STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

[Arcangl86]

I think the usual argument is that if you raise the tax rates so high that those with resources don't want to invest them to get more profit then there are fewer jobs, and productivity goes down overall.

Also, some move to lower taxed areas or countries. For instance, some leave California due to high tax rates, resulting in the loss of that person's taxes.

The original argument was that the higher the tax rates, the more likely tax avoidance was. That was Laffer's argument at least. The new one is to make it seem less self serving.

 

[Direct Driver]

The problem with this trope is it hides the amount of violence it encourages underneath the obvious meaning.

People own weapons for two reasons: Preservation of self and Domination of others.

People of the first type don't need the trope since they see the weapon as a tool. To hunt or to protect, not to brandish it around. This doesn't need to apply to them for they are already 'polite'.

The problem comes with the second type, for they will find the smallest insult to use their weapon to their advantage. One could certainly argue that two people (of the second type) who are equally armed and of equal status will be more polite to each other out of a justified fear, though my general sense of that kind of 'politeness' merely means that they are more opaque and indirect in their insults. The problem, of course, is that the treatment of people they view as inferiors can be deeply brutal. One might think of the age of Andrew Jackson, where 'polite' duels over insults were common enough in upper-crust society, but where insults delivered by slaves or native Americans might easily result in a peremptory gunshot to the head. Generally speaking, any society that allows the possibility of lethal force over matters of damaged pride opens a floodgate on violence, since pride is notoriously brittle.

You're forgetting this scenario. The second type is walking down an alley past a woman that "looks" helpless, except her hand is in her purse, holding the butt of a "Lady Smith". And even that doesn't make the point. Rather, he is aware that there is a strong possibility that she is, though she may not be.

Compare that to the 250 lb average strength man walking by the same woman in an alley in, say, London. They may both be unarmed. So? Assuming both men are rapists and want to rape her, which one is most likely to attempt the deed? Which one, after doing a risk analasys, sees the lowest risk scenario for himself?

And don't kid yourself, only the truly insane don't worry about being hit, even if by a stray bullet. It's why cops act so crazy careful around perps.

 

[Direct Driver]

And yet your points are easily refuted with readily available statistics from primary sources.

No they are not. Those that attempt to deflect to other subjects think they have refuted my point.

 

[tall73]

What I would expect of Chicago and other cities with high rates of gun crimes that the shootings would track with crime generally; I would not expect a high rate of gun crimes in generally lower crime suburbs, even if gun laws were less strict there.

Which kind of makes the point. Gun control is not needed in neighborhoods without the dynamics driving the crime.

And gun control doesn't help the areas that do have dynamics driving the crime.

People in all of the neighborhoods have recourse to obtaining guns across state lines (which has its own legal difficulties), And so the problem is not gun availability. The problem are the factors driving crime in those neighborhoods.

I don't care what happens in Europe; they have their own problems. There is no "magic bullet" anywhere. Controlling gun crime is going to be a continuing problem requiring court and police reform as well as legislation but even that will not somehow magically solve the problem for once and all. The best we can hope for is to reduce the numbers of illegal guns getting into criminal hands.

I cited Europe to make a point regarding the impossibility of keeping weapons out of the hands of large criminal operations, even when whole regions have more strict gun regulation.

If you crack down on guns throughout the country, you still have hundreds of millions in existence. And while law abiding citizens may turn in many of them, you still have many more unaccounted for in the country, and the surrounding region.

As long as criminals can get weapons somewhere in the world, they will.

Now perhaps Chicago is not even the best example as some of their more strict measures were rolled back. But in Baltimore for instance we see strict gun control, and importing from outside the area.


Focus on 'trigger pullers' results in sustained spike in Baltimore gun seizures


In 2014, the most recent year for which ATF data is available, 2,208 of 5,079 firearms traced in Maryland by the agency originated in another state. Most came from states such as Virginia, where gun laws are weaker than in Maryland.

 

[Belk]

Don't try to stretch the analogy beyond the point it is making. Besides, though rare, there actually are cases where people died because they could not get out of a burning or sinking car. i.e. it DOES happen.

But at its core, this whole "guns to defend ourselves" thing comes down to two basic principles:

1. When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
2. Give me liberty, or give me death.

Fact is, it is really only about ONE thing: Control over your own life. That is also called liberty. In the US it is at a premium. Fact is, you could actually be safer walking down the street in Berlin, unarmed, than in Detroit, carrying a gun. But in both cases, if someone DOES attack you and kill you, at least you don't feel utterly helpless in Detroit. i.e. there is more of a chance you "went down fighting", not like a Gazelle with its neck in a lion's mouth. And that really is the bottom line for many.

Of course even that really misses the point. We have gun ownership in the US to protect us from our government. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

I here there is a fair amount of protesting going on in Europe right now. What's that all about?

