patrick.net

Even IF the moon landing was a hoax, the effects would be rather harmless.

On the other hand, "global warming" theorists purport to massively change the political landscape of the world.

I was working over the weekend (home stretch to tax filing) and one client told me that the last ice age may have been triggered when Hudson Bay (formerly seperate from the ocean) began spilling over and lowered salinity levels, which shut down thermal conveyors, which sent us into the ice age.

Sounds plausible enough.

And in the Bay Area, regular folks are not likely to be issued concealed carry permits.

Harm,

Reporting the gun as stolen would relieve you of liability for crimes. Loaning your gun to your drinking buddy who then shoots his wife and kids wouldn't. Keeping a bunch of guns in a poorly secured garage that you never check on and having the local kids break in, steal them, and wind up shooting themselves... attractive nuisance.

I also realize many of the laws are in effect. I think a clear federal gun law would be very helpful in it. And like I said, I don't think it should keep law abiding citizens from owning virtually anything they want to, provided they register and license it and keep it out of the hands of hoodlums.

And as for the car, if you leave the keys in the car, the windows down, and don't bother to report it as stolen and it winds up running over some old lady two weeks later, then yes, you should lose the car. You're not being responsible.

Guns are VERY dangerous in the wrong hands, even more so than cars, nailguns, baseball bats, knives, etc. If you've got them properly stored, they'd be very hard to steal, but not impossible. The prosecuters would have to show you were irresponsible with the storage of said guns for you to be liable. This wouldn't bite most gun owners on the ass. It'd bite the guy who sold his gun to a thug for more than it was worth because he could. The gun would still be registered to that guy, and he'd be liable. Or he'd report the gun 'stolen', and it won't take more than a few stolen gun reports from the same guy to figure out who's selling guns to criminals.

People should be responsible for their actions, including their irresponsibility in allowing access to their weapons by people other than themselves.

I should have been a little clearer on that point in the original post, but it was already a mini novel.

Guns are VERY dangerous in the wrong hands, even more so than cars, nailguns, baseball bats, knives, etc.

Wrong people are even more dangerous, with or without guns.

People should be responsible for their actions, including their irresponsibility in allowing access to their weapons by people other than themselves.

I agree. But only if they do not exercise reasonable caution.

Answering Astrid's earlier question

Can we be reasonable and try to[...]

When it comes to gun liberties, no. We cannot be reasonable. The problem with this issue is that it has been exploited by cynical politicians who lack any real ability to lead, so they pick this and a few other emotionally charged issues to polarize and paralyze us. Most people are "in the middle" on this and the other scream-fest issues. In fact, I'll go so far to say anyone who is *entirely* on one side or the other is very likely irrational and most probably suffers some form of mental illness.

But spineless politicians masquerading as leaders hate compromise and cooperation. They don't want to see reasonable, long-lasting solutions. These things put them out of work, and make it hard for them to get re-elected, because without their divisive rhetoric the electorate can readily see them for the blithering morons they usually are.

Without the spontaneous emergence of real leaders this issue and others will not be solved. Unfortunately most people with real leadership potential avoid politics like the plague, and instead find their calling in private commerce, professional sports, the military, transnational NGOs, hospital trauma wards, etc.

Wrong people are even more dangerous, with or without guns.

Let's see a single pissed off guy strangle 31 people to death on a college campus in one morning, then I'll aggree with you. Without guns, you have to space that kind of strangle action out over a decade. On the bright side, you get to send witty letters to the newspapers while doing it!

Gun control will not stop tragedies like that entirely, but it might make them a little less frequent.

And I was trying to suggest that reasonable caution should be sufficient to shield you from liabilty of stolen weapons. I'd just like to see irresponsible gun ownership liable, even if the only liability is that you are no longer allowed to own guns for a certain period, or forever for repeat offenders.

