text:
FYI that is not the recommended solution for underscan. Can you try the solution Matthew posted ?
The latest (8.11) Fglrx drivers are underscanning with my FullHD TV, but only with 60 and 50Hz. Frequencies 30, 25 and 24 are working as they should.
Now I can use aticonfig --set-dispattrib=tmds2i,positionX:0 ...sizeX:1920 ...positionY:0 ...sizeY=1080 to fix underscan with 60 and 50Hz.
That would be fine (since those settings will be saved to amdpcsdb), but if I have set those attributes and I change frequency to those lower ones my X crashes (or propably Fglrx drivers).
And since current Fglrx drivers also save used mode to amdpcsdb, X crashes on all reboots (until I modify amdpcsdb to 60Hz mode or remove position and size attributes).
My guess is that "Display scaling to HDTV timings/resolutions." is not working correctly if I have set attributes manually and it does not work with 60 and 50Hz modes (at least on my Toshiba TV).
Is there a way to disable automatic scaling or is this issue going to be fixed anytime soon?
I'm using Ubuntu 8.04 (amd64).
FYI that is not the recommended solution for underscan. Can you try the solution Matthew posted ?
Last edited by bridgman; 11-27-2008 at 12:46 PM.
If you see the next message after MTippet message, you can see that I answered that and told that it worked. Unfortunately it does absolutely nothing with 8.11 version (it worked in every version before that).
That's why I decided to try the old solution.
OK, I'll ask around and see if I can find out what changed...
Thanks, I appreciate it.
On basic use this is not a bad issue since this is my media pc and I rather keep default rate as 25Hz since that's correct for rate when I watch TV. Unfortunately rate resets to 60Hz when it stops sending signal (but running xset dpms force standby|suspend|off does not reset frequency to 60, even though they all stop signaling).
That is one thing that would be nice to be "fixed". Returning to the same frequency that was before stopping signal.
Am I really the only one who is having this issue?
I tried new 8.12 version and it seems to be bit worse than 8.11 since 25 Hz is also having black bars. Now only 30Hz and 24Hz seems to fill the full screen. This is very irritating because it seems that there is no way to fix this problem.
I'm having exact the same problem with fglrx 8.12! Is there any solution yet?
OK, once again I need to put this thread on top.
New 9.1 version of drivers managed to break next working frequency (24Hz). 30Hz is still working and not causing black borders (just like on previous version). I really don't understand how hard this can be since on every new version of drivers one new frequency has broken.
"aticonfig --set-pcs-val=MCIL,DigitalHDTVDefaultUnderscan,0" does nothing.
Bridgman promised to ask about this and maybe he did, but no solution seems to be available. This issue seems to be available with more people than just me (this is not the only thread that talked about this) so should this at least be listed on the issue list on release notes?
I guess that 9.2 will break even the last 30Hz mode.


text:
Hepatitis C (cont.)Medical Author:
Mary D. Nettleman, MD, MS, MACP
Mary D. Nettleman, MD, MS, MACPMary D. Nettleman, MD, MS, MACP is the Chair of the Department of Medicine at Michigan State University. She is a graduate of Vanderbilt Medical School, and completed her residency in Internal Medicine and a fellowship in Infectious Diseases at Indiana University. Medical Author:
Suresha Rajaguru, MD
Medical Editor:
Jay W. Marks, MD
Jay W. Marks, MDJay W. Marks, MD, is a board-certified internist and gastroenterologist. He graduated from Yale University School of Medicine and trained in internal medicine and gastroenterology at UCLA/Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. In this Article
What is the role of a liver biopsy in the management of chronic hepatitis C?Blood tests can tell the clinician whether HCV is present but cannot tell the level of liver damage that has occurred. Liver biopsy allows the clinician to determine how much inflammation and scarring is present by examining a small sample of liver tissue. Liver biopsy gives information useful in the decision to initiate therapy. Significant liver damage is a risk factor for other conditions such as hepatocellular carcinoma and esophageal varices. Liver biopsy may be recommended when the clinician is uncertain about whether to begin treatment or wishes to monitor the response within the liver to therapy. It is possible to measure liver stiffness with transient elastography, a non-invasive test. Stiffer livers mean that advanced liver fibrosis may be present. However such tests do not completely replace the need for liver biopsy in routine clinical practice. Several batteries of blood tests also have been found to be useful in diagnosing cirrhosis; however, like transient elastography, these tests have not completely replaced the need for liver biopsy. What is the treatment for hepatitis C infection?Reader Stories
Hepatitis C does not always require treatment. There are six genotypes of hepatitis C and they may respond differently to treatment. Careful screening is necessary before starting the treatment to determine the most appropriate approach for the patient. Combination antiviral therapy with interferon injection and oral ribavirin has been the mainstay of hepatitis C treatment. Unfortunately, interferon is not widely available globally, it is not always well tolerated, some virus genotypes respond better to interferon than others, and many people who take interferon do not finish their treatment. This means that while hepatitis C is generally considered to be a curable disease, for many people this is not a reality. Scientific advances have led to the development of new antiviral drugs for hepatitis C, which may be more effective and better tolerated than existing therapies. Two of these newer therapeutic agents, telaprevir (Incivek - this drug was withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer in August 2014) and boceprevir (Victrelis), have recently been licensed in some countries where they are used in addition to interferon and ribavirin. Much needs to be done to ensure that these advances lead to greater access and treatment globally. The most recently approved oral therapeutic agents for the treatment of hepatitis C are sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) and simeprevir (Olysio). These can be used in combination with ribavirin and interferon, but with simeprevir it is possible to eliminate the interferon. The effectiveness of treatment with these combinations of agents is extremely high (greater than 90%), and it now is possible to use treatment that is all oral. Medically Reviewed by a Doctor on 2/2/2014 Patient CommentsViewers share their comments
Hepatitis C - Diagnosis
Question: What kinds of tests did you have to diagnose your hepatitis C?
Hepatitis C - Symptoms
Question: What symptoms did you experience with hepatitis C?
Hepatitis C - Treatment
Question: What methods of treatment, including medication, have you received for your hepatitis C?
Hepatitis C - Treatment Side Effects Experience
Question: Describe the side effects associated with treatment for your hepatitis C.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Beginner's training for Office 2007
Sometimes it feels as if computers can do anything — except tell you how to use them. And there's so much to learn: new programs, new versions of programs, and new uses for programs that people expect you to know already.
Get free training
Many times, you're on your own. Would it help if somebody explained? At your desk? Slowly, with pictures? And with exercises you could do at your own speed? For free?
Use the links in this article to get free Training courses on Office Online that will clue you in. There are more than 150 courses at Office Online, but these are good ones to start with if you're starting from scratch. We've also included demos in these listings. Each demo is a short movie that shows you how to do something using an Office program.
Using Office 2003? Check out Beginner's training for Office 2003.
Find courses and demos about
Access 2007
Courses |
Up to speed with Access 2007
Demos |
Meet the Navigation Pane
Excel 2007
Office 2007
Office Communicator 2007
Courses |
OneNote 2007
Courses |
Demos |
What is OneNote?
Outlook 2007
PowerPoint 2007
Project 2007
Demos |
Publisher 2007
Courses |
SharePoint 2007
Visio 2007
Word 2007
How to get more training
You can see all the courses available at the Training home page. Whether you're trying to catch up or keep up, there's plenty of help close at hand. And if you don't see what you want, please ask for it. "Send Us Your Comments" — it's under Support and Feedback on the left side of that page.
Office Online requires Internet access. How do you know whether you have Internet access? If you're reading this, you do. For times when you aren't connected to the Internet, you can download shorter Microsoft PowerPoint versions of training courses to study on your own computer.


text:
Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack
geekgoddess wrote:The Goddess cuddles (((((Tony and Shadow))))) and says thank you so much for the warm welcome back.
And just like that, she feels like she never left. <3
How is everyone's new year going? The Goddess had a good restful week-long break - it was much-needed, and she feels refreshed and energized. She certainly hopes the effects will last more than a week!
You know what she wants, among other things? She wants a little bit of Amazing to strike each and every one of us.
geekgoddess wrote:She watched old episodes of The Simpsons over the break and will leave a couple of memorable Homer moments here:
"How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 13 guests


text:
What is One World Week?
One World Week is a Development Education Charity*. Each year, "The Week" is an opportunity for people from diverse backgrounds to come together to learn about global justice, to spread that learning and to use it to take action for justice locally and globally.
Donations urgently needed
* Charity No: 1107762
Call For Climate Action
For the love of each other, this spring, we are standing with over 100 organisations to call for climate action for the sake of all the things that matter most.
For the love of the food on our plates. For the love of our global neighbours. For the Love of Somerset, the Arctic and the Great Barrier Reef. For the love of country walks and Britain's beautiful seasons.
For the love of all the things we care about, we're taking climate change seriously. And we're not alone.
It's time to stand up, for the love of each other, and demand action.
