Author Topic: $500 million gun violence package  (Read 6859 times)

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
$500 million gun violence package
« on: January 16, 2013, 11:11:38 AM »
For guns, against guns, somewhere inbetween but why is everything Washington does involve some big cost.  Why are they so F'in stupid.  It costs nothing to put bans and controls in place because already have departments/resources that are doing it

I guess I shouldn't be surprised as this is what Washington does best - spend our money in as ineffecient way possible to support their viability.


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130116/NEWS/130116010/?odyssey=nav%7Chead

Matt K

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Location: Canada
    • Krull Photography
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2013, 11:44:03 AM »
It costs nothing to put bans and controls in place because already have departments/resources that are doing it

Unfortunately that simply isn't true. Want to ban something? Paperwork has to be filled out; legal documents of all sorts need to be modified (if only to include the line ", and magazines of capacity greater than 7"). All that paper work takes time of government employees, those employees cost money.

And, since you can't make something happen by simply including a new line in a legal document, you need to educate people (that may be as simple as sending out notices to all affected manufacturers, middle-men, and retail sellers), and you need to enforce it (and that means sending out personnel to speak with and inspect all of the above). Again, more time.

Yes all these resources are already employed by the government, but those people are already doing work (one hopes), this is new work, and has to be accounted for as such.

Going slightly deeper, the increased demand on back-ground checks will require additional resources to handle.

I haven't read the details of the package, and since, as a Canadian, it doesn't directly affect me, I probably won't. But one thing I won't do is underestimate how much work it takes to change the course of a massive industry, such as the US firearms industry, even just a tiny bit.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 2384
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2013, 12:42:24 PM »
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .

- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment


Frankly, 500 million is so little of the US yearly budget I'm surprised that anyone would be upset about that.  Especially considering that the US spends 666.2 billion dollars in discretionary military spending every year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending).  500 mil is a drop in the bucket.

unitsinc

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston/Denver
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2013, 12:58:44 PM »
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .

- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment


I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.
I'm your huckleberry.

bo_knows

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Fairfax, VA, USA
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2013, 02:21:14 PM »
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .

- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment

I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.

I have no knowledge on the subject of how large of a magazine one needs, but can this be backed up in any quantifiable way?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2013, 01:28:20 PM by Sparafusile »
Retirement calculator/simulator to see if you're on track. Variable spending plans, tons of options - www.cfiresim.com

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2013, 02:33:14 PM »
Yes all these resources are already employed by the government, but those people are already doing work (one hopes), this is new work, and has to be accounted for as such.

Yes there may be some more work but not as much as you would imagine to change some forms, ban a few things and do some more background checks, which are already being done for a lot of gun sales and when applied to private sales will not add that much to the costs because the infrastructure is already there and a number of those private sales won't actually happen. The private sale thing is targeted at gun shows and to be honest it is offensive that gun shows are allowed with private sellers


- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment

#1 - see above - won't cost that much extra and some of it will be offset by reduced sales.  BTW why can't the answer be to increase the background check/permit fees?  For those people who want guns then they pay for and not those who don't.

#2 - no real pracitcal way to enforce this. Clips are in circulation and not registered so the only thing you can do is make it extremely punitive if used or sold. 

#3 - While this is a worthwhile cause it should not be in this bill as it is not related to gun control.  Neither is providing funds for 1,000 new school resource officers/counselors and money for additional police officers in cities (not to mention that in theory if gun control is increased then wouldn't we need less officers).

And for enforcement for all this, we already have an FBI, ATF, local police officers that do this very thing - so now they are

Frankly, 500 million is so little of the US yearly budget I'm surprised that anyone would be upset about that.  Especially considering that the US spends 666.2 billion dollars in discretionary military spending every year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending).  500 mil is a drop in the bucket.

This comment is offensive and is exactly the problem with washington as usual - eh, what is a half a billion dollars, how the fuck do you think the defense budget go so bloated - it's only a billion dollars per joint strike fighter jet, no big deal - just a pittance compared to the total budget.




Kriegsspiel

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
  • Location: Shale Country
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2013, 05:17:33 PM »
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .

- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment


I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.

I'm interested in your reasoning, want to expand on that?

grantmeaname

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3693
  • Age: 22
  • Location: London, UK
  • Pseudoscience is alive and well...in YOUR hometown
    • The MMM Blogger Community
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2013, 07:18:34 PM »
it's only a billion dollars per joint strike fighter jet, no big deal - just a pittance compared to the total budget.
You're off by an order of magnitude, and looking at only the purchase price rather than the lifecycle cost is kinda a case of missing the forest for the trees.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 2384
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2013, 07:10:01 AM »
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .

- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment


I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.

Bahahahahaha!


Defensive shooters!  Good one!

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2013, 08:42:32 AM »
it's only a billion dollars per joint strike fighter jet, no big deal - just a pittance compared to the total budget.
You're off by an order of magnitude, and looking at only the purchase price rather than the lifecycle cost is kinda a case of missing the forest for the trees.

