And ANOTHER school shooting

[Dr. Zaus]

Here's a thought experiment:

What if we did anything that might hurt the bottom line for the gun manufacturers:

How do you think it would play out in congress?

OK

Now what if we did something that improved the bottom line of gun manufacturers but hurt gun rights:

How do you think it would play out in congress?


I just want us to be aware that on one side of this argument is a group of corporations with a lot to lose and on the other is... people who don't want to see so much death.


Or do you think "lefties" on this issue are either dishonest useful idiots for an impending totalitarian communist regime?

It seems you've got it all figured out. Never speak to me again.

lawlz wat? srsly?

I'm trying to be as open minded as possible here: let's just talk about facts instead of basing our conclusions on ideology.

Yes, have the government create a handpicked aristocracy of wealthy individuals who possess firearms and are trained to use them. Then, when the time comes, they will support the common man against the government.

I'm not sure it would be the most wealthy, nor would it be hand-picked by the government.

Also, do you think that the common man has a chance against the extant government? Studies show that what 'the people' want rarely gets through congress, but what the top 10% want often does. I don't see 'the people' in bloody revolution now.

 

[angminas]

That was tried before and resulted in the largest black market ever known to exist.

I'm guessing that's his point.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I'm guessing that's his point.

I think we're all in agreement that banning guns is a really bad idea.

1) Underground markets are dangerous and create more crime
2) People would rise up in bloody revolt
3) It would only serve to proliferate gun ownership
4) Even hinting at gun registration increases gun sales
5) The people need to defend against the tyranny of dictators: Hitler was elected (ish)

 

[HamburgerBoy]

But taxing guns to a point where few would be willing to own them is completely unrelated. :hmm:

 

[Dr. Zaus]

But taxing guns to a point where few would be willing to own them is completely unrelated. :hmm:

It at once does not infringe upon one's right to buy or own a gun while also creating economic incentives to reduce how many people actually own guns.

The benefit remains while the danger is reduced.

And existing gun owners see their firearms go up in value.


Is that really so radical a stance?

 

[angminas]

And existing gun owners see their firearms go up in value.

Which will definitely encourage them to hand them out to their neighbors.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Which will definitely encourage them to hand them out to their neighbors.

The gun collectors I know are patriots and would definitely share their arsenal if the time came to defend our nation against enemies foreign or domestic.

If the poorest 23% of the 33% of households that have fire arms chose to sell those fire arms, then we'd see a marked reduction in gang violence, suicides, and the ability of angsty virgins to shoot up schools.

And i'm fairly sure that 'screwing with America' would still be low on everyones priority list.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It at once does not infringe upon one's right to buy or own a gun while also creating economic incentives to reduce how many people actually own guns.

The benefit remains while the danger is reduced.

And existing gun owners see their firearms go up in value.


Is that really so radical a stance?

Because underground markets are never created to avoid taxes, only bans. :hmm:

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Because underground markets are never created to avoid taxes, only bans. :hmm:

That's why we'd have to avoid secondary market taxation.

But in the primary market, there really isn't much of an 'under ground' market for tobacco; even though it's expensive because of taxes. There really isn't much of an underground market for alcohol, even though it's expensive because of taxes.

Perhaps the Russian mafia will flood the streets with cheap guns... You're right that such a problem offers an important boundary condition.


Generally speaking, if something is prolific and undesirable, leaving it legal but highly taxed does a good job of reducing that 'something' in society while at the same time mitigating the negative impact of black markets.

 

[Venix]

That's why we'd have to avoid secondary market taxation.

But in the primary market, there really isn't much of an 'under ground' market for tobacco; even though it's expensive because of taxes. There really isn't much of an underground market for alcohol, even though it's expensive because of taxes.

Perhaps the Russian mafia will flood the streets with cheap guns... You're right that such a problem offers an important boundary condition.


Generally speaking, if something is prolific and undesirable, leaving it legal but highly taxed does a good job of reducing that 'something' in society while at the same time mitigating the negative impact of black markets.

