Your thoughts about Steve's essay

[Todash]

I couldn't get behind that for even an instant. Guns are loaned out all the time for perfectly valid reasons. Occassionally, a borrowed gun is used to commit crimes of passion or of opportunity, but that's not the owner's fault.

I see what you're saying. I really do. And perhaps there are some reasonable "escape clauses" to be found in such a law. But without a provision requiring the owner to take responsibility, it's pretty damn easy to say "Hey, he borrowed it; I didn't know he was going to hurt someone with it."

[PatInTheHat]

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions, or even as you noted… victims of Sandy Hook tragedy? I think everyone would have been fine and dandy with that. Are there really none out there that helps victims of gun violence, that doesn't have a policital agenda? Sorry, just doesn’t seem like sound judgement to me.

I loooovs how you split 'em hairs I do I do I surely do...no seriously, I do, some folks are just born with it, it's like a gift, I mean I oughta know, ya know

[Todash]

I couldn't get behind that for even an instant. Guns are loaned out all the time for perfectly valid reasons. Occassionally, a borrowed gun is used to commit crimes of passion or of opportunity, but that's not the owner's fault.

I suppose it could be financial penalty. Like with a car. You know, if someone borrows your car and does damage with it, you are the one who has to deal with the aftermath, pay the deductible, etc. If guns had to be insured like cars, I suppose it could work exactly the same.

I don't know ... I mean, I really do see what you are saying. I do. And certainly someone could steal a gun and immediately use it to commit a crime. So ... yes, problematic. But frankly, if I have a gun and someone borrows it from me and then uses it to commit a crime, I have a little culpability there. Why did they need to borrow a gun? Shouldn't I question that? Don't we have some responsibility when loaning our car to someone to make sure that person is qualified to drive it?

This part is difficult. Do you have a better suggestion, something that would make it difficult for someone to "loan" another person a gun that is then used to commit a crime (which of course would pave the way for the same black market we have today)? I am all ears, because I see how someone innocent could be hurt by such a measure, and I wouldn't want that ... but I also think that "of course I didn't sell it to him illegally; I 'loaned' it to him" should not be an easy escape clause from a charge of gun trafficking.

[AnnaMarie]

It's 99 cents. If he would have given this to Time or Newsweek, you'd be paying $5 or $6 to read it.

I have seen references in other places that it's 99 cents. But when I click....it's over $3. I realize there is sometimes a slight difference due to the Canadian dollar not be exactly equal to the American....but this is a bit ridiculous.

[Moderator]

It is $0.99 in the U.S, £0.99 in the UK. I don't know why Amazon is charging $2.99 in Canada.

[Sepia and Dust]

But without a provision requiring the owner to take responsibility, it's pretty damn easy to say "Hey, he borrowed it; I didn't know he was going to hurt someone with it."

Responsibility for what? Damn few people outside of mobster TV shows would lend someone a gun if there was a question that a human being might get shot. Unless that's the point, such as if I lend a female friend my .32 so she'll have some protection when that crazy stalker ex-boyfriend of hers kicks her door down in the middle of the night again.

But frankly, if I have a gun and someone borrows it from me and then uses it to commit a crime, I have a little culpability there.

No, you really don't. Oh, you'd feel bad about it and you'd wonder what you could have done differently, if there were any signs you missed, but that does not make you culpable.

Why did they need to borrow a gun? Shouldn't I question that? Don't we have some responsibility when loaning our car to someone to make sure that person is qualified to drive it?

You loaned me your .410 shotgun because I need to shoot the rabbit in my garden, but I don't have a gun smaller than a 12-guage. You loaned me your Glock 9 because I wanted to get some practice with it on the range. You loaned me your .32 because some crazy stalker has threatened to kill me. You loaned me your .762-Russian because I've never actually shot a WW-II gun.

This part is difficult. Do you have a better suggestion, something that would make it difficult for someone to "loan" another person a gun that is then used to commit a crime (which of course would pave the way for the same black market we have today)? I am all ears, because I see how someone innocent could be hurt by such a measure, and I wouldn't want that ... but I also think that "of course I didn't sell it to him illegally; I 'loaned' it to him" should not be an easy escape clause from a charge of gun trafficking.