I am not sure I understand your comment....but in case you didn't get it mine was laced with sarcasm and a deptiction of this shit happens......and it does for every aspect of government because it is so easy for politicians to say to people that it is ok as it is "only 0.1% or 1% or whatever of the budget" and for us sheep to say "well ok then, then it really doesn't matter" - and that is how they get a strike fighter ok'd and the extra $10 billion it will cost to maintain over the next decade will be an afterthought.

Why is the bare minimum standard to increase always - I don't care if it is $1 or $1,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 - they treat it like it is money growing on trees, it has to stop. 

The reality is that Obama's proposal probably includes some of those extras because some senator from somewher said if you give my state $x then for police then I will support the bill. Enough already.
 

BlueMR2

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2013, 10:25:58 AM »
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .

- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment


I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.

I'm interested in your reasoning, want to expand on that?

I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away.  Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload.  There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well.  The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds).  Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.

unitsinc

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston/Denver
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2013, 08:29:22 PM »
Just skimming through the article, there are some things being put in place that make sense that would clearly help regarding gun violence and pretty obviously need money to set up . . .

- Background checks for all gun sales (since private sales aren't currently covered, this needs resources to monitor and enforce)
- Limiting magazine rounds (requires enforcement and a plan for dealing with high capacity mags currently in circulation)
- Early identification of people with mental illness to get them treatment


I have to disagree with your second one. Large magazines actually help defensive shooters much more than they help offensive shooters.
I definitely agree with the third though.

I'm interested in your reasoning, want to expand on that?

I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away.  Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload.  There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well.  The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds).  Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.


Pretty much this exactly this.

Ask someone in the military as well and odds are they'll back this up as well.
I'm your huckleberry.

Matt

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2013, 08:49:53 PM »
Waste of money and unconstitutional.  I feel like this is a scene from the movie Minority Report and we are being punished for a crime that has not yet been committed.

strider3700

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Location: vancouver island
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2013, 09:25:01 PM »
Canadian fire arm owner here.    When they implemented a long gun registry here it started at a reasonable cost but ended up costing nearly 2 billion for a database.  The initial estimate wasn't 10% of that.   

They recently scrapped that registry but we still have the restricted firearms registry. Those guns are "special" and to take them anywhere you need a piece of paper saying you can move them.  I seriously doubt anyone going to commit a crime with a gun is going to give up because they don't have permission to take their gun somewhere.   In the mean time if I want to take my handgun anywhere other then the 1 range specified on my piece of paper  I call the nice lady who fills a form out and faxes it to me. when I get it I can then move the gun.   I got to get 1 of these when moving houses, 1 when I bought a new gun and wanted to bring it home and 1 when I decided to go with friends to their range...   I also get to ask for a new long term one every 2 years saying from my house to my range. No range membership?  no piece of paper.  Completely useless waste. 

I also don't understand the point of restricted magazines.  it takes less then 2 seconds to drop a mag and slam another one in and  the guys that practice IPSC are way faster then I am. like was pointed out above,  what are you going to do about the millions already out there?   From what I'm hearing large cap magazines have been selling as fast as they can make them for the last month. Same with the dreaded assault rifles. Ammo in specific calibers is also sold out or going for insane prices.  Last weekend was the first time I've ever heard of people in the US paying twice what I would pay for ammo. 

All that these changes and the hysteria has done is driven people that are worried they won't be able to get these guns into a buying frenzy. 


sol

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2013, 09:56:24 PM »
All that these changes and the hysteria has done is driven people that are worried they won't be able to get these guns into a buying frenzy.

The buying frenzy is part of the marketing campaign.

The primary reason the gun lobby doesn't want restrictions on firearms is because they make money off of making and selling firearms.  Threats of firearms regulation spurs the frenzy, and they sell even more, and make even more money.  I feel this is the primary reason why so much attention has been heaped on gun control, with so little gun control actually resulting.  Both sides benefit from the threat, if not the execution of it.

strider3700

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Location: vancouver island
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2013, 02:15:12 AM »
I agree with that.  Buy guns to protect your self from bad guys with guns or buy guns before they take away your ability to buy guns.  Those that are never going to buy a gun are a lost cause from a marketing perspective so they're completely removed from the equation.

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2013, 09:58:25 AM »
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away.  Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload.  There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well.  The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds).  Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.

I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing - home invasions, multiple assailants, generic robberies, etc. - the reality is people with guns are not sitting there on guard with guns in hand waiting for these moments so when these moments happen the gun owners go to reach for their guns and either get shot by the assailants gun or shot by the assailant with their own gun - and now you have another gun on the street for nefarious uses.  Nevermind the increased likelihood of a house with a gun in it being used in an unintended way such as suicide or depressed kid shooting up a school.  And please if the defense to this is "well no, I sleep with the gun next to me or I keep it next to the door" then you would not be a responsible gun owner. 

As for the constitutionality, the 2nd amendment was established at a different time. 

