Re 477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings. Zero Action From Congress.

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Michael Robertson <mr () michaelrobertson com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re 477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings. Zero Action From Congress.
> Date: October 3, 2017 at 5:30:22 PM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Cc: ip <ip () listbox com>
>
> This is a rational economic theory until one applies it to the real world. The US govt spends tens of billions trying 
> to keep drugs out of people's hands unless they have a license. It is wildly unsuccessful. Illicit drugs are 
> widespread. Worse it creates a lucrative black market which generates violence and property crimes which may exceed 
> the harm of humans doing intoxicants. What data is there to believe it would be any different with guns? 
>
> -- MR
>
> OnRad.io <http://onrad.io/1> - Click this to hear the #1 song on radio!
>
> 858-344-6911
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com <mailto:farber () gmail com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: "Savage, Christopher" <ChrisSavage () dwt com <mailto:ChrisSavage () dwt com>>
> > Date: October 3, 2017 at 3:32:41 PM EDT
> > To: "dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>" <dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>>
> > Subject: RE: [IP] Re 477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings. Zero Action From Congress.
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> >  
> >
> > For IP if you wish.
> >
> >  
> >
> > It has always seemed to me that focusing with 20-20 hindsight on how to have prevented this or that horror show 
> > misses the point.  There are 300+ million people, and 300+ million guns, in the US.  Even a tiny ill-motivated (or 
> > mentally ill) fraction of those numbers can do huge damage.  Anticipating and preventing every threat scenario is 
> > impossible.
> >
> >  
> >
> > My preferred solution is mandatory liability insurance for owners of guns.  The manufacturer would be liable for any 
> > damage done by a gun it makes, until it sells the gun to a dealer.  The dealer is then liable until the gun is sold 
> > to a customer, who would be required to get insurance.  The market would quickly recognize that the appropriate 
> > premium for a hunter in Montana buying a deer rifle would logically be much lower than for a 23-year-old college 
> > drop-out living in mom’s basement and seeking to buy his third semi-automatic weapon.  The premiums would be set at 
> > a level to cover the cost of harm from uninsured guns, which, presumably, would fall over time.
> >
> >  
> >
> > Assuming economic incentives work, this would tend to lower the incidence of violent events by making it (too) 
> > expensive for the most risky people to acquire guns.  It would also provide funding for the harm done to victims.
> >
> >  
> >
> > Chris S.
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> > From: Dave Farber [mailto:farber () gmail com <mailto:farber () gmail com>] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 10:37 AM
> > To: ip
> > Subject: [IP] Re 477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings. Zero Action From Congress.
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () gmail com <mailto:dcrocker () gmail com>>
> > Date: October 3, 2017 at 9:58:46 AM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>, ip <ip () listbox com <mailto:ip () listbox com>>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] 477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings. Zero Action From Congress.
> >
> > What action should Congress take?
> >
> > Consider this question carefully because as important as it is that this issue have action taken, it needs to be 
> > constructive.  It needs not only to seem to be relevant, it needs to actually be effective, will few or no 
> > collateral damage.
> >
> > As each of us makes assertions about what action will be effective, we need to ask what basis we have for the 
> > belief, beyond logic; many logical things are not actually useful.  So where is the fact-based, objective analysis 
> > of concrete experience that demonstrates the efficacy?
> >
> > A person takes a gun and kills a lot of people.  Logic says we need to do a better job of detecting such people.  
> > Logic says that we need to control access to some/all guns.  But review the history of such a person and often we 
> > will find few or no signs that point to their action.  For people who do appear to have a history of some aberrant 
> > behavior, note how many others have a similar history but do not take this sort of action.  Shall they become 
> > collateral damage?
> >
> > So how do we detect those who are a real threat, as distinct form those who have a similar history but aren't, or 
> > those who have no distinctive history?  We need to try to be very pragmatic about the choices that are made, 
> > especially concerning legislation.  Legislation can have its own social downsides...
> >
> > d/
> >
> > -- 
> > Dave Crocker
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > bbiw.net <http://bbiw.net/>
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>  
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/25077172-72473cf8> | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your 
> Subscription | Unsubscribe Now 
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20171003171919:82662AD0-A880-11E7-9C9C-E7DB2BC9199A>    
> <http://www.listbox.com/>




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20171003174633:50508514-A884-11E7-8528-B15DEA2561E7
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com