|
Or...criminals will simply use illegal guns to commit crimes.
Or homemade explosives.
Or chemical weapons.
Or fire.
Or automobiles.
Legislation will not prevent such occurrences, and anyone who thinks laws will protect victims from a suitably determined individual have zero perspective on the actual threat.
Mandatory Death Sentance for a criminals 3rd felony conviction...they have proven they cannot or will not live within civilized bounds...hang em!!...that ends for all time any repeat offenses.
Or...criminals will simply use illegal guns to commit crimes.
Or homemade explosives.
Or chemical weapons.
Or fire.
Or automobiles.
Legislation will not prevent such occurrences, and anyone who thinks laws will protect victims from a suitably determined individual have zero perspective on the actual threat.
Are you in favor of criminals having guns to murder people with?
|
|
@TOZ: less guns. Zero guns, in fact. That creates a power dynamic which favors those who disregarded the laws preventing gun use on others in the first place.
Legislation cannot protect. It can only be used to potentially coerce, or post-incident punish (ostensibly to rehabilitate, but lets not kid ourselves) the offendor.
More laws will not prevent future crimes. More cops, better social programs, less poverty, and less draconian laws for minor offenses might do some good.
|
|
Are you in favor of criminals having guns to murder people with?Or...criminals will simply use illegal guns to commit crimes.
Or homemade explosives.
Or chemical weapons.
Or fire.
Or automobiles.
Legislation will not prevent such occurrences, and anyone who thinks laws will protect victims from a suitably determined individual have zero perspective on the actual threat.
My preference is immaterial. Illegal guns will be used to commit illegal crimes. Making formerly legal guns in the hands of registered, legal, law-abiding-citizens has no bearing on those crimes committed with said illegal guns.
Or...criminals will simply use illegal guns to commit crimes.
Easy access to firearms is a predictor of firearms use in crimes.
Or homemade explosives.
Criminals in municipalities with strict gun control do not tend to resort to homemade explosives as an alternative.
Or chemical weapons.
They don't tend to resort to chemical weapons, either.
Or fire.
They don't tend to resort to fire, either.
Or automobiles.
They don't tend to resort to automobiles, either.
Legislation will not prevent such occurrences,
Legislation can prevent such events. There is a strong correlation between lower levels of firearm crime (as well as violent crime in general) and stricter gun control legislation, both on a nationwide and international level.
and anyone who thinks laws will protect victims from a suitably determined individual have zero perspective on the actual threat.
Most violent crimes are not committed by what you like to call "suitably determined" individuals. Many violent crimes are crimes of passion, or crimes of opportunity, or both. Removing easy access to a lethal weapon makes such opportunities much less likely to result in deaths.
A lot of the things that you have said here are wrong - demonstrably wrong, in fact. Where did you learn the things that you are repeating here? Were you unaware that they are factually incorrect? Was it a good idea to trust the sources you listened to, now that you know they were providing you with false information? Will you continue to listen to those same sources in the future?
My preference is immaterial. Illegal guns will be used to commit illegal crimes. Making formerly legal guns in the hands of registered, legal, law-abiding-citizens has no bearing on those crimes committed with said illegal guns.Are you in favor of criminals having guns to murder people with?Or...criminals will simply use illegal guns to commit crimes.
Or homemade explosives.
Or chemical weapons.
Or fire.
Or automobiles.
Legislation will not prevent such occurrences, and anyone who thinks laws will protect victims from a suitably determined individual have zero perspective on the actual threat.
I am asking what your preference is, so your preference is material, because that is what I am asking about.
Would you prefer criminals had easier access to guns? Or more difficult access to guns?
How many gun crimes have been committed in Chicago this year?
We don't have figures on this year, but we do know that there were 362 murders committed with a firearm in the city of Chicago in 2011.
I'm curious as to what you think this shows, though.
And the call for further legislation has been based on recent mass-killings.
It's unfortunate that this is what it takes to motivate people who otherwise would not make understanding the problem of gun violence a priority.
What amount of legislation will prevent them?
Soundly-crafted legislation will make deaths caused by gun crime less common.
How much paper will protect you from someone willing to harm you?
