Ready now?

[Big RR]

Sue--what kind of liability insurance would you want mandated. As I understand auto insurance, it will not provide coverage if someone either steaals or uses the auto without permission; I believe many (though certainly not all) shootings happen with guns owned by other family members and acquaintances--how would insurance apply then? Or would you insist on some sort of strict liability for gun owners ?

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, what *I* want is gun ownership broadly outlawed

Yes. That's it.

[Sue U]

Sue--what kind of liability insurance would you want mandated. As I understand auto insurance, it will not provide coverage if someone either steaals or uses the auto without permission; I believe many (though certainly not all) shootings happen with guns owned by other family members and acquaintances--how would insurance apply then? Or would you insist on some sort of strict liability for gun owners ?

The mechanism of liability insurance would really be a policy question (no pun intended) for lawmakers. I would think that homeowners insurance currently provides some measure coverage for negligence involving a gun. It may be that gun insurance premiums go in some/most part to fund a victims compensation fund. It may be that individual insureds are provided liability coverage for any injury resulting from a gun insured on the policy regardless of negligence or theft.

No, what *I* want is gun ownership broadly outlawed

Yes. That's it.

Are you agreeing with me, or agreeing that that's only my personal goal?

[Joe Guy]

Yeah... I think that's what he meant.

[Jarlaxle]

No, what *I* want is gun ownership broadly outlawed, and when permitted, restricted to only those with an actual demonstrated need that cannot be accommodated by other means. None of what I suggested actually limits gun ownership to "the rich, the well-connected, the police, and criminals," at least not any more than do those same requirements applied to automobiles. And guns in the U.S. are substantially cheaper and more plentiful than automobiles. If the compliance requirements and costs of gun ownership result in people not buying or keeping guns, that's at least a place to start.

Yes yes, you claim that...and in reality, you want guns limited to the rich (who can afford to jump through any necessary hoops), the politically-connected (people like, say, Nancy Pelosi, who have an inside track), the police, and criminals (who will always be armed). You believe that a woman who has been raped and strangled with her own stockings is morally superior to a woman whose attacked acquired a sucking chest wound.

[Jarlaxle]

No it would not. It would limit gun ownership to the COMPETENT, and to the SANE.


ETA: I absolutely cannot fathom how the gun nuts can believe that a *WELL-REGULATED* "militia" (a.k.a. "citizens with guns") is unconstitutional.

Let's apply the exact same criteria to free speech and voting-you must be competent and sane!

I know what "well-regulated" means in the context of the Constitution. You either do not know or choose to ignore it.

[Jarlaxle]

Sue--what kind of liability insurance would you want mandated. As I understand auto insurance, it will not provide coverage if someone either steaals or uses the auto without permission; I believe many (though certainly not all) shootings happen with guns owned by other family members and acquaintances--how would insurance apply then? Or would you insist on some sort of strict liability for gun owners ?

A large number of gun owners already HAVE insurance that covers accidental shootings. (I do.) Insurance won't cover crime-you cannot insure against deliberate actions, they just won't pay.

[Econoline]

No it would not. It would limit gun ownership to the COMPETENT, and to the SANE.


ETA: I absolutely cannot fathom how the gun nuts can believe that a *WELL-REGULATED* "militia" (a.k.a. "citizens with guns") is unconstitutional.

Let's apply the exact same criteria to free speech and voting-you must be competent and sane!

I know what "well-regulated" means in the context of the Constitution. You either do not know or choose to ignore it.

Okay, I'll play.

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
(source)

Do you really think that the "militia" (using whatever definition you want for that word) is in proper working order today? Do you really think that the "militia" is currently functioning as expected? As for applying the same criteria to free speech and voting...neither the 1st Amendment, nor the 15th Amendment, nor the 19th Amendment, nor the 24th Amendment, nor the 26th Amendment contains a prefatory clause like the one that begins (and confuses) the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence long. If the authors of the Bill of Rights had meant the prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") to have no effect on the meaning of the operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"), why did they even include those 13 words in the Amendment?

[Sue U]

No, what *I* want is ...

Yes yes, you claim that...and in reality, you want

I said exactly what I meant. You don't need to substitute your fantasy for what was clearly stated just so you can create a straw man.

Insurance won't cover crime-you cannot insure against deliberate actions, they just won't pay.

Insurance is a heavily regulated industry and it will cover whatever the legislature requires. And like I said (if you had actually bothered to read for understanding), what gun liability insurance might or might not cover, and how, is the subject of policy choices made through the legislative process.

