isn't that what i just said?

1/3/2013 7:29:06 PM

Quote :

"Taxes from gun sales could pay for it, also lawsuits against the gun industry"

rofl

1/3/2013 7:29:38 PM

i've never seen a thread in tsb take off like this

there are two very passionate sides to this issue - however, since guns have been so available for so long, we are limited to how much we could do even if we wanted to.

1/3/2013 7:31:02 PM

Quote :

"I'd love the japanese model, they have less firearm deaths in a whole year than we do in a few hours"

Japan also has a much more "no-nonsense" and high discipline culture. We don't have that here in the U.S. Apples to Oranges in business model proposal.

I love how Americans will blame everything else before taking responsiblity and accepting the facts here; it's the people the are the problem rather than the firearms themselves.

Computer's aren't the reason why there's internet phishing or ID theft. It's people. Far more people are impacted by ID/Financial theft through computer systems than firearms. Not only has this destroyed people's lives, but its a substantial financial loss for institutions and merchants.

People die in car accidents, all the time (sadly). Car's aren't at fault here, it's people.



[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 7:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 7:34:30 PM

The lawsuits was only half serious, definitely taxes though

1/3/2013 7:34:49 PM

Quote :

"so our taxes go up to pay our own fuggin oppressors."

Your taxes pay for the costs you impose on others. It's the same way with cars, cigarettes, the financial industry, or elevator inspections.

Quote :

"Japan also has a much more "no-nonsense" and high discipline culture."

Ok, well that sounds like a good attitude about something as dangerous as firearms.

Quote :

"I love how Americans will blame everything else before taking responsiblity and accepting the facts here; it's the people the are the problem rather than the firearms themselves."

That's a non-solution.

1/3/2013 7:44:35 PM

Quote :

"Your feet provide the opportunity. There's nothing stopping you from asking for more. Hell stand right outside and offer people more as they come in the door, whatever. The government doesn't need to spend money finding those guns for you. You want them, you spend the money to get them, don't spend the government's."

I'm (more accurately, he) isn't spending the government's money. You are. You're already suggesting government buy-backs. He has simply suggested a way for the guns with historical value to be saved and provided a way for the government to make some money off the whole thing. But you and dtownral are anti-gun so you don't care about anything that benefits both sides. Instead, you want all of those guns destroyed and for gun owners to be the ones that foot the bill (or the companies that employ a bunch of Americans).

See you could actually try to have a conversation and figure out how to make it feasible for everyone to be somewhat satisfied. Mandatory back-ground checks for buyers, only guns made prior to 1962 can be sold, a collector license (forget what they're called now but I'm sure there's someone here who does), etc. but no, you don't care. You just want them gone and anyone who wants otherwise is a unyielding nut with Rambo fantasies.

^ you are absolutely 100% completely ridiculous. Thanks for making it clear that you are nothing but a troll.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 7:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 7:45:02 PM

Quote :

"It's not that I stereotype responsible gun owners with these people; I'm convinced that these people vastly outnumber "responsible gun owners". Someone with military training (who isn't a psychopath), I implicitly trust with firearms in public. "

The overwhelming majority of people in the military are not proficient with firearms. I would even say that the majority of Marines are not proficient with firearms--even the weapons with which they qualify with annually (spending a week or two every year doing nothing but weapons training).

I won't make a guess about CCP holders, broadly (although statistically, they are very, very safe), because there are plenty of people like my mom who have a CC permit, but are woefully undertrained and not proficient at all--but also never actually carry. I will go out on a limb and say that the great majority of people who carry on anything approaching a regular basis are proficient and knowledgable, in terms of safety, marksmanship, and law.

I have 100% confidence in saying that the average person who CCs every day is safer and more proficient than even the average U.S. Marine, let alone the average military member.

Quote :

"or kept one near my night stand late at night"

I keep a pistol on my nightstand every night when I don't have my daughter. I keep my bedroom door mostly closed, but left a few inches open, so that I can hear across the rest of the house, but have a clear indication in the dark if anyone were ever to enter my room.

Quote :

"John Q Public I'm worried about accidentally shooting me or someone else trying to hit the bad guy. Active shooting events are fucking chaos."