Will you share what you love? (www.fortheloveof.org.uk)
For the love of video
Press Releases
Recently Added Resources
Quotes about "Living Differently" (and each of the 3 elements of the theme) - use them to start discussions, in press releases, as talking points in any event. (added 14 Oct 2014)
Resource leaflets "Finding out more about ethical investment: website links" (Word .docx) (contributed byPhilip Hayllar, Portsmouth OWW Oct 2014)
Living Differently - Featuring food/a meal in your event? These resources from CAFOD could enhance the menu! (amended Oct. 2014)
'Living Differently -a selection of videos to inform and entertain' (updated Oct. 2014)
wordsearch:'The world we want'. Download and print the search and answers (two word.docs) - suitable for use with the 'Living Differently' theme
2014 Worship resources for the "Using money ethically" element of the "Living Differently" theme (added 13 October 2014)
2014 - A worship resource from CAFOD - Call of Creation - A PowerPoint for reflection (added 25 September 2014)
2014 Worship Anthology for "Living Differently" plus supplementary material (added 21 Sept. 2014)
Faith and School resources for 2014: School Assemblies on Living Differently(added 18 Sept. 2014)
Press Release Template for publicising your event 2014 (word.doc) (issued 30 Sep.2014)
Publicity materials for 2014 'Living Differently' (pdf)
Evaluation form for organisers to report back to OWW - 2014 (added September 2014)
Working with Others -in 2014 - Ideas for events and links to OWW Partners and their resources (updatedvariously from July -September 2014)
Event participants feedback form (for organisers to collect feedback from participants at OWW events) (word.doc)
2014 - a video to trigger ideas to help you start planning your OWW events
"Living Differently" downloadable leaflet for OWW 2014 (pdf) - added 29 May 2014
Introductory PowerPoint about organising local interfaith/inclusive OWW events in 2014 (updated 28 May 2014)
2014 Theme summary: A4 with 2xA5 single sided leaflets to down load and print for use at planning meetings as an alternative to the full annual leaflet. (added 23 April 2014)
Pledges to help you "Aspire be more" word.doc (added 1 Oct 2013)
OWW Guide and links to other websites for resources relevant to environmental issues (updated Sept 2013)- (word doc)
Funding Opportunities - Aug. 2013
We've made every effort to make it accessible and standards compliant whilst also providing a useable and useful hub for everyone involved in One World Week activities. Please let us know what you think.


text:
We're sorry, but we currently have no tickets available for this event.
Check out our full selection of Public Speaking tickets or sign up to be notified when tickets for this event are available.
Bill Clinton Ticket and Seating Information
Vivid Seats not only offers a great selection of Bill Clinton tickets, but also offers a 100% buyer guarantee that your Bill Clinton tickets will be valid and delivered to you on time. The guarantee also assures you your payment information will be secure in our protected server, and if the event is canceled for any reason you will be given a full refund. If you do not initially see the cheap Bill Clinton tickets for the dates you want, please check back often as our inventory is ever changing. Once you do find the Bill Clinton tickets you want, simply click on the Bill Clinton dates to purchase your public speaking event tickets. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your Bill Clinton ticket order, Vivid Seats boasts unparalleled customer service, so give the customer service line a call at 866-848-TIXX.


text:
Top Definition
A video series on Youtube with a very slim storyline but a lot of randomness. The slim storyline is that in the year 169X, a mad scientist hacked into Nintendo's new gaming system and sucked the world into one big video game. The rest of the story is pretty much random ideas pulled out of the blue. An elete team (who are also known as TWD) use these random ideas to attempt to save the world.
"Have you seen the new video of Random 169?"
di Zakk Kang
23 giugno 2009


text:
Photo © Israel Antiquities Authority |
Funerary gift: bottle
Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem Iron Age II, late 7th - early 6th century BCE Pottery H: 7.5; Diam: 5 cm Israel Antiquities Authority Accession number: IAA 1980-1135 |
Burial in Judah took place mainly in rock-hewn family burial caves, which were used for several generations. The bodies were laid to rest on benches carved along the walls. When their flesh had decomposed, the bones and funerary gifts were removed to a repository pit dug in the floor of the room, leaving the benches free for the interment of new bodies. Digital presentation of this object was made possible by: The Ridgefield Foundation, New York, in memory of Henry J. and Erna D. Leir |


text:
Stay in touch no matter what device you use
Stay close to your best friends with group chat. It's great for making weekend plans, starting a book group and sharing cat photos. Meow.
Take collaboration to another level. Share screens and create together. Send photos and files of any size and keep the ideas flowing.
Reach out to family and friends worldwide. With super low rates and no peak times you really can call home the moment you start to miss it.
We all love getting friends and family in one place for regular catch ups. And now everyone has group video calling for free, it's easier than ever.
Join them and stay in touch with Skype no matter what device you use.
However you want to say it, you can do it for free with Skype
Video calls
Group video calls
Voice calls
Instant messaging
Screen sharing
File sharing
By using this site you agree to the use of cookies for analytics, personalised content and ads.


text:
five, six and seven inch zippers |
Thank you for stopping by,
Relevant Links:
A Handmade Christmas - Part 1
Christmas Crafting
A Cherry Christmas Quilt
five, six and seven inch zippers |
Thank you! I am a beginner and the second thing I have ever made is a zip top makeup bag with french seams. I know, I'm mad! I was having a hard time getting the seams close to the zip neat but these little tabs look so much neater. Yours look super-cute - your choices of fabric is always so stylish!
I have been wanting to make zippered pouches the last few days and knew there were a slew of tutorials out there. Thank you for doing the work of parin it down to a couple of good ones for me. :) Your pouches look beautiful. I long for Echino prints and now have a great idea for how to use them. Merry Christmas!!
Thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment! Comments are published after review.
Feel free to ask questions and I will answer either here or by email, as is appropriate.


text:
Home > KidsHealth Home
Kids Health Cart Wheels MagazineCoping ClubView All Videos
I'm thinking about suicide. With what is going on with my life, it seems to be the only choice I have. How can I stop? - Jake*
If you have been thinking about suicide, get help right away.
When things are so bad that suicide seems like the only choice, it's a sign that depression, discouragement, or despair are strong. These feelings — plus a difficult life situation — can make it seem like there's no way out, and maybe even that suicide is the only choice.
Feeling depressed and trapped can make you feel like you have no other option when you really do have other choices. That's why you need support from someone who knows how to help people work through tough situations. A psychologist, psychiatrist, or other trained behavioral health professional can give you that support.
But how do you find one?
Talk to someone you trust as soon as you can, preferably a parent or other caring, responsible adult in your family. If you can't talk to a parent or relative, talk to someone like a coach, school counselor, religious leader, or teacher you trust. Start the conversation by saying, "I've been having a tough time lately, and I've been thinking about suicide. I need your help." Ask the person to help you find a counselor to speak with about your situation and your feelings.
If you need help finding someone to talk to right now, or if you are thinking about suicide, call a suicide crisis line (such as 1-800-SUICIDE) or a local suicide helpline. These toll-free lines are staffed by trained professionals who can help you without ever knowing your name or seeing your face. The calls are confidential. If you feel you're in immediate danger of hurting yourself, you can also go to the emergency department at your local hospital.
Reviewed by: D'Arcy Lyness, PhD Date reviewed: May 2013
*Names have been changed to protect user privacy.


text:
The immolations is a tragedy. what we have here is simple minded and nomadic rural folks being brainwashed by blackguards by the Dalai Lama clique into horrific acts in the interests of getting China to return them their privileges which they lost when they fled China in 1959. That is why the Dalai Lama is not advocating Tibetan independence but only autonomy. That bare faced statement in itself tell the true character of the Dalai Lama. He is willing to sacrifice the Tibetans people just for the benefits of himself and his clique.
That's why I think the DL should be repatriated to China to stand trial for murder.
That DL looks good in chains. Maybe we can design a trendy Cool set of chains for him on his return to China. It might make fashion statement.


text:
EEasy And Worked!Exactly the product I wanted. Excellent easy to follow instructions. Just make sure the wax is completely warmed throughout the entire strip - I must have been missing a little end of one of mine when I warmed in my hands and that little section didn't work as well - but the next ones I tried were perfect. Got rid of almost all unwanted hairs - odd small one left behind - not a big deal at all. Even when I've had professional waxings they always go back and have to pluck those.
