Welcome to 'Murica

[♪alt13]

I think it demonstrated, albeit at a small scale, that a basic monetary intervention could tap into the flow of guns. These programs are question-free/anonymous, so it's just cash (or cash-equivalent) for guns. No police. No social work. I'm actually very interested in experiments that simply throw money at a problem without any of the other baggage.

Stolen gun? I don't care. Crashing the black market prices? Awesome.

I have no idea how to gauge the demand for guns in LA. I'm guessing nobody here does.

I doesn't "demonstrate that a basic monetary intervention could tap into the flow of guns" to do that you need to show that there are actually fewer guns.

How does it crash black market prices? That was not what I was implying at all. I was simply saying that it has provided another market for would be thieves to sell their "goods".

*** for bold You cited the link. You pointed to it as "what happened in the real world" so you should explain what you mean. What happened?

 

[TroutBum]

wouldn't expect anything other than this kind of response. You peaked on this site a long time ago, brough. You're boring.

I'm ok with boring. In fact, I'd rather be a bore than a know-it-all pooh finger, who by the way, doesn't show up to fights that he starts. Just sayin'... You're kind of a poosay.

OK, my bad, I just realized I miswrote the question.

How many people do you think he could have shot WITHOUT a gun?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say zero -- unless, of course, he was using a wrist rocket, a crossbow, blunderbus, or even a taser. I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything here. The same question could be asked the other way, "How many people do you think he could have shot if he HADN'T seen the 24/7 glorification of guns and mass/school shootings?"

The first thing is to get people to realize that there is a problem. In 2013, the most recent year for which I can easily find statistics, there were 33,169 deaths from firearms in the US (excluding deaths by "legal intervention," IE, cop). Almost 2/3 of those, 21,175, were suicides. The MINORITY were the attention-grabbing mass killings like what happened in Oregon.

Honestly, the first part of a solution would be to get Wayne LaPierre out. He has led the NRA in a disastrous and radical direction since the early 90's, although they have been pretty rough since the mid-late 70's.

As far as safety issues, common sense solutions: A "loaded" flag, so that you know if there is a round chambered. Chamber locks, trigger locks, smart guns. There are many ways to make guns safer AND THE NRA OPPOSES THEM.

Yes, education, but the mandatory education which has been proposed upthread assumes that, A) Everyone wants to learn (and wants their kids to learn) about guns, and B) we live in a fully armed society where we need to learn about guns.

Yes, waiting periods. Especially for handguns, honestly. Again, these are the weapons most commonly used in suicides and "crimes of passion," and, generally, if you can get people to wait 72 hours, they won't go thru with it.

Maybe if the NRA and the gun fondlers would agree to reasonable steps, there wouldn't be need for unreasonable ones.

This is the first intelligent thing that's been posted in this thread, minus anything authored by me.

I think you can preserve the sporting nature of hunting and remove automatic and semi-automatic weapons from the flow of guns. I come from a family of hunting enthusiasts (I was enrolled in hunters' safety on the first eligible day), and I've never met a passionate, sporting hunter who needed a magazine. Never met one who needed a handgun.

*I'd support halting the manufacture and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic guns.
*I'd support a large, nationwide, taxpayer-funded gun buyback program that paid handsomely for automatic and semi-automatic guns. Program also to be funded with taxes levied at the retail point-of-sale of all guns going forward. EDIT: Ultimately, the gun-buyback prices need to be kept higher than the prices for used guns.
*I'm not sure how much time the watchdogs need to adequately investigate a gun buyer, but I'd support a system that gave them the adequate time.
*I do have discomforts with the State being able to dictate what someone does with their guns once they've purchased them. So, I would not attempt to ban the casual selling of used guns (it'd be ineffective law anyway). But, I would put a system in place where buyers and sellers could officially register the transfer of property if they chose to (since any investigation of a crime committed with a gun is already searchable to the last-known owner if such forensic evidence is found... or at least I think that's the case... and I can image a seller wanting to be free of that).

None of these attempt to criminalize those people who are currently in possession of guns of any type.




(That's a quick sketch)

Your quick sketch is the stupidest thing I've read all day. For someone who claims to be, and loves to pound their chest because they're so smart, you sure are ****ing dumb.

The only good thing to come out of this thread is that no matter how hard the Left cries, whines, pisses, and moans, guns are never going to go away. Ever. Obama isn't going to take them, NAOS isn't going to take them, the NWO isn't going to take them.

LOL, "gun buyback"... That is so damn delusional that I actually typed out "LOL."

 

[gandalfe]

TroutBum - if you want to have a discussion, stop with the ad hominem attacks.

 

[gandalfe]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say zero -- unless, of course, he was using a wrist rocket, a crossbow, blunderbus, or even a taser. I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything here. The same question could be asked the other way, "How many people do you think he could have shot if he HADN'T seen the 24/7 glorification of guns and mass/school shootings?"

But that's my point. So many people say, "It's not about the guns!" when it is obviously at least a LITTLE bit about the guns.

 

[NAOS]

I'm ok with boring. In fact, I'd rather be a bore than a know-it-all pooh finger, who by the way, doesn't show up to fights that he starts. Just sayin'...

here we go again. This has to happen, what, like, 2 or 3 times a year? You hold onto thinks all sad.