LOL

Tobacco is one of the largest and most lucrative black markets in the nation. It's so huge that it provides the majority of all cigarettes sold in New York, the state with the highest tobacco excise tax.

 

[sdifox]

Did you even think for two seconds before writing this?!

Of course not. I mean without the second amendment the War of Northern Aggression would never have happened. The Union was on the side of the law!

Or perhaps that nasty civil war was inevitable since it was a war fought over a vast resource, man power. And the Union would have declared war with or without the second amendment.

People around the planet did not require the second amendment to overthrow oppressive regimes. Hell, the Colonials didn't either. So what was it there to enshrine exactly?

BTW, the general American public is being oppressed by the rich and powerful. Time to kick them out.

 

[CZroe]

Of course not. I mean without the second amendment the War of Northern Aggression would never have happened. The Union was on the side of the law!



Or perhaps that nasty civil war was inevitable since it was a war fought over a vast resource, man power. And the Union would have declared war with or without the second amendment.



People around the planet did not require the second amendment to overthrow oppressive regimes. Hell, the Colonials didn't either. So what was it there to enshrine exactly?



BTW, the general American public is being oppressed by the rich and powerful. Time to kick them out.

You are digging your hole deeper. The whole point is checks and balances to prevent the government from ever oppressing its people in the first place. You can't just give it up because the current government wouldn't oppress you. It's just like granting more executive power because you trust the current president even though you'd have to trust all future presidents for that justification to make sense.

They should not have had to overthrow their governments. Their governments should have been in tune with the wants and needs of their people. This ensures that. Martial law is supposed to be illegal along with unreasonable searches and detainment a while the right of the people to retaliate to an oppressive government is supposed to remain absolute. Sounds like ALL of that is designed to keep the government from ever becoming tyrannical in the first place. Revolutions should not be necessary where the people had the power from the get-go and the government wasn't even allowed to use the power it had on them.

When Ted Cruz talks about stripping a citizen of his citizenship for joining ISIS or any terrorism group, I see it as an attempt to circumvent the constitution to strip Americans of their constitutionally-protected rights. If they want you gone they just redefine terrorism to include your minority position on the issues and you instantly lose your rights to due process. Don't believe the IRS is constitutional? "TERRORIST!" Don't think that the government should be able to compel you to buy a particular product like health care? "TERRORIST!" Don't think the government should be involved in defining marriage even for heterosexual couples? "TERRORIST!"

 

[Zstream]

Of course not. I mean without the second amendment the War of Northern Aggression would never have happened. The Union was on the side of the law!



Or perhaps that nasty civil war was inevitable since it was a war fought over a vast resource, man power. And the Union would have declared war with or without the second amendment.



People around the planet did not require the second amendment to overthrow oppressive regimes. Hell, the Colonials didn't either. So what was it there to enshrine exactly?



BTW, the general American public is being oppressed by the rich and powerful. Time to kick them out.

Wow! I knew some people thought this way, but I didn't realize people would go to such great lengths to prove such a terrible idea. The colonials didn't have bat shit crazy people trying to enforce laws that impoverished the middle and lower class. Imagine if King George just listened to the colonies, there wouldn't have been a war. It would have been peaceful and issues would be explained in a civil round of court.

I'm not sure where people are educated anymore...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Why do these shootings happen? Money. Sensationalism sells, because we're a bunch of gossips and cowards. We pay the media to dwell on the shootings, and we work ourselves into a frenzy of terror over something that is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen to us. Crazy people gravitate toward that shit. "Shoot and scare normal people while getting famous? Fuck yeah, where do I sign up?" And we don't change, because we'd rather point the finger than get our asses in gear. Blame the guys across the aisle! And they keep getting elected and wasting our money.

How do we drastically reduce the shootings? It's simple. In no particular order:

Stop consuming sensationalist news. Cancel your cable. Don't buy newspapers or visit websites which dwell on fear and hatred like parasites.

