From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.184820.12218@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>*any-bloody-thing*, everybody seems to be able to live with it. This makes
>it a compromise.

No, that doesn't make it a compromise.  A compromise is a trade.  What
exactly are gun owners getting out of this deal?  (Is Mark sure that
gun controllers will think that they're getting something out of it?
After all, they've fought against background check proposals in the
past....)

>years? The suggestion is this: lots of comparisons of guns to cars. Fine. 

Silly comparisons, since the problems are completely different, but
let's ignore that.

>Create a national gun license, *EXACTLY* like a car license. It does *NOT*

Exactly like a car license?  In other words, it allows public use as
well?  In other words, it's a carry permit as well?

>imply that you even own one. You take a gun safety course, and pass a test,
>and have the background check *then*. Then, five minutes, or five years
>later, you walk into a store, show them your license, buy the gun and an

Does this preempt existing local controls in NY, CA, and so on?  (My
CA driver's license is good in NY.)  If it does, the gun control lobby
will fight you tooth and nail.  (I watched gun controllers kill such a
compromise just last year in the Senate; the fatal blow was struck by
Gore.)  On the other hand, preemption is something that gun-owners
want, so that's an easy way to turn the proposal into a compromise
from their point of view.

BTW - Since gun controllers do prefer waiting periods to background
checks, it isn't clear what they'd think that they get out of this
proposal, but that just demonstrates what they're interested in
getting.  Given the actual proposals of gun controllers, as opposed to
their PR, it isn't clear that there's any way to accomodate both gun
controllers and gun-owners.  While Mark keeps saying "no one has
advocated banning guns", he's wrong - the gun control organizations do
so all the time and their specific proposals (such as the Brady Bill)
do so.  He's free to disagree with them, but they do exist.

>insurance policy (or show proof of insurance, the purpose of which is to
>take care of victims of either your gun, or part goes into afund to care
>for victims of uninsured guns),

I note that cocaine has medicinal uses.  Should they be taxed to pay
for illegal uses?  Precisely why should target shooters pay for the
actions of bank robbers?  After all, we don't charge commuters for the
actions of people who use getaway cars and since Mark likes the car
analogy....

I suspect that mark thinks that the insurance cost would be
significant.  It turns out that it's a "no cost" extra on every
renter's insurance and homeowners insurance policy I've ever seen.
Insurance companies don't think that breaking out gun-liability is
worthwhile, and they've got the numbers.  Of course, that insurance
only covers my actions, just like my auto insurance does.

BTW - One doesn't have to show evidence of insurance to purchase a
car.  One might have to for public use, in some states, but we don't
expect that pool of money to pay for criminal use.

Oh, and what is the penalty?  I note that real criminals can be
charged with real crimes which have severe sentences, so a lax
gun-violation penalty will never be applied to a real criminal.  On
the other hand, there's no social benefit, and significant social
costs, to imposing severe penalties on otherwise law-abiding people.
Since there's no appropriate penalty, maybe Mark's trying to penalize
the wrong thing....

>No licensing of the firearm itself. Howzzat, guys?

Is it bad form to point out that Mark's proposal has no tangible
benefits?  (Crooks don't buy at retail now, so the proposal can't weed
out crooks and the accident problems are in the noise and are also not
susceptible to Mark's program for other reasons, detailed in Kleck's
"Point Blank".)  Since Mark isn't satisfied with that experience, why
does he think he'll be satisfied with the results of his program?

We've got a violence problem because we've decided to have a drug war
and have certain social policies.  The only thing we can do by dinking
around with gun laws is waste resources that could be usefully spent
solving the problem.

Note that we can implement the most useful half of Mark's proposal
tomorrow.  All we have to do is stamp "ineligible" on the state-issued
ID cards (like driver's licenses) for felons and the like.  The
records are on-line and there's no cost to adding this check, unlike
Mark's proposal.  (We could let people declare themselves ineligible
as well.)  One of the interesting things about this version is that
gun controllers have publically opposed it.  Does Mark?

-andy
--