Except that doesn't happen. I can't think of a single incident of it happening. If it did, we would be restricting, not liberalizing, CC. Hell, just recently at that mall shooting, there was a young 20-something year old dude there who as carrying concealed, and he held his fire because he didn't have a safe shot.

Quote :

"It serves no purpose that a safer cheaper gun couldn't serve."

Quote :

"So a pellet gun is just as dangerous as a magnum?"

Well, an AR-15, for example, is pretty close to the least powerful rifle that you can buy.

Quote :

"Hammers and baseball bats kill more people than guns? I don't think that's true. "

They kill more people than either rifles or shotguns.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

Quote :

"Uh, there's nothing wrong or unclear with that sentence"

hahaha, that sentence is pretty damned bad, dude. It may be technically correct, but it's stylistically atrocious and awkward to read.

Quote :

"why on earth would they sell guns when the point is to reduce guns? That makes no sense and is contrary to the point of a buy back."

Well, they could make enough money on the auction he describes to buy back many more Saturday-night specials for every valuable or collectable gun they allowed to be bought back by people who actually give a shit.

Quote :

"That's a non-solution."

Well, you've proposed about a dozen of those so far...

1/3/2013 7:50:05 PM

The reason we are spending government money because it is in everyone's interest to reduce gun crimes, we do that by reducing guns. Having a tax on gun purchases would even limit the burden to only those who want a gun, while at the same time providing an incentive to not have one (well really a disincentive to have one, but same result)

Having a government auction is contrary to the purpose of both of these things: reducing the number of guns. The goal is not to reduce only illegal guns, but all guns. The more guns you take out of circulation, the fewer legal guns become illegal or illegally used guns.

This is also not mandatory, these actions are simply designed to influence trends and reduce the number of guns. People who want them can still have me, they'll just have to pay a tax for it.

The purchase tax could also be applied retroactively by means of a registration charge and mandatory registration, this would encourage people who have guns to sell them to the government.

1/3/2013 7:51:36 PM

Quote :

"The purchase tax could also be applied retroactively by means of a registration charge and mandatory registration"

No way. Mandatory registration is not going to happen; people would go ape-shit.

...and then if you somehow managed to ram such a measure through, damn the political backlash, people would just...not register their guns.

1/3/2013 7:54:29 PM

Quote :

"providing an incentive to not have one (well really a disincentive to have one, but same result)"

so you charge someone to exercise a constitutional right? how is this not like a poll tax?

1/3/2013 7:56:46 PM

^^I know it's not likely, I'm saying its one of the things we should discuss in order to effect real change.

^ Supreme Court has long upheld reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and no there are no constitutional issues with this. We pay for all kinds of constitutionally protected things.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 7:56:57 PM

if you want to vote, you still can, you just have to pay a tax for it

if you want to speak out against your government, you still can, you just have to pay a tax for it

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 8:00 PM. Reason : it's not right to make it harder for lower income folks to effectively defend themselves]

1/3/2013 7:59:22 PM

If you want to broadcast you have to pay the government, the first amendment protects the freedom of the press and speech

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 8:00 PM. Reason : Just one quick example]

1/3/2013 8:00:18 PM

^ if I want to stand on the corner with a sign, start a paper, post on a blog, or pretty much any other form of exercising my right to free speech, I can do so. Basically you're saying "lets tax talking"

1/3/2013 8:17:20 PM

Quote :

"The reason we are spending government money because it is in everyone's interest to reduce gun crimes, we do that by reducing guns. "

No, it's in everyone's interest to reduce crime. Period. If someone kills me with a knife, car, or hammer, I'm just as dead. There is nothing that shows reducing the number of legal guns does any such thing. The "fix" to this problem is to enforce the laws that we already have, get rid of bullshit sentencing/increase penalties, and stop acting like mental illness will just go away if we keep ignoring it.

1/3/2013 8:22:01 PM

Well if I was a a congressman drafting it I would consult a constitutional law expert, if they agreed with you I would add either a straight income requirement or would allow them to get the tax back as a rebate if their income put them below the level that would require them to pay the tax. I don't think they would, but I would easily make the revision.