So I presume you are pro-choice?

 

[Direct Driver]

How would that work?

This is basic stuff. It's called the laffer curve. Google it. It's quite real.
To put it simply: The tax revenue received if the tax rate is 100% is the same as if the tax rate is zero percent : $0. The sweet spot is somewhere in between. And governments that are looking to simply get as much income as possible are constantly looking for that sweet spot.

 

[Direct Driver]

So I presume you are pro-choice?

Yes! Strongly. I believe we should be free to choose to carry or not carry a gun, whether to wear or not wear a mask, what color to paint our house, what occupation to choose, what to have for lunch, etc. I'm all about choice.

However, I don't believe I should be free to choose to kill my wife because she costs too much and limits my sex life. After all, she has rights too.

 

[Nithavela]

This is basic stuff. It's called the laffer curve. Google it. It's quite real.
To put it simply: The tax revenue received if the tax rate is 100% is the same as if the tax rate is zero percent : $0. The sweet spot is somewhere in between. And governments that are looking to simply get as much income as possible are constantly looking for that sweet spot.

Ah, I thought so. I guess we can add the laffer curve to the things you believe in that have been disproven.

 

[Belk]

Yes! Strongly. I believe we should be free to choose to carry or not carry a gun, whether to wear or not wear a mask, what color to paint our house, what occupation to choose, what to have for lunch, etc. I'm all about choice.

However, I don't believe I should be free to choose to kill my wife because she costs too much and limits my sex life. After all, she has rights too.

Pro choice as in abortion. We have already established your stance on guns.

 

[tall73]

I'd like the answer of the person I quoted, if you don't mind.

a. My answer does not prevent the other poster from answering. The other poster did answer in fact.

b. If you want just the other poster's answer you can personal message him.

 

[Speedwell]

People in all of the neighborhoods have recourse to obtaining guns across state lines (which has its own legal difficulties), And so the problem is not gun availability. The problem are the factors driving crime in those neighborhoods.

That was my point: there are no significant legal difficulties. But, for example, closing the "gun show loophole" which makes it possible for gang-bangers in Chicago to easily get guns from Indiana would somehow infringe on the rights of couch-potato commandos to arm themselves against "liberals" so we can't do it.

I cited Europe to make a point regarding the impossibility of keeping weapons out of the hands of large criminal operations, even when whole regions have more strict gun regulation.

Correct. You have to move against large-scale criminal organizations directly. gun control is just one more tool to use against them.

If you crack down on guns throughout the country, you still have hundreds of millions in existence. And while law abiding citizens may turn in many of them, you still have many more unaccounted for in the country, and the surrounding region.

Turn in? I see you like to keep the "slippery slope" well greased.

As long as criminals can get weapons somewhere in the world, they will.

And any attempt to impede that traffic use useless unless it eliminates the problem entirely?

Now perhaps Chicago is not even the best example as some of their more strict measures were rolled back. But in Baltimore for instance we see strict gun control, and importing from outside the area.

Which is exactly what the present bill (and I hope a more sensible bill which might replace it) is trying to eliminate.

 

[tall73]

The original argument was that the higher the tax rates, the more likely tax avoidance was. That was Laffer's argument at least. The new one is to make it seem less self serving.

Ah could be, I am not familiar with Laffer.

The other measures I mentioned are still forms of tax avoidance. And I am not even sure they make the person seem less self serving.

In any case the poster's argument seemed to rest on an analogy that people react to changing regulation.

But it is not a particularly helpful analogy. Even if they do change to avoid higher taxes, that wouldn't necessarily mean they refrain from criminal action due to stiffer penalties. For instance, a sizable percentage of homicides are killings of romantic partners, family members, etc. and such a crime of passion likely has little to do with calculations of penalties.

And as for gang violence, another large driver, by the time you are killing people to maintain turf, you are kind of past the point of worrying about penalties as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yet things like that rarely happen. What is less rare is that a suicidal member of your family uses the gun to kill themself.

And women get raped primarily by men they know, whom they have already invited in, are visiting, or live with. A gun in my purse on the other side of the room, or in a safe won’t help prevent rape.

Well only my wife & I know the code to the gun safe. I’m not sure what your point is about most rape cases being inflicted by people who are known by the victim. Are you suggesting that because of this that we should just not even try to protect ourself from being raped by people we don’t know? That sounds kinda crazy to me. In most car accident deaths people are wearing their seatbelts. Should we just not wear our seatbelts anymore because it might not help?

 

[Sparagmos]

If you don't punish people for doing something, more think they can get away with it. So at the end of the day you end up with a LOT more people doing it and, therefore, STILL more people being incarcerated. People always think that they will be the one that gets away with it. When NOBODY does, they are less likely to believe that.

