Thursday Highlights

Well, tomorrow we head back to the Midwest by Amtrak and Amtrak (and finally Metra and a car). For those interested that’s mostly the NorthEast Corridor from Trenton to Washington DC, and then the Capitol Limited to Chicago. Our roundtrip was a little over $700 for 4 adults. Not bad.

  1. The other parent trap.
  2. Pretty woman … gets fired.
  3. Insurance and gun ownership.
  4. More on guns, bottom line: gun ownership is sharply up over the last few decades and gun violence is trending consistently down. So … why the dialog on guns?
  5. Names or not. What does it mean?
  6. To read?
  7. Unintended does not mean not anticipated.
  8. Three new blogs to watch via kbj.
  9. Moving on from Afghanistan.
  10. Benedict on Epiphany.
  11. A blog entry to read to the tune of “all I want for Christmas is …”

5 responses to “Thursday Highlights

  1. More on guns, bottom line: gun ownership is sharply up over the last few decades and gun violence is trending consistently down. So … why the dialog on guns?

    Millions upon millions of people flew on airplanes in 2001. Why so much focus on the 4 that crashed on 9/11?

  2. Insurance and gun ownership.

    Sounds like my idea of required liability insurance for guns is being stolen! If only I had an intellectual gun to defend myself from this brazen theft!

    But good thoughts on it. I would note that some of her objections are not as problematic as all that. You wouldn’t have to change liability law to say you’re automatically liable for any misuse of your gun. The insurance would function like life insurance. IF the gun is misused, the policy would pay to the person harmed. That wouldn’t prevent the person harmed from suing you for excess liability if the circumstances put you at fault, in which case you’d have something no different than any other civil lawsuit.

    You wouldn’t carry the insurance on someone you sell your gun too. They would have to buy their own policy by buying your gun. You would, however, carry the insurance if you were selling guns to people on the black market as a ‘straw purchaser’.

    Let’s note here that the NRA has conspired to make breaking gun laws far too easy. During the infamous ‘fast and furious’ investigation a suspect was being tracked who had no job and was collecting food stamps. On a monthly basis he was going to gun auctions buying $100,000+ in guns, clearly a straw purchaser buying guns for those who couldn’t get them legally. All the Feds were able to do was give the info to the state AG and beg him to file a case of welfare fraud against the man. Since he had no record of violent crime he passed all background checks.

    Using ‘Tipping Point’ terminology, I suspect the liability proposal could surgercially strike ‘connectors’ who bridge the world of the legitimate law abiding gun enthusiast which the NRA defends tooth and nail and the criminals who acquire guns illegally.

  3. Boonton,
    I had a thought … those who think say things like “why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle” to stop mass shootings to be consistent should also be more strongly in favor of not selling automobiles capable of speeds greater than 35 mph. Far far far more innocent people die in car accidents than by guns.

    Why so much focus on the 4 that crashed on 9/11?

    And how much has the legislation and controls that came after were helpful? How much was harmful?

  4. Boonton,

    Using ‘Tipping Point’ terminology, I suspect the liability proposal could surgercially strike ‘connectors’ who bridge the world of the legitimate law abiding gun enthusiast which the NRA defends tooth and nail and the criminals who acquire guns illegally.

    I doubt it. Economics arguments indicate there is a great demand for such guns. It is hard for simple legislative tactics to foil such demands (see war on drugs for example).

    None of the recent mass shootings were done by people with illegal weapons. Yet your legal suggestions are targeted at stopping illegal guns.

  5. Boonton,

    Millions upon millions of people flew on airplanes in 2001. Why so much focus on the 4 that crashed on 9/11?

    This makes no sense. While it is true that the numbers of people flying on planes has been increasing the other half, the finding that there is a measureable trend downward of the people being killed by airplanes over the last decades is not present.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>