Philosophy
If I want to legally operate a Dodge magnum, I need a license that requires a training class and an exam. The same is true in many states -- to the chagrin of gun advocates -- to legally operate a Colt magnum.
When I take my Dodge magnum for a drive, it needs a license plate, something that uniquely identifies my magnum from all others in case of wrong doing or accident. We can do the same for the Colt magnum, requiring etchings in the barrel that uniquely identifies the source of any recovered bullet. Yet this measure -- the Ammunition Accountability Act -- is being fought by gun advocates.
To put my Dodge magnum on the road, I need insurance in case I am at fault in an accident or in case my car gets stolen. This is a suggestion I've not yet heard, but want to put forward. Why shouldn't gun owners also have to carry insurance? The costs of gun related accidents and crimes are staggeringly high and the damage from stolen guns is extremely unfortunate. Why shouldn't they be responsible for covering at least part of those losses that come from police investigations and trials? Why shouldn't victims have a better chance at some sort of remuneration for their injuries and deaths of loved ones? Gun owners should have to carry insurance against indemnity. Just because I have the right to drive does not mean that I should not be required to be able to cover damage done by my driving. Similarly, just because one has the right to bear arms does not mean that they should not be required to be able to cover damage done by their guns.
- The Ethics Of The Scam
Confused, Maybe Not clued me in to this article about an atheist run company that contracts with Christians to take care of their beloved pets after they a raptured away. When the end times comes, who will be around to take care of Fido and Fluffy? For...
- Hallowing Ground
On my way into work, I drive winding country roads that take me past the cemetery at Gettysburg. Along those roads, I am finding more and more makeshift memorials marking the places people have died in traffic accidents. Thinking about them, they seem...
- License Plates
Man, timing is everything. So, one of my favorite things to do on road trips is to look for license plates (40 states and 5 Canadian provinces on this trip, so far). I had started working on a new bit about license plates (You can tell so much about...
- Is Being Kind Always Morally Good?
You see a speed trap set up for the folks in the other lane. Do you flash your lights and alert them? If so, was it a good act? You get nothing from it. It was a purely other-directed action. The desire was to keep those folks on the other side from getting...
- Paraskevidekatriaphobia/triskaidekaphobia--you Suffer From It?
Harry Callahan: "I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world,...
Philosophy
Of Magnums
If I want to legally operate a Dodge magnum, I need a license that requires a training class and an exam. The same is true in many states -- to the chagrin of gun advocates -- to legally operate a Colt magnum.
When I take my Dodge magnum for a drive, it needs a license plate, something that uniquely identifies my magnum from all others in case of wrong doing or accident. We can do the same for the Colt magnum, requiring etchings in the barrel that uniquely identifies the source of any recovered bullet. Yet this measure -- the Ammunition Accountability Act -- is being fought by gun advocates.
To put my Dodge magnum on the road, I need insurance in case I am at fault in an accident or in case my car gets stolen. This is a suggestion I've not yet heard, but want to put forward. Why shouldn't gun owners also have to carry insurance? The costs of gun related accidents and crimes are staggeringly high and the damage from stolen guns is extremely unfortunate. Why shouldn't they be responsible for covering at least part of those losses that come from police investigations and trials? Why shouldn't victims have a better chance at some sort of remuneration for their injuries and deaths of loved ones? Gun owners should have to carry insurance against indemnity. Just because I have the right to drive does not mean that I should not be required to be able to cover damage done by my driving. Similarly, just because one has the right to bear arms does not mean that they should not be required to be able to cover damage done by their guns.
- The Ethics Of The Scam
Confused, Maybe Not clued me in to this article about an atheist run company that contracts with Christians to take care of their beloved pets after they a raptured away. When the end times comes, who will be around to take care of Fido and Fluffy? For...
- Hallowing Ground
On my way into work, I drive winding country roads that take me past the cemetery at Gettysburg. Along those roads, I am finding more and more makeshift memorials marking the places people have died in traffic accidents. Thinking about them, they seem...
- License Plates
Man, timing is everything. So, one of my favorite things to do on road trips is to look for license plates (40 states and 5 Canadian provinces on this trip, so far). I had started working on a new bit about license plates (You can tell so much about...
- Is Being Kind Always Morally Good?
You see a speed trap set up for the folks in the other lane. Do you flash your lights and alert them? If so, was it a good act? You get nothing from it. It was a purely other-directed action. The desire was to keep those folks on the other side from getting...
- Paraskevidekatriaphobia/triskaidekaphobia--you Suffer From It?
Harry Callahan: "I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world,...