I think you're trying too hard to bust illegal gun traffickers. Almost every gun used in mass-shootings has been obtained legitimately. Almost all gun-related crimes of passion or opportunity are committed with legitimately obtained weapons.

"I loaned it to him" is a perfect defense, since that's almost always what actually happened.

[Amphiaraus]

I don't know why Amazon is charging $2.99 in Canada.

It's likely for the same reason Amazon.com charges $119 for the Kindle Paperwhite, while Amazon.ca charges $139 for the exact same device: Canadians happily pay more for everything and so retailers (many of them American-owned operations operating in Canada) happily charge more.

Of course retailers often point out that higher distribution costs are to blame (Canada apparently has a lot more highway between cities, go figure), and so fuel costs and surcharges (also much higher on the northern side of the border, go figure) are partially to blame along with the realities of economies of scale and consumption taxes. The fallacy of these explanations, however, are laughably self-evident when one lives close to the border or when it's an e-document we're yakkin' about.

Me, I was happy to pay $3 for King's essay, and I honestly couldn't care less how the proceeds (if any) were to be distributed: I figure if Uncle Steve needs a new swimming pool, I'll happily kick a bit o' fundin' in exchange for the pleasure of readin' a bit of his scribblin's. Although I continue to hope King's essay will eventually be "liberated" and published in the public domain for all to read, free of charge - while I know contractual obligations must be met, I feel King's essay warrants much greater exposure: It's that important a document, in my opinion.

Gauging the reaction to King's essay (good, bad and downright ugly as it has been), a few million other folks agree with me. Safe to say, more folks will have read King's 'Guns' than will ever read Obama's 23-point Executive Action Plan or Congress' inevitable dry-as-moondust follow-up report, I suspect.

[Todash]

Responsibility for what? Damn few people outside of mobster TV shows would lend someone a gun if there was a question that a human being might get shot. Unless that's the point, such as if I lend a female friend my .32 so she'll have some protection when that crazy stalker ex-boyfriend of hers kicks her door down in the middle of the night again.

Right, right, it wouldn't really be lending in the scenario I mentioned. It would be an unregistered sale, but in order to avoid getting in trouble for making an unregistered sale, the registered owner would claim they'd loaned the gun to the person who committed the crime without any suspicion that it would be used to commit a crime.

No, you really don't. Oh, you'd feel bad about it and you'd wonder what you could have done differently, if there were any signs you missed, but that does not make you culpable.

I really think that depends on the situation. You know, the "reasonable person" test ... Example: If I let you borrow my car, knowing you've been drinking, and you have an accident, I am to some extent culpable. I should have known better. If I let you borrow my gun, knowing you just lost your job and are angry and depressed, and you shoot someone, I am to some extent culpable. I should have known better. Admittedly, it is hard to outlaw stupidity.

You loaned me your .410 shotgun because I need to shoot the rabbit in my garden, but I don't have a gun smaller than a 12-guage. You loaned me your Glock 9 because I wanted to get some practice with it on the range. You loaned me your .32 because some crazy stalker has threatened to kill me. You loaned me your .762-Russian because I've never actually shot a WW-II gun.

Those are all good reasons, I admit.

I think you're trying too hard to bust illegal gun traffickers. Almost every gun used in mass-shootings has been obtained legitimately. Almost all gun-related crimes of passion or opportunity are committed with legitimately obtained weapons.

Right ... but I was hoping we could make a dent in the overall numbers. And although I personally would be happy to live in a gun-restrictive society, I was trying to think of a way that wouldn't infringe on legitimate gun ownership. Having to do more paperwork, essentially, seems like a fair trade, a reasonable compromise, to be able to (mostly) keep the desired guns.

[rooster827]

Very though provoking and interesting essay. Im a center-right guy who owns a shotgun and rifle (hunter) and really see no purpose of assault rifles unless to kill other humans. After being in the army, I can agree with many that they are great fun to shoot but throwing grenades is also fun yet they should not be legal for just our amusement.

PS: Has anyone read that no assault rifle was used in the newtown shooting? Apparently ABC, CBS, NBC, and the coroner confirmed this. Pistols were used and a hunting rifle was present in the trunk of his car.

[Lily Sawyer]

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions...

Because he's *not* neutral about this topic. He makes that clear in his essay.....but you're not going to bother reading it, so you'll never understand why he didn't choose a victim-related charity.