Back again to housing. The monthly homebuilder sentiment survey is down again, due to the subprime mess:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/16/real_estate/home_builder_index.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007041614

Not surprising news, but worth noting nonetheless.

I hope I won't be the last person to point out that several multiples of what happened at Virginia Tech today happens in Iraq everyday.

This is not to minimize the suffering of the students and families there (I know people who went there) but to point out we have wrought in Iraq.

@Randy H,

Well said, sir.

Let’s see a single pissed off guy strangle 31 people to death on a college campus in one morning, then I’ll aggree with you.

Perhaps not strangle... what about poison?

Or fire?

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

This disgruntled person "killed at least 198 people and injured at least 147." He did not have a gun.

Let's ban fire!

Here is a little experiment, if anyone wishes to participate with me:

Imagine, in light of this tragedy "they" come to you, tap you on the shoulder, and grant you a one-time offer to immediately become a national political leader.

But there's a catch. You can't just go solve this issue and then quit. You have to abandon your current career for at least the next 15-20 years. You have to open your closets wide, or alternately bury away everything damning. You will have to begin campaigning to stay in office, just like all the others. In other words, you have to be a full-time, earnest, real politician. But you are special. You can also be a leader. Assuming you believe in yourself and your principles, would you take up this calling?

I will go on record as to say I wouldn't touch this offer even if I could expect to be well paid.

Peter P is practicing sophistry again. He's very good at it.

I hope I won’t be the last person to point out that several multiples of what happened at Virginia Tech today happens in Iraq everyday.

Astrid, this is why I think humanity sucks.

Peter P is practicing sophistry again.

Error 209. Please contact Jukubot Industries.

Do you want to send an error report?

YES NO

Assuming you believe in yourself and your principles, would you take up this calling?

In a heartbeat.

Usually I don't like to debate gun control but I went to Virginia Tech and I am really saddened by what happened.

Pro-gun supporters always trot out the "guns don't kill people, people do argument". I think that's very naive, if you are a strong supporters of the second amendment, you should acknowledged that random shootings is then something that we must live with. Given the fact that we have no money to spend on social services, finding out lunatics before they commit atrocities is not a practical propostition.

When it comes a time that more and more people start packing heat (e.g., Florida), that will be the day that I get out of dodge, you might have a very nostalgic version of the wild west, but I think more people got shot in the back then what they portrayed in old western movies.

skibum,

Tom Sieders (NAHB counterpart to DL at NAR) really doesn't have any business passing the buck to subprime lenders. Again, it's the other way around. The Boom necessitated the use of flaky loans, not vice versa.

Toward the flailing end, it's true, they DID become one and the same.

@SFBB,

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think we're as far apart on gun issues as I first thought.

The point where we do disagree is in the liability for other people's actions. I think your approach could expose basically responsible, legal gun owners to criminal prosecution and/or civil liabilities they don't really deserve. This is a very slippery slope. Some possible scenarios to consider:

--You've kept your weapons locked up in "secure" location but haven't checked them in a while. Someone manages to break into your gun safe or just steals the entire safe, and you don't notice the theft for a while. Or it happend while you're on extended vacation. Should you still be held liable, just because you've exceeded some arbitrary time limit?

--You've loaned your hunting rifle to a buddy (who has no previous criminal/mental history) who claims he wants to use it to go hunt deer, but then uses it mow down wife & kids. Are you responsible? Grey area perhaps, but you did not pull the trigger or cause your friend to snap and murder people.

but I think more people got shot in the back then what they portrayed in old western movies.

"You... you shot him in the back!"

"His back was to me."

Lou Gosset Jr. made the best Western Hero in "El Diablo".

Harm,

That's why you shouldn't loan out your guns. Just like you shouldn't loan out your car or your house to your buddy, unless you really really trust him or her.