(1) it was intended to protect the sovereignty of the nation and ensure there was the ability to have a militia of some kind in the event of an attack by some other nation (we had afterall recently broken away from England), law enforcement, detering the potential for an oppressive governmental regime and self defense if the expecation is that you will be killed otherwise. Whereas today we clearly have a well established, well funded forceful military and police forces, there may be some argument to the population having guns to keep the governemnt honest pers se, and the self defense argument still stands but I think it has expanded beyond the being killed part.

(2) guns were far different back then with a single shot (gun powder, lead ball, rod) vs. what they are today. 

Again I am not for or against guns but there definitely needs to be some thought put into this and compromise (there is that dirty word again) between both sides and recognition that things may be different and/or not working as they want them to.

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2013, 10:00:55 AM »
All that these changes and the hysteria has done is driven people that are worried they won't be able to get these guns into a buying frenzy.

The buying frenzy is part of the marketing campaign.

The primary reason the gun lobby doesn't want restrictions on firearms is because they make money off of making and selling firearms.  Threats of firearms regulation spurs the frenzy, and they sell even more, and make even more money.  I feel this is the primary reason why so much attention has been heaped on gun control, with so little gun control actually resulting.  Both sides benefit from the threat, if not the execution of it.

I found the hysteria to buy more guns and magazines dispicable and in some regards it altered my thinking from guns should be controlled but open to they should be more controlled than they currently are.

strider3700

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Location: vancouver island
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2013, 10:19:15 AM »
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing - home invasions, multiple assailants, generic robberies, etc. - the reality is people with guns are not sitting there on guard with guns in hand waiting for these moments so when these moments happen the gun owners go to reach for their guns and either get shot by the assailants gun or shot by the assailant with their own gun - and now you have another gun on the street for nefarious uses.  Nevermind the increased likelihood of a house with a gun in it being used in an unintended way such as suicide or depressed kid shooting up a school.  And please if the defense to this is "well no, I sleep with the gun next to me or I keep it next to the door" then you would not be a responsible gun owner. 

Many states allow the open or concealed carry of loaded firearms at all times  with various restrictions and requirements.   Most people that carry every day will have gone through training classes and be proficient at drawing, aiming and firing quite quickly.  I agree that a gun leaned up by the door is a bad idea but most people serious about self defence don't do that for exactly the reasons you stated.

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2013, 10:53:05 AM »
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing - home invasions, multiple assailants, generic robberies, etc. - the reality is people with guns are not sitting there on guard with guns in hand waiting for these moments so when these moments happen the gun owners go to reach for their guns and either get shot by the assailants gun or shot by the assailant with their own gun - and now you have another gun on the street for nefarious uses.  Nevermind the increased likelihood of a house with a gun in it being used in an unintended way such as suicide or depressed kid shooting up a school.  And please if the defense to this is "well no, I sleep with the gun next to me or I keep it next to the door" then you would not be a responsible gun owner. 

Many states allow the open or concealed carry of loaded firearms at all times  with various restrictions and requirements.   Most people that carry every day will have gone through training classes and be proficient at drawing, aiming and firing quite quickly.  I agree that a gun leaned up by the door is a bad idea but most people serious about self defence don't do that for exactly the reasons you stated.

I appreciate that and beleive that there are very disciplined, well trained gun owners out there but like anything else in life I would better the 80/20 rule applies - with only 20% falling into this category. 

I would also add that the best gun for home defense is a shotgun because the need for accuracy is muted.  Ever watch a real shoot out with cops (who are well trained and practice regularly) - there is a reason why they fire off 20 rounds and miss even though they are only 20 feet away from the intended target - because when someone is firing back it is difficult to focus - so it would be even worse for person who may be trained but does not live or die by it every day.

Jamesqf

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 4055
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2013, 11:31:59 AM »
I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing - home invasions, multiple assailants, generic robberies, etc. - the reality is people with guns are not sitting there on guard with guns in hand waiting for these moments...

You've pretty much missed the point, though.  Which is not for you, the gun owner, to successfully defend yourself against a home invasion.  It's for the people thinking about doing a home invasion to know that there is a significant risk of getting shot if they do, and so be deterred from even trying.  It's like getting vaccinated to keep from getting a disease, rather than trying to treat the disease after you catch it.

Another thing I worry about in this context is why the people promoting gun control only want to discuss gun violence.  It's as though they really believe that guns are exerting some sort of sinister mind control, causing people to want to go out and commit mass murders.  Now if you look at history, you'll discover that the the largest mass murders in US (and world - other countries have them to) were done with things other than guns - aircraft, improvised explosives, poisons, arson...

PS: Why isn't anyone calling for legislation to address subway violence?
Quote
A Philadelphia man has been arrested for allegedly throwing a woman onto the tracks of a subway in the third recent incident of underground violence on a major metropolitan mass transit system.

William Clark, 36, was arrested Thursday in connection with an attack earlier this week on the woman. who is seen on a security video being dragged across the passenger platform and hurled onto the tracks, police said. The woman, who was not identified, was able to get up and walk across the tracks and climb up onto the platform on the other side.