Wish I'd read about cutting the strips in half before - will definitely be trying that next time - otherwise - great, user friendly easy to use product that ACTUALLY works. Am now a customer for life.posted Dec 20, 2012Link to this post -
StephanieHassle Free Waxing - Finally!I used rubbing alcohol before I waxed, and cut them in half too, like a couple of the other reviewers suggested. I still cant get the "unibrow" part of my eyebrows to work, but the strips work on the lip (fine, light hair) and actual eyebrow (fine, dark hair). Will purchase again. No hassle - awesome!posted Oct 24, 2010Link to this post
V.b.Bad DescriptionThe instructions in this product say do not use if you use Retin-A. The product description online does not tell you this and therefore I purchased it, but cannot use it. That is pretty important information to know and should be displayed clearly and obviously in the product description so customers know whether they can even use it.posted Sep 4, 2007Link to this post
VictoriaGotta Do It Right!First, remove any skin oils prior to using the strips...rubbing alcohol works well (but be careful around the eye area...use a q-tip). That way the strips will adhere to the hair. Smooth the strip down going in the direction of hair growth. Hold the skin taut (really important if your eyelids are a bit saggy) then pull against the growth in one swift movement. DO NOT apply moisturizer afterward...youll get zits (!). Use aloe vera gel instead to calm the area down.This is how professionals do it (yes, Im an esthetician)posted Dec 11, 2006Link to this post
JeannieMichiganWorked For MeI found this product to be worthwhile. I never seem to find time for eyebrow waxing and this product did a good job without the overkill of hot wax for my fine brows. I rubbed the wax in on the area covering the hair, but was careful to not rub elsewhere where it covered just skin. No skin problems and it removed all but a few brow hairs, which I didnt mind plucking.posted Oct 27, 2006Link to this post
AnonymousWenatchee, WADon't Waste Your Money!No matter how you use them ... warm, cold, hot ... you will be lucky to get more than 4 hairs pulled.There was more wax left behind on me than hairs pulled out on the strip.posted Mar 2, 2006Link to this post
BarbaraNJAndrea Eyebrow Shaping StripsI really hated these.I followed the directions and they ripped the skin off my eye lids and the hair was still there.I waited for the skin to grow back and tried it again.It did the same thing.I will never buy them again.posted Feb 6, 2006Link to this post
Janet LarsonRoland, IaEyebrow Shapers Are Time Savers!I used to buy these in the store, then they just vanished. When I found these on Amazon, I had to order them. I usually dont have much time to do my eyebrows, usually because I dont think about them until Im getting ready for work. Just pull of the strips, palce them where you need them and pull. They work great. Thank you.posted Oct 21, 2005Link to this post
JoTexasLove It!!!This is the best product for thick eyebrows. It is the only thing that I have found that really works!GREAT PRODUCT GUYS!!posted Oct 7, 2005Link to this post
Write Your Own Review
Have you tried this product? Help out by sharing what worked (or didn't)!
Write a Review


text:
Pure profit for insurance companies. Law abiding gun owners would pay up. The violent criminals would not bother to insure their guns. So the insurance companies would never have to pay out, just rake in money from millions of people.
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Pure profit for insurance companies. Law abiding gun owners would pay up. The violent criminals would not bother to insure their guns. So the insurance companies would never have to pay out, just rake in money from millions of people.
I started a petition on the White House website to spur the discussion of an insurance requirement for gun owners. Please consider signing.
Maybe you can start a petition asking the White House to force criminals to stop committing crime???
It broke my heart when some of the parents of the 6 year old victims of the Newtown shootings did not have the money to pay for the funerals of their children. How many people save for the funeral of their 6 year old child. I realize the idea might not be perfect, but it is worth considering. In this case, Nancy Lanza had registered the guns and could have afforded insurance
Why should she have to pay for the criminal action of her son? Why should any law-abiding citizens have to pay for what criminals do? Do you believe criminals will insure their firearms?
Yes, it is sad that some of those parent's didn't have insurance but again, that is their responsibility. I have a 14-year-old daughter and I pay for her health insurance and term-life insurance. People need to start taking responsibility for their own action and stop demanding others to take care of it.
I think that she should have to pay for her negligence in not locking up the guns so that her son could not get to them. Most of the mass shootings in America have been done with guns that were legally registered. These gun owners would have insurance. It is one step in what should be a multi pronged solution.
I think that she should have to pay for her negligence in not locking up the guns so that her son could not get to them. Most of the mass shootings in America have been done with guns that were legally registered. These gun owners would have insurance. It is one step in what should be a multi pronged solution.
I think Nancy Lanza should have to pay for her negligence in not locking up the guns so that her son could not get to them. Most of the mass shootings in America have been done with guns that were legally registered. These gun owners would have insurance. It is one step in what should be a multi pronged solution.
Do you have car insurance?
Parents with teenaged drivers pay more car insurance. Why shouldn't a woman with a mentally ill son be forced to pay more for wanting to keep guns in a home she shares with a mentally unstable young man? This is the most pure capitalist idea on gun control I have heard yet. The U.S. Conservatives should be slathering over this.
Maybe a law to stop some people from voting...
What a stupid idea. Do liberals seriously think criminals (who by nature disobey laws) will insure their illegal/stolen guns? All gun laws do is stop law-abiding citizens. They have no effect, or mean anything, to criminals. Just another idea to give more of our money to wasteful state/federal spending.
On that logic, we should eliminate pretty much all laws. After all, criminals won't obey laws against theft or murder, so why bother with them either?
I think I'm more likely to be shot to death by a previously law-abiding citizen than a career criminal.
People who commit mass murder are almost always law abiding citizens before their horrific actions. This forces citizens to acknowledge the cost their personal protection interests place on society. It is a way to force gunowners to pay for the externalities associated with the right they are exercising. Because some people feel the need to own assault rifles for what ever reason they are available to non-criminal people with cruel intentions as well. This will create a price barrier for preferred weapons of mass murderers and other random acts of violence higher. Since the pricing is driven by insurance companies teams of actuaries will constantly comb through data to determine which guns are more likely to be used by legal gun owners who commit crimes and raise premiums accordingly. The actions of criminals and their preference would probably be filtered and devalued because they are unlikely to be policy holders in the first place. This is a brilliant market based solution to a pervasive problem I don't feel sorry for anyone who owns an AR-15 legally paying more.
No, its just stupid to believe that criminals, who commit 100% of these MURDERS, will obey a law to insure their illegal firearms. Next stupid analogy.
Wrong. Pre-meditated murder is a crime. Also should point out the Newtown murderer committed a number of felonies before arriving at the elementary school to commit more felonies. If only laws would stop criminals.
Please define assault weapon. The rifle the killer used is a basic semi-automatic firearms whose design makes it look like a military weapon. It only fires one bullet at a time.
Once again, a criminal isn't going to pay to insure their illegal firearms. This will only affect the law-abiding gun owner. When will idiots figure out that criminals, by nature, disobey all laws???
The person who killed 8 a Vonmaur in Omaha had no criminal record. The person who killed all the people in the theater in Denver had no criminal record. The Virginia Tech killer had no criminal record and on and on. These are people who purchased weapons LEGALLY. So your assertion that criminals commit 100% of these crimes is false and detached from reality.
Therefore nothing can be done. Let guns continue to proliferate and let deranged individuals get access to them. That countries were civilians have no easy access to guns have much lower murder rates is purely accidental, nothing to do with guns. Stupidity is defined as not being able to see what is in front of your nose. If nobody has a gun nobody can shoot anyone. Criminals have guns because it is easy to get them. Those advocating easy access to guns are responsible for the mayhem that follows.
Can't help your stupidity.
In addition, the numerous countries restricting arms or access to ammo, are all to a nation fascist! ;)
If the first crime you commit is the last crime you commit is then you weren't legally a criminal before you committed the crime. That is why your argument is awful. Unless you want to make some metaphysical statement about people committing a crime at any point in time being criminals before the criminal act then you have no way to screen all criminals when authorising gun purchases.
And I believe all had mental disorders and were in counseling. What you fail to mention is that all those crimes happened in "gun-free" zones and law-abiding citizens obey the law that says one can't carry their firearm onto the property. So, again, criminals committed the crimes you listed.
Now explain away the jump in violent crime in Germany, the UK and Australia? Criminals just use another weapon. FBI stats show the increase in the number of gun owners and a 37-year low in violent crimes. Also, don't know if an America-hater such as yourself, knows that the cities with the strictest gun control laws ALWAYS have the highest murder/crime rates (see Chicago, Detroit, LA, Washington, DC just to name a few). Stupidity is believing criminals follow laws. Murder is illegal. Carrying a firearm into a designated "gun-free" zone is illegal.
Nobody is advocating easy access. The law that stops easy access is the 5 day waiting period and FBI background check. Hint: Criminals aren't effected by these laws.
Then you obviously don't know how to think.
They were MENTALLY ILL and therefore prohibited by law from purchasing, ergo they BROKE THE LAW.
and they all shot up locations where they knew law-abdiding civilians were prohibited to and would not carry licensed fire arms for self-defense.
PS Lanza didn't buy his guns, HE STOLE THEM after murdering his mother.
God, some of you liberals are so freaking stupid its remarkable that you remember to breath.
"Also should point out the Newtown murderer committed a number of felonies before arriving at the elementary school to commit more felonies. If only laws would stop criminals."
Really? All I can find is that he was widely known to be a disturbed individual and very likely suffered various forms of mental/emotional disability. He just was not wired right in the head.
Stupidity is believing that humanity can be split according to the binary, Criminal vs. Law-Abider. There is no convincing a person like you. "America-hater," really? You're truly sad.
I don't know from where you get your statistics. The murder rates in Germany, UK and Australia would have to increase by an order of magnitude to approach that of the US. Australia is in fact the poster boy for banning rifles that be fired rapidly. There used to be regular massacres there before the ban in 1996. There have been none since. When guns are available to "law abiding" citizens they are also available to criminals unless there are strict guidelines to prevent those guns being stolen or sold surreptitiously. And unless there is some surefire way to prevent a "law abiding" citizen from becoming a criminal.
