HeyYou Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Still, 25,000 dollars plus to be able to buy a gun? That will never fly. The NRA would never get behind this idea. They would see it (as I do..) as a MAJOR infringement of our 2nd amendment rights. You can tout your belief that it isn't, but, that would be for lawyers and judges to decide, and that would prolly take several years as well. Specific schools JUST for gun ownership? That would be even more costly than adding the programs to existing schools.... As for it leading to employment..... only if the military and police were held to the same standards... (something else that just ain't gonna happen...... neither organization has that kind of time to invest in training recruits) And if you think that you are going to tell some soldier that he can't purchase a weapon is his own country, even though he had been bearing arms elsewhere in support of said country...... well, I wish you luck with that one....... The black market would expand from what it is now, to help the criminal element get their guns. Where there is a demand, there WILL be a supply, legal or not. Make it difficult for the average joe to purchase a gun, hence, a good supply of 'stealable' weapons, they will go elsewhere, and there WILL be folks more than happy to give them what they want. For a price...... Gun manufacturers make more than just military weapons. If there wasn't a significant market, they wouldn't make guns for the civilian market at all. Sure, governments make up the bulk of sales, but, if you think gun manufacturers make all their weapons in the same factory, better think again. If you think the cops/military buy hunting rifles.... well, once again, better rethink that. Look at the sheer variety of weapons available on the market. Less than 10% of them are targeted at military/law enforcement. Who does that leave? Civilians..... Sure, it may not have a 'profound' effect on the jobs market, but, it would have some.... (not to mention the losses of tax revenue the government keeps crying about.) You can't say you know this nor do I. But it is more meaningful gun reform than arming all teachers in schools around the nation. And right there is the basic problem you and I have. You want gun control, in the mistaken belief it will make you safer. Chicago has a complete handgun ban, did it have ANY effect on gun crime? Yep, it went UP. I just want to be safer, or, at least have the ability to defend myself/others. Gun control legislation ONLY effects those that OBEY the laws. Criminals (of which, mass-shooters most certainly are) DO NOT. You can pass all the laws you want, but, all you will succeed at doing is taking guns away from the folks that would DEFEND YOU, and do nothing at all to those that would rob/kill you. I think this is the most salient point. Trouble is, gun control advocates refuse to see it. In the illustrious words of Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Trouble is, in this case, you wouldn't even be getting any additional safety. As you have probably figgered out by now.... I am a pro-gun advocate..... I have real issues with the government depriving me of my constitutional rights, no matter what left-handed method they choose. You are never going to convince me that your proposal is a 'good idea', or even workable. (not to mention, you would never get it thru congress....) On the other hand, I know that I am never going to convince you otherwise either. :) So, at this point, I am going to kick back, and see what other folks input may come down the pike. Thank you for a fun debate/argument/whateveryouwannacallit. :D And always remember: An armed society is a POLITE society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomis8329 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You have just proved the points I was trying to make Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Still, 25,000 dollars plus to be able to buy a gun? That will never fly. The NRA would never get behind this idea. Like any organization in America if there is huge profit behind anything they would do it in a heartbeat! As for it leading to employment..... only if the military and police were held to the same standards... Yes the standard would eventually change over time with this kind of reform. Such organization as the FBI, local police, and possibly military etc... would fall in line. The black market would expand from what it is now, to help the criminal element get their guns. Where there is a demand, there WILL be a supply, legal or not. Make it difficult for the average joe to purchase a gun, hence, a good supply of 'stealable' weapons, they will go elsewhere, and there WILL be folks more than happy to give them what they want. For a price...... And before you were complaining about the cost of going to a firearm school.... You would actaully buy a $100 hand gun for $25,000 to $100,000 illegally? Gun manufacturers make more than just military weapons. If there wasn't a significant market, they wouldn't make guns for the civilian market at all. Sure, governments make up the bulk of sales, but, if you think gun manufacturers make all their weapons in the same factory, better think again. If you think the cops/military buy hunting rifles.... well, once again, better rethink that. Look at the sheer variety of weapons available on the market. Less than 10% of them are targeted at military/law enforcement. Who does that leave? Civilians..... Sure, it may not have a 'profound' effect on the jobs market, but, it would have some.... (not to mention the losses of tax revenue the government keeps crying about.) Never was claiming Gun manufacturers wouldn't take a hit on demestic public sales but in capitalizm thats what companies do. Some move way while other stay. Also tax revenue the government could accumulate could be through these fireamrs schools as well. You can't say you know this nor do I. But it is more meaningful gun reform than arming all teachers in schools around the nation. And right there is the basic problem you and I have. You want gun control, in the mistaken belief it will make you safer. Chicago has a complete handgun ban, did it have ANY effect on gun crime? Yep, it went UP. I understand my idea is very scary in your view but in my view it's actaully meaningful reform. I respect you don't like my idea but I do want meaningful gun reform and I still beleive my idea would lead to dramatic reduction in gun violence since it's not actually banning anything to begin with. Maybe why people are so scared of this idea is because something like this could actually be made into a law if the democratic party had a totally control in congress, senate, and the whitehouse. Concidering the current disarray the republican party is in now it could be soon. you would never get it thru congress.... Honestly I've been spamming my congressman everyday under over a dozen differnt email account till he gets the message from me. You could be right but atleast i try. Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You have just proved the points I was trying to make I disagree. You run under the supposition that some variety of gun-control would make us safer. I have proven that that is simply not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 It's Ironic some people think of the Federal government as being so evil and think in this day and age State governments are fine without Federal help. Sure you might think doing without Federal government funding to build roads people can live without but ever thought if something like hurricane sandy or hurricane katrina or any other huge force of nature was to suddenly come along to your state and completely destory everything and cause over $50,000,000,000 of damage? If the Federal government wasn't providing aid in the form of disaster relief, then the States and local governments would have to come up with their own plans, and they would. If that meant saving up a pool of money from taxes to use for periodic disaster relief, then fine. It would take decades for State and local government alone to get itself back on its feet to completely rebuild their towns. and this is assuming no other natural disasters would effect the rebuilding. We depend on the Federal government for so much more than just roads. The list would be too long to state reasons why we need Federal government in this day and age. Too many people don't understand that things are usually handled better on a state and local level. I don't want the feds getting involved in things like education. The last thing we need is a national board of appointed and non-elected officials dictating what people should and shouldn't be learning in schools. These "heads" of bureaucracies don't answer directly to the people, and they have far too much power to be in a non-elected position. This is generally why I am opposed to a large federal government, there are too many people with too much power, and not enough accountability. For any free country, there needs to be a strong system of checks and balances, and the prior is directly contrary to that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) It's Ironic some people think of the Federal government as being so evil and think in this day and age State governments are fine without Federal help. Sure you might think doing without Federal government funding to build roads people can live without but ever thought if something like hurricane sandy or hurricane katrina or any other huge force of nature was to suddenly come along to your state and completely destory everything and cause over $50,000,000,000 of damage? If the Federal government wasn't providing aid in the form of disaster relief, then the States and local governments would have to come up with their own plans, and they would. If that meant saving up a pool of money from taxes to use for periodic disaster relief, then fine. This is completely off the topic but i will make a quick rebuttal.... A State and it's local government alone would take over a century to accumulate this type of tax surplus to have $50,000,000,000 of damage relief taxing people fairly. Otherwise maybe Income tax rate at 90%, Property tax at 90%, Sales taxes at 90%, etc... sure this sounds right. As of now just New jersey needs over $60 billion from the Federal government alone just to even start rebuilding a majority of it's devistation after Sandy hit. Since this has nothing to do with Sandy Hook shooting or gun reform lets keep the topic on track please... Edited January 2, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naomis8329 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Isn't it our moral obligation and duty to look after our children and others? How many more disasters, massacres and deaths must happen before people all over the US stand up and say "No more!"? In the UK "Yes" if someone wants to find a weapon they can, but the penalties over here are becoming higher as a result. Just to be caught carrying a lethal weapon is a mandatory sentence of 5 years, no excuses, no passing go, no collection £200. Murder is a mandatory 15 years to life unless there are mitigating circumstances eg self defence etc. We have no death penalty and I must admit that I, for one, would definitely vote for the re-introduction of the death sentence for the killing of children and policemen and women. The death sentence to me should be implemented without question for any killer of a child or police person. We all too often are softer on the criminal than the victim, we let the criminal have more rights than the victim, the human rights of the criminal come before those of the victim often to the extent of when that victim is dead and therefore no longer has any rights as they were stripped from them by the offender. Where is our moral code then? Why do we continue to allow these atrocities? What deterants can be put into place to stop these atrocities? When are we going to stop fighting fire with fire and learn from the mistakes of the past? Without reform there can be no safety for others, without a change in one's constitutional rights there can be no safety for ourselves and our families, without compromise there can be no way forward and the offender will win every time. The time has come for Rights to take a back seat and for us to do what's Right for the sake of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sukeban Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) @guns I am of the mind that mandating