On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:16:38 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

prohibitions in the face of demand are a lost cause. Regarding gun
control, as I've shown and as the examples from other countries
demonstrate, breaking the flow of guns to criminals appears to be far
more effective, both in terms of crime and culture, than prohibiting gun
ownership. If you do it right, you can have a lot of guns in a society
with few consequential problems.

Gun control is really an issue of risk management.

No, gun control is an issue of power and control over the populace
relating -very- obscurely to safety and risk. We'd better insure icy
sidewalks and porches, slippery floors and showers and tubs, etc.
They do a whole lot more damage than guns do in decent citizens'
hands.

If you want to see a severe reduction in gun deaths, remove ALL gang
members from the population forever. And clamp down on the crazies.

I recall there are 586 accidental deaths from guns per year and there
are an estimated 700 million (legal) guns in the USA. That'd be some
cheapass insurance, at those odds, so the insurance companies wouldn't
touch it. And they couldn't insure the hundreds of millions of
-illegal- guns at all, which is where most of the homicides come from.


I have another
proposal: outsource gun control to the free market by requiring gun
insurance---just like car insurance, where nobody complains about the
tyrannical government limiting our right to move around freely.

Would the term "stuff it" be too severe here?

For those of you who still don't seem to "get it", IT'S NOT THE GUNS
WHICH CAUSE THE PROBLEM. IT'S THE CRIMINALS/GANGS/CRAZIES WHO USE GUNS
IMPROPERLY THAT IS THE TROUBLE. GUN CONTROL DOESN'T ADDRESS ANY OF
THAT.

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw