Empirical Liberty Framework for Debating Gun Control

[AZGrizFan]

Of course it's not, the final straw is the final straw. How is that too late? Like I said, we've taken incremental steps many times in the past and we're not anywhere close to the final straw. If we keep taking steps that get us half the way there, we'll never get there. This is a reasonable and proper law - it's not registration, it's not burdensome (heck, most sales already require a background check anyway). Blocking any law that, if contorted enough could be conceived to be on the road to something truly odious, is really tortured logic. Like I said, I'll fight a national database - I'm not going to fight something that's far from it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll pass on the "death by a thousand cuts" mentality, and stick to the "repeal the 2nd amendment or STFU" mentality.

[GannonFan]

Of course it's not, the final straw is the final straw. How is that too late? Like I said, we've taken incremental steps many times in the past and we're not anywhere close to the final straw. If we keep taking steps that get us half the way there, we'll never get there. This is a reasonable and proper law - it's not registration, it's not burdensome (heck, most sales already require a background check anyway). Blocking any law that, if contorted enough could be conceived to be on the road to something truly odious, is really tortured logic. Like I said, I'll fight a national database - I'm not going to fight something that's far from it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll pass on the "death by a thousand cuts" mentality, and stick to the "repeal the 2nd amendment or STFU" mentality.

And that sums up the gridlock of our system in a nutshell. Everyone is so scared of cut #1 or cut #2 on the trail of a thousand cuts, as you say, because agreeing to #1 and #2 could somehow make cuts #3 through #1000 easy to happen, that people refuse to do anything. In this case it's guns, in another case it's nuclear energy, in another case it's civil rights. It's easy and simplistic to say STFU, it works great on message boards, but refusing to even engage on an issue, or many issues, just results in government failing at its principle purpose of serving its citizens and undercuts credibility in government. But it's really cool to just flip someone off with a finger so there's that.

[Col Hogan]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll pass on the "death by a thousand cuts" mentality, and stick to the "repeal the 2nd amendment or STFU" mentality.

And that sums up the gridlock of our system in a nutshell. Everyone is so scared of cut #1 or cut #2 on the trail of a thousand cuts, as you say, because agreeing to #1 and #2 could somehow make cuts #3 through #1000 easy to happen, that people refuse to do anything. In this case it's guns, in another case it's nuclear energy, in another case it's civil rights. It's easy and simplistic to say STFU, it works great on message boards, but refusing to even engage on an issue, or many issues, just results in government failing at its principle purpose of serving its citizens and undercuts credibility in government. But it's really cool to just flip someone off with a finger so there's that.

If you were discussing cut #1 or #2...you’d get more support...

But as anyone who studies “gun control” knows, we are into the thousands...

Estimates from conservative sources say there are over 3200 gun control laws between local, state and federal levels...other more liberal estimates put the number of laws close to 10,000 (I’m not using the political “conservative” and “liberal”)

So, its time for 2A supporters to take the stand...and as CID has said many times...repeal the Second Amendment, or STFU...

[AZGrizFan]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll pass on the "death by a thousand cuts" mentality, and stick to the "repeal the 2nd amendment or STFU" mentality.

And that sums up the gridlock of our system in a nutshell. Everyone is so scared of cut #1 or cut #2 on the trail of a thousand cuts, as you say, because agreeing to #1 and #2 could somehow make cuts #3 through #1000 easy to happen, that people refuse to do anything. In this case it's guns, in another case it's nuclear energy, in another case it's civil rights. It's easy and simplistic to say STFU, it works great on message boards, but refusing to even engage on an issue, or many issues, just results in government failing at its principle purpose of serving its citizens and undercuts credibility in government. But it's really cool to just flip someone off with a finger so there's that.

We’ve “engaged” over 10,000 times on gun control. So, there’s already been 10,000 “cuts”. What else would you have us give?