strict punishments for irresponsible gun owners (if your gun gets stolen, that IS your problem, IMO, as it should have been secured better) is the inherently CONSERVATIVE position given their traditional aversion to moral hazard and emphasis on personal responsibility. If conservatives can trash talk economic moral hazard (folks refusing to get health care and then abusing the emergency room for their care, etc.), they can certainly see the inherent moral hazard of owning a deadly weapon and then refusing to take responsibility for what is done with it. If economic free riders are so despicable, what about a social free rider who gets somebody else killed due shirking their responsibility to secure their weapon? Certainly, that is a FAR more grave dereliction of moral duty than ducking the cost of medical procedure. I 100% agree that the mother should have been charged as an accomplice had she survived, just as I believe any gun owner should be held to account if their weapons bring harm to others. If that makes a gun owner nervous, perhaps they should be like Flintlock and invest in multiple gun lockers, keeping the means of access as a secret known only to himself. That is responsible gun ownership; leaving a magnum unattended on the front porch whilst kids play on the lawn or a cache of assault weapons left alone in the basement with a deranged teenager categorically IS NOT. The 2nd Amendment might allow unfettered access to those weapons, but certainly we can hold an owner's feet to the fire should they abuse that privilege, meeting their sober responsibility with a callous and willful negligence. Edited January 2, 2013 by sukeban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) It's Ironic some people think of the Federal government as being so evil and think in this day and age State governments are fine without Federal help. Sure you might think doing without Federal government funding to build roads people can live without but ever thought if something like hurricane sandy or hurricane katrina or any other huge force of nature was to suddenly come along to your state and completely destory everything and cause over $50,000,000,000 of damage? If the Federal government wasn't providing aid in the form of disaster relief, then the States and local governments would have to come up with their own plans, and they would. If that meant saving up a pool of money from taxes to use for periodic disaster relief, then fine. This is completely off the topic but i will make a quick rebuttal.... A State and it's local government alone would take over a century to accumulate this type of tax surplus to have $50,000,000,000 of damage relief taxing people fairly. Otherwise maybe Income tax rate at 90%, Property tax at 90%, Sales taxes at 90%, etc... sure this sounds right. As of now just New jersey needs over $60 billion from the Federal government alone just to even start rebuilding a majority of it's devistation after Sandy hit. Since this has nothing to do with Sandy Hook shooting or gun reform lets keep the topic on track please... Its called insurance companies. They have trillions of assets. The insurance companies got a big enough pool of money where they can afford to pay out every now and then to cover disasters. People might have to be responsible and get private insurance, or risk losing their property to mother nature. Its called life, and people need to quit expecting a safety net be created for them with no responsibility of taking any action to make it happen themselves. The government may have to do the same thing if they can't acquire the assets to cover a natural disaster of decent magnitude. But anyway, I found this article that is pretty relevant to gun rights: http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/12/big_win_for_gun-rights_groups_federal_appeals_court_tosses_state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html Illinois, the last State in the union to deny any form of concealed carry permits to citizens was overturned. Huge victory for gun rights activists. The pro-gun lobby is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, far more powerful and better funded than the gun-control lobby. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Rtc.gif/300px-Rtc.gif Issue of concealed carry permits have expanded over time. All this "sweeping change" when it comes to gun rights, has been all one sided. If there is ONE positive thing out of the multitude of cluster ****s, at least people will stand up for gun rights. Looks like Vermont has had "unrestricted" concealed carry for quite awhile, I wonder what their gun violence rate is compared to Illinois? http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_gun-crime-gun-violence Oh wait!! Vermont is ranked 50th in the nation and they have UNRESTRICTED concealed carry. Compared to Illinois being #2, which currently doesn't issue any concealed carry permits. That proves its not a gun problem, its a PEOPLE problem. If that many criminals in Illinois are using guns for crimes, then they are obligated to setup a system where law-abiding citizens can get a permit to carry to defend themselves from criminal thugs. If you happen to be in "that" part of town in Chicago, having a gun at your side might not be a bad idea. Edited January 3, 2013 by Beriallord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) People might have to be responsible and get private insurance, or risk losing their property to mother nature. Its called life, and people need to quit expecting a safety net be created for them with no responsibility of taking any action to make it happen themselves. I get it... "you are on your own" logic... All this "sweeping change" when it comes to gun rights, has been all one sided. If there is ONE positive thing out of the multitude of cluster ****s, at least people will stand up for gun rights. One sided? That is quite presumptuous statement to make concidering I myself own a concealed firearms licence yet advocating for meaningful gun reform. Also This debate is not about concealed weapons. please stay on topic. topic: Debate over the Sandy Hook shooting "Will this lead to extreme change to gun laws in america?" Edited January 3, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts