When You Can't Even Figure Out Who Is On Your Side...

Writing at Hot Air, 'Jazz Shaw' pretends to read Megan McArdle's evisceration of proposals to institute some sort of meaningful requirement for gun-owner's liability insurance and comes away imagining she supports the idea. Maybe he was confused by her conclusion:

The legal changes needed to use insurance to make a dent in criminal possession and use--which so often go together--would be enormous, far reaching, and subject to gimlet-eyed review by appellate court.  And the very political forces that you are trying to end run would rise up and obstruct at every turn. To put it another way: if you could get support for widespread gun registration, you probably wouldn't bother thinking up ways to use insurers as substitute regulators.

Of course, proponents might say that it doesn't have to be a full solution, only a partial solution. And fair enough.  The problem is, it's not clear to me that any law which could actually be enacted would even a partial solution to gun crime.  The people who will buy insurance will, by and large, be the people who have assets and social respect to lose by breaking the law . . . which is precisely why they're quite unlikely to commit a gun crime. The people who are most likely to use the guns to a bad end will simply do without. 

Mark Kleiman thinks individual liability has flaws but maybe liability can be pushed back to the manufacturer. I read his last paragraph as skeptical even of this:

Now go back to Megan’s piece to read about all the issues that would raise. And then think about how hard it would be for anyone living in a poor African-American neighborhood to buy a gun.

Well, Jazz Shaw probaly will call that an endorsement.

Now, for the legal eagles out there - my murky memory tells me that the trial lawyers had targeted Big Guns for the same treatment as Big Tobacco, with the notion that gun manufacturers had somehow put out a defective or misleading product (guns are dangerous, even fatal?!?). However, Congress legislated that door shut in 2005.

So, if a new Congress created manufacturer's liability, could it possibly apply to guns sold while the 2005 law was in effect? And does the 2005 law protect all guns sold prior to its enactment, or could a new law create manufacturer's liability for all guns sold before 2005 and after enactment of the new law? Depending on how much grandfathering we are talking about, manufacturer's liability may not mean much in a nation with a current stock of weapons exceeding 300 million.

SINCE YOU ASK, AND SINCE I AM LOOKING AT IT: 2012 is nearly in the books and the NY Times sneak-previews 2012 crime statistics, highlighted by a decline in homicides:

Of the 414 murders, 14 deaths from previous years were counted as homicides for the first time, like in the Patz case. In many of these cases, victims of long-ago shootings died of sepsis in hospitals, the police said.

Of the 400 murders in 2012, 223 were gunshot victims, 84 victims were stabbed to death, 43 died of blunt trauma and 11 died of asphyxiation. The majority of the 400 homicides occurred on a Saturday, followed by early Sunday morning. Most occurred at 2 a.m. People were more likely to be killed outside than in. Nearly 70 percent of the victims had prior criminal arrests, the police said.

Domestic-related homicides dropped to 68, from 94 in 2011.

The likelihood of being killed by a stranger was slight. The vast majority of the homicides, Mr. Kelly said, grew out of “disputes” between a victim and killer who knew each other.

The NYPD prepares a detailed homicide report each year. Back in 2011 the most common homicides were young black men shooting each other. Some stats:

Blacks were 23% of the NYC population but 68% of the homicide victims; 38% of all victims were black males aged 16-37; 86% of black male victims aged 16-21 were shot.

On the other side, 59% of suspects were black. 83% of black suspects had a black victim.

Among all suspects, 34% were aged 16-21; 41% were aged 22-37.

And a stat I would like to know more about: 42% of suspects and 38% of victims had prior arrests for drug sales or possession.

An arrest for drug sales is probably serious. However, an arrest for possession might be total BS (e.g., a result of a stop-and-frisk that turns up nothing else) or partial BS (the cops get a 'known' bad guy for whatever they can make stick; think of it as the street equivalent of Al Capone and tax evasion).

Without more detail (and street savvy) I can't look at these NYPD reports and come away confident that "real" criminals make up a big part of the criminal and victim pools. However, their numbers point that way, which suggests some good advice for avoiding homicide - don't get caught up in the drug trade, as either a seller or buyer.

But do let me add: Mayor Bloomberg manages to leaf through these reports and come away convinced that the solution to gun violence is to impose more rules on middle-aged, middle-class gun owners in suburbia and rural America.

Comments

[bunkerbuster]

Gun fetishists' opposition to liability insurance shows they don't really believe their own high-volume propaganda about an armed society being a "polite" society and a safer one.
They know full-well that actuarial inquiry will make gun ownership expensive because, indeed, firearms pose a danger to everyone around them and pose a significant liability for perfectly law-abiding citizens, given the likelihood the weapon will be used in unintended ways.
If gun fetishists actually believed the facts show firearms make us safer, surely they would welcome a liability insurance requirement because the actuarial data that would flow from such a requirement. Indeed, if there was any reality to the claim that firearms make us safer, insurers would be offering LOWER rates to gun owners.
But even gun fetishists know that's not true, so they don't want go near liability insurance...

[sbw]

Magnetism? I'm sure it's only one of the 500 phases of matter.

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

More martini's for breakfast too - huh Henry?

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

My New Year's resolution is to not respond to trolls.

Join me!

[henry]

Hmmm, coffee first, martinis later. Antifreeze is a good idea for today.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Jane-

I believe the identity clause has found a new logic loop to get stuck in.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Besides the sale price, and sales tax, what other charges are added when purchasing a firearm? How much do they typically run?

Posted by: AliceH | December 29, 2012 at 09:19 PM--

Alice, the 10% federal excise tax is part of the purchase price and is not added on.
Depending on the state you may have fees for certain certificates or courses before purchasing a handgun.
I believe you're in Missouri so I'm guessing sales price and sales tax are about it. Agent J probably knows more than me.

[Captain Hate]

I believe the identity clause has found a new logic loop to get stuck in.

Where was all this respect for insurance companies four years ago?

[sbw]

My New Year's resolution is to not respond to trolls. Join me!

I would, Jane, but I made a new year’s resolution not to respond to trolls.

[Hey! It's a JOKE!]

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Indeed, if there was any reality to the claim that firearms make us safer, insurers would be offering LOWER rates to gun owners.--

In bubu world reality is arrived at by positing a hypothetical then coming to a conclusion of what the result of that hypothetical might be based on his own ideology and presuppositions and then ridiculing others for not excepting his conclusions of a reality entirely manufactured in his own small head.

If you would like to ascertain the reality of the claim perhaps you might pick up a copy of More Guns, Less Crime or some of the other research which has made these claims and determining, all by your little self whether the claim is true?
Reading a Mother Jones or Salon third hand critique of the claims doesn't count either.

Your perspective on this issue indicates you may very well be one of those identity leftists you occasionally invoke in an attempt to present yourself as a reasonable, thoughtful person rather than the knee jerk fool you appear to be.

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

[Hey! It's a JOKE!]

It took me 3 reads to get it.

Perhaps we should say "Trolls and the stupid."

[Agent J]

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | December 30, 2012 at 09:18 AM YOU SAID: Agent J probably knows more than me.

There is no way in hell that I will ever know more then you on anything, an that is a complement.

My receipt only shows a local sales tax of 5.5% which is just a county tax..If there was any other tax it was buried within the weapon charge which was $120 less then what Cabala's wanted for the same model..an there price did not include any tax's at the time of pricing..

[bunkerbuster]

Thanks Ignutz. I take your lack of a cogent response as an admission that you know I'm right.

[AliceH]

Thank you, Ig and Agent J!