Policy creation is not about simply putting words on paper. Those words carry the weight of law, complete with its many enforcing agents (both formal and informal).
In addition, appeal to authority is meaningless.
I don't think you know how appeal to authority works. I didn't appeal to any authority, legitimate or illegitimate.
Maybe it would help if you explained what you think an appeal to authority is, and then we can see which part you're having trouble with.
"Demonstrably wrong" begs the question: demonstrate how laws will prevent someone from effecting a homicide.
I'm having trouble seeing why this is so difficult for you to understand. We have clear, compelling evidence that gun control legislation is more than capable of making violent gun crime (and violent crime in general) less common. It will not prevent every instance of violent crime, but it will help.
Figured you'd all appreciate it if I switched up my sources:
Outraged Liberals Say Obama Is About To Screw Over The Very People Who Got Him Elected
Obama is soft on crime and wants your grammie to eat dog food.
It's too bad I missed this story until after it was reversed:
'Persepolis' Won't Be Pulled From Chicago Public Schools After All!
Why do you put the onus entirely on Obama? Why aren't you putting even more blame on the republicans who refuse to raise taxes on the rich?
Because nobody is surprised when evil douchebags act like evil douchebags.
It also doesn't have anything to do with guns. Just ignore him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Why aren't you putting even more blame on the republicans who refuse to raise taxes on the rich?
Let's suppose you and I were to start our own (separate) businesses. We both start manufacturing and selling identical widgets right across the street from one another...
But you, being somehow more successful than I, sell more widgets (thus making more money than I)...
Then "The Man" comes around, and says to you: "Since you are so much more successful than that poor little Digitalelf Fellow over there across the street, I am going to require you to give me more of your profits than I require of him! Oh, don't worry, I am taking money from both of you, it's just that I need more from you... I mean you can obviously spare it right?"
How is that fair exactly???
How is that fair exactly???
Continuing the analogy but looking deeper, we see that you've been more successful because his tax dollars were funneled by the officials in your pocket to elect their friends who then created laws that made it 10x harder for him to sell widgets than it is for you. How is that fair exactly???
Also, you're missing the part about how wealth accrues: revenue generated by existing capital is taxed at a much lower rate than revenue generated by working or by succeeding in building up a business. Which means anyone with a chunk of money is paying way LESS than their share. Increasing that to something higher, but still less than people who work for a living make, is unfair?
How is that fair exactly???Continuing the analogy but looking deeper, we see that you've been more successful because his tax dollars were funneled by the officials in your pocket to elect their friends who then created laws that made it 10x harder for him to sell widgets than it is for you. How is that fair exactly???
Also, you're missing the part about how wealth accrues: revenue generated by existing capital is taxed at a much lower rate than revenue generated by working or by succeeding in building up a business. Which means anyone with a chunk of money is paying way LESS than their share. Increasing that to something higher, but still less than people who work for a living make, is unfair?
The taxing of capital gains at a lower rate is, like many tax decisions, not based on revenue reasons, but on behavioral ones. At some point, we as a society decided that adjusting tax law in order to encourage certain behaviors was a good idea. In some cases it has actually worked quite well (earned income credit actually increased the numbers of individuals on the margins that work by supplementing their income so that working would be more beneficial than staying at home and collecting welfare). Some of them don't.
In the case of the lower tax rate for capital gains, it is meant to offset the risk of investment in order to encourage stock investment. The stock market has a remarkable effect on the consumer confidence index, and theoretically drives output through investment that then translates to jobs. One can certainly disagree with it's effectiveness, but it's not all about little guy versus big guy.
It also doesn't have anything to do with guns. Just ignore him.
I've followed these gun threads that keep popping up, and you seem to have a very strong opinion about this subject, however I don't think you have ever said what policies you would implement. In an America where you had carte blanche to make any policy you wanted, what would that look like? Secondarily, what do you think should be done under the current paradigm?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's probably hard to believe, but I didn't actually intend a right-left tax-welfare-whatever derail.
I'm just continuously hitting this point over and over again:
I don't disagree with that Kirth and as a long term solution we should also be looking at those kinds of solutions.But we're not going to, are we? Not with Chicago shutting down its schools and mental health clinics, not with Obama offering cuts in Social Security and Medicaid. Not with a "socialist" health care plan written by a stooge of the pharamaceutical plutocrats forcing working people to shoulder the burden of health care costs. Not with Obama's administration promising to carry out the war on drugs.