I never brought up Lanza because I know the circumstances. The Vonmaur shooter was fired from his job and dumped by his girlfriend leading him to snap. The kid in Colorado was a Phd student who had no criminal record and neither of them was diagnosed with a major mental illness, i.e. one that would prohibit them from owning a gun. You are diagnosing them after the fact like some antiquated phrenologist determining aptitude because of a bump on your skull. You also insinuated that school teachers in an elementary school should walk around with guns of some sort to protect the school. Most people choose not to own or carry handguns. Are you saying we should force law abiding citizens to carry weapons if they want to become teachers? Forced armament sounds like government intrusion to me.
Vonmaur kid was diagnosed with severe depression he stole his stepdad's assault rifle. Actually frighteningly similar to Lanza
The gun control argument has to be the most fertile ground for fallacy in our political discourse today. A few of the best:
1) When in doubt, compare policy to the Nazis and Stalin, because if they did anything, it's definitely evil. Oh, except that nearly every other Western country controls firearm ownership more tightly than the US, with absurdly lower levels of firearm deaths.
2) The appeal to the authority of the U.S. Constitution is ridiculous. It ignores the historical context in which the document was written, and the fact that we've amended it 27 times. We've even repealed an amendment (see: 21st amendment). James Madison was a genius, but I'm pretty sure he didn't foresee assault weapons.
3) The slippery slope to living under a fascist regime is probably the dumbest argument out there. Anyone who thinks that a citizenry armed with M4s could (and should) topple the government is delusional and probably should not be declared sane enough to own a weapon.
1/ "Oh, except that nearly every other Western country controls firearm ownership more tightly than the US, with absurdly lower levels of firearm deaths..."
Except that those rates are ALL INCREASING, except, surprise, in states like Switzerland with LESS strict GC laws.
2) "The appeal to the authority of the U.S. Constitution is ridiculous. It ignores the historical context in which the document was written ...."
Fine, then lets ignore the First Amendment when we allow the Government to control YOUR COMPUTER AND THE INTERNET.
"Anyone who thinks that a citizenry armed with M4s could (and should) topple the government"
Of course, that must be why America was able to subdue N. Vietnam, and both Russia and America have been able to subdue Afghanistan. (NOT, for the intellectually challenged statists here...)
Get it now, useful idiot?
Well, when Russia invaded Afghanistan, they weren't helped by the US training arming the locals; the Stinger missles were particularly effective.
Further, as a "first world" nation and one that espouses to follow enlightened values, we did not wage total war on Afghanistan. Were we to carpet bomb, napalm and run over anything with a tank we were to encounter, it would most likely be a different story. Were the US government ever to reach a time when it was using the military en masse against its citizenry, I doubt it would be using any restraint, at which point M4s/AR15s wouldn't be very effective.
Switzerland's gun control laws are much stricter than the US's.
1) Increasing? They'd have to increase at a pretty absurd rate to catch up to us.... 0.25 deaths per 100,000 people in the UK compared to 10.2/100,000 in the US. France has the second highest rate in the rich world at 3.0/100,000. You're cherrypicking irrelevant statistical parameters to suit your argument.
2) The first amendment continues to have application to modern society. This is called a straw man.... sorry I didn't add it to the original list of fallacies.
3) The US armed forces did that, with artillery and weaponry that you'll (hopefully) never get your hands on.
Glad to be useful.
> 1) When in doubt, compare policy to the Nazis and Stalin, because if they did anything, it's definitely evil.
You are aware that President Eisenhower ordered construction of the Interstate after personally experiencing the benefits of the Autobahn when he marched his army through Nazi Germany, right?
Yes. I love how these same people were lecturing us five years ago or so that fighting insurgencies is futile.
Maybe, but all males in military age keep his Army assault rifle with ammunition rounds for two days of fight at home. Switzerland is a people-at-arms nation.
What makes the difference in killing rates between the US and Switzerland is not gun availability, but moral attitudes. There were no gun control in Spain or the UK in the 1920s, and crime rates were also much lower than in the US at that time.
What are you arguing? That widespread private gun ownership helps people keep the rights to freedom of speech, religion, privacy etc., or that widespread private gun ownership makes a country more likely to end up in an irresolvable civil war like those in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Because I thought you were arguing the former, which is false. But if you're arguing the latter, then I agree. Though even in the latter case, the insurgents aren't isolated private individuals. They're organised militias.
"Were we to carpet bomb, napalm and run over anything with a tank we were to encounter, it would most likely be a different story."
You mean like we did in Vietnam? Granted we were winning that war till the Sov-paid-for "ant-war" groups and their media and traitors like Kerry helped stab us in the back...
"Were the US government ever to reach a time when it was using the military en masse against its citizenry, I doubt it would be using any restraint"
You almost seem gleeful at the prospect.
While anecdote isn't data, most informal online discussions with active and retired Vets as well as the oath our troops take to defend the Constitution (BEFORE following the orders of the President) totally contradict your thesis.
I'll give you some free advice; don't count on Barack Hussein Obama to defend you in the fantasy civil war you are planning as part of the confiscation of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CIVILIAN OWNED WEAPONS, many owned by RETIRED AND ACTIVE COPS & MILITARY.
Or at the very least, be sure and prepay your funeral costs.
You are partially correct, and I was mostly incorrect.
They are more strict than the 47 odd states that have must issue CCW permits but the country has universal conscription and most everyone takes their full-auto weapons HOME.
Needless to say, they are very armed, they are a much more homogenous and smaller country than America, and they have much less crime than we do.
Lets agree to say they are very armed but their GC laws are different than ours.
"You're cherrypicking irrelevant statistical parameters to suit your argument."
No, YOU ARE.
"UK is violent crime capital of Europe
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent 02 Jul 2009
2) "The first amendment continues to have application to modern society. This is called a straw man.... sorry I didn't add it to the original list of fallacies."
And defending oneself against criminals and.or tyrants doesn't? What are you, the director The Economist's Gulag?
3) "The US armed forces did that, with artillery and weaponry that you'll (hopefully) never get your hands on."
Did what? Destroyed half the countryside and, as I noted above, with the help of your communist media, were UNABLE TO SUBDUE EITHER VIETNAM OR AFGHANISTAN
You too sound positively gleeful at the prospect of Barack Hussein Obama ordering troops to start a civil war and attempting to confiscate a few hundred million privately owned weapons.
As I warned above, if you are in the U.S. and not some simple boot-licking wannabe LSE petty-Stalinist, be sure and wear your toe tag or get your address tattooed on your foot before you come to the "revolution".
The problem with this or any other sensible idea is the NRA is now run by people who espouse what used to be considered extremist, even treasonous ideas. Wayne LaPierre's comments from 1995 have received new attention: as Executive Vice President he sent out a fund-raising letter that called federal law enforcement "jack-booted government thugs", saying "in Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens." Think about that: in the era when we are told to support our troops, thank people for their service and respect the first responders, the NRA chooses to have as its head a person whose views about the government are similar to those of Timothy McVeigh, the OK City bomber who killed 168 people. LaPierre's remarks came a month before McVeigh acted but 2 years after the Waco cult Branch Davidian deaths.
In other words, the NRA has as leader the kind of person we should be discussing as real and present dangers to our society. The kind of people most likely to use weapons against civil authority. They cloak this in terms of "self-defense" but they are the closest we have to actual insurrectionists. They are a much more real threat to America than Shariah law. And they run gun policy.
Don't know much about the NRA do you? Then you stupidly compare them with McVeigh, who used a bomb to commit his crime. So I guess using your assumptions, African-Americans (who have a justified reason to distrust police) are also insurrectionists? Law-abiding citizens are no threat. Individuals who think like you do are a clear and present danger. Trust the government sparky. They always look out for you.
More often than not the husband who shoots his wife was a law abiding citizen before it happened. Even more so is the one who accidentally shoots someone in the household by mistaking them for an intruder. Most people in civilized countries have no access to guns and do not want access to guns. This issue is what keeps the US being part of the civilized world.
You must be one of those enlightened people who think sending Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba was "liberating".
/sarcasm off.
But nice try at delegitimizing the head of the NRA. Tell us, which gave you more of a charge when Obama was a State Senator:
When said he wanted to ban all handgun ownership, or when he voted four times to remove all medical requirements for life-saving on aborted children who survived their abortions?
Uh, the comparison to Timothy McVeigh had nothing to do with the type of violence he committed and everything to do with his personal philosophy.
*hits head on wall*
The idea potentially has some merit, but the compliance rate is likely to be poor. Firearms that have been owned for decades (prior to most registration requirements- firearms are generally more durable than other objects such as automobiles) will only be insured if the owner so chooses. There's no equivalent to the automotive back-up enforcement mechanisms of requiring proof of insurance to be provided every time the driver either re-registers the vehicle, purchases a new one, or gets pulled over by a police officer.
The most significant downside I see to this approach (which will not be seen as a downside at all by some) is the likelihood it will be used/abused as a punitive mechanism to discourage firearm ownership.
I'm not sure the scheme is better than actually regulating arms, as most "normal" countries do. But there are a couple of things you could do that directly address the issues you raise. Firstly you could propagate responsibility for outcomes to shops that sold the arms (if known) and ultimately the manufacturer. Consideration is given to shops and manufacturers who are seen to be conscientious about who they sell their products to. In other words both the stores and manufacturers get audited. Secondly, you could focus compliance on ammunition sales as these are presumably repeat sales of consumables whereas the firearm itself is a one-off.