In other words, if that's your objection there are many ways around it.

1/3/2013 8:22:15 PM

We do have evidence that reducing guns reduces total crime. I posted one study awhile back.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 8:33 PM. Reason : Misread quote]

1/3/2013 8:23:23 PM

^and there are just as many saying the increase in ccw permits and gun purchases is responsible for the decrease in US crime.

1/3/2013 8:37:08 PM

reducing cars reduces accidents.
reducing knives reduces stabbings.
redu....

1/3/2013 8:40:32 PM

Quote :

"We do have evidence that reducing guns reduces total crime. I posted one study awhile back."

highly debatable. depends on who pencil whips the data.

one thing that is certain is that gun ownership is at it's highest since 1993, but violent crime rates have been declining steeply since 1994.

1/3/2013 8:48:18 PM

Quote :

"He has simply suggested a way for the guns with historical value to be saved and provided a way for the government to make some money off the whole thing."

It's stupid, why does the government need to be in the business of selling guns? If he wants to save them, no one is stopping him.

Quote :

"for gun owners to be the ones that foot the bill"

Owning a gun comes at a cost society, the people who want to impose that cost should pay for it.

Quote :

"They kill more people than either rifles or shotguns."

Those are only murders, they don't include accidental discharges, suicides, hunting accidents, etc. Your article misrepresents the data it uses.

Quote :

"Well, they could make enough money on the auction he describes to buy back many more Saturday-night specials for every valuable or collectable gun they allowed to be bought back by people who actually give a shit."

It's not very likely that one of those rare guns comes up, someone doesn't look up the value, and it gets bought back, yet you want someone digging through every gun to figure out which ones to sell, operate some large auction, etc. It's dumb.

Quote :

"if I want to stand on the corner with a sign, start a paper, post on a blog, or pretty much any other form of exercising my right to free speech, I can do so. Basically you're saying "lets tax talking""

You have to pay tax on the sign, tax on the paper you'll print on, tax on the computer you buy and internet you use, etc. You don't get any of those tax free because you're using them for free speech.

1/3/2013 8:49:02 PM

Posted without comment, using data from the following sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Only known possible anomaly is that in one list they have "England / Wales" and the other, "United Kingdom", it is assumed that these are the same for the purposes of generating the graphs.

1/3/2013 8:49:12 PM

reducing proper trainin with driver's education reduces accidents.
reducing proper safety education with knives reduces stabbings.
redu proper educ....

You can't eliminate all the fucking scary things in life and live in a goddamn bubble. It's unrealistic. I'm all for the Japan model; this society needs to educate and discipline the children and invest in a higher moral standard of living.

Do you blame a couch potato for eating themselves to death, or was it the spoons fault?

US is the outlier in the second chart. Gang violence (who obtain their firearms through the black market and circumvent laws) and the low discipline/respect with firearm training are reasons for this issue in the U.S.

Again, instead of wasting money on bills/laws that don't impact the issue, invest that money into free training programs that encourage firearm owners to practice and learn their firearms.



[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 8:53:51 PM

Quote :

"You have to pay tax on the sign, tax on the paper you'll print on, tax on the computer you buy and internet you use, etc. You don't get any of those tax free because you're using them for free speech."

yep, and we already pay a sales tax on firearms.

1/3/2013 8:56:11 PM

Quote :

"dave421 All American 1335 Posts user info edit post ^and there are just as many saying the increase in ccw permits and gun purchases is responsible for the decrease in US crime. 1/3/2013 8:37:08 PM "

No, the study even looked at those.

1/3/2013 9:07:43 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "We do have evidence that reducing guns reduces total crime. I posted one study awhile back." highly debatable. depends on who pencil whips the data. one thing that is certain is that gun ownership is at it's highest since 1993, but violent crime rates have been declining steeply since 1994. "

Right, which is why you analyze the data to see if the reduction following gun reduction exceed the time trend. It does, and it is proportional to the gun reduction by state.

1/3/2013 9:09:03 PM

Quote :

"yep, and we already pay a sales tax on firearms."

