|
Bedshaped posted:They should bring in a law that says for every gun sold in the US an equal gun is given to a random American Muslim. America would be a majority Muslim by the end of the week. I know I would convert for free guns.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So your plan is to put pistols and semi-autos on the NFA... and then price them out of the reach of all but the upper class by charging ten times the cost of the gun in fees? No thanks. This kind of response is a perfect indicator that Kilroy has no loving clue what he's talking about with his whole "if you just compromised you'd get gun control passed licking split!" schtick. There's no point in trying to meet someone halfway when they aren't willing to make the trip themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Only the upper class would have access to a certain type of useless toy? My stars and garters, what a precedent to set. I'll be back in a few after I go pick up my check from the yacht subsidy
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So your plan is to put pistols and semi-autos on the NFA... and then price them out of the reach of all but the upper class by charging ten times the cost of the gun in fees? No thanks. The numbers I threw out were an example, not a hard policy proposal. What if they were halved? Or, what is a fee structure you could live with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Semi-autos I can take or leave, they aren't important to me either way. There isn't one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There isn't one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This kind of response is a perfect indicator that Kilroy has no loving clue what he's talking about with his whole "if you just compromised you'd get gun control passed licking split!" schtick. There's no point in trying to meet someone halfway when they aren't willing to make the trip themselves. Kilroy posted:Semi-autos I can take or leave, they aren't important to me either way. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You'll pardon me if I don't see how "we're going to tax common classes of firearm to an onerous degree, the same way we're also going to tax NFA items to an increasingly onerous degree" to be a compromise. Honestly, the best thing you could do without passing any more gun control is disband the BATFE, and split up the alcohol and tobacco elements to the FDA and firearms and explosives sections to the FBI and IRS (as they're all tax stamps anyway). The BATFE has proven time and time again that they are organizationally incompetent and both unwilling and unable to do their duties, such as prosecuting straw purchasers. They're too busy trying to set up stings, failing utterly, and giving hundreds of guns to Mexican cartels via their own incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Having just looked, it's surprisingly difficult to find out what a NICS check or Form 4 approval actually costs the government. That said, the government currently charges $0 for vanilla NICS checks, $5 for AOWs, and $200 for SBRs, SBS, cans, and MGs because gently caress your gangster weapons. I'd say a flat $20 pegged to inflation, would be a reasonable charge for all NFA items under your "add pistols to the NFA" proposal, on the condition that states aren't allowed to ban them or add their own fees on top, the Hughes amendment is repealed, and the CLEO sign off is eliminated. Money would be collected by the FBI to supplement maintenance of the NICS/NFA databases and crime prevention. Probably would need some sort of "if the ATF doesn't approve or disapprove your Form 4 in x number of weeks, you may take possession of the item pending further action" deal. Still not an ideal solution to me, but I think it could be made reasonable. But your proposal would also increase access to automatic weapons well over what it was during the period of 1934-1986. It would do almost nothing to limit access to handguns. It is hardly a compromise at all, really. You seem to be coming from the assumption that the fees are there to offset the cost of maintaining the registry, but that is not the case - they are imposed to limit access to weapons under the NFA registry, while assuring it is still feasible even for someone of modest means to purchase such a weapon if they really want to. $20 doesn't come close to accomplishing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Totally agree with eliminating CLEO sign-off and repealing the Hughes amendment, if that wasn't already clear. Same for blocking states (and municipalities, for that matter) from instituting their own bans. It sounds like you are more concerned with preventing people (especially lower income individuals) from getting handguns than you are about actually preventing crime. I don't really see how gun owners get anything substantial out of this, we have to pay what amounts to a poll tax to exercise a right in exchange for access to full auto guns (fun, but dumb and expensive)? This is a poison pill no matter how you look at it. Those fees will ultimately increase the cost of entering this hobby and staying in it, meaning less gun owners (especially non-white gun owners) which in turn will mean less political power. So yeah! I can play with dumb useless full auto guns for about a decade until that "loophole" gets closed. No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
The point of the "handgun registry" with fees is to make handguns harder (read: more expensive and more annoying) to buy and keep. Because handguns are what are used almost exclusively for crimes of passion and crimes of opportunity/necessity. In return, gun assholes will have expanded access to rifles and shotguns and automatic weapons and suppressors. The things that are scary and paramilitary, but not actually problematic when it comes to people being shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Numlock posted:It sounds like you are more concerned with preventing people (especially lower income individuals) from getting handguns than you are about actually preventing crime. Who commits violent crime, aside from people, predominately lower-income people mostly killing lower-income people? This isn't analogous to a poll tax. Voting is important and necessary, and central to political power. Shooting guns isn't. It's mostly a hobby for idiots, and irrelevant to political power outside of pretend revolution hypotheticals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Semi-autos I can take or leave, they aren't important to me either way. The firearms you're allowed to purchase are based on your tax bracket. It ranges from repeating rubber band launcher to machine guns and bazookas to brutall-*dragged off podium by crook*