Nope. Just stop and frisk and gun control.
And, no, Citizen Betts, my posts don't have anything to do with guns. They do, however, at least imo, have a lot to do with the desperate poverty and violent crime in this society. But, please, keep ignoring me. I don't really want to talk to you either.
To further answer your question above, Citizen Irontruth, I harp on the Democrats and Obama because I pick and choose my battles. There's not much point in me arguing with a Republican supporter. I leave that up to you and Comrades Jeff and Gersen, et al.
My ubiquitous and irritating raison d'etre is to hammer home to you radical-liberal types that the Democrats are just as much stooges of the plutocracy as the Republicans.
Also, as everybody knows, I am opposed to gun control because I am opposed to this murderous, racist state having a monopoly on armed force.
Let's suppose you and I were to start our own (separate) businesses. We both start manufacturing and selling identical widgets right across the street from one another...
But you, being somehow more successful than I, sell more widgets (thus making more money than I)...
Then "The Man" comes around, and says to you: "Since you are so much more successful than that poor little Digitalelf Fellow over there across the street, I am going to require you to give me more of your profits than I require of him! Oh, don't worry, I am taking money from both of you, it's just that I need more from you... I mean you can obviously spare it right?"
How is that fair exactly???
Putting aside what "fair" is intended to mean, let's look at this bit for a second:
But you, being somehow more successful than I, sell more widgets (thus making more money than I)...
The key is the "somehow."
It could be that you're smarter, or you work harder.
It could also be that you treat your employees worse. Or externalize costs at the expense of the public more effectively. Or are more ruthless. Or you have better lobbyists. Or you started with more capital and were therefore able to force me out of business. Maybe you cheat. Or maybe you're just plain lucky.
How is any of that "fair?"
Markets are social constructs. They are not naturally occurring, unimpeachable engines spitting out sacrosanct truths.
My ubiquitous and irritating raison d'etre is to hammer home to you radical-liberal types that the Democrats are just as much stooges of the plutocracy as the Republicans.
The thing is -- we get it. Who doesn't? But just because both parties are beholden to the wealthy doesn't mean that they're identical.
And I admit I'm no sociologist, but hasn't basically every society, ever, been a plutocracy? Why do you imagine that overthrowing the government would be an improvement?
Who picks on the Goblin? He's the most entertaining one on these threads?
It also doesn't have anything to do with guns. Just ignore him.I've followed these gun threads that keep popping up, and you seem to have a very strong opinion about this subject, however I don't think you have ever said what policies you would implement. In an America where you had carte blanche to make any policy you wanted, what would that look like? Secondarily, what do you think should be done under the current paradigm?
I believe I've stated a few times that I'd like to see a number of robust gun control measures implemented. I'd like to see a national registration database, I'd like to see background check laws strengthened/mandated, I'd like to see magazine sizes limited, I'd like to see a tremendous level of attention and energy devoted to mental health treatment, I'd like to see a concerted effort to decouple gun ownership and patriotism from one another (get rid of the rah-rah-guns-n-'Murica fetishism), and I'd love to see the NRA shrivel up in an attention vacuum.
That's off the top of my head.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why aren't you putting even more blame on the republicans who refuse to raise taxes on the rich?Let's suppose you and I were to start our own (separate) businesses. We both start manufacturing and selling identical widgets right across the street from one another...
But you, being somehow more successful than I, sell more widgets (thus making more money than I)...
Then "The Man" comes around, and says to you: "Since you are so much more successful than that poor little Digitalelf Fellow over there across the street, I am going to require you to give me more of your profits than I require of him! Oh, don't worry, I am taking money from both of you, it's just that I need more from you... I mean you can obviously spare it right?"
How is that fair exactly???