The attack comes in the wake of two incidents in New York City where riders were killed after being thrown in front of oncoming subway trains.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-man-arrested-in-subway-assault-in-philadelphia-20130118,0,2712387.story
« Last Edit: January 18, 2013, 12:32:42 PM by Jamesqf »

Richard3

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2013, 11:46:10 AM »
Quote
The reality is that Obama's proposal probably includes some of those extras because some senator from somewher said if you give my state $x then for police then I will support the bill. Enough already.

If you really want to get angry look at how much complete nonsense pork was attached to the fiscal cliff bill.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16334798-fiscal-cliff-deal-includes-at-least-679-billion-for-special-interests?lite

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2013, 01:23:27 PM »
You've pretty much missed the point, though.  Which is not for you, the gun owner, to successfully defend yourself against a home invasion.  It's for the people thinking about doing a home invasion to know that there is a significant risk of getting shot if they do, and so be deterred from even trying.  It's like getting vaccinated to keep from getting a disease, rather than trying to treat the disease after you catch it.

Maybe, but I am not completely sold on that idea.  But wouldn't a shotgun have that only holds 2-5 rounds accomplish the same thing.  The notion that you need a assault rifle with 120 rounds is ludicrous. 

Another thing I worry about in this context is why the people promoting gun control only want to discuss gun violence.  It's as though they really believe that guns are exerting some sort of sinister mind control, causing people to want to go out and commit mass murders.  Now if you look at history, you'll discover that the the largest mass murders in US (and world - other countries have them to) were done with things other than guns - aircraft, improvised explosives, poisons, arson...

I agree with this too - decisions/legislation about gun control or loosening for that matter should not be had or decided based on recent tragic events.  And your right there are other means of murder, mass or otherwise.....which is why I am supportive of the 2nd amendment but that does not necessarily mean additional gun control shouldn't be evaluated and passed.

OK and because you referenced Philadelphia - there have been 3700+ murders in the last ten years (btw that is more than the number of people that died on 9/11 and not far from te number of soldiers that died during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) and of that about 3100 were from guns - and this is just one city - clearly there is an issue.  And jsut because there are other issues or means to deliver death doesn't dismiss discussing ways to improve a single one of those things.  Guns get bought and sold privately, illegally, stolen, etc - they get on the streets some how and every one of these deaths means a gun was in the hands of someone it shouldn't have been.

I don't have the answer but I do believe there needs to be some change, and minimally it needs to be discussed in a thoughtful way.

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2013, 01:25:39 PM »
Quote
The reality is that Obama's proposal probably includes some of those extras because some senator from somewher said if you give my state $x then for police then I will support the bill. Enough already.

If you really want to get angry look at how much complete nonsense pork was attached to the fiscal cliff bill.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16334798-fiscal-cliff-deal-includes-at-least-679-billion-for-special-interests?lite

I saw that too when the bill was passed and at first I honestly thought it was joke - like something from the Onion - and when it was apparent that it was not I realized how doomed we are fiscally.

Matt

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2013, 01:46:01 PM »
I'm just not a fan of taking rights away of any sort, especially at the federal level.  If there was to be a discussion on specific laws around guns it should be addressed at the state level the same as other controversial measures that have passed lately from state to state (Highway speed limits, gay marriage, marijuana, ect.).  *Side note of the 35+ mags that I own approximately 4 are under 10 rounds and none under the 7 round limit the state of NY requires of their gun owners comply with.   Just frustrated with this whole thing.

unitsinc

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston/Denver
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2013, 02:34:59 PM »
You've pretty much missed the point, though.  Which is not for you, the gun owner, to successfully defend yourself against a home invasion.  It's for the people thinking about doing a home invasion to know that there is a significant risk of getting shot if they do, and so be deterred from even trying.  It's like getting vaccinated to keep from getting a disease, rather than trying to treat the disease after you catch it.

Maybe, but I am not completely sold on that idea.  But wouldn't a shotgun have that only holds 2-5 rounds accomplish the same thing.  The notion that you need a assault rifle with 120 rounds is ludicrous. 

Another thing I worry about in this context is why the people promoting gun control only want to discuss gun violence.  It's as though they really believe that guns are exerting some sort of sinister mind control, causing people to want to go out and commit mass murders.  Now if you look at history, you'll discover that the the largest mass murders in US (and world - other countries have them to) were done with things other than guns - aircraft, improvised explosives, poisons, arson...

I agree with this too - decisions/legislation about gun control or loosening for that matter should not be had or decided based on recent tragic events.  And your right there are other means of murder, mass or otherwise.....which is why I am supportive of the 2nd amendment but that does not necessarily mean additional gun control shouldn't be evaluated and passed.

OK and because you referenced Philadelphia - there have been 3700+ murders in the last ten years (btw that is more than the number of people that died on 9/11 and not far from te number of soldiers that died during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) and of that about 3100 were from guns - and this is just one city - clearly there is an issue.  And jsut because there are other issues or means to deliver death doesn't dismiss discussing ways to improve a single one of those things.  Guns get bought and sold privately, illegally, stolen, etc - they get on the streets some how and every one of these deaths means a gun was in the hands of someone it shouldn't have been.