Stop consuming entertainment which glorifies and trivializes harming and disrespecting other human beings. I'm not just talking about physical violence- I mean anything that pits us against each other instead of against the issues.

Teach our children that actions have consequences. Don't baby them. Teach them the reality of guns and why to treat them with respect.

Put down the electronics. Misusing them leads to detachment and lack of compassion for others. Parents and children don't spend enough quality time together. The children are raised by Hollywood, which is a pretty shitty parent.

In short, treat people like people and teach our children to do the same.

The bold portion is particularly WTF worthy. I look at your avatar, and wonder how you could type what you typed? Cognitive dissonance? I will, perhaps incorrectly, assume I do not have to elaborate overly much on how American football is the embodiment of what you wrote. And how all team sports cultivate and provide an outlet for, our primitive tribal behavior.

Also, to think those are the sources of the problem, or that what you proposed, is a solution, is evidence you have been successfully indoctrinated to believe bullshit propaganda. Of how multimedia entertainment i.e. tv, movies, video games, is the source of society's violence issues.

I will clue you in on something: Humans are violent, because it is hard wired into them. So you have it completely backwards. The correct order is; violent multimedia is a product of violent humans. Now stop trying to scapegoat and finger point.

To address what the finger is pointing at. Do the above exacerbate our violent tendencies? Jury is still out. Some studies suggest the answer is yes. Others suggest the answer is not only no, but that the converse is the case. That's right, some research suggests video games in particular are beneficial. That they provide a healthy outlet for those tendencies. And the most maligned, FPS games, may even fulfill the primitive hunter/gatherer need, in males.

What we do know for certain, is that humans being violent, aggressive, hostile, and murderous, is our heritage. And predates all of the supposed causes you suggest, by many thousands of years.

One point we do agree on is, parenting is a real problem. While no amount of parenting is going to stop little Johnny from being a psycho killer, because he has bad brain chemistry or whatever is wrong with him. It can be effective in teaching offspring to properly channel and express violent urges. Instead of bottling them up, ignoring them, or worse yet, cultivating it in a unhealthy way.

 

[unokitty]

FBI data shows record number of September gun sales

FBI’s National Instant Background Check System shows gun sales hit a record high for the fifth month in a row with 1,795,102 prospective gun owners processed in September...

A staggering 8,251,381 background checks were processed through the NICS since May 2015. The biggest gun makers like Smith & Wesson (SWHC) and Sturm Ruger saw their stock values almost double since the beginning of 2015. Gun sales across the nation have been soaring after President Obama entered the White House

Interesting impact that Obama's politicizing gun control has had on gun sales...

Uno

 

[sdifox]

You are digging your hole deeper. The whole point is checks and balances to prevent the government from ever oppressing its people in the first place. You can't just give it up because the current government wouldn't oppress you. It's just like granting more executive power because you trust the current president even though you'd have to trust all future presidents for that justification to make sense.

They should not have had to overthrow their governments. Their governments should have been in tune with the wants and needs of their people. This ensures that. Martial law is supposed to be illegal along with unreasonable searches and detainment a while the right of the people to retaliate to an oppressive government is supposed to remain absolute. Sounds like ALL of that is designed to keep the government from ever becoming tyrannical in the first place. Revolutions should not be necessary where the people had the power from the get-go and the government wasn't even allowed to use the power it had on them.

When Ted Cruz talks about stripping a citizen of his citizenship for joining ISIS or any terrorism group, I see it as an attempt to circumvent the constitution to strip Americans of their constitutionally-protected rights. If they want you gone they just redefine terrorism to include your minority position on the issues and you instantly lose your rights to due process. Don't believe the IRS is constitutional? "TERRORIST!" Don't think that the government should be able to compel you to buy a particular product like health care? "TERRORIST!" Don't think the government should be involved in defining marriage even for heterosexual couples? "TERRORIST!"

Except the people charged with upholding the constitution are the ones violating it. So where does that leave you? Second amendment serves as a straw man to distract you from the real issues. Tarp, Patriot Act, NSA surveillance of US citizen, QE, etc etc are the issues you should have been looking at.