For my broad-stroke purposes here, however, I want policies that enhance public safety, provide for accountability of gun owners and place the social costs of guns with those responsible for them. You know why we have so many shootings? Because people who want to harm someone else can readily purchase or otherwise obtain a gun to do so. Too many guns too readily available to too many people. Responsibility for guns should be placed on their owners, and it is up to us to ensure that gun owners are responsible people.

[Jarlaxle]

No, what *I* want is ...

Yes yes, you claim that...and in reality, you want

I said exactly what I meant. You don't need to substitute your fantasy for what was clearly stated just so you can create a straw man.

You won't admit it-even to yourself-but we both know I am correct. You want guns limited to the "right" people.

Insurance won't cover crime-you cannot insure against deliberate actions, they just won't pay.

Insurance is a heavily regulated industry and it will cover whatever the legislature requires. And like I said (if you had actually bothered to read for understanding), what gun liability insurance might or might not cover, and how, is the subject of policy choices made through the legislative process.

You cannot insure against deliberate acts. They won't pay...or if forced to cover it, they simply won't write the policy at all. SO, there are a few possibilities here: you have not thought this through, you do not understand how insurance works...or you DO understand and this is your intent. You require insurance...but it's not available, so it becomes a back-door ban.

For my broad-stroke purposes here, however, I want policies that enhance public safety, provide for accountability of gun owners and place the social costs of guns with those responsible for them. You know why we have so many shootings? Because people who want to harm someone else can readily purchase or otherwise obtain a gun to do so. Too many guns too readily available to too many people. Responsibility for guns should be placed on their owners, and it is up to us to ensure that gun owners are responsible people.

How bad is gun violence now compared to 25 years ago? Please give your best estimate WITHOUT looking it up.

[liberty]

No it would not. It would limit gun ownership to the COMPETENT, and to the SANE.


ETA: I absolutely cannot fathom how the gun nuts can believe that a *WELL-REGULATED* "militia" (a.k.a. "citizens with guns") is unconstitutional.

Let's apply the exact same criteria to free speech and voting-you must be competent and sane!

I know what "well-regulated" means in the context of the Constitution. You either do not know or choose to ignore it.

Well-regulated militia does not mean the control of guns but the control of people. Not everyone had the right to be part of the militia and thereby have the right to possess arms. Some people generally were not allowed in the militia. Children, slaves and women, and anyone not considered reliable or who were unstable were not typically enrolled. Local militia leaders decided who was allowed in the militia. And the leaders were in turn elected by the membership.

[Scooter]

[Sue U]

You won't admit it-even to yourself-but we both know I am correct. You want guns limited to the "right" people.

And again, what I want is for guns to be generally prohibited. But short of that, if by "'right' people" you mean people who have taken and passed a course in gun use and safety, met licensing requirements, registered their guns and insured against injuries resulting from their use, then yes, I suppose those are the "right" people. But that's not what you meant.

You cannot insure against deliberate acts. They won't pay...or if forced to cover it, they simply won't write the policy at all. SO, there are a few possibilities here: you have not thought this through, you do not understand how insurance works...or you DO understand and this is your intent. You require insurance...but it's not available, so it becomes a back-door ban.

Since litigating what insurance does and does not cover is my actual job, I think I probably have a better idea of how it works than you do. And it's a bad idea to start off your argument with the patently false claim that "you cannot insure against deliberate acts." (I take it you mean deliberate acts by the insured, because deliberate acts of third parties are insured against routinely. But for one easy example, suicide is covered by insurance.) You can insure against anything. It's just a matter of policy terms, government regulations and premiums.

How bad is gun violence now compared to 25 years ago? Please give your best estimate WITHOUT looking it up.

How is this even remotely relevant? Are you trying to suggest that gun violence isn't an actual problem? How bad is gun violence in the U.S. compared to every other industrialized nation on the planet?

[Jarlaxle]

You won't admit it-even to yourself-but we both know I am correct. You want guns limited to the "right" people.

And again, what I want is for guns to be generally prohibited. But short of that, if by "'right' people" you mean people who have taken and passed a course in gun use and safety, met licensing requirements, registered their guns and insured against injuries resulting from their use, then yes, I suppose those are the "right" people. But that's not what you meant.

Well, yes, it is. You just admitted it...because, as we both know, the rich, the well-connected, and criminals will ALWAYS find ways to be armed. (Like Rosie O'Donnel with her armed bodyguards, like Diane Feinstein with her CCW permit.)

You cannot insure against deliberate acts. They won't pay...or if forced to cover it, they simply won't write the policy at all. SO, there are a few possibilities here: you have not thought this through, you do not understand how insurance works...or you DO understand and this is your intent. You require insurance...but it's not available, so it becomes a back-door ban.