I don't have the answer but I do believe there needs to be some change, and minimally it needs to be discussed in a thoughtful way.

I have no way of checking this, but I would bet good money that of those 3100 gun deaths, a very significant number were from guns acquired in an illegal manner, thus passing more laws would do little to nothing.
I'm your huckleberry.

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2013, 02:59:24 PM »
Additional gun control won't solve all issues but its a funny thing how legally acquired guns can easily become illegally acquired guns....they come from somewhere don't they.  Many come from straw purchases and some are stolen guns.  I would also wager that most of those were from hand guns and not assault rifles - so maybe the argument would be better served to maintain the status quo on assault rifles and ban the manufacture and sale of hand guns - not what I want but based on stats that would seem logical.

Again, I am not saying to take away all guns or prohibit sales entirely but that doesn't meant things shouldn't change.   

Ok so lets say additional gun control wouldn't solve anything then there are really only two options if change must happen - ban them outright and require that all guns be remanded (this is not an acceptable option IMO) or work from the bottom up and top down to make it more of a commitment to get a gun and to make the responsibility of owning a gun more explicit such that penalties are very severe for malfeasance.  To be honest I think the manufactures and NRA should bear greater responsibility in monitoring, the sale and permit process should be far more stringent and lengthy that requires signifcant training and psych evaluations over the course of a year, costly with increased upfront and ongoing fees (similar to owning a car), and gun owners should be required to certify at least annually the guns that they own (would reduce the "Oh it was stolen and I didn't know until now" part of private sales).


unitsinc

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston/Denver
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2013, 03:06:19 PM »
Additional gun control won't solve all issues but its a funny thing how legally acquired guns can easily become illegally acquired guns....they come from somewhere don't they.  Many come from straw purchases and some are stolen guns.  I would also wager that most of those were from hand guns and not assault rifles - so maybe the argument would be better served to maintain the status quo on assault rifles and ban the manufacture and sale of hand guns - not what I want but based on stats that would seem logical.

Again, I am not saying to take away all guns or prohibit sales entirely but that doesn't meant things shouldn't change.   

Ok so lets say additional gun control wouldn't solve anything then there are really only two options if change must happen - ban them outright and require that all guns be remanded (this is not an acceptable option IMO) or work from the bottom up and top down to make it more of a commitment to get a gun and to make the responsibility of owning a gun more explicit such that penalties are very severe for malfeasance.  To be honest I think the manufactures and NRA should bear greater responsibility in monitoring, the sale and permit process should be far more stringent and lengthy that requires signifcant training and psych evaluations over the course of a year, costly with increased upfront and ongoing fees (similar to owning a car), and gun owners should be required to certify at least annually the guns that they own (would reduce the "Oh it was stolen and I didn't know until now" part of private sales).

I am glad you know that hand guns are much more commonly used.

And I would agree that gun ownership should require more training and such. Someone earlier mentioned that when criminals know there is a chance someone owns a gun, they are less likely to commit a crime against them. I'd have to believe that would be doubly(triply) true if they knew that the gun owner was also exceptionally proficient.

The only thing we brush up against at that point is putting serious restrictions on what is a fundamental right. Granted, you have to be 18 to vote, must register, can't be a felon. So it wouldn't be the first time a right is somehow limited, but it would likely be the MOST restricted right, which I don't know how I feel about that.

There is obviously no simple solution.
I'm your huckleberry.

cbr shadow

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2013, 03:09:40 PM »
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away.  Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload.  There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well.  The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds).  Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.

I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing ....

As for the constitutionality, the 2nd amendment was established at a different time. 

(1) it was intended to protect the sovereignty of the nation and ensure there was the ability to have a militia of some kind in the event of an attack by some other nation (we had afterall recently broken away from England), law enforcement, detering the potential for an oppressive governmental regime and self defense if the expecation is that you will be killed otherwise. Whereas today we clearly have a well established, well funded forceful military and police forces, there may be some argument to the population having guns to keep the governemnt honest pers se, and the self defense argument still stands but I think it has expanded beyond the being killed part.

(2) guns were far different back then with a single shot (gun powder, lead ball, rod) vs. what they are today. 

....Again I am not for or against guns but ...

You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.
Also the 2nd amendment was not put in place so that the people could protect the country from other countries.  It was put in place so that the people would be armed against it's own govt (similar to how our country was formed) in case of a tyrant.   This explanation can be found in all 4 corners of the internet so I wont get into an arguement about it. This exact arguement has probably been played out on the internet 5 times just today.
I just dont like seeing someone dismissing what's in the constitution because "well now we have an army to defend us", because that's not the point at all.  I agree that the constitution was written in a different time, and that some things need to be adjusted based on the current time.  I just dont happen to believe that the 1st or 2nd should be changed a bit.


unitsinc

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston/Denver
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2013, 03:31:37 PM »
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away.  Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload.  There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well.  The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds).  Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.

I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing ....

As for the constitutionality, the 2nd amendment was established at a different time. 