This is why I would suggest making the manufacturer primarily responsible for all liability and costs associated with death and injury from guns. To make it fun make it an exponential figure
10^(X*(population-maimed-or-killed-by-their-brand)) and split it 50%/50% from ammo and gun manufacturers.
"This is why I would suggest making the manufacturer primarily responsible for all liability and costs associated with death and injury from guns."
Potentially amusing, yes, but extend the concept a bit further and it clearly falls apart. Would you suggest doing the same thing for auto manufacturers (whose products kill just as many people as firearms do in the US every year, and a lot more than firearms do in other countries) and gas stations?
In a nation with as many firearms as exist in the US, ammunition controls make far more sense than weapons controls.
The old pro-firearm saw that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is only partially true. In reality, guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
Consider the miles driven many millions yearly, steadily increasing and the general decline in automobile fatalities and injuries rates over the last few decades.
The cost should be born directly by those engaging in the activity, as we all do to some degree by paying insurance and gas taxes for roads.
At the very least, is it not reasonable that the individuals buying the products also bear the costs of said products on the rest of us?
Also I would suggest taking faith in all that American ingenuity and get go we like to ascribe to ourselves. Surely the gun people so motivated will come up with brilliant solutions if they felt a cost to every death and disability caused by people using their products, rather than only profiting by sales.
The gun manufacturers are much in the same moral situation as the cigarette companies.
On another note, I believe the statistic bear this out, that most death and injury from guns come clearly from one demographic of gun owner: males.
Disarm all men, and arm all women. Further more make the stand your ground law apply universally just to females. You get out of line, and the chicks will cap yo' azz.
Put all the girls through boot camp at the age of 16 and have them patrol the streets, charged with the peace and quiet of an area.
Frighteningly, it would probably work.
Alternately, (and more seriously) one could do the same with everyone (boys and girls). Create a civic duty, universal national service for all individuals (starting at 16 or 18 and up), no deferments, no excuses.
Charge part of the service to patrol the streets and most important make it a matter of honor that violence is a failing. The notion here is that human beings need a place in society, if it were possible for a general sense of honor and pride was based on the efforts of any and all (youth especially). Having found a means of the above would offer some real-life education about life and how to succeed in it.
Supply the slot and the means to do it, we might just surprise ourselves.
Teacup775- Your comments collectively demonstrate a consistent perspective at least, it's just not one I can agree with at all. It's called "distorting the rule of law to produce an outcome I want". It's often amusing, occasionally thought-provoking, and frequently (deliberately) infuriating when it comes from the peanut gallery. When attached to even a small amount of actual authority, it's terrifying.
I don't see "a punitive mechanism to discourage firearm ownership" as a "significant downside."
I agree compliance will be a problem but partial compliance may be better than none.
Sure, just point out how the rule of law is broken here
Imposing insurance, might be legal avenue, but I do have doubts how much it would effect the situation.
We used to have the draft in the US, or are you that young?
My basic premise is that we are not going to find a solution to (gun) violence in this society because in many cases law (2nd amendment etc) gets in the way.
I think the legal liability angle for manufacturers was approached/suggested at one point, but I don't recall if it was shot down by lobbying or the courts (after legislation).
Why would you multiply by 10 and not 1 or 100 or 37? Why would you split it 50/50 instead of apportioning it by price? One of the things I worry about policies from the left is that they can take a good idea and mangle it until it becomes a bad idea. I've seen this sort of thing time and time again; the idea that if an incentive is good, multiplying it must be better.
The number of 10 or 100 is only to suggest a base value that makes exponentiation an effective economic motivation, the exact number is not so much of a concern to me. Have a little more faith?
Same goes for 50/50; it is only there to suggest because guns/ammo are both required, both should be exposed to some liability.
If indeed it could be argued that such a scheme would be deemed constitutional (dep on wording), effective given the influence of lobbyists, that it focused the minds of arms dealers on the consequences of arms in society and lastly they could do something other than making a pigs breakfast of the situation. :) But they'd have motivation.
"just point out how the rule of law is broken here"
Didn't say "broken", I said "distorting". I choose my terms carefully; don't try to change what I say just because it makes an easier straw man for you.
"We used to have the draft in the US, or are you that young?"
I had to register for the draft when that process was brought back by Jimmy Carter. I recognized its necessity in a Cold War world, but still didn't think it was right. [BTW, I'm more open to conscription and/or universal service than a draft. At least it's equal treatment.]
The reason I describe your approaches as "distorting the rule of law" is because at their core they are punitive to a group of people because of a behavior (gun ownership) you dislike, rather than punitive to a criminal behavior. I'm not even going to bother addressing how distortive of the rule of law your "arm all the women and disarm all the men" idea is.
If you want to make ownership of firearms illegal, just say so. If ownership is outright illegal, then punitive actions against owners are justified under the rule of law. Otherwise they're not.
Sorry to remove your giggles, but Congress has already voted that down (search "gun manufacturers liability").
But in case you still need something to rub against, let us know, can we also make all car manufacturers responsible for death and injury caused by stolen vehicles?
Can we sue the bong manufacturer when you burn up your mom's basement?
"Didn't say "broken", I said "distorting". I choose my terms carefully; don't try to change what I say just because it makes an easier straw man for you."
Look, maybe you could tone down the paranoia yourself? (see below)
[BTW, I'm more open to conscription and/or universal service than a draft. At least it's equal treatment.]
Agreed. I think the down side to an all volunteer (or less generously a mercenary) army has become apparent and am of the mind that for a lot of reasons, the citizenry should expect to all defend or fight "for" their country. Also, I think it fair to assume that Sweden's gun ownership figure and low homicide rate are both due to their own policy on national service -- the mindset about guns is different.
As for your view than I am being punitive. People who own guns are also the people who suffer at the hands of guns, domestic homicide, suicide and gun accidents, except everyone pays that bill in police, emergency room care, prisons, death and disability.
I own a car, I don't think paying insurance as punitive and I don't think a punitive system would survive in the states. I do think however, is the 'pro-gun' lobby is prone to wild eyed rejection of even sane measures. In your favor, we as a nation do seem to lurch from knee jerk reaction to knee jerk reaction in both political directions.
On the whole, my sense is insurance might not make much difference, but at the same time I think the gun manufacturers obviously have a perverse incentive (like Phillip Morris did) to promote an environment that sells more guns. Certainly they have an economic motive to ignore the down side.
As far as making guns illegal, gun ownership is still possible in various countries that have far more stringent laws and they have lower rates of homicide. In general, this country has a wider problem of violence which it has stuck it head in the sand about for long enough.
The motivation for the editorial was to suggest mandatory insurance as means to effect gun control that would pass constitutional muster.
And one can cast numerous bullets in a garage in an evening. Loading one's own cartridges is neither difficult nor unusual.
Except, as we've seen, in the case of sexual activity, in which case it is the greater society's responsibility that one's birth control method of choice fall freely from the sky, and the cost of raising one's bastards is the responsibility of the government.
Ah I see you are a fan of Rush Limbaugh.
Last I looked it took two to get a bun in the oven. That birth control benefits guys getting their end away as much as the girls they are having sex with. Or is this news to you?
In any case, guys like free ED meds for their own recreational purposes.
Neither my mother or I smoke. Both of her parents (father served in the Navy) died from lung cancer and was an early and painful disincentive. My father who served in WWII and Korea also smoked. I dislike all forms of it. Drugs are for idiots, including ideology for ideologues.
Sorry but whatever you imagine me being is probably wrong. I was ripping holes in communist argumentation in high school about as much as I am inclined to rip you a new one for the same reason. People like you and various venal ideologues lack any firm grasp on reality. It doesn't matter what philosophy you cling to, the reasons you cling to it yeild always the same failed results.
"Loading one's own cartridges is neither difficult nor unusual."
True- I've done it myself, using a friend's equipment. But you still have to purchase the primers; any reasonable regime of ammo control would include that.
Don't you worry that people who know their insurance will cover any civil lawsuit will be more likely to discharge their weapon?
Not really, nor do I worry that insured drivers will breezily run over pedestrians. Your insurance premiums tend to rise rather dramatically, and I'd think in the case of firearms the curve would be even steeper.
Do you seriously think criminals will insure their guns? If you do then you probably think criminals obey laws.
You persist in your logical fallacy comment after comment. Of course, anyone who breaks a law is, by definition a criminal. You are basically posting, over and over again, "100% of criminals are criminals."
Duh. How do we reduce the volume of them, as well as the significance of their crimes?
Nancy Lanza was a law-abiding citizen who would have insured her guns.
When an insurance investigator found she had an autistic son living with her, her insurance rates would have risen. This might have prompted her to keep guns with smaller magazines that were cheaper to insure, and that might have saved the lives of several 6-year-olds, in case that means anything to you.
Perhaps you meant to reply to Scotty Starnes rather than me? I agree with you. Further, I think that many of the volatile types that make the emotional/reactive decisions (such as the split-second decision to shoot someone) would be most impacted by a large up-front insurance cost when buying a gun; the impulse to buy would be put off, therefore hopefully reducing the ability to quickly kill someone in the future.
"and that might have saved the lives of several 6-year-olds, in case that means anything to you."