[GannonFan]

And that sums up the gridlock of our system in a nutshell. Everyone is so scared of cut #1 or cut #2 on the trail of a thousand cuts, as you say, because agreeing to #1 and #2 could somehow make cuts #3 through #1000 easy to happen, that people refuse to do anything. In this case it's guns, in another case it's nuclear energy, in another case it's civil rights. It's easy and simplistic to say STFU, it works great on message boards, but refusing to even engage on an issue, or many issues, just results in government failing at its principle purpose of serving its citizens and undercuts credibility in government. But it's really cool to just flip someone off with a finger so there's that.

If you were discussing cut #1 or #2...you’d get more support...

But as anyone who studies “gun control” knows, we are into the thousands...

Estimates from conservative sources say there are over 3200 gun control laws between local, state and federal levels...other more liberal estimates put the number of laws close to 10,000 (I’m not using the political “conservative” and “liberal”)

So, its time for 2A supporters to take the stand...and as CID has said many times...repeal the Second Amendment, or STFU...

But we're not at the last straw, and if there are 3200 gun control laws, why is all of a sudden law 3201 the one that is the one that requires the circling of the wagon?

Regardless of all of that, it's a good financial corollary here - all the laws that came before are sunk costs - when you decide whether it's worth spending another $1 on something you decide on whether the extra $1 is worth it, not whatever you spent up to that point since it's sunk costs. Same thing here with the law - is this particular law, i.e. background checks on all gun purchases, a good law or not? The laws that came before it don't matter a whole heck of a lot in that decision making. And if it's not good (i.e. if there are riders on the law that under the surface are issues rather than just the universal background check part) what needs to be done to make it good? Why would people really be against background checks for anyone who wanted a gun?

[AZGrizFan]

If you were discussing cut #1 or #2...you’d get more support...

But as anyone who studies “gun control” knows, we are into the thousands...

Estimates from conservative sources say there are over 3200 gun control laws between local, state and federal levels...other more liberal estimates put the number of laws close to 10,000 (I’m not using the political “conservative” and “liberal”)

So, its time for 2A supporters to take the stand...and as CID has said many times...repeal the Second Amendment, or STFU...

But we're not at the last straw, and if there are 3200 gun control laws, why is all of a sudden law 3201 the one that is the one that requires the circling of the wagon?

Regardless of all of that, it's a good financial corollary here - all the laws that came before are sunk costs - when you decide whether it's worth spending another $1 on something you decide on whether the extra $1 is worth it, not whatever you spent up to that point since it's sunk costs. Same thing here with the law - is this particular law, i.e. background checks on all gun purchases, a good law or not? The laws that came before it don't matter a whole heck of a lot in that decision making. And if it's not good (i.e. if there are riders on the law that under the surface are issues rather than just the universal background check part) what needs to be done to make it good? Why would people really be against background checks for anyone who wanted a gun?

“Shall not be infringed”. CRIMINALS DON’T GET BACKGROUND CHECKS.

[Col Hogan]

If you were discussing cut #1 or #2...you’d get more support...

But as anyone who studies “gun control” knows, we are into the thousands...

Estimates from conservative sources say there are over 3200 gun control laws between local, state and federal levels...other more liberal estimates put the number of laws close to 10,000 (I’m not using the political “conservative” and “liberal”)

So, its time for 2A supporters to take the stand...and as CID has said many times...repeal the Second Amendment, or STFU...

But we're not at the last straw, and if there are 3200 gun control laws, why is all of a sudden law 3201 the one that is the one that requires the circling of the wagon?

Regardless of all of that, it's a good financial corollary here - all the laws that came before are sunk costs - when you decide whether it's worth spending another $1 on something you decide on whether the extra $1 is worth it, not whatever you spent up to that point since it's sunk costs. Same thing here with the law - is this particular law, i.e. background checks on all gun purchases, a good law or not? The laws that came before it don't matter a whole heck of a lot in that decision making. And if it's not good (i.e. if there are riders on the law that under the surface are issues rather than just the universal background check part) what needs to be done to make it good? Why would people really be against background checks for anyone who wanted a gun?