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:But your proposal would also increase access to automatic weapons well over what it was during the period of 1934-1986. It would do almost nothing to limit access to handguns. It is hardly a compromise at all, really. You seem to be coming from the assumption that the fees are there to offset the cost of maintaining the registry, but that is not the case - they are imposed to limit access to weapons under the NFA registry, while assuring it is still feasible even for someone of modest means to purchase such a weapon if they really want to. $20 doesn't come close to accomplishing that. Actually, what I suggested would do a lot to reduce criminal access to handguns. Heightened scrutiny due to the background check, a national registry of handguns, the effective end of face-to-face sales of handguns (because NFA items have to go through a Class III dealer), a de facto waiting period while the ATF processes the Form 4, it's pretty much a Brady Campaign wet dream. I'm frankly not sure I could sell it to the NRA. That's why I suggested adding in a bunch of stuff that strengthens the right of people who can lawfully posses them to own guns, adds national preemption, and removes a bunch of unnecessary hurdles if you wanted to get it done. Tezzor posted:Only the upper class would have access to a certain type of useless toy? My stars and garters, what a precedent to set. I'll be back in a few after I go pick up my check from the yacht subsidy Tezzor posted:Who commits violent crime, aside from people, predominately lower-income people mostly killing lower-income people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Hmm these children are raised in crime and drug wars and poverty, hmm hmm hmm. What possible lever can I move to affect this situation OH MY GOD THEY'RE POINTING GUNS AT ONE ANOTHER BAN THOSE GUNS
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
In the US you need to be registered to vote. Not to own a gun. The reason is that American voters are dangerous as hell Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
muike posted:The firearms you're allowed to purchase are based on your tax bracket. It ranges from repeating rubber band launcher to machine guns and bazookas to brutall-*dragged off podium by crook* The less money you have, the more/more dangerous/fully-featured firearms you are allowed to own. This hypothetical scale should arranged such that a billionare can only reasonably afford one breach-loading .22 varmint rifle and a box of 20 rounds, whereas a homeless vagrant receives enough tax credits to purchase, operate, and maintain a fully equipped and functional main battle tank or self-propelled artillery piece. With appropriate training, licencing, and registration at both ends of the spectrum, naturally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hmm these children are raised in crime and drug wars and poverty, hmm hmm hmm. What possible lever can I move to affect this situation OH MY GOD THEY'RE POINTING GUNS AT ONE ANOTHER Which of these options would you fix that's politically expedient?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Maybe the NRA can spend some of their resources to lobby for more welfare and trying to get anti-welfare politicians voted out of office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem here is that you're starting with the assumption that making it harder for otherwise law-abiding people to own guns is an effective, legitimate, and justifiable means of reducing crime, and it's just not the case. I posted the map earlier, there isn't any correlation on either a state or international level between limiting legal access to firearms and homicide rates, by firearm or otherwise. The proper role of gun control is to keep prohibited possessors from getting guns, not to make owning guns as difficult as possible. I'm also deeply suspect of the idea that people who make more money are more fit to have arms than those who have less. There is a reason NICS isn't the "National Instant Credit Check System." The original NFA tax of $200 is equivalent to $3,549.82 in inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars; it was most certainly not meant to be accessible to those of modest means. The fees are not meant to restrict access to guns to only the rich or whatever, they were simply a straightforward way to artificially reduce the demand for guns somewhat, and the one I thought most likely to be well-received. Obviously I was quite wrong on that. What about mandatory gun-safety classes before you're allowed to purchase NFA weapons, along with periodically demonstrating every 1-3 years (or perhaps just demonstrating at each point of sale) that you are safely and securely storing these weapons? The latter could possibly be broken down by category: ranging from a yearly on-site inspection for machine guns to a mandatory trigger lock sold with every handgun, or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
I am not a very smart person, but even me can figure out a way to de-weaponize the society, if the USA citizens decide to ban guns. You have the police send every weapon they confiscate to a depot, where they are analyzed to track possible related crimes. Then after taking the information, they are destroyed by melting, or maybe you drive a roller over them, maybe you do both. It would be expensive and a very slow process. It will not end quick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Tei posted:I am not a very smart person, but even me can figure out a way to de-weaponize the society, if the USA citizens decide to ban guns. Destroying a confiscated firearm isn't exactly rocket surgery. It's actually confiscating them that's troublesome. Cold dead hands and all that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Volcott posted:Destroying a confiscated firearm isn't exactly rocket surgery. It's actually confiscating them that's troublesome. Cold dead hands and all that. About that. You give a program where the government "buy" the weapons at less than their cost. The make a program where people is well informed when is ok to have weapons and when is not. Some people is going to never give up on their weapons. But thats not a problem, you must achieved two things to succeed: remove 90%+ of the weapons floating around and make uncool to have weapons. If you manage to get rid of 90% of weapons in 10 years, you have another 20 years to get rid of another 5% and maybe 30 more years to get rid of the last 5%. Is something that can be done more trough education than by forcing anyone hands. Again, IF the USA citizens want to go this route. It save lives, but it cost freedom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
Sounds neat, but hasn't the NRA sued to require the police to resell guns that are turned in?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Sounds neat, but hasn't the NRA sued to require the police to resell guns that are turned in? In some places, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#United_States