 

[NAOS]

I doesn't "demonstrate that a basic monetary intervention could tap into the flow of guns" to do that you need to show that there are actually fewer guns.

How does it crash black market prices? That was not what I was implying at all. I was simply saying that it has provided another market for would be thieves to sell their "goods".

*** for bold You cited the link. You pointed to it as "what happened in the real world" so you should explain what you mean. What happened?

There are plenty of ways to blow suspicion at the buyback programs. Maybe I should be more suspicious, too; but I also get the sense that this suspicion is too well-rehearsed.

Maybe I'll compromise by knocking it lower down the "scale" than I already did. It's small scale. But isn't it a strange kind of market that will give you money for goods and then immediately take those goods out of circulation forever? I think so, and that's cool. Isn't it possible to think about scaling this up far enough to significantly disrupt the market prices for guns (used guns is particular)? and taking a lot of guns out of circulation?

As for the bolded: I'll admit an overstatement there. I was trying to get at Stoked's (apparent) insistence that all of this remain an abstract exercise outside of real political possibility. I don't like those sentiments. In truth, it's difficult to say exactly what happened here, and I'd have to be a lot closer to things in order to feel comfortable saying. I disagree that I need to show there are fewer guns in order to say that this intervention can tap into the flow of guns; after the exercise was over, they had more of them.

 

[gandalfe]

Ignore the click-baityness of the headline, here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law

 

[♪alt13]

There are plenty of ways to blow suspicion at the buyback programs. Maybe I should be more suspicious, too; but I also get the sense that this suspicion is too well-rehearsed.

Maybe I'll compromise by knocking it lower down the "scale" than I already did. It's small scale. But isn't it a strange kind of market that will give you money for goods and then immediately take those goods out of circulation forever? I think so, and that's cool. Isn't it possible to think about scaling this up far enough to significantly disrupt the market prices for guns (used guns is particular)? and taking a lot of guns out of circulation?

As for the bolded: I'll admit an overstatement there. I was trying to get at Stoked's (apparent) insistence that all of this remain an abstract exercise outside of real political possibility. I don't like those sentiments. In truth, it's difficult to say exactly what happened here, and I'd have to be a lot closer to things in order to feel comfortable saying. I disagree that I need to show there are fewer guns in order to say that this intervention can tap into the flow of guns; after the exercise was over, they had more of them.

No that's how food, fuel and a whole bunch of other stuff works.

I don't see how a voluntary gun buy back program could do anything other than support the market. If you spend money to buyback guns more guns will be produced. In the same way that if you spend money to buyback strawberries more strawberries will be produced. Voluntary gun buyback programs just don't make a whole lot of sense imo. Unless you are a gun manufacturer that is.

 

[NAOS]

I don't see how a voluntary gun buy back program could do anything other than support the market. If you spend money to buyback guns more guns will be produced. In the same way that if you spend money to buyback strawberries more strawberries will be produced. Voluntary gun buyback programs just don't make a whole lot of sense imo. Unless you are a gun manufacturer that is.

It's a possible piece of a possible pie. If another possible piece is the cessation of gun manufacturing, and we entertain that as something that could succeed, then the only other way to apply a lot of your sentiments is to say that "bootleg" style gun manufactory will still flourish to a significant degree, and that the buyback market would work as a support. You might be right, but a flow of unmarked guns of unknown manufactory could certainly lead to investigations or the alteration of the gun buyback policies. Or something else. Maybe it's a bad idea. On the scale I'm imagining, we only have hypotheses.

No that's how food, fuel and a whole bunch of other stuff works.

I could try to poke holes in some of this by reaching out in some holistic way, but my original point is that gun buyback programs don't easily or necessarily fit in the rubrics/definitions of a marketplace for guns. Especially when paired with the other stated objectives. It has more of a parasitic relationship to the marketplace, which makes it significantly different than food. Species of animals and plants that form our foodweb are, from a certain perspective, flourishing. They're territorializing us as we're territorializing them. A double-capture. Can the marketplace for fossil fuels be described as viral? The carbon is still very much in circulation and affecting other markets. Dunno; seems different. I do know that weapons are a special class of thing.

 

[gandalfe]

I could try to poke holes in some of this by reaching out in some holistic way, but my original point is that gun buyback programs don't easily or necessarily fit in the rubrics/definitions of a marketplace for guns. Especially when paired with the other stated objectives. It has more of a parasitic relationship to the marketplace, which makes it significantly different than food. Species of animals and plants that form our foodweb are, from a certain perspective, flourishing. They're territorializing us as we're territorializing them. A double-capture. Can the marketplace for fossil fuels be described as viral? The carbon is still very much in circulation and affecting other markets. Dunno; seems different. I do know that weapons are a special class of thing.

The difference is that the other goods (food, gasoline, etc) are purchased to be used to provide, generally, energy of one form or another, whereas with a gun buyback program, they would be purchased for the specific purpose of NOT using them.

 

[fishonjazz]

Tramps!

 

[NAOS]

The difference is that the other goods (food, gasoline, etc) are purchased to be used to provide, generally, energy of one form or another, whereas with a gun buyback program, they would be purchased for the specific purpose of NOT using them.

While I agree that USE VALUE is a difference that can be explored here, I'm certain that salt13 was talking specifically about the dynamics involving MONETARY VALUE, which has important distinctions from the former.