It also doesn't have anything to do with guns. Just ignore him.I've followed these gun threads that keep popping up, and you seem to have a very strong opinion about this subject, however I don't think you have ever said what policies you would implement. In an America where you had carte blanche to make any policy you wanted, what would that look like? Secondarily, what do you think should be done under the current paradigm?I believe I've stated a few times that I'd like to see a number of robust gun control measures implemented. I'd like to see a national registration database, I'd like to see background check laws strengthened/mandated, I'd like to see magazine sizes limited, I'd like to see a tremendous level of attention and energy devoted to mental health treatment, I'd like to see a concerted effort to decouple gun ownership and patriotism from one another (get rid of the rah-rah-guns-n-'Murica fetishism), and I'd love to see the NRA shrivel up in an attention vacuum.
That's off the top of my head.
Fair enough. I would imagine that the registration and background checks are obviously going to meet Constitutional muster, even with the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Frankly I believe that the magazine size limit would as well. There may have been an issue if your position would have been the banning of "assault weapons."
The rest are things we should likely be working on anyway. With I suppose some arguing about the NRA, but not many. Even many gun owners aren't fans as I understand.
My confusion arose from your seeming position on the malleability of the Constitution, which seemed to imply a desire to repeal the Second Amendment through Constitutional measures. If it went that way, fine, particularly with the rigors needed to Amend the Constitution.
My concern, in a broader sense, is that we really shouldn't have a Constitution that is easy to Amend. I got the implication from your statements about it only being a piece of paper, that you felt so. You only need to take a look at state constitutions to see why easy amending can cause problems.
I suggest that as a governing document, the Constitution should be difficult to amend precisely so it can effect change absent a need for majority consensus. Legislation can on its own dictate that sort of change dictated by majority opinion while still being balanced to prevent tyranny by the majority. Depending on the hopefully positive outcome in the recent arguments, the issue of Gay marriage could be such example, allowing marriage regardless of which side holds a majority opinion.
Edit: Since I asked you to openly state your opinion, while giving nothing in return, I find it only fair to show my cards as well, since I tend to lurk and only add direction regarding legal issues.
I am a very moderate Republican fiscally, but find the idea of the far Right conservatism distasteful. I believe that the small government that the Republican party stands for should extend to things like not adding government by legislating who can get married and who can't for example. I also think that blanket bans on guns are unconstitutional as the Constitution stands now, and we should not waste time legislating in an unconstitutional fashion. I do believe that public safety from guns is a compelling state interest and that we should therefore have minimally intrusive laws that address that compelling state interest. Such as closing the gun show loophole, and requiring a more centralized background and registration requirement.
Your comment makes me think you didn't watch this video.
Yup. It's all about the distribution.
|
|
Your comment makes me think you didn't watch this video.
And so, somehow, being successful (or lucky enough to be born into a family of means, which nobody can choose to do BTW), one should be penalized, and quite frankly, robbed, by the US government because they have what - too much money??
I'd love to be a multi-billionaire or what have you, but I know that I have not worked hard enough to be one, nor been fortunate enough to be born into a family of means. I can live with that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your comment makes me think you didn't watch this video.And so, somehow, being successful (or lucky enough to be born into a family of means, which nobody can choose to do BTW), one should be penalized, and quite frankly, robbed, by the US government because they have what - too much money??
I'd love to be a multi-billionaire or what have you, but I know that I have not worked hard enough to be one, nor been fortunate enough to be born into a family of means. I can live with that...
It's not a penalty or robbery.
Seriously, go back and really LOOK at the data in that video. If you had to pay for a something in the federal budget, who are you going to even be able to get money from?
Is it more fair to:
A) Raise the taxes of the top 5% by around 2%
B) Confiscate the entire wealth of the bottom 40% of Americans
Both would reduce the deficit this year by the same amount. Unfortunately one couldn't really be repeated with the same results next year though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I would imagine that the registration and background checks are obviously going to meet Constitutional muster, even with the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Frankly I believe that the magazine size limit would as well.
I agree. These changes are either constitutionally benign, or extensions of powers already implicitly (perhaps explicitly) granted by the courts.
There may have been an issue if your position would have been the banning of "assault weapons."
There are few people well-acquainted with the gun control issue who believe that the restriction of largely cosmetic features will end up mattering. There are reasons that weapons designed to maximize the shooter's ability to engage multiple assailants at both close and extended ranges ought to be restricted, but "It has a secondary grip," is not one of them.