Michael Lewis weighs in on all the "victims" out there, including the investors.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=akbLYcPz6UNM

Amazingly, in the wake of the Internet boom and bust, some meaningful number of American investors fails to ask why they are being offered fantastic returns on their investments. Paid six times the risk-free rate on the notes and bonds of a subprime lender called American Business Financial Services (a name that's a sign of bad things to come, if ever there was one), they don't wonder why it is that their investments yield such spectacular returns. Instead, they become outraged when American Business Financial Services collapses, then sue the Wall Street investment banks who sold them the bonds.

HARM:

When I get around to my sail-around-the-world trip, I'd be very happy to have a chain gun on board. ...and I could name it Reason... Pirate activity seems sufficient in some areas to justify this, so I'd really like for that option to be kept open.

SFBB:

This guy seems to know what he was doing. I'd expect him to get a similar body count even without using a gun. Fortunately, most people who decide to start shooting aren't particularly competent, which keeps the body counts low.

astrid,

I agree and I don't loan mine out for that reason. Even so, I don't think the gun owner should be fully liable for what his idiot/psycho buddy does. Some limited liability ok (like losing your gun privileges for a while), but holding other people responsible for an adult's criminal actions is un-American IMHO.

Given the fact that we have no money to spend on social services, finding out lunatics before they commit atrocities is not a practical propostition.

I believe reinforcing family values will help. There are just too many broken families out there.

Children should be able to hold their parents civilly liable if they divorce.

This guy seems to know what he was doing. I’d expect him to get a similar body count even without using a gun.

You have got to be sh*ting me.

I think, in addition to only loaning my car to someone I trust, I generally make sure they have a valid DL as well. So, I'll vote for some rigorous safety classes to be required before getting a "gun license".

What CB said. Maybe with poison gas or a really big bomb (much more challenging technically), but not by bat, arrow, strangulation, etc.

Definitely not by strangulation, and he'd have to change tactics. It is hard to do crowd control without a gun, but as long as he kept on the move and was somewhat discreet (yeah, as much as one can be), I think he could bring up the numbers.

HARM,

That's why jury trials would be needed for a lot of these. If it was a buddy you'd know for years and thought was a decent guy and who did occasionally go hunting, had taken gun safely classes, just didn't own one himself because he only went very occasionally... that'd different than you having a few beers with him while he complains about his wife cheating on him and now leaving him for some other guy but hey, lemme borrow your gun to go duck hunting tommorrow.

Definately grey areas. The first one you'd hope the owner had no legal reprucussions. I'm sure he felt bad enough. The second one... well... I'd say loaning the gun was pretty irresponsible.

You CAN be found liable for loaning your car to your drunk buddy who kills people in many states.

The hope for the liablity is that it wouldn't hurt the responsible owners too much, and would remove irresponsible owners from the pool while encouraging lazy but otherwise responsible owners to secure things responsibly.

In my own family, my dad kept all of the guns locked up in a closet that he had the only key to the padlock. One day, my dad was cleaning the hunting rifles, ran down stairs to get some coffee, and my older brother snuck the .22 pistol out of the closet while it was unlocked. My dad didn't notice when he put the guns back. A few days later, I was snooping in my brother's room and found the gun under his matteress. Loaded, chambered, safety off. The gun went off, and the bullet went through the super thin wall of that room and buried itself in the wall of the adjoining room, right above my mom's sewing machine, right where she usually sat when sewing.

We were all VERY very lucky, and my dad grounded my brother for a month (and my mom used the leather belt on him), gave me a lecture on never touching an unfamilliar gun, even if I thought it was a bb gun (which I did at first), grounded me for a weekend for 'not having any common sense' and for going through my brother's room, put a new, heavier padlock on the door and never went to grab coffee leaving ANYTHING out. He also started locking the ammunition up seperately from the guns. Their current house has a very secure gun closet with multiple locks.

Even with careful parents, mistakes and accidents can happen. This was before we'd gone through the gun safety course for hunting as we were still too young, but our dad had taught us how to shoot a bb gun, and we had a little bb-gun range we could set up outside. He kept the bb gun in the gun closet, and would get it out so we could play supervised by him.