I am not against gun ownership btw. I am just questioning the purpose of the second amendment now. I figured it was an assurance to the states for signing up when it was conceived.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Except the people charged with upholding the constitution are the ones violating it. So where does that leave you? Second amendment serves as a straw man to distract you from the real issues. Tarp, Patriot Act, NSA surveillance of US citizen, QE, etc etc are the issues you should have been looking at.

I was observing this to friends the other day. Abortion, gun rights, and the threat du jour, are guaranteed focal point, hand puppets, that will distract people while you do what you want. The CISA bill received zero mention in my FB feed. But the other three blow it up every time the gov and media, wave the favored hand puppets.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I see it as an attempt to circumvent the constitution to strip Americans of their constitutionally-protected rights. If they want you gone they just redefine terrorism to include your minority position on the issues and you instantly lose your rights to due process. Don't believe the IRS is constitutional? "TERRORIST!" Don't think that the government should be able to compel you to buy a particular product like health care? "TERRORIST!" Don't think the government should be involved in defining marriage even for heterosexual couples? "TERRORIST!"

It may seem extremist, but this is exactly how it feels. The government doesn't feel like it is working for the people, more like it is working for the people who are IN the government and their associates. It has become a corporation more concerned about the welfare of its participants than the citizens and anything they consider a threat to that is spun into some sort of national security issue.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

LOL

Tobacco is one of the largest and most lucrative black markets in the nation. It's so huge that it provides the majority of all cigarettes sold in New York, the state with the highest tobacco excise tax.

Srsly: a legal addictive substance easy to obtain in a near by state is representative of how guns would flow of taxed... the problem of taxes that encourage massive black markets stipulated: your LOL is clearly nothing but LAWLZY

 

[Venix]

Srsly: a legal addictive substance easy to obtain in a near by state is representative of how guns would flow of taxed... the problem of taxes that encourage massive black markets stipulated: your LOL is clearly nothing but LAWLZY

I've made no statements about firearm regulation or taxation. I was simply commenting on your incorrect claim that one of the biggest black markets in America doesn't exist. The tobacco black market is huge, increasing in size, and owes its existence and popularity to oppressively high taxes.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I've made no statements about firearm regulation or taxation. I was simply commenting on your incorrect claim that one of the biggest black markets in America doesn't exist. The tobacco black market is huge, increasing in size, and owes its existence and popularity to oppressively high taxes.

Ah.

I agree: and apeiciate the new info: clearly we can't go about making taxes so high they creat NY cigarette-style black markets.

But do you see the difference between cigarets, addictive and easily available in New Jersy, and guns, not as addictive and not as easily available in Mexico or Canada.

 

[LegendKiller]

Ah.

I agree: and apeiciate the new info: clearly we can't go about making taxes so high they creat NY cigarette-style black markets.

But do you see the difference between cigarets, addictive and easily available in New Jersy, and guns, not as addictive and not as easily available in Mexico or Canada.

Guns aren't easily available in mexico?


Ohh, you mean aren't easily available to law abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves from criminals?

Gotcha.

But that black market is a bitch, ain't it? criminals break laws and get guns (and drugs, and sex slaves, and...).

Kinda like drugs.

 

[Phoenix86]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Guns aren't easily available in mexico?


Ohh, you mean aren't easily available to law abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves from criminals?

Gotcha.

But that black market is a bitch, ain't it? criminals break laws and get guns (and drugs, and sex slaves, and...).

Kinda like drugs.

Mexican guns often come from the US.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware.

And suicide?

FBI data shows record number of September gun sales


Interesting impact that Obama's politicizing gun control has had on gun sales...

Uno

Can't deny that.

 

[CZroe]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware.

And suicide?

Are you trying to protect people from guns or protect them from themselves?

If you want to protect people from feral renegade guns, then ban guns. If you want to protect people from harming themselves, ban suicide.