Letters. I Get Letters.

My previous post gets the award for most responses. In addition to the six comments on the blog, I got three by Email and one in person. Only about forty people have read the post so far, so that's almost a 25% response rate.

I was struck by life hiker's comment. I think he rightly asserts that people don't need guns for two purposes that advocates promote, protection from rogue government and bad guys. He goes on to say that most gun related deaths are in the criminal on criminal and suicide categories. There's probably little sympathy for the "victims" in these categories.

There is a third category that I touched on in my post. Accidents and friend/relative confrontations. The three year old and domestic violence scenarios in the post. If guns weren't available the accidents don't happen. If guns aren't available domestic and friend violence will take fewer lives.

Banning guns and/or assigning civil liability for their wrongful use to manufacturers and owners will never fully deprive criminals of weapons. But over time it will reduce unneeded death. There is of course a trade-off among the remaining sympathetic victims. A homeowner will be shot by an intruder on occasion and a few three year olds will grow up that otherwise wouldn't.

Moving on, Eric and Ryan raise two other points.

Eric hunts and points out that it serves the purpose of culling herds of deer. He notes that he has thirteen rifles and shotguns (I don't know how many are too many, but you're bordering on it Eric). Maybe the way to deal with the issue is to greatly increase the level of proficiency and stability that needs to be demonstrated to get and keep a long-gun registered (something along the lines of getting a pilot's license) and provide a mechanism for the manufacturer/owner/user to pay the cost of the accident regardless of negligence (here, something along the lines of demand toll pricing for vehicles that is underway in Japan and being considered here). You have the right, but to exercise it, you must agree to pay the cost incurred by others. This mechanism would address Ryan's concerns and Tom seems willing to go along with it, though grudgingly.

That leaves Hedy and thomas. Hedy, you've had too much exposure to Chicago politics; but, seriously, my clarifications above might serve to sway you to full blown support for my views? Though, like my views, thomas's bullet control isn't going to fly, I like it. Simple, almost elegant.

Next surefire topic for the study group: bestiality - I'm agin it. I dare you to say I'm wrong.