Oh, dear. Is your position really so tenuous that insinuating that your opponents are unconcerned by the death of children is necessary?
I understand that you have an agenda, Matt, but perhaps you could attempt to live up to the mantle that the Economist has permitted you to bestow upon yourself. Innuendo is not the mark of a journalist.
Your inability to mask the disdain you hold for your readers aside, insurance is a business of probabilities and the Newtown event and others like it are statistical anomalies. In fact, crimes committed with a 30 round magazine are probably so statistically insignificant as to be financially negligible. The vast majority of murders are committed with handguns with a capacity between 5 and 15. Even if an insurance company were to be found liable to the tune of $10M a child, it would be of insignificant impact considering how many hundreds of millions of these magazines and the millions of guns that they feed are owned by Americans. Are gun owners going to switch to less effective weapons to save $25 a year? I doubt it. Look at the recent price premiums people have been willing to pay to obtain an AR-15 and 30 round mags before legislation potentially takes effect. It's staggering.
Of course, the government could mandate that premiums be higher than this but, at that point, we aren't really talking about mandatory insurance. We are talking about government fees administered by private companies.
Stop trying to create profits for the insurance industry/ambulance chasers and propose the tax stamp that you desperately want. Single payer is the ultimate, right?
Hi MS,
One needs to be more specific on the coverage one is advocating. The NRA $250k is only for incidents while hunting or at competitions (http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/forms/Excess_Personal_Liability_Certif...). For self-defence, the sublimit is $50k.
So if one makes it mandatory to have a self-defence coverage of $250k or $1m, the premiums would rise considerably.
One could also discriminate by saying $250k coverage is required per firearm, i.e. if you own two you need $500k excess, etc. The rates for such additional premiums usually rise rapidly. Or perhaps for anything other than a handgun and or single-shot hunting rifle (i.e. excluding single-shot assault rifles which are usually easily modified), the mandatory coverage is $1m per weapon.
The problem of course with such schemes is you will find people insuring only their first handgun and not declaring the rest.
Hence, it is still far easier to:
i) ban all guns
ii) ban all guns other than handguns and single-shot hunting rifles
Good idea though.
A belated Merry Xmas and Happy New Year.
One problem in evaluating whether or not this is a good idea is that we have no idea what the scope of gun violence is in the US. How many people have been killed by a gun since the latest mass shooting? Where exactly would you look for the answer to that question? It would be hard to put a hard and fast number on it. Not so for death from Cholera or airplane crashes.
What we should be doing is getting rid of all of the barriers to gathering information on the effects on guns. All guns should be registered in a central databank so that we can follow them from production to final sale and then we can study just how guns get into the hands of criminals. Suicides by gun should be tallied as should accidental shootings. Registries should exist where one could report the prevention of a crime as the result of having a gun. If this data was available we could more rationally answer the questions of how lethal guns are and how they tend to get into the hands of people who kill their fellow citizens and themselves.
Problem is that since 1997 or so, the NIH and CDC have been banned by Congress from studying gun violence.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) tracks most of the information you request here. But they are barred from releasing it to the public because of laws passed by pro-gun lawmakers in the mid-1990s.
The ATF can't even track the guns they illegally allowed to cross the Mexican border and into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. Why would anyone trust their numbers? The FBI has stats on gun violence and release this information on a yearly basis.
Sounds too sensible to work.
"The National Rifle Association already offers "excess personal liability and self-defence" coverage to its members, and according to their website it seems $100,000 worth of insurance costs just $165 per year; $250,000 worth is $254. That may seem too low a value to put on someone's life..."
First, that insurance is meant as compensation for a life.
That insurance is offered because irresponsible judges and juries in this country allow criminals (or their families) who were shot in the course of committing a crime to sue the gun owner who was defending himself/herself against the criminal.
A gun owner is already liable for any death and/or damage caused by their use of a weapon. Even hunters who legally fire their weapon at prey are liable for where the bullet fired lands.
If you shoot at a deer and the bullet ends up in somebody's house, you are liable for any damage it causes, up to and including charges of negligent homicide.
Second, as far as any insurance is concerned, there are two problems with it:
1) It will result in the same problem that we now have with medical insurance, those who can afford it will get it and those who can't will go without. As with so many other great ideas that forced on the general population, the people pushing this idea are not going to be the ones who will have to deal with the side effects.
2) This kind of insurance would be wide open to political games by insurance companies and politicians. If companies and lawmakers make the insurance so difficult and/or expensive to get or maintain, it will make gun ownership just one more privilege that the wealthy few (like Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Feinstein) could afford to enjoy.
We already see this type of thing happening with the California Attorney General abusing his position by pressuring the state pension systems to sell off their stock in gun companies.
Threats of lawsuits or mass sell-offs by large investors such as he is pushing would only serve to drive up the cost of insurance from those who choose to continue offering it and push others to stop issuing it altogther.
Of course, I'm sure the answer to this will be the same as everything else: It doesn't affect me, so why not?
In the words of Forest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."
So how would this system be any different than auto insurance? In both cases the problem is that the car/gun can cause damage far beyond what the owner can pay on their own, so you either need insurance or a giant escrow to ensure that victims will be adequately compensated. I have no sympathy for someone who owns a weapon and doesn't insure it, just as I have no sympathy for people who drive without auto insurance. Liability doesn't matter when the shooter is judgement proof by virtue of a lack of assets.
1) Unlike the need for medical treatment, you don't need a gun to live. If you are a risky person, you should pay the price of that risk. Without the imaginary safety of guns peope might actually start thinking about law and order again, seeking to remove violence from our streets rather than running from it ( see white flight from urban centers to leave po' folk to their fate). These mass rampages take place in midde class suburbs. The violence has followed us into our imagined refuges. Sticking our heads under a pile of weaponry is not a solution.
2) boo hoo.
3) Mass shootings have already provided impetus for investors to divest ther holdings.
4) As pointed out by a video posted below, How is that different from the Freedom Group making billions off of gun violence, backing the NRA and politicians, and who continue to profit by billions selling weapons in conflict?
Let's remember that during the revolutionary war, profiteering and shoddy quality where nortorius acts of waepons suppliers.
In parts of some cities, you won't live long without one.
In parts of some cities, you won't live long without one.
You seem to miss the point -
The reason that criminals sue homeowners that shoot them is because those homeowners have insurance policies that cover things like injury.
Lawyers take advantage of that and judges and juries stupidly encourage them by awarding damages.
So, a law-abiding person who was in his home and defended himself has to pay monetary damages to the criminal (or their family) who broke into his house.
Well, to begin, only the law-abiding would insure their firearms. Criminals, you know those who commit crime, will never insure their stolen or illegal guns. Criminals won't pay for liability insurance. One day people will finally figure out that criminals don't obey laws.
Thank the Lord that we have people like you who know what we really need and don't need.
So, do you really beleive that "without the imaginary safety of guns" violent criminals would repent and give up their evil ways?
And by your line of reasoning, having guns causes normal, law-abiding people to become criminals, eh? Like some kind of Jekyl-and-Hyde drug?
I live in an unincorporated area and pretty much everybody out here has guns and the county I live has more concealed carry permits tha most of the state.
By the accounts of anti-gunners like you, we should be having gun fights on the streets, lynchings, bank and stage coach robberies and various other acts of mayhem all the time.
Funny, though, that isn't happening.
You quite obviously live in the same bubble that Mayor Bloomberg lives in. You should come out of it and see the rest of the world, get some fresh air. You might actually enjoy yourself.
As to your boo hoo comment, funny how when it's something that you support, you don't have a problme with it. I bet that if the AG used his position to support gun owners, you'd be saying something different.
And that, dear friend is exactly the problem. If your local city cannot bring law and order, then how do you distinguish your city from Somalia.
Also, guns are but one means of self defense. The idea that a gun per se is the only means of self defense is like saying the only means to a healthy weight is bariatric surgery.
"Thank the Lord that we have people like you who know what we really need and don't need."
My opinions are my own, if you disagree with them, fine. Tell me, is your prescription any different?
"So, do you really beleive that "without the imaginary safety of guns" violent criminals would repent and give up their evil ways?"
No. See the part about a functioning society. For too long we in the US responded to high crime by fleeing "problem areas", buying more guns and throwing millions in jail simply to look "tough on crime".
I figure the country will see change when every murder or violent death in high crime areas stop being somebody else's (aka those poor brown people) and start being seen as our problem.
" I bet that if the AG used his position to support gun owners, you'd be saying something different."
No. The fact you live out in an unincorporated area with high gun ownership is just one set of different circumstances. Other nations, like Australia, Canada, Sweden, Japan etc all have different forms of gun control, and people still have arms in most of them, which is beside the point , the point is NOT gun control per se, it is stopping death by GUNS.
There are basically two guns for every man woman and child in this country. What will make it safer 5, 10, 1000 arms per capita?
"For too long we in the US responded to high crime by fleeing "problem areas", buying more guns and throwing millions in jail simply to look "tough on crime"."
Ah, so the evil white people fleeing the areas has caused the crime, right?
I suppose it has nothing to do with people moving in and having absolutely no respect for other people and their property.
Kind of like the city near where I live that has been importing gang members and other undesirables because Los Angeles pays other cities to take their problem children.