Have you read the current proposal?

Under it, if I go shooting with a lifelong friend, and he wants to try my new gun, we have to go and have a background check before I can hand him the weapon...

If I go to a training class, and another participant breaks a magazine, we are both felons if I lend him a magazine without a background check...

Now that’s why I’m opposed to this background check legislation...

[Skjellyfetti]

Have you read the current proposal?

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
...

(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... ill/8/text

[Col Hogan]

Have you read the current proposal?

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
...

(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... ill/8/text

You’re right...I had been reading the initial versions of the Colorado Universial background check law earlier this afternoon, and reacted to the call for another with the wrong information...


Now, having read the legislation, I have a question to supporters of it..knowing the answer, and knowing none of you will answer me...

WHICH MASS SHOOTING WOULD THIS LAW HAVE PREVENTED???

I would think that any law we pass right now should be aimed at preventing a shooting...not punish already law abiding citizens...

So, I’l await a response, while apologizing for reacting with incorrect information...

[css75]

I just can’t believe Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the country, yet they have strict gun laws.

Www.heyjackass.com



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I just can’t believe Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the country, yet they have strict gun laws.

http://Www.heyjackass.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where do you think the guns used in Chicago shootings are coming from? Straw purchases made in the suburbs and nearby states that don't have strict gun laws.

[CID1990]

Have you read the current proposal?



https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... ill/8/text

You’re right...I had been reading the initial versions of the Colorado Universial background check law earlier this afternoon, and reacted to the call for another with the wrong information...


Now, having read the legislation, I have a question to supporters of it..knowing the answer, and knowing none of you will answer me...

WHICH MASS SHOOTING WOULD THIS LAW HAVE PREVENTED???

I would think that any law we pass right now should be aimed at preventing a shooting...not punish already law abiding citizens...

So, I’l await a response, while apologizing for reacting with incorrect information...

Actually I’m surprised Boner stopped monitoring me long enough to monitor you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

I just can’t believe Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the country, yet they have strict gun laws.

http://Www.heyjackass.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where do you think the guns used in Chicago shootings are coming from? Straw purchases made in the suburbs and nearby states that don't have strict gun laws.

Huh. One would think THOSE cities and suburbs would have ASTRONOMICAL murder rates then.

[Skjellyfetti]

Where do you think the guns used in Chicago shootings are coming from? Straw purchases made in the suburbs and nearby states that don't have strict gun laws.

Huh. One would think THOSE cities and suburbs would have ASTRONOMICAL murder rates then.

Gary, IN... for example.

[Winterborn]

Taking a page out of the sanctuary cities playbook.

The evidence from similar spats in other states suggests that government officials are once again poised to have their impotence demonstrated by people eager to disobey dictates from above.

https://reason.com/archives/2019/03/04/ ... co-gun-law

[mainejeff]

But we're not at the last straw, and if there are 3200 gun control laws, why is all of a sudden law 3201 the one that is the one that requires the circling of the wagon?

Regardless of all of that, it's a good financial corollary here - all the laws that came before are sunk costs - when you decide whether it's worth spending another $1 on something you decide on whether the extra $1 is worth it, not whatever you spent up to that point since it's sunk costs. Same thing here with the law - is this particular law, i.e. background checks on all gun purchases, a good law or not? The laws that came before it don't matter a whole heck of a lot in that decision making. And if it's not good (i.e. if there are riders on the law that under the surface are issues rather than just the universal background check part) what needs to be done to make it good? Why would people really be against background checks for anyone who wanted a gun?

Have you read the current proposal?

Under it, if I go shooting with a lifelong friend, and he wants to try my new gun, we have to go and have a background check before I can hand him the weapon...

If I go to a training class, and another participant breaks a magazine, we are both felons if I lend him a magazine without a background check...

Now that’s why I’m opposed to this background check legislation...

Are you THAT worried about your friends?