Since litigating what insurance does and does not cover is my actual job, I think I probably have a better idea of how it works than you do. And it's a bad idea to start off your argument with the patently false claim that "you cannot insure against deliberate acts." (For one easy example, suicide is covered by insurance.) You can insure against anything. It's just a matter of policy terms, government regulations and premiums.

So....if Bob gets in his legally-insured truck and drives through a crowd screaming "KILL EVERYONE!" insurance will pay?

How bad is gun violence now compared to 25 years ago? Please give your best estimate WITHOUT looking it up.

How is this even remotely relevant? Are you trying to suggest that gun violence isn't an actual problem? How bad is gun violence in the U.S. compared to every other industrialized nation on the planet?

As I expected...either you knew the answer or looked it up, and are now attempting to deflect. Does EVERYONE who wants to disarm the citizens work from the same playbook?

[Sue U]

Well, yes, it is. You just admitted it...because, as we both know, the rich, the well-connected, and criminals will ALWAYS find ways to be armed.

Well then I guess we shouldn't have laws at all then because there will always be people who break them.

So....if Bob gets in his legally-insured truck and drives through a crowd screaming "KILL EVERYONE!" insurance will pay?

What any insurance policy may provide as coverage exclusions is a matter of law. If the insurance regs say the carrier must cover it, it must be covered. There are public policy justifications for allowing intentional acts exclusions in automobile coverage. In other contexts (e.g., life and health insurance), not so much.

As I expected...either you knew the answer or looked it up, and are now attempting to deflect. Does EVERYONE who wants to disarm the citizens work from the same playbook?

I do not know and I have not looked it up, although I suspect that like most major crime there has been a general decline with the overall aging of the population. But it is still an irrelevant question because it is an irrelevant issue. What I do know (because I literally just looked it up) is that the U.S. has a firearms death rate of 12.21/100k, while the next closest rate for an industrialized country (Switzerland) is 3.01, and in Canada it's 2.05. That looks like a pretty big problem to me.

[Jarlaxle]

Well, yes, it is. You just admitted it...because, as we both know, the rich, the well-connected, and criminals will ALWAYS find ways to be armed.

Well then I guess we shouldn't have laws at all then because there will always be people who break them.

Predictable as the sunrise. Do you get a list of talking points from HCI or EGS?

So....if Bob gets in his legally-insured truck and drives through a crowd screaming "KILL EVERYONE!" insurance will pay?

What any insurance policy may provide as coverage exclusions is a matter of law. If the insurance regs say the carrier must cover it, it must be covered. There are public policy justifications for allowing intentional acts exclusions in automobile coverage. In other contexts, not so much.

I admit, not a great comparison. If, instead, Bob were to kidnap his neighbor, murder him, and bury him under his shed, would Bob's homeowner's insurance pay a wrongful death claim?

As I expected...either you knew the answer or looked it up, and are now attempting to deflect. Does EVERYONE who wants to disarm the citizens work from the same playbook?

I do not know and I have not looked it up, although I suspect that like most major crime there has been a general decline with the overall aging of the population. But it is still an irrelevant question because it is an irrelevant issue. What I do know (because I literally just looked it up) is that the U.S. has a firearms death rate of 12.21/100k, while the next closest rate for an industrialized country (Switzerland) is 3.01, and in Canada it's 2.05. That looks like a pretty big problem to me.

Since 1995, violent crime is down. Overall crime is down. Gun violence is down by half...this despite an ENORMOUS increase in the number of guns, the number of gun owners, and the number of people carrying concealed handguns. And,m of course...two gun deaths in three are suicide.

[MGMcAnick]

It all boils down to the simple fact that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Just ask any resident of Mexico where outlaws shoot people all the time.

Do you think that gun nuts, and I know several, will just turn in their guns because the government says pretty please? I'd say it's highly doubtful. It's somewhat like when the USA went off of the gold standard. (1935?) All good citizens were "required" to turn in their gold, coins or whatever, besides jewelry. Did they? Nope.

[ex-khobar Andy]

It all boils down to the simple fact that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

That's true by definition and so is a non-point.

Like Sue, I'd like to see most guns outlawed. But I accept that it's impossible with 300 million plus already in circulation. But I'd like to see it regulated much like car ownership and for much the same reason: in untrained hands or if the item is poorly maintained or the user's skills have deteriorated, it can kill. Regulation does not mean banning: it means knowing that the owner is trained, keeps up his competence level, is insured in case something terrible happens, and the relevant authorities are aware of it. Firefighters should probably know if you've got a closet full of ammunition that might cook off and hurt someone.

[Jarlaxle]

But I'd like to see it regulated much like car ownership...

Deal! Where do I sign up for that?

[Scooter]

Now where did I read someone proposing that very idea? Oh yeah, right here:

we could require training/periodic recertification, licensing, registration and liability insurance