To apply hypothetical numbers. If 2 poeple out of the ten that actually commit a crime get incarcerated, it may incentivize 500 more to do it, with 40 of them getting arrested and incarcerated. So being soft causes MORE people to be incarcerated because you've literally incentivized MORE crime.

Can you give a citation from the criminal justice field for this theory?

What is that other countries with far lower incarceration rates are doing differently?

 

[Arcangl86]

Ah could be, I am not familiar with Laffer.

Author Laffer. He's an conservative economist who came up with something called the Laffer Curve, which essentially says that after a certain point the amount of money raised by an income tax decreases the higher it goes. It's the primary basis of modern Republican trickle down economics.

 

[Nithavela]

Author Laffer. He's an conservative economist who came up with something called the Laffer Curve, which essentially says that after a certain point the amount of money raised by an income tax decreases the higher it goes. It's the primary basis of modern Republican trickle down economics.

The obvious flaw is assuming that the system is already over the "ideal point" and that lower taxation would lead to more taxes. Lower taxation was implemented. Taxes plummeted.

If someone would really believe in the "laffer curve", that person would conclude that we are to the left of that ideal point and suggest to raise taxes. But of course the objective of the creation of the laffer curve wasn't to increase tax revenue, it was to build a theory around the pre-conceived conclusion of "taxation must be lowered".

 

[Sparagmos]

Well only my wife & I know the code to the gun safe.

And if one of you was suicidal, you’d have quick access to a gun and be far more likely to succeed in killing yourself.

I’m not sure what your point is about most rape cases being inflicted by people who are known by the victim. Are you suggesting that because of this that we should just not even try to protect ourself from being raped by people we don’t know?

My point is that owning a gun doesn’t generally protect women from rape. Almost all rapes involve the perpetrator first approaching the victim in a non-threatening way. And unless you are literally walking around holding a gun, a guy jumping out of the bushes at you is going to be able to overpower you before you can get the gun out. And carrying a gun everywhere means you are carrying a gun when intoxicated, which is really dangerous.

 

[tall73]

That was my point: there are no significant legal difficulties. But, for example, closing the "gun show loophole" which makes it possible for gang-bangers in Chicago to easily get guns from Indiana would somehow infringe on the rights of couch-potato commandos to arm themselves against "liberals" so we can't do it.

I didn't say I object to requiring private gun sales to go through a firearms dealer. Some may object. But I do not think it will make much of a difference.

If a private seller and a drug dealer meet at a gun show, how would you know they are going to get together later for a transaction? The requirement for private sales to go through a firearms dealer only impacts those intending to keep that law.

Correct. You have to move against large-scale criminal organizations directly. gun control is just one more tool to use against them.

We have had very little success with that. How many years are we into the war on drugs? Hence my suggestion to legalize the drugs and take away the prophet motive. Meanwhile we have to look into the actual factors driving crime in specific neighborhoods.

Turn in? I see you like to keep the "slippery slope" well greased.

To the degree this bill is not directed towards a buyback I see your point. However, many do prefer such a solution, and I was addressing the likelyhood of success even if pursued, based on regions it has been pursued.

And any attempt to impede that traffic use useless unless it eliminates the problem entirely?

More like focusing on the factors driving crimes in neighborhoods is a better use of resources. We have been trying to crack down on criminals for decades.

Which is exactly what the present bill (and I hope a more sensible bill which might replace it) is trying to eliminate.

And would it eliminate it? That was my point, I don't think it would.

But more to the point, it would further drive another trend in criminal weapons, which is the use of stolen weapons. It would provide a ready made list of guns available to steal.

Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that's one every minute

Privately owned firearms are stolen in America with alarming frequency: between 300,000 and 600,000 every year, according to a new survey of gun ownership by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. At the high end, that’s more than 1,600 guns stolen every day, more than one every minute.

Currently the trend is being driven a great deal by thefts from vehicles, because they are unattended. But a database giving the location and types, available to the public could mean that now the criminals need only stake out the house, wait for folks to leave and access the firearms.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We can do this all day about this scenario and that scenario that point out the favor of our position and the detriment of the others. But the point is, a gun is not the clear answer to a home invasion. What if it was the cops coming in for some reason with a no know warrant? What if you are a sound sleeper and even after hearing it you don't wake up or wake up fully.

Round and round we go. I get why people feel empowered with guns, and some of the best gun owners I know of are the ones that have gone through CC training, mostly because the ones I know have training to avoid drawing that gun, to make it the last option. They know that guns are not the only option and that it should be the last option.

The way you guys talk it is like you will pick up a gun at the first sign of trouble. That is not always possible or desirable.

The seatbelt is not the clear answer to avoid being killed in an auto accident either but it will save your life in some situations so it is considered to be beneficial.

 

[Zergling Rush]

No, the right to self defense is more important than the convenience of travel.

Well at least we shouldn't have any issues with COVID lockdowns from 2nd Amendment supporters then.