[GannonFan]

Have you read the current proposal?



https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... ill/8/text

You’re right...I had been reading the initial versions of the Colorado Universial background check law earlier this afternoon, and reacted to the call for another with the wrong information...


Now, having read the legislation, I have a question to supporters of it..knowing the answer, and knowing none of you will answer me...

WHICH MASS SHOOTING WOULD THIS LAW HAVE PREVENTED???

I would think that any law we pass right now should be aimed at preventing a shooting...not punish already law abiding citizens...

So, I’l await a response, while apologizing for reacting with incorrect information...

Who's being punished? Most gun purchases already require a federal background check anyway, so how would ensuring that all other gun purchases (and I think the law allows transfers within a family so those are still exempt) also have background checks be considered a punishment?

I'll answer the mass shooting question - I don't think the current law would've stopped a single one. But I don't see how the law is "bad" or a "punishment" just because it doesn't address the issue of mass shootings. But I asked my question first which you still haven't answered - Why would people really be against a background check for someone who wanted to buy a gun?"

[AZGrizFan]

Huh. One would think THOSE cities and suburbs would have ASTRONOMICAL murder rates then.

Gary, IN... for example.

May have more to do with the fact that Gary, IN is an absolute shithole.

There’s 30 other suburbs around there that have statistics NOTHING like Gary.

[Col Hogan]

You’re right...I had been reading the initial versions of the Colorado Universial background check law earlier this afternoon, and reacted to the call for another with the wrong information...


Now, having read the legislation, I have a question to supporters of it..knowing the answer, and knowing none of you will answer me...

WHICH MASS SHOOTING WOULD THIS LAW HAVE PREVENTED???

I would think that any law we pass right now should be aimed at preventing a shooting...not punish already law abiding citizens...

So, I’l await a response, while apologizing for reacting with incorrect information...

Who's being punished? Most gun purchases already require a federal background check anyway, so how would ensuring that all other gun purchases (and I think the law allows transfers within a family so those are still exempt) also have background checks be considered a punishment?

I'll answer the mass shooting question - I don't think the current law would've stopped a single one. But I don't see how the law is "bad" or a "punishment" just because it doesn't address the issue of mass shootings. But I asked my question first which you still haven't answered - Why would people really be against a background check for someone who wanted to buy a gun?"

I am opposed to adding any more laws that burden law-abiding Americans...thousands of laws already exist, and all you can come up with is adding another law that you admit would not have stopped a single mass shooting...

Repeal the 2nd Amendment or STFU...

It’s your ultimate goal..let’s just get the fight over...

[AZGrizFan]

You’re right...I had been reading the initial versions of the Colorado Universial background check law earlier this afternoon, and reacted to the call for another with the wrong information...


Now, having read the legislation, I have a question to supporters of it..knowing the answer, and knowing none of you will answer me...

WHICH MASS SHOOTING WOULD THIS LAW HAVE PREVENTED???

I would think that any law we pass right now should be aimed at preventing a shooting...not punish already law abiding citizens...

So, I’l await a response, while apologizing for reacting with incorrect information...

Who's being punished? Most gun purchases already require a federal background check anyway, so how would ensuring that all other gun purchases (and I think the law allows transfers within a family so those are still exempt) also have background checks be considered a punishment?

I'll answer the mass shooting question - I don't think the current law would've stopped a single one. But I don't see how the law is "bad" or a "punishment" just because it doesn't address the issue of mass shootings. But I asked my question first which you still haven't answered - Why would people really be against a background check for someone who wanted to buy a gun?"

GF, that’s the equivalent of saying “I don’t care...go ahead and search my house, I have nothing to hide! I’m a law abiding citizen!” You’re giving up a RIGHT to appease the vocal minority.

You are proposing punishing the 99.99% for the sins of the .01%, the same .01% who won’t follow any new (or existing) laws ANYWAY. If a new law is to be passed, shouldn’t it actually accomplish something? Or is it just to make some group “feel” good about themselves?