Our new indoor gunrange is still not open yet, but reports are they are very close indeed. I have a typically (for me) multi-phased plan for learning about, training on, and acquiring firearms - with go/no-go points at each milestone. Reading lots of stuff for newbies (and pushing through embarrassment at the constant reminders of my utter ignorance). It's very hard to truly grasp and retain the information without any physical or practical experience, so I get easily distracted by questions that aren't urgent but simply lodge themselves in my head.

IF after a few trips to the gunrange (renting various guns from them) I decide it's something I want to and will pursue, then I think my first purchase would be in March or so - something like this Ruger 22/45 Lite Rimfire pistol. The point being having a good range training gun that simultaneously sets me up for comfortable training with a future 1911 model. We have invitation-members-only rifle and shotgun range here also, but I will be addressing that much later in the project. Reactions, suggestions welcome.

[Extraneus]

A 22 probably isn't gonna cut it for self-defense, Alice. Searching on "best gun for women" landed me here. The author recommends a revolver, and I've heard the same elsewhere, but you might prefer a pistol after trying both out.

It took me several gun purchases before I figured out what I really needed/wanted. Your plan sounds much better and less costly.

[daddy]

From SBW's "The 500 Phases of Matter:" Physics link at 08:38

specifically group cohomology theory and group super-cohomology theory

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Manuel Transmission]

Alice, one suggestion I would make is to beg or borrow a basic .22 rifle, especially a bolt action to shoot for a while. There is nothing like the slow, non-flinching rhythm of shooting that way to get your breathing and trigger squeeze down pat. It can become a zen thing fairly quickly.

After you realize it is possible to put multiple bullets in the same hole pretty regularly, you can transition to a .22 pistol to see that natural degradation of accuracy.

In a similar way, shooting prone and/or benchrest vs. off-hand lets you see what things affect your accuracy.

Finally moving up to larger calibers will blow your training, but you will understand what is possible. Breathing and squeeze are the ultimate control factors you will work on and enjoy staying sharp at for the rest of your days.

[narciso]

Easy peasy, daddy, yikes;

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

[daddy]

Iggy, Manny T, et al,

Is that a certain make/model where you would say " Friends don't let friends buy a Glock, etc?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Alice,
Many women, and some men, have a hard time pulling the slide back on many semi auto pistols
My wife did, and she's no weakling, and so I got her a revolver instead.
If you're an amazon then don't worry about it; you'll figure it out at the range.

[daddy]

Yikes Narciso. That explanation made my head hurt and my eyes cross!

As for Melinda, my guess is she got excited last night about Magnetism 3, because she happens to be a Nikolai Tesla freak, and I can see the cohomology's spinning in her brain.

Here's a neat old photo photo of Mark Twain in Tesla's NY City lab holding lightening in his hands, with the wizard Tesla in the background:

[AliceH]

Ex: --It took me several gun purchases before I figured out what I really needed/wanted--

Yeah, that was a major mental roadblock of mine, until I decided that the solution is not to find the one best-fit compromise gun for a whole bunch of objectives, but to acquire several different guns, each best-fit for its primary use (target, self-defense, conceal carry, home defense...). Over time.

The one absolutely non-negotiable requirement for me, though, is not to buy anything I will not or cannot train with. Familiarity will be the best feature of any gun I may need to use in self-defense, not "stopping power" as measured by caliber. At least, that's what I think for now.

Is it easy to trade-in one gun for another at most dealers? I am worried about spending a lot of money on something then deciding a different gun would be better.

[Manuel Transmission]

Iggy is way ahead on this, but there are certain autos, particularly small models that have bad reputations for not functioning reliably, especially when breaking in. It is not necessarily brand, but specific pieces that can be ornery. Often it takes a trip back to the factory to get tweaked. In some cases the 'limp wrist' effect can aggravate the problem, especially with the lighter frames.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Is that a certain make/model where you would say " Friends don't let friends buy a Glock, etc?--

Not really; it's like Ford vs Chevy, mostly a matter of personal taste rather than any actual superiority of one over the other.
The same with firing mechanisms such as single action, double action, revolver, semi auto.
I can say generally that revolvers are more reliable.
An auto can be made nearly as reliable if it is high quality and is matched to the right ammo and is maintained properly.