The rest are things we should likely be working on anyway. With I suppose some arguing about the NRA, but not many. Even many gun owners aren't fans as I understand.
That's my understanding as well. Frankly, I consider an increased emphasis on mental health more important than any of the other proposed changes. What I object to is the insistence by some that the problem is anything-but-guns. People like psionichamster seem to believe that, despite all evidence to the contrary, there is no such thing as effective policy when it comes to preventing gun violence. This is a mentality that is deeply-set in a large subsection of American culture, and is encouraged not just by friends and family, but by large political institutions that cross the barrier into cultural icons (the NRA, for instance). The persistent cultural linkage between gun rights and ultra-nationalism (what those who subscribe to it would simply call "patriotism") only makes matters worse - it allows them to insinuate that attacking gun rights is tantamount to attacking the ideals of the United States.
It may not be clear from my posts, but I absolutely support the right of citizens to own firearms. I do, however, want those who own firearms to be thoroughly trained in all aspects of their handling, and I want measures to be taken to ensure that those with histories of mental health problems receive clearance from a mental health professional familiar with their care before they are able to own a firearm.
My confusion arose from your seeming position on the malleability of the Constitution, which seemed to imply a desire to repeal the Second Amendment through Constitutional measures.
I don't believe that repeal is necessary. I think it's probably a pretty pointless amendment and that replacing it with something clearer would be cool, but I think that the changes proposed here fall short of violating its provision. I don't want to remove the right of citizens to own firearms. I just want to put a few highly-effective safeguards in place to ensure that those who do own them are responsible enough to handle them with the respect they deserve.
If it went that way, fine, particularly with the rigors needed to Amend the Constitution.
My concern, in a broader sense, is that we really shouldn't have a Constitution that is easy to Amend. I got the implication from your statements about it only being a piece of paper, that you felt so. You only need to take a look at state constitutions to see why easy amending can cause problems.
No, I agree that the Constitution ought to take broad consensus to modify. After all, it receives more respect than any other legal document in the country.
My emphasis on its being simply a piece of paper is that, in the end, it is just a document of laws, and exists to serve the people. It is also a living document, and we have enshrined the rights of certain of our legal bodies to interpret and codify its application, even absent amendment. It is not sacred, it is not inviolate, and it is not to be defended solely on the basis of its position in our sphere of laws, but rather on the merits of those laws - merits that deserve constant re-evaluation.
one should be penalized, and quite frankly, robbed, by the US government because they have what - too much money??
Right. Because taxation is exactly like theft. Exactly.
I repeat: Markets are social constructs. Just like tax codes. The market that distributed the wealth in the first place is at least as arbitrary and inequitable as the taxation your creed holds equivalent to "robbery."
Your comment makes me think you didn't watch this video.And so, somehow, being successful (or lucky enough to be born into a family of means, which nobody can choose to do BTW), one should be penalized, and quite frankly, robbed, by the US government because they have what - too much money??
I'd love to be a multi-billionaire or what have you, but I know that I have not worked hard enough to be one, nor been fortunate enough to be born into a family of means. I can live with that...
It's not a penalty or robbery.
Seriously, go back and really LOOK at the data in that video. If you had to pay for a something in the federal budget, who are you going to even be able to get money from?
Is it more fair to:
A) Raise the taxes of the top 5% by around 2%
B) Confiscate the entire wealth of the bottom 40% of AmericansBoth would reduce the deficit this year by the same amount. Unfortunately one couldn't really be repeated with the same results next year though.
Not strictly true, since that was wealth distribution, not income and we don't normally tax wealth. A 2% tax on the wealth of the top 5% would be a huge increase.
The general point holds though. You have to go where the money is and for the last 3-4 decades more and more of it has been going to the very top.
I'm sorry, I meant to say tax their income.
A 2% tax on income of the wealthiest 1% (alone) yields $75 billion per year.
The bottom 40% are worth $108 billion.
The top 1% make every year almost as much as the bottom 40% have managed to scrounge together in their entire lives.
Edit: sorry, that's wrong, the top 1% in one year make 34 times what the bottom 40% have managed to scrounge together in their entire lives.
one should be penalized, and quite frankly, robbed, by the US government because they have what - too much money??Right. Because taxation is exactly like theft