And now you will pay another tax to fund a gun reduction program

(You seem to have been incorrectly implying that you are not allowed to have more than one tax on something)

1/3/2013 9:12:04 PM

well, i don't think it's reasonable and thankfully it'll never fly given the power of the firearms industry

1/3/2013 9:15:47 PM

Quote :

"so our taxes go up to pay our own fuggin oppressors."

If you don't like it, why don't you go grab your gun and do something about it? If you really wanted your gun to protect you from tyranny, you would have done something a long time ago while all your other rights were being stripped away.

Quote :

"I keep a pistol on my nightstand every night when I don't have my daughter. I keep my bedroom door mostly closed, but left a few inches open, so that I can hear across the rest of the house, but have a clear indication in the dark if anyone were ever to enter my room."

The bolded part seems reasonable, and I'm glad that you don't even permit yourself the opportunity to accidentally harm your daughter.

But doesn't that sort of highlight the absurdity of needing a gun for protection? If you're willing to acknowledge its implicit danger that you don't even keep it near you at night when with your daughter, then how would you protect her in the event of a burglary (which, in all likelihood, would happen at night).

You gotta admit, it's a bit of a paradox to need a gun near you at all times for your own personal protection, while needing that thing away from you when you're protecting someone you love. Heaven forbid she ever sneaks out of the house and tries to come back in undetected when she gets older. I'm not saying that to be a dick -- that seems like a legitimate concern.

1/3/2013 9:17:56 PM

So this is the real discussion you want to have: "we'll thankfully your ideas will never work because the gun lobby has too much money so I'm going to ignore your point "?

1/3/2013 9:18:07 PM

This thread is frustrating.

1/3/2013 9:18:19 PM

^^no, it's just obvious that we have different opinions of what is reasonable

1/3/2013 9:19:50 PM

Thinking that gun control should be free programs to teach gun usage is so out of touch with reality it's entertaining

1/3/2013 9:19:53 PM

who suggested that?

1/3/2013 9:21:51 PM

Hiro:

Quote :

" Again, instead of wasting money on bills/laws that don't impact the issue, invest that money into free training programs that encourage firearm owners to practice and learn their firearms."

1/3/2013 9:23:39 PM

ok, missed his edit

1/3/2013 9:25:01 PM

Quote :

"No, the study even looked at those."

What's this study again?

Quote :

"And now you will pay another tax to fund a gun reduction program"

So you have no problem if we implement a tax to vote? How about a free speech tax on paper and office supplies? A tax to install breathalyzers in all cars?

1/3/2013 9:29:18 PM

You know those things are different, you know it's not a parallel issue, you know it's a silly question, and you seem to have ignored my response that if the constitutional law expert disagreed with me I would add income restrictions


"Real discussion" everyone

1/3/2013 9:32:12 PM

^HA

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 9:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 9:40:01 PM

Quote :

"Thinking that gun control should be free programs to teach gun usage is so out of touch with reality it's entertaining "

How the hell is it out of touch with reality? Local municipalities already offer free driving and motorcycle courses to help improve peoples' skills. These programs have shown a decrease in vehicular altercation fatalities since their implementations.

http://www.bikesafenc.com/ is one that I've encouraged and advertised lately. Sure most of the stuff is common sense, but there are some skills/knowledge/information that people haven't considered, learned, or were ever taught (and this comes from some of the riders in the class I attended who've been riding for years). Bikesafe started in Europe to help reduce motorcycle fatalities and it's working. It was brought to the US and since then, motorcycle fatalities in NC have gone down as well.

I've seen a few Free training sessions with pepper spray and other self defense techniques on craigslist.

So no, it's not out of reach. Programs can help. Making them free help encourage people to come out because it's FREE; who's going to turn that down?

The biggest problem about these FREE programs is getting the word of mouth out and advertising that these things exist. If people don't know that they are available they can't ever attend.


[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 9:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 9:41:25 PM

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

1/3/2013 9:45:55 PM

Quote :

"the ability of an island nation to restrict illegal gun imports, coupled with the absence of any domestic gun manufacturers producing for the retail market, meant that legal restrictions on gun ownership were more likely to “bite” in Australia than would be the case in countries with porous land borders.3"

From the Australian Government: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)

Quote :

"The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable. "

Keep in mind the buyback program in 1997.