Very cheap ones, especially autos, should be avoided unless you value your life at somewhat less than the $3-5oo price differential.

[narciso]

Maybe this will help, probably it's more like consulting Tobin's spirit guide;

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

[AliceH]

MT --beg or borrow a basic .22 rifle, especially a bolt action to shoot for a while.--

I can probably work out getting someone to let me borrow a .22 rifle, but I don't have a place to shoot a rifle. Yet.

Home/Self defense is not my first objective - firearms familiarity is.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--There is no way in hell that I will ever know more then you on anything, an that is a complement.--

Thanks J, but I know that to be untrue, especially as it applies to Missouri gun sales. The blizzard of varying state laws is unfathomable, which is why anyone should ask a local dealer or state firearms group to get the lowdown on local and state ordinances.

[AliceH]

Iggy: --Many women, and some men, have a hard time pulling the slide back on many semi auto pistols --

Yes - read that, too. I'm strong, but no amazon. The Ruger I linked to, though, uses a different mechanism - a bolt, not a slide.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Thanks Ignutz. I take your lack of a cogent response as an admission that you know I'm right.

Posted by: bunkerbuster | December 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM --

How did I know bubu would adopt a bunker mentality and ignore my invitation to educate himself?
Mustn't let any facts in to interfere with the mindless conjecture in that epistemicly closed walnut of his.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--The Ruger I linked to, though, uses a different mechanism - a bolt, not a slide.--

I actually used to have one. It is still a slide but it is contained within the frame. You pull on the two little ears at the back to cycle the slide.

I probably wan't too clear; you shouldn't have any problem with the Ruger or any other 22, and since it's just for plinking it doesn't matter.

Where it counts is with something like a .45 which will tend to be harder to pull back. The only place you need to worry about it is in a self defense gun when it really counts.
Otherwise it's just kind of a pain in the neck.

[Manuel Transmission]

I can probably work out getting someone to let me borrow a .22 rifle, but I don't have a place to shoot a rifle. Yet.

Most indoor ranges will let you shoot .22 rifles and the typical 50 ft distance is optimum. The only problem there is having large caliber noise distracting you before you are in your groove.

Not sure any more, but it use to be common to plink .22s in back yards in rural areas, without anyone making a fuss.

[AliceH]

--It is still a slide but it is contained within the frame. --

See? I have a lot to learn. Embarrassed to admit how long it took me to catch on that there's a difference between .22 and .22LR. I read up on rimfire v. centerfire, but though I understood some, it's all slipped away and I need to do it over. And probably several times.

When everything is new, there is no 'mental filing' system to retain the info. Baby steps are in order. And repetition.

[Manuel Transmission]

a difference between .22 and .22LR.

Actually in the .22 rimfire family there are three rounds: short, long and long rifle that can all be used interchangeably. The shorts were what they used in those carnival shooting galleries. For all intents, the .22 LR is the default choice and most readily available. There are now hotter loads also available, but not necessarily usable in older weapons. And finally there are magnum rounds that are still rimfire, but require special chambering. Ruger makes a revolver (or did) that you could swap out the cylinder to use both types of ammo.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--See? I have a lot to learn.--

Alice,
If I can figure it out, and the continued presence of all ten fingers and both eyes indicates I can, then anyone can.

[NKonIPAD]

I did not read the nyt article, but it would be criminal not to give the context of nyc murders. At the height of dinkinsism nyc had roughly 2000 murders per year. The % rates of young black perpetrators and victims was much higher then. What happened? Guiliani's smart policing and the crack trade waning. Oh and BTW nys/nyc had virtually the same gun restrictions then. The 'fetish' of gun laws and gun grabbing by the Left defines all facts. The nyt's own story proves that. The Left's gun law fetish is a sign of mental illness-- or are they simply fascists?