December 31 roundup


  • There was a suggestion on some of the blogs about holding the NRA liable for the deaths, similar to what was done with the KKK in the 90’s; one other suggestion was to hold the gun makers, as well as the original buyers (no matter how many times the gun was sold), liable–that worked real well on the light-airplane manufacturers like Cessna, as it nearly banrupted them until a 15-year limit (no liability possible after 15 years after original purchase) was passed. I have an idea: Allow lawsuits against the anti-gun groups and people–including politicians and government employees–for advocating and getting passed the “gun-free” zones at schools, theaters, etc.

  • As a resident of CT I too was distressed by the Newtown school shooting. I plan to sue so that I can recover whatever my share will be of the many lawsuits that will doubtless come out of this event.

    There are only 3.5M people in CT.

    The poor woman who was mauled by her friend’s monkey several years ago also wants $10-20 from each resident of CT. Maybe I should move.

  • #7 on Samantha Rollins list of crazy lawsuits (ignoring a persistent erection resulting in impotence) isn’t so crazy. Priapism is a medical and potential surgical emergency that requires prompt intervention to prevent permanent penile damage. While it sounds humorous, if the staff really did ignore his persistent erection for several hours, they may have significant liability.

  • I agree with Zane that some of Samantha Rollins’s cases are chosen more for humorous appearance than actual abuse.

    As a veteran who lost part of a tooth in Army basic training because morning tooth-brushing would interfere with barracks inspections, I have some sympathy with the prisoners seeking access to dental floss. Admittedly, I have seen dental floss that could be used for garrotting and other dubious purposes. But instead of wisecracking about the Ritz-Carlton, the prison management should show some willingness to work with inmates on acceptable ways to preserve teeth.

  • Handgun insurance? Poor people in bad areas, who need protection more and have the least means to afford it, will get higher premiums than rich people in safe areas. Which is probably the point, to keep poor people in the sticks or the ghetto from wielding so many guns.

    Unless they try to dictate rate caps, which might make it impossible to make a profit. It would be morally problematic for the government to provide this sort of insurance.

  • […] though he’s withdrawn it at least for a while following a public outcry. [Greenwich Time, earlier, background on Not-about-the-Money-ism] […]

  • I met the gun insurance argument on Usenet back in 1999, and still like my counerproposal. Key provisions include (1) eligibility restricted by background checks, (2) workmen’s comp-style restrictions on damages, and (3) government payments *into* the insurance pool for crimes *prevented* by guns.