(1) it was intended to protect the sovereignty of the nation and ensure there was the ability to have a militia of some kind in the event of an attack by some other nation (we had afterall recently broken away from England), law enforcement, detering the potential for an oppressive governmental regime and self defense if the expecation is that you will be killed otherwise. Whereas today we clearly have a well established, well funded forceful military and police forces, there may be some argument to the population having guns to keep the governemnt honest pers se, and the self defense argument still stands but I think it has expanded beyond the being killed part.

(2) guns were far different back then with a single shot (gun powder, lead ball, rod) vs. what they are today. 

....Again I am not for or against guns but ...

You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.
Also the 2nd amendment was not put in place so that the people could protect the country from other countries.  It was put in place so that the people would be armed against it's own govt (similar to how our country was formed) in case of a tyrant.   This explanation can be found in all 4 corners of the internet so I wont get into an arguement about it. This exact arguement has probably been played out on the internet 5 times just today.
I just dont like seeing someone dismissing what's in the constitution because "well now we have an army to defend us", because that's not the point at all.  I agree that the constitution was written in a different time, and that some things need to be adjusted based on the current time.  I just dont happen to believe that the 1st or 2nd should be changed a bit.


I've always been amused by that argument.

Back when The Constitution was written there was no internet, or TV, but we haven't drastically altered freedom of speech to accommodate these new things.
Seems like a similar argument to me.
I'm your huckleberry.

cbr shadow

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2013, 03:40:00 PM »
Unitnc, you quoted my whole post, but I think you only meant to quote that last sentence - correct?

To be clear, i'm against changing the constitution unless something is glaringly wrong w/ how things have progressed.  The supreme court interprets what the consitution means and how it can be applied to current times very often - 1st amendment probably moreso than any other.

Matt

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2013, 03:53:04 PM »
I assume the argument is that an offensive shooter is typically going to attack unarmed people, where there's plenty of time to reload as the victims are all trying to run away.  Whereas a defensive shooter is only in the position of shooting defensively due to the fact that they're under an active attack and do not have spare time to reload.  There's a pretty common misconception that 1 shot instantly kills someone as well.  The reality is that it can take many shots to even slow 1 persons down (with some police shootouts requiring 20+ rounds to stop just ONE criminal intent on bad deeds).  Today's reality is that home invasions are increasingly being done by *multiple* assailants, thereby making large capacity magazines more desirable for defense.

I am not really for or against guns but here is the thing ....

As for the constitutionality, the 2nd amendment was established at a different time. 

(1) it was intended to protect the sovereignty of the nation and ensure there was the ability to have a militia of some kind in the event of an attack by some other nation (we had afterall recently broken away from England), law enforcement, detering the potential for an oppressive governmental regime and self defense if the expecation is that you will be killed otherwise. Whereas today we clearly have a well established, well funded forceful military and police forces, there may be some argument to the population having guns to keep the governemnt honest pers se, and the self defense argument still stands but I think it has expanded beyond the being killed part.

(2) guns were far different back then with a single shot (gun powder, lead ball, rod) vs. what they are today. 

....Again I am not for or against guns but ...

You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.
Also the 2nd amendment was not put in place so that the people could protect the country from other countries.  It was put in place so that the people would be armed against it's own govt (similar to how our country was formed) in case of a tyrant.   This explanation can be found in all 4 corners of the internet so I wont get into an arguement about it. This exact arguement has probably been played out on the internet 5 times just today.
I just dont like seeing someone dismissing what's in the constitution because "well now we have an army to defend us", because that's not the point at all.  I agree that the constitution was written in a different time, and that some things need to be adjusted based on the current time.  I just dont happen to believe that the 1st or 2nd should be changed a bit.


I've always been amused by that argument.

Back when The Constitution was written there was no internet, or TV, but we haven't drastically altered freedom of speech to accommodate these new things.
Seems like a similar argument to me.

I don't recall us ever gagging reporters before they went on tv because they might curse or movie goers before they entered a theater just because someone might yell Fire"
« Last Edit: January 18, 2013, 03:57:08 PM by Matt »

BlueMR2

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2013, 04:06:31 PM »
Maybe, but I am not completely sold on that idea.  But wouldn't a shotgun have that only holds 2-5 rounds accomplish the same thing.  The notion that you need a assault rifle with 120 rounds is ludicrous. 

A rifle with 120 rounds would be pretty ludicrous.  Biggest I've ever seen are 100 round drums before and it's downright silly.  The only thing it's good for is for poking holes in paper from a benchrest.  In anything other than perhaps the small caliber low power stuff, it makes the gun so incredibly bulky and heavy that handling it is quite awkward!