[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 9:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 9:50:40 PM

Before you guys quickly post some things, you'll really want to at least read all of the conclusion. Lots of quotes in there that will get you in trouble if you don't.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ^haha like that, keep reading]

1/3/2013 9:54:17 PM

My quote enforces the concept that a massive buyback in the US will likely be less effective than intended. There's a lot of variables that make Australia's model different from the US.

I read the entire Australian site. yes, firearm homocides declined, however as I posted Manslaughter continued at a steady rate. What does that mean? People went from using guns to something else to make ends meet.

Quote :

"However, the data still shows that the amount of people killed by hammers, clubs and other blunt instruments still continues to rise each year"

- http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

I'm sorry. I never saw your dispute to this claim dtownral...


[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:05 PM. Reason : bedtime!]

1/3/2013 9:57:11 PM

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 10:04:19 PM

that's been responded too, but okay here:

you state that you read all of it but that methods were just substituted, so you clearly did not read all of it. there is no reason to believe that method substitution would replace gun deaths. in regards to the study i posted:

Quote :

"However, two findings mitigate against the notion of substantial method substitution. First, non-firearm suicides and homicides fell substantially on aggregate in Australia in the period 1997–2006. Second, the estimated time pattern of the response of non-firearm deaths (suicides in particular) is not what we would expect to see in the case of method substitution. It is also inconsistent with suggestions, based on time series analysis, that the uptick in non-firearm suicides in the period 1997–2000 could have been a consequence of the buyback. Our results show, by contrast, that that jump occurred primarily in the states where the fewest guns were handed in, and where the gun buyback would have been expected to have the least effect."

Quote :

"total homicides. The results in this paper—using a different and more reliable source of identification—support the general findings of those time series studies.We show that the largest falls in firearm deaths occurred in states where more firearms were bought back. Compared to time series studies, this approach has some key benefits. First, it allows us to control for national-level trends in death rates through the use of national-level fixed effects and at the state level through state-specific time trends—the results show that, even after controlling for such trends, there was a statistically significant decline in firearm deaths in states with higher firearm buyback rates. Second, we are able to examine in more depth the time pattern of any response of deaths to the NFA—the results show that firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates fell relative to those with lower buyback rates and that this relative reduction in the firearm death rate was maintained subsequently. Finally, we use an instrumental variables strategy to allow for possible endogeneity in the gun buyback rate and find that this makes no substantive difference to the results. That the results in the baseline regression are robust to all three approaches suggests that the relationship between buyback rates and death rates is likely causal."

see now why i said you should read it all? its going to bite you again on your next point too.
--

Quote :

"My quote enforces the concept that a massive buyback in the US will likely be less effective than intended. There's a lot of variables that make Australia's model different from the US."

so you agree with their conclusion that the Australian buy-back program reduced deaths but just don't think that it would be effective here because we have 2 land borders.

that's a start

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 10:07:33 PM

It reduced deaths by firearms. Yes.

The overall rate of murders/homocide/manslaughter is still trending where it was before the buyback and ban. If you are trying to save lives, then something else needs to be looked at. How about a focus on something that affects more lives first, like driving. All this money and energy is focused on something that doesn't even have the greatest impact on our death rate. If saving lives and preventing deaths is your overall goal, then we need to be looking at the situation rationally and logically, not emotionally. Only reason this is a discussion now is because of the Sandy Hook School shooting, and (the majority) of people want to make reformations based on emotions rather than use logical reasoning (ie: magazine capacity ban, cosmetic changes to firearms, etc).

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 10:10:59 PM

so your response is to just completely ignore their conclusions because... why? could you state your specific issue with their methods, because its very clear that you are not aware that they controlled for what you are talking about. that was kind of the entire point of this study verse a time trend study.

[Edited on January 3, 2013 at 10:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2013 10:14:11 PM

seems that a lot of their conclusions are based on effects on suicides. i don't think they should be considered in this debate. quit trying to protect people from themselves.

1/3/2013 10:18:47 PM