The people that bug me are the people who buy it for 'home protection' and keep the gun unlocked, in a drawer, with the ammo right next to it. And they could stand to have a little liabilty heaped on them, imho.

This guy seems to know what he was doing. I’d expect him to get a similar body count even without using a gun.

You have got to be sh*ting me.

Looking at some of the daily news from Iraq, it appears that there's a growing knowledge base on how to create incidents sans guns with high body counts there.

That’s why jury trials would be needed for a lot of these.

Now, I'm all in favor of jury trials (America rocks!) but based on what all my coworkers who have served on juries have told me, I'm not quite sure I want a jury trial. :(

In Baltimore, there was a famous case where a jury let a pretty obvious murderer go free because they wanted to go home early for the long weekend.

Random fact of the day: eburbed has never been asked to serve on a jury.

@eburbed,

I've been called several times but have always managed to get out of it. Mrs. D on the other hand got it over with and now they don't bug her any more.

When it comes a time that more and more people start packing heat (e.g., Florida), that will be the day that I get out of dodge, you might have a very nostalgic version of the wild west, but I think more people got shot in the back then what they portrayed in old western movies.

I really do see that being the future of America though.

Eventually, we will vote to eliminate fire/police/emt - those are social services that are a waste of taxpayer dollars. As Thatcher said: there's no society - just individual families.

So, those who want to be safe (and can afford it) will live in gated communities with private patrols (these exist already), and they will be shuttled to private school or malls in armored SUVs on terrible roads. If a fire breaks out, that's fine because the community has a fire crew to handle that - perhaps an urgent care center as well. No need to worry about the "bad" people.

In the end, there's no need for this "public" stuff. Public just means "The People's" and as we all know, that's communism.

But, in the event that you do want to go out into the public for some bizarre reason, you simply get your kevlar on and hop into the armored SUV.

Who can manage your safety better? The evil wasteful corrupt government? Or small businesses and families?

Ironically, in the future, we'll be looking at Mexico City of today for ideas - since most of what I described apparently happens there already today.

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

Let’s ban fire!

That's why we need to ban mass transit. It attracts terrorism.

Looking at some of the daily news from Iraq, it appears that there’s a growing knowledge base on how to create incidents sans guns with high body counts there.

What's your point? Hardware stores have policy about spray paints and many drug stores have meds locked up so that people don't buy them in bulk to cook meth. The difference is that there is no second amendment protecting the rights of ownership for these items. If a country collectively believed gun ownership is important (which seems to be the case here in the US), that's fine with me. But just accept the fact that these horrible tragedies will continue to happen.

I had a lawyer for a roommate, and she said people with technical degrees almost NEVER get on jury trials. Lawyers don't like critical thinking in the jury, it's harder to sway them with "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" arguments.

eBurbed: have you read Snow Crash?

skibum,

Thank you for trying to focus the group. I am guessing that when the NY Times writes an article that (in a backhanded manner) says you would have been better off renting for the past two years, the JBRs declare victory (and move on to tatoos and guns). Anybody here with the guts to short Wells "high LTV HELOCs" Fargo?

File this under, we will avoid foreclosure at any cost...
One of the newest approaches: the "Mod Squad," a roving 50-person team of problem-solvers who work for EMC Mortgage in Texas, a subsidiary of Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns. EMC services about 500,000 loans nationwide, with $78 billion in outstanding balances.

Named after a hit TV series from the late 1960s and early '70s, the Mod Squad consists of experts in loan modifications -- custom-crafted solutions for borrowers who no longer can afford their mortgages at current rates and terms. The object is to search for changes in the loan requirements that will permit the borrowers to remain in their houses, pay down their loans and avoid foreclosure.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/15/REG4LP8FQ01.DTL

Back on housing for a sec: California NODs past previous (1996) peak.