There's variation with caliber/power of the round as well.  The standard AR-15 is the .223/5.56mm that is talked about on the news, but that's just one particular configuration of the AR-15 platform.  On the upper end, 10 rounds of .458 SOCOM is pretty heavy (but each round would be very effective).  Whereas the one I own is chambered in the 9mm pistol cartridge and comes standard with 25 round magazines, but has a total firepower/effectiveness less than the .458 SOCOM does with 10...  Compounded by the fact that the ".458 SOCOM 10 round" magazine is the exact same magazine as a ".223 30 round" magazine...  Magazine limitations *purely* by count seem like a good idea until one does the research and sees the problems.  Something along the lines of a formula involving power and capacity might be more effective (I'm against such regulations myself, but whenever I see failed arguments towards a goal, even one I don't believe in, I try to find something that would suit the *intended* goal better).

unitsinc

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Houston/Denver
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2013, 04:06:50 PM »
Unitnc, you quoted my whole post, but I think you only meant to quote that last sentence - correct?

To be clear, i'm against changing the constitution unless something is glaringly wrong w/ how things have progressed.  The supreme court interprets what the consitution means and how it can be applied to current times very often - 1st amendment probably moreso than any other.


Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the argument that you quoted, not the one that you used.
I'm your huckleberry.

StarswirlTheMustached

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2013, 07:07:56 PM »
So, um, about this Second Amendment business. Canadian here. I don't mean to offend, but why does "the right to bear arms" always get taken as a blanket permission, when the full text of the amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia"? Doesn't that sorta imply... I dunno, regulation? And militias? Can anyone enlighten me?

strider3700

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Location: vancouver island
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2013, 08:31:37 PM »
  Compounded by the fact that the ".458 SOCOM 10 round" magazine is the exact same magazine as a ".223 30 round" magazine...  Magazine limitations *purely* by count seem like a good idea until one does the research and sees the problems.  Something along the lines of a formula involving power and capacity might be more effective (I'm against such regulations myself, but whenever I see failed arguments towards a goal, even one I don't believe in, I try to find something that would suit the *intended* goal better).

Here in canada we're 5 round limit in rifles 10 round in handguns.  there of course are guns that can use the same magazine in a rifle as in a handgun.  You can legally own both but if you ever put the handgun mag in the rifle you've broken a law and if prosecuted would lose all rights to firearms for quite awhile as well you could very well go to prison.  Truly stupid law.

of course they've decided that the .22 rimfire isn't dangerous at all and I believe there is no limit to capacity in them since it's basically for plinking.  I have a couple of 50 rnd magazines for my 10/22 and I freely admit It's way nicer then constantly reloading a mag when you punching paper.

Jamesqf

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 4055
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2013, 09:38:33 PM »
A rifle with 120 rounds would be pretty ludicrous.  Biggest I've ever seen are 100 round drums before and it's downright silly.  The only thing it's good for is for poking holes in paper from a benchrest.  In anything other than perhaps the small caliber low power stuff, it makes the gun so incredibly bulky and heavy that handling it is quite awkward!

I can't really see the point of arguing over magazine size, from either direction.  Granted that it's been a good many years since I've done it, but IIRC I could swap an empty clip for a full one on either an M-16 or AK-47 in a second or two.

But the point of any regulation is that it's the camel's nose under the tent. 

grantmeaname

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3693
  • Age: 22
  • Location: London, UK
  • Pseudoscience is alive and well...in YOUR hometown
    • The MMM Blogger Community
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2013, 06:48:09 AM »
So, um, about this Second Amendment business. Canadian here. I don't mean to offend, but why does "the right to bear arms" always get taken as a blanket permission, when the full text of the amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia"? Doesn't that sorta imply... I dunno, regulation? And militias?

No, it sorta doesn't, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In 2008's D.C. v Heller, the court held that the specific wording of the amendment -- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" -- is not a grammatical foible, but is worded such that the first clause does not limit the scope of the second clause and merely provides context for interpretation. That is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is a blanket permission. The linked section provides some good context for why it was interpreted that way, if you're interested.

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2013, 07:34:21 AM »

You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.
Also the 2nd amendment was not put in place so that the people could protect the country from other countries.  It was put in place so that the people would be armed against it's own govt (similar to how our country was formed) in case of a tyrant.   This explanation can be found in all 4 corners of the internet so I wont get into an arguement about it. This exact arguement has probably been played out on the internet 5 times just today.
I just dont like seeing someone dismissing what's in the constitution because "well now we have an army to defend us", because that's not the point at all.  I agree that the constitution was written in a different time, and that some things need to be adjusted based on the current time.  I just dont happen to believe that the 1st or 2nd should be changed a bit.
[/quote]

Actually one of the purposs of the 2nd amendment was to help protect against invasions, but not solely that purpose as I clearly laid out.  You are wrong that the sole purpose was to protect against tyrany from government, but it was one of the reasons. 

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2013, 07:37:03 AM »
So, um, about this Second Amendment business. Canadian here. I don't mean to offend, but why does "the right to bear arms" always get taken as a blanket permission, when the full text of the amendment starts with the phrase "a well regulated militia"? Doesn't that sorta imply... I dunno, regulation? And militias?

No, it sorta doesn't, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In 2008's D.C. v Heller, the court held that the specific wording of the amendment -- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" -- is not a grammatical foible, but is worded such that the first clause does not limit the scope of the second clause and merely provides context for interpretation. That is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is a blanket permission. The linked section provides some good context for why it was interpreted that way, if you're interested.