What a surprise, crimes rates have been going up here as more of these people move out here.
"I figure the country will see change when every murder or violent death in high crime areas stop being somebody else's (aka those poor brown people) and start being seen as our problem."
Wow. That's all I can.
While I understand your basic sentiment, your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding about reality and just how much you can expect a group of people to be able to do and how much they can and will tolerate.
"Ah, so the evil white people fleeing the areas has caused the crime, right?"
No, they ran from the problem. And now mass murders are shown to be the enemy and the enemy is us.
"While I understand your basic sentiment, your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding about reality and just how much you can expect a group of people to be able to do and how much they can and will tolerate."
Take a good hard look. Buying more guns etc is hardly an effective solution. Rural areas are hot beds for meth labs and gangs because they can make money out there. Gangs can find lots of privacy to go about cooking up their drugs and peddling it to an eager rural population.
And in general the response should be to take LA to task about the situation and demand a different solution.
Very simply, we're required to show proof of insurance when we renew our auto registration. And there's not much benefit having a car that doesn't have current tags, because you'll get pulled over.
That's the opposite of the gun situation: much of the problem lies with people who amass ridiculous arsenals, or who otherwise want to keep their fellow citizens in the dark about how many dumdum bullets and how many dozen killing machines they own.
Unlike the nattering about how "gun control can't work" (even though other nations like Australia have pulled off a successful, and valuable, assault weapons ban), I see this objection as central: how will we assure 100% registration & payment? Without some strong controls, the cost of the outlaws would be borne by responsible gun owners. (Yes there ARE many, but this is too unfair.)
"And in general the response should be to take LA to task about the situation and demand a different solution."
Trust me, many of us out in the unincorporated areas would love to be able to tell the city of Los Angeles to keep its trash cleaned up.
But the reality is that it will never happen and that reality is what we have to deal with.
Rural areas are hot beds for meth labs because there are thousands of square miles of open area and a handful of police to patrol it all.
They gangs sell meth to the poor people and extasy (however it's spelled) and the other designer drugs to the college kids in L.A. who are going to school on your dime.
Why don't we consider mandatory insurance for those who publish their ideas in books and on the Internet? Those ideas have historically been very dangerous. They cause people to think and have independent non-conformist thoughts. That can be very risky. Hey, why don't we go ahead and tax all of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution and the amendments?
We already do. Millitary secrets act.
Should we allow our millitary personnel to publish everything they know?
Gun-nuts like you really have no shame, do they?
Hey, smartass, everything can be ultimately dangerous. Hell, even my pens could be used to hurt someone if I decided that I wanted to gauge someone's eyes with it.
The reason why everyday household items such as pens do not receive the kind of attention that guns do is simple; statistically speaking, they are nowhere as dangerous as guns. Guns are meant to kill things, and concordantly is designed to make murder simplicity itself - just pull the trigger. But it would be harder for someone to kill another human being with a pen (or an idea), is it?
If a person kills someone due to his convictions, there is no direct causation between that conviction and the murder - and most likely, that person probably used a firearm to kill that someone. That's why we do not 'tax' free thoughts, but we are looking to 'tax' firearms.
Hey statist sheep, is there no limit to the bottom of the barrel you might lick?
More people are killed by KNIVES in America thanby rifles every year.
And while we are at at, lets TAX ABORTIONISTS & THEIR SUPPORTERS.
1.2 MILLION abortions a year in the U.S (and only 2% for mother's health / rape); wow, we could almost the balance the Obama budget* for a few hours...
* (oh wait, OBAMA AND THE DEMS NEVER SUBMITTED ONE)...
And the difference in exposure is...? How many people are exposed to guns daily? I bet the rate is far lower than that of knives, which is virtually everyone. The proper statistic to use is deaths per exposure so that a good relative comparison can be made.
Otherwise I could claim that parasailing in a thunderstorm is safer than driving a car because no one died parasailing in a thunderstorm last year while thousands died in car crashes.
I am trying very hard not to be snarky here but the logical fallacies you've been displaying make me want to hit my head on a wall.
I am a constitutionalist, not a "gun nut". My point is that the 2A protects gun ownership, like it or not. If you don't like it, try to get it repealed. Making it expensive to own them would not burden me, I can afford it. It will however burden the poor.
Let's examine your ultimate goals. I will assume that they are to make this a safer place to live, not to rid the world of guns because you despise them. Would you approve of installing a breathalyzer on every car to prevent drunk driving? Cars kill more than guns. How about taxing swimming pools to the point where ordinary people can't afford them. Many more children drown than are shot. How about requiring all elderly to install air bags if they have stairs in their homes or tax them if they don't. Stairs kill more of the elderly than guns.
Food is much more dangerous than guns. Lots more fat people die due to overeating than due to guns. It is extremely costly to the economy. Tax all unhealthy food.
Examine your motives. There are many other examples of deadly and debilitating devices and activities that are causing far more harm than guns. Do you rally to those causes?
Guns are somehow special because one of their purposes is to kill. I have never pointed a gun at anyone, nor do I intend or expect to. Why should responsible people have to pay for something that they are using in a responsible fashion?
To add to my recent response, let's examine alcohol. It is very similar to guns in terms of its cost/benefit. It can be used for good and evil. It is used responsibly by most, and irresponsibly by some. Its economic and emotional cost on society are astronomical. It can be dangerous to the user and to innocent bystanders. According to the CDC, alcohol abuse cost us $224B in 2006.
Would you approve of taxing all alcohol users to compensate for this economic loss? I am not saying it is the wrong thing to do, I would simply like to know how guns are different, other than that they are constitutionally protected.
Kind of like the much vaunted carbon credits market: when faced with an unsolvable problem, launch the vultures on it... they won't solve the problem but fortunes will be made. Brilliant.
Mass shootings = proof that gun regulation is necessary.
Mass shootings= proof that mental health professionals have failed this country.
Ronald Regan, the courts and a lack of a proper universal care system that includes mental health haven't had any effect?
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
This would be more cost-prohibitive than car insurance. First, guns are tools, and different guns have different uses. I own a handgun, I use it for armed security. It's my livelihood. I would never bring my hunting rifle to work, just as I would never bring my .22 rifle deer hunting. All three of those guns serve a different purpose.
Second, there is no alternative. If car insurance is too expensive, you can use public transportation. Can't do THAT with guns.
Most importantly, this is yet again another measure that will turn normal, law-abiding citizens into criminals, simply for refusing to allow their rights to be restricted. If this gets passed, the next few years after will be a slough of "insurance fraud" cases.
If it is too expensive then just who should bear the cost of your liability? With somewhere in the range of 40 million gun owners and 10,000 deaths in this country, the costs would actually be pretty well distributed, many of those deaths are suicides, with no liability possible, the rest have huge consequences on families. I would add a law making the liability revert to the last registered owner (following mandatory universal registration) which should stop legal guns getting into the hands of criminals.
Every gun owner IS liable, for every bullet that comes out of his gun. If you're referring to the freaks that shoot others for no reason and then kill themselves, sue the parents. I am not responsible for that freak's bullets any more than I am responsible for 9/11 because I patronize airlines. Why remove responsibility from the killer to the last guy? That guy didn't shoot anyone. He could not have known what the freak was capable of. Besides, mandatory registration of guns is exactly what Russia did under the Bolsheviks, Germany under the Nazis, Israel under the Romans. Look how well that turned out.
Mandatory registration of guns is also what places like Sweden and Switzerland have currently. They don't seem to be turning out so horribly.
P.S. What kind of guns did the Romans require be registered in Israel? (I wasn't aware that there were all that many guns around two thousand years ago, but learn something new every day, I guess.)
Yes shooters are liable, but like with cars, they have the ability to cause much more damage than they can pay for. That's the entire point of insurance.
The UK, Canada, Australia, Japan... All of course well known fascist states.
la.virty (sp) pointed out in one of the other article comment sections, that in the case of Nazi Germany, the goverment failed by some decades to control the thuggery of Hitler's little brown shirts. I takem this to mean if the state (aka the people) fail to impose or demand peace and order on their society, the society itself has failed.
I doubt that Israel had mandatory gun registration under the Romans, but it does now. Doesnt seem like that's the major problem over there. Kind of the opposite, if you get my drift.
Private ownership of firearms has exactly nothing to do with any other civil liberty.
The Israelis were disarmed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
The Israelis weren't disarmed; they died fighting or were crucified. As described by Josephus, the Romans killed the children and hung them at the feet of their crucified fathers.
Israel under the Israelis
Switzerland under the Swiss
Gun registration is one of those things that most states do whether authoritarian or not.
Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany also pioneered the first national highway systems for their nations.
Most of those deaths were cause by criminal actions. Do you seriously think criminals will insure their illegal/stolen firearms. Stupid people believe criminals will obey laws which makes me laugh.
Not only did we do a national highway system, too. Eisenhower explicitly modeled our Interstate Highway System on the Nazi-invented autobahns when he proposed it.
But for those doing guilt by association, the concept that even bad people can have useful ideas does not compute. See, for example, the knee-jerk rejection of their own health insurance approach by Republicans as soon as Obama (a bad person in their view) embraced it. Because that, by association, made it suddenly a bad idea. (Note that extreme liberals are just as guilty of this kind of thing. Health care is merey the most recent high-profile example.)