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Tei posted:Some people is going to never give up on their weapons. But thats not a problem, you must achieved two things to succeed: remove 90%+ of the weapons floating around and make uncool to have weapons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:A government should reflect the culture of the people it belongs to, not dictate it. This sounds like the kind of thing used to justify slavery, FGM, and more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:A government should reflect the culture of the people it belongs to, not dictate it. I completely agree. I always feel uneasy when the government try to "educate" me. But the government is also just a tool of the citizens to run society. A machine to maintain hour home safe and warm. It make sense (has a society) to use the government to do campaigns to invite people to brush their teeth, vaccinate their kids and pets, stop hate crimes and never drive drunk. I think you can sort of rationalize a anti-gun campaign has a health campaign. You can always show a obscene gesture when the government try to educate you on something you disagree. I always do when a DVD try to teach me about what they think is right or wrong about copy rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This sounds like the kind of thing used to justify slavery, FGM, and more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hmm these children are raised in crime and drug wars and poverty, hmm hmm hmm. What possible lever can I move to affect this situation OH MY GOD THEY'RE POINTING GUNS AT ONE ANOTHER Yes. If you banned those guns you would see a significant decrease in murder rates even if attempts did not go down. Also, less than 1/3 of murders are linked to pre existing criminality. It's mostly people arguing with each other until one shoots the other. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Dec 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:...whereas a homeless vagrant receives enough tax credits to purchase, operate, and maintain a fully equipped and functional main battle tank or self-propelled artillery piece. You can already buy fully functional, tax deductible, MBT at reasonable prices, the real pain in the rear end are parking fees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
If you hate rich people and love poor people so much you should definitely support restricting firearms to rich people, since a) poor people are currently those who are mostly killed by firearms and b) 3/4 of victims are killed by someone they know and rich people tend to not know a lot of poor people. So the more you are able to effectively restrict guns economically the higher the percentage of murder victims will be rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Being unable to find someone in the marketplace willing to sell you something for the price you want to pay is different from the government imposing a punitive tax on something. Sort of like how the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from requiring that all Korans sold or transferred bear a $200 tax stamp, but does not by extension require someone to give you a free Koran. It's not a punitive tax. It's a tax that moves some of the social costs of firearms ownership from the state to the individual, since the existence of firearms means more public funds being spent investigating crimes, performing surgery on gunshot victims, imprisoning criminals, social welfare after the death or arrest of a parent, state-funded funerals, etc, etc. quote:"The poor should be disarmed for their own good." Thanks for the hot take, Mr. Bloomberg. Yes, people are irrational and should be prevented from having access to the the most expedient and effective means of committing violence against others or themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It's not a punitive tax. It's a tax that moves some of the social costs of firearms ownership from the state to the individual, since the existence of firearms means more public funds being spent investigating crimes, performing surgery on gunshot victims, imprisoning criminals, social welfare after the death or arrest of a parent, state-funded funerals, etc, etc. They should just send the bill to whomever shot the guy. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Quick note: The Wikipedia article on sawed-off shotguns begins with "'Boom stick' redirects here" and the opening paragraph is mostly about how totally awesome they are. Gun fanboys are children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Which of these options would you fix that's politically expedient? I think sentencing reform is a lot more expedient than gun control, which would mean fewer missing parents and more stable families. This would probably have the biggest single effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Quick note: The Wikipedia article on sawed-off shotguns begins with "'Boom stick' redirects here" and the opening paragraph is mostly about how totally awesome they are. Gun fanboys are children. Says the guy who uses the term "gun otaku"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Says the guy who uses the term "gun otaku" It's spot on though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:It's spot on though. It's about as insightful as claiming that all gun owners have small penises; that is to say stupid culture war dumbfuckery that only appeals to the people who already agree with you. It's expected from Tezzor. I mean, without gimmicky shitposting, he'd hardly have any at all, but you might want to aim a little higher for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:It's about as insightful as claiming that all gun owners have small penises; that is to say stupid culture war dumbfuckery that only appeals to the people who already agree with you. It's expected from Tezzor. I mean, without gimmicky shitposting, he'd hardly have any at all, but you might want to aim a little higher for yourself. I rarely if ever say gun owners have small penises, mostly because it isn't the most accurate portrayal. It implies that they are compensating for feelings of powerlessness, which I'm sure is a relevant factor in some cases, but I find the general behavior of gun advocates far more congruent with fanboyism. That they come from the same place as dudes who collect superhero figurines or, more analogous, katanas, is an enlightening realization that explains and informs lot of their behavior. In most cases fanboyism is a bit silly but ultimately harmless; the primary difference between gun fanboys and guys with shelves of manga is that the expedience of their hobby comes at the cost of thousands of otherwise preventable deaths annually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 18:40
|
|