Yup, that clearly determined that the right to bear arms couldn't be infringed upon but that did not mean the types of arms, ammunition, and capacity couldn't be.

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #40 on: January 19, 2013, 07:42:26 AM »
You start by saying you're not for or against guns, but then you make some pretty anti-gun statements.

Your right, and as much as I hate to say it the more discuss this topic the more I think gun control matters - it seems that anyone who has a gun sees no value in any regulation and it would be perfectly normal to own a cache of weapons the size of a small country because a rodent might scurry across the floor. 

Not to mention - the OP was really about issue with the government spending more money to do this and about gun control.  You people are pissing me off because I dispise big government and more regulation but in my typical fashion (pragmatic) I realize that there can be middle ground and some regulations do make a difference.

As I said, I don't have an answer but there does seem to be an issue and not just because of the mass shootings that have occurred.

grantmeaname

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3693
  • Age: 22
  • Location: London, UK
  • Pseudoscience is alive and well...in YOUR hometown
    • The MMM Blogger Community
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2013, 08:07:17 AM »
Yup, that clearly determined that the right to bear arms couldn't be infringed upon but that did not mean the types of arms, ammunition, and capacity couldn't be.
I agree. I hadn't interpreted the "regulation" part of the question that way; it's an interesting aspect that I hadn't thought of.

Self-employed-swami

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Location: Canada
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2013, 08:17:50 AM »
Another Canadian here.

I guess I just don't understand US gun culture.  My Dad, uncles and grandfather (and most of my male relatives) and both my aunts, grew up hunting deer (and the occasional goose/turkey/what have you).  They were all rifles.  No one I know, owns a handgun.  No one owns anything, other than a hunting gun.  All these handguns and assault rifles, that some Americans seem to be so in love with, are designed for primarily one thing: To shoot people.  But, when someone actually shoots a person with one of these guns, everyone acts so shocked!

I just don't get it, I guess.

The issue with the long gun registry was a tough one.  I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is.  It is just too bad that it turned into such a political disaster.
A small business-owning SWAMI working herself towards FI.

Matt

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2013, 09:21:05 AM »
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....

Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one

StarswirlTheMustached

  • Magnum
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2013, 09:32:56 AM »
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....

Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one
Really, any statement? how about, ''everyone you love should be sodomized by elephants and pecked to death by emus.''

sol

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2013, 10:02:33 AM »
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....

Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one

I unconditionally support your right to own a car, but I still support vehicle registrations and licensing.

I unconditionally support your right to have casual sex, but I still think we should prosecute pedophiles and rapists.

I see lots of middle ground for additional firearms restrictions that in no way would infringe on the second amendment.

tooqk4u22

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2013, 10:38:41 AM »
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....

Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one

I unconditionally support your right to own a car, but I still support vehicle registrations and licensing.

I unconditionally support your right to have casual sex, but I still think we should prosecute pedophiles and rapists.

I see lots of middle ground for additional firearms restrictions that in no way would infringe on the second amendment.

This is becoming someone of an addictive habit - like other discussions here we are again two people who seem to be at different locations of the liberal/conservative spectrum and yet we seem to be saying similar things.  I think we need to figure a way to spread this to other people.

Midwest

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2013, 10:51:24 AM »
... I think that the government and the police ought to know where every legal gun in the country is....

Wow I could not disagree with any statement more than I do this one

I unconditionally support your right to own a car, but I still support vehicle registrations and licensing.

Vehicles and drivers operating a vehicle on a public road are licensed.  Similarly (in many states), those wanting to carry a concealed weapon in public are licensed.  Those wanting to keep cars/weapons in their garage or home, should not be required to register.


I unconditionally support your right to have casual sex, but I still think we should prosecute pedophiles and rapists.

We have many laws and restrictions on the misuse of firearms already.   Similarly, we have laws regarding sexual behaviors.  We don't require registration of sexual organs for law abiding citizens of whom a small % might eventually commit crimes of a sexual nature, why should we require registration of firearms for law abiding citizens?

I see lots of middle ground for additional firearms restrictions that in no way would infringe on the second amendment.

Registration might be an option in my book if government and the press hadn't already demonstrated a complete and utter disregard for privacy rights of gun owners.  Given what just happened in New York, I am completely against registration.

Self-employed-swami

  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Location: Canada
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2013, 11:16:52 AM »
What happened in New York? 

A small business-owning SWAMI working herself towards FI.

Midwest

  • Handlebar
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: $500 million gun violence package
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2013, 11:20:20 AM »
What happened in New York?

2 things:

1.  Newspaper posted online personal information (on a google map) of thousands of permit holders in several counties.
2. Completely over reaching (in my opinion) law recently passed which makes illegal possession of personal property (magazines of a certain size) that was previously legal.  I believe (although would need to confirm) that it also banned transfer of certain types  of weapons.  Again, this tramples on the property rights of gun holders.

Just to clarify, I oppose registration which IMO serves no purposes.  I have no opposition to all transfers being subject to background checks (including private transfers). 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 11:29:30 AM by Midwest »