Well, somehow guns go from the legal sphere to the illegal sphere. 30% of arms are now sold over the web with no background checks.
But many deaths (domestic homicides, suicides, children shooting the friends playing with their parent's guns) occur from arms legally owned. By placing a cost on high risk owners, and gee it's a free market solution, such owners will be motivated to change their behavior.
That said, yes, we cannot expect insurance to effect those owning guns illegally. The real question is would mandatory insurance effectively curtail death and injury from guns.
As such I would suggest a modification of the insurance idea: require the manufacturers to insure the guns they sell. Charge them for the cost of imprisoning murders, compensating people for the death and injury caused by the use of their products. They sell the product, they have some real responsibility to see that their products are a benefit to society amongst these benefits are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness living in an environment where one doesn't feel imminent threat from gun violence.
"Private ownership of firearms has exactly nothing to do with any other civil liberty."
So how exactly do you prevent someone, who has the ability and willingness to use force, from violating your liberty?
Harsh words?
Israel and many European nations have populations similar in size to a U.S. state and a much higher population density. The cultures are different, the population dynamics are much different and the smaller populations and homogenity make applying and enforcing laws on the entire populace much easier.
Israel also has large numbers of armed military and police everywhere, everybody above the age of 18 is or was in the military and if you watch the news regularly, you might notice that people - regular citizens, not military - who live in the settlements are openly armed and walk around - with M4 carbines (the evil Bushmaster!), nonetheless.
Oh, and the Israelis show a distinct interest in survival at an individual level, a trait that is disturbingly and increasingly lacking in both the U.S. and Europe.
Maybe people whose lives are under regular threat appreciate it a little more.
"The real question is would mandatory insurance effectively curtail death and injury from guns."
The answer is no - Insurance is mandatory for automobiles and the cost of it does not deter people from doing stupid things and killing people with their vehicles on a daily basis.
There are multiple fatalities daily in the Los Angeles area and the causes are well known. It is so routine that only the most spectacular accidents are even reported in the news.
Autmobile manufacturers have to continually add more gadgets to vehicles in order to compensate for the complacency and downright negligence of the average driver.
Yet, many people still die every day.
Ah yes, but bad drivers pay more and the question is not that it stops all accidents, rather that it reduces them. Considering the number of miles driven annually, and the number of cars on the road, fatalities and injury from accidents have steadily declined over the last few decades because of all those features. Whether it can all be attributed to insurance or care safety reports motivating manufacturers to provide features is an open question.
On an equivalent measure, why not require and release those same numbers on gun/ammo manufacturers? If say statistics on which automatic and semi automatic hand guns are responsible for the majority of fatal shootings etc or the number of individuals who beyond a reasonable doubt had their lives saved by gun brand, we might see some interesting responses by manufacturing.
Israel basically exists in war zone. It doesn't help that settlers setup shop on disputed land, where the other parties have no enfranchisement concerning property.
But why stop at Israel? Why not mention Somalia, Nigeria or Afghanistan? These countries also have high gun ownership and maybe, just maybe, guns per se are not a solution anymore than a complete ban would be.
Now if you would advocate universal military service (like Israel or Sweden) with no exceptions, I would be open to that. Most military folk, probably don't keep a small armory at home, although there are exceptions. And maybe just maybe we in the US should show some of this nifty exceptionalism and figure out how to get some of that law and order en-culturated. Why the hell do we as a nation fall down so badly?
If car insurance is too expensive, you can use public transportation. If gun insurance is too expensive, you can use pepper spray.
"But it's my livelihood!" And for cabbies, driving is their livelihood.
There may be good reasons to oppose this idea but the comparison to cars works against you.
" With somewhere in the range of 40 million gun owners and 10,000 deaths in this country, the costs would actually be pretty well distributed, "
first it was 9,000, now its 10,000.... PS - it's closer to 50 million gun owners, and nearly half the adult population.
Want a civil war on this issue? Wear your vest...
PS - more than a third of those criminals shot by other criminals or by cops or civilians protecting their life or property.
"which should stop legal guns getting into the hands of criminal"
You want to stop stolen guns?
"Why the hell do we as a nation fall down so badly"
because we have too many voters like you who whine against Israel.
That land is JEWISH LAND...
"And maybe just maybe we in the US should show some of this nifty exceptionalism and figure out how to get some of that law and order en-culturated. "
Oooh, rainbow colored unicorn poop for everyone!
(Everyone should note that most gun grabbers, no matter how they couch their desire in "concern terms", are usually "understanding" and overly tolerant of jihadis, while anti-the Judeo-Christian West / America / Israel).
And Manhattan is Lenape Indian land by that same logic. Do you support them arming themselves and kicking everyone currently residing there out?
Ah, I see the US current gun debate is really all about Isreal? Please do go for the Nobel Prize.
Isreal has basically forced facts on the ground to water down any two state solution into a one state solution. They will eventually be forced to make all those pesky Palistinians citizens or form an apartied state which will eventually erode them for other reasons.
Every other industrialized nation manages to lower homicide, cheaper health, better roads, electrical systems, broadband, and better education. In the last 30 years the middle class has dissolved under stagnant wages, inflated housing, education and medical costs, taking in debt to keep up appearences.
Our income equaltiy is not anywhere near Germany, or the UK, or Australia. It most closely matches Iran and Venezuala. In terms you might understand, there are about as many people who are dirt poor vs filthy rich as Iran or Venezuela.
We ran from crime by either fleeing cities or throwing millions in jail, basically spending $30k per head per year to have men sit on their hands for decades.
and particular "unicorn" solution would commit each and every adult in America to have completed something like a year to 18 months of national service. That's right, universal draft.
"Ah, I see the US current gun debate is really all about Isreal? Please do go for the Nobel Prize."
You're the one who bought it up first, and if you are going to continue to whine about it, try and use a spell checker.
" They will eventually be forced to make all those pesky Palistinians citizens or form an apartied state which will eventually erode them for other reasons."
Dream on. Your so-called "palestinians" will be called "resident aliens".
And the only apartheid going on in that region now or in the future is IN THE MUSLIM WORLD, including your precious Koranustine, where JEWS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO LIVE, as opposed to the million or so muslims still living and being represented in Israel (most of whom have no desire to be under the PA as they have it better in Israel than in almost EVERY MUSLIM NATION.
/spits in your eye…
"Every other industrialized nation
blah blah blah…. LIES, the only ones almost succeeding certainly aren't the ones that Obama and you are trying to make the U.S. emulate.
"Our income equaltiy is not anywhere near…."
Ah, finally comrade, we get to your little nub, you want the socialism in the U.S. that is destroying the PIIGS, and, like the good little kitty socialist/fake commie you are, too terrified of armed insurrection, you want the Right in America DISARMED.
You don't give a F*** for the dead children in Newtown, you simply see an opportunity too good to waste to try to disarm those who would stand up to your and Barack Hussein Obama's eventual REAL EXECUTIVE ORDER freezing prices, controlling wages and taking over every other non-govt controlled facet of our lives, controlled, as you concluded, WITH THE OBAMA-RUN ARMY OF CONSCRIPTS.
Dear little wannabe commie, you too should invest in a tattoo with your vitals on it so your mommy can find you.
Only make sure you use a spell-checker. or you will wind up unclaimed.
The Lenape SOLD their land to the Dutch. Did you miss that in history class when you were ten years old?
But here's a thought. j
Just to be generous, if I were king we would give them back part of Manhattan, particularly the piece of land between 42nd St and 48th Street, from the Western Edge of the FDR Drive, to the East side of First Avenue.
They could do what they want with it, as long as they kicked out and kept out the UN, and promise not to sell it to or make treaties with jihadis or commies.
(Sorry if that leaves you out).
History is a bitch when you really understand it. The Turks created the problem in Israel by selling Palestinian land to Israelis.
Moreover, the American Natives did not understand the European concept of land ownership. They thought they were receiving presents in exchange for temporary use while the Europeans thought they were getting a bargain [trinkets for permanent land ownership]. The term "Indian giver" refers directly to Native Americans returning to land the Europeans believed they had bought.
An additional irony, is that the Dutch "bought" Manhattan from an enemy tribe, not the tribe which had a claim to it.
Thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville's study of American politics and society
The SNP manifesto: The second-longest suicide note in history
Remembering Cardinal Francis George: Good-bye to a hard-nosed Chicagoan
Democracy in America
Graphic detail
Britain's election campaign: April 20th: The SNP promises to shower money...
China and Pakistan: Corridor of power
Business and finance
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
New Jersey Devils Gear
New Jersey Devils T-Shirts
$10 to $20
(69 items)
Product ID: 1008996
Main Content
Your buds are always wowed by your team loyalty - you're known to be the biggest New Jersey Devils fanatic in town. Toss on this Arc tee from Majestic and represent New Jersey at the rink. It features the team location arced over the Devils logo and the establishment date printed above the team name. Everybody will be in awe of this undeniable Devils-worthy tee!
- 100% Cotton fabric
- Imported
- Officially licensed NHL product
- Rib-knit collar
- Screen print graphics
- Tagless collar
Devils Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game
or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are
received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items
are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite
number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.