK is not supporting evidence to your position.

I have already ceded that a blanket ban on ALL firearms is somewhat effective, but a blanket ban on all firearms is not the position you support.

You can either reverse your position and support the blanket ban on all firearms, at which case you would have a point, and the debate would again return to philosophical grounds, this time discussing such matters as an abolishment of the 2nd Amendment, or discard the UK as supporting evidence.

I suppose then to add that specific formualtion into the logical point I would then need a third premise:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) There is little to no point to passing laws that have little to no effect
2) It would be improper to make a modification to a system that has no point
3) A blanket ban on guns is not possible within the current circumstances (2nd Amendment)

Argument:
Gun control laws have little to no effect on incidence of firearms-related homicide.
Supporting Evidence:
http://i.imgur.com/CRHlUje.jpg

Therefore;

Y) It would be improper to pass further gun control laws.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I trust that this is now formulated accurately. You can dispute the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment but you cannot dispute that it makes a blanket ban (and, therefore, cases like the UK) impossible. That is treading philosophical ground I have already said I would elucidate on but not engage in debate with. I only intend to prove my point within the current politically feasible circumstances.

Is there any problem with the reasoning now clarified above?

Clear Skies,

I wouldn't say my disagreement with Maniac was fully semantic, though much of it as it played out was, I grant. I wanted to get him to admit that he was in essence instituting liability for gun owners for the crimes committed with their guns, but it wasn't merely an academic point -- I think that would be a plainly unjust result.

Of course, I (not coincidentally) think the gun insurance program is too. The vast, vast majority of gun owners neither commit crimes with their guns nor have their guns used for crimes. There is nothing rational in choosing that class to be the ones to have to pay for violent crimes (which is exactly what an insurance pool would be saying they are). It would also be a substantial hardship on people who own _many_ guns, but again, there's no evidence to indicate this trait correlates with liklihood to commit a crime.

The fact is, it's just a fairly transparent (even admitted) way to discourage the exercise of the right to bear arms. Imagine if the same scheme were suggested for free speech. "You can engage in free public speech, but only if you own insurance that will pay for any damages that occur due to somebody acting on your words in an unforeseen way." This would immediately be seen for what it would be -- an unconstitutional burden on the exercise of free speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/whats-missing-u-gun-control-scramble-bullets-061240341.html

1) There is little to no point to passing laws that have little to no effect
2) It would be improper to make a modification to a system that has no point
3) A blanket ban on guns is not possible within the current circumstances (2nd Amendment)

Argument:
Gun control laws (where a blanket ban is impossible) have little to no effect on incidence of firearms-related homicide.
Supporting Evidence:
http://i.imgur.com/CRHlUje.jpg

Therefore;

Y) It would be improper to pass further gun control laws.

Is there anything wrong with this analysis, Obiwanobiwan?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article you link is an interesting look at tracking and control, but I feel the biggest point it raises is that our current system of background checks is not in functional condition. I believe it would be wiser to first repair and restore this system to its greatest capacity, instead of adding new systems on top of this already compromised one.

Obi - James Holmes used an aR15, not an M16. I assure as a former marine who carried a full-auto M16, I could empty a magazine way faster than even the quickest trigger AR15. The AR15 is *not* military grade and, piint in fact (there can be no dispute considering the M!^ existed before the AR15), the AR15 is a dumbed down civilian weapon no self-respecting Marine would dream of carrying into battle. You can make all the claims you like, but *every* respected authority on military grade weapons (including the fucking US government) recognizes only 3 burst or full auto as military grade weapons. Epic. Fucking. Fail. And you are a douche for trying to force your interpretation of military grade on everyone else. Your liberal-ass hatred of all things gun means your definition don't mean shit. The definition of the US Military, the US Government, the UN Security Council, NATO, and the governments of all our Allies through out Europe and the Middle East carries a fuck shit more weight than your punk ass 20 something, never carried a gun, spewing the crap force fed to you by your liberal California "professors" ever will when it comes to military grade weapons.

As far as gun control laws and the states with the strictest - Mass, Conn, and NY top the list.

New York - Crime central. Walk through Central Park at night and you take your life in your hands. Illegal guns run rampant throughout the urban areas of NY especially NYC.

Conn - Home to the most recent tragedy. Nuff said.

Massachusetts - Wakefield slaughter. Nuff said.

If gun control works, explain these three incidents/statistics.

That, Draugnar, is part of the point I make. The scatterplot that I keep reposting because obiwanobiwan refuses to acknowledge a point he cant handwave abusing rhetoric is an analysis of all 50 states in a similar perspective. There is no trend.

I LIVE in Connecticut. I can tell you for a fact that I still fear being shot walking around our larger cities like Hartford, or even smaller, built-up areas like Enfield or Willimantic. Gun control has not made this state safer against gun violence.

1. If he AND Adam Lanza both used an AR-15, I fail to see how that weakens the case against the AR-15...?

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html?_r=0

"Without such information, much of the public and political attention has been focused on the potential deadliness of the semiautomatic rifle, which law enforcement officials identified as a Smith & Wesson M&P15. The rifle belongs to a class of weapons broadly known as AR-15s, after the original civilian version of the rifle.

With its hereditary links to the M-16, the signature weapon of the Vietnam War and, until recent years, the principal rifle used by American infantry units, weapons like the AR-15 were tightly restricted under a 1994 law known as the assault weapons ban. The law expired in 2004."

Linked to the M-16, according to the NY Times.

Further, they were banned ONCE ALREADY, in the 1994 ban, as assault weapons, so it's not as if I'm arbitrarily classifying them as that.

3. "no self-respecting Marine would dream of carrying into battle."

Maybe not in the US Military, ie, the most well-supplied and equipped military in the world, but that's NOT what I meant when I say "military grade."

Ask rebel bands in Africa and Syria if they'd turn down an AR-15.

Just because it's not up to snuff for the US military doesn't mean it's not military-grade for others, and even if I were to dispense with the "military-grade" label, I'd still have the "assault weapon" one to employ as it has, by law, been classified as such BEFORE.

ALL of this belies the central point, namely

4. *WHATEVER* terminology you choose to employ:

It's a deadly, deadly weapon capable of killing dozens and doing so FAST--

We've had more than enough examples of that already.

5. "And you are a douche for trying to force your interpretation of military grade on everyone else."

Excuse me, did I force my interpretation on you?
No.
Not ONCE did I say "this is my interpretation and you must accept itm absolutely, or else."

The PRO-GUN SIDE, on the other hand, has insisted on their arbitrary definitions with an exactitude only surpassed by their seeming mass paranoia towards the govt.

6. "Your liberal-ass hatred of all things gun means your definition don't mean shit."

Go back and read, Draug--how many times have I said "handguns/rifles I'll buy as acceptable?"
How many?
Give me a total...five...ten...more than ten?

I've said it quite a bit, and I'll reiterate that here again, as you've clearly (and rather conveniently) overlooked that in your tirade.

7. "never carried a gun, spewing the crap force fed to you by your liberal California "professors" ever will when it comes to military grade weapons."

NONE of this comes as a result of ANYTHING my professors have said...

And I don't have to carry or shoot an AR-15 to think civilians owning it and shooting 20 kids or hitting 70 in a movie theatre is maybe, just maybe, just a BIT on the excessive side and not "defensive."