[GannonFan]

Who's being punished? Most gun purchases already require a federal background check anyway, so how would ensuring that all other gun purchases (and I think the law allows transfers within a family so those are still exempt) also have background checks be considered a punishment?

I'll answer the mass shooting question - I don't think the current law would've stopped a single one. But I don't see how the law is "bad" or a "punishment" just because it doesn't address the issue of mass shootings. But I asked my question first which you still haven't answered - Why would people really be against a background check for someone who wanted to buy a gun?"

I am opposed to adding any more laws that burden law-abiding Americans...thousands of laws already exist, and all you can come up with is adding another law that you admit would not have stopped a single mass shooting...

Repeal the 2nd Amendment or STFU...

It’s your ultimate goal..let’s just get the fight over...

My goal isn't to overturn the 2nd amendment and I'm on record here as saying that it should never be overturned.

I think the background checks, universal, are one piece of the puzzle. But I think the reporting into those background checks - from law enforcement, from medical areas, from the military, should also be a point of improvement. I'm not doing all of this just to stop mass shootings - mass shootings are a tiny percentage of gun violence. But in at least one case, if there were better background reporting and if background checks were universal then you would've stopped that guy who was dishonorably discharged from the service due to spousal abuse from being able to legally get a gun. But like I said, focusing on mass shootings is a red herring on either side of the argument.

[GannonFan]

Who's being punished? Most gun purchases already require a federal background check anyway, so how would ensuring that all other gun purchases (and I think the law allows transfers within a family so those are still exempt) also have background checks be considered a punishment?

I'll answer the mass shooting question - I don't think the current law would've stopped a single one. But I don't see how the law is "bad" or a "punishment" just because it doesn't address the issue of mass shootings. But I asked my question first which you still haven't answered - Why would people really be against a background check for someone who wanted to buy a gun?"

GF, that’s the equivalent of saying “I don’t care...go ahead and search my house, I have nothing to hide! I’m a law abiding citizen!” You’re giving up a RIGHT to appease the vocal minority.

You are proposing punishing the 99.99% for the sins of the .01%, the same .01% who won’t follow any new (or existing) laws ANYWAY. If a new law is to be passed, shouldn’t it actually accomplish something? Or is it just to make some group “feel” good about themselves?

Like I just said in the other post, couple universal background checks with vastly improved reporting mechanisms and requirements for what goes into those background checks and you have something that is worthwhile. Everyone here has talked about mental health being a big problem when it comes to gun violence (and you could argue the number of suicides due to gun violence has a fair number from folks previously listed as having mental health issues). You do those two things and you've done something worthwhile that's far more than feeling good about yourself.

[mainejeff]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll pass on the "death by a thousand cuts" mentality, and stick to the "repeal the 2nd amendment or STFU" mentality.

And that sums up the gridlock of our system in a nutshell. Everyone is so scared of cut #1 or cut #2 on the trail of a thousand cuts, as you say, because agreeing to #1 and #2 could somehow make cuts #3 through #1000 easy to happen, that people refuse to do anything. In this case it's guns, in another case it's nuclear energy, in another case it's civil rights. It's easy and simplistic to say STFU, it works great on message boards, but refusing to even engage on an issue, or many issues, just results in government failing at its principle purpose of serving its citizens and undercuts credibility in government. But it's really cool to just flip someone off with a finger so there's that.

Amen!

The rest of the world is loving our inability to govern ourselves.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I just can’t believe Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the country, yet they have strict gun laws.

http://Www.heyjackass.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where do you think the guns used in Chicago shootings are coming from? Straw purchases made in the suburbs and nearby states that don't have strict gun laws.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Where do you think the guns used in Chicago shootings are coming from? Straw purchases made in the suburbs and nearby states that don't have strict gun laws.

Huh. One would think THOSE cities and suburbs would have ASTRONOMICAL murder rates then.

This is a proven lie.

Mist if the guns in Chicago are stolen from himes in Chicago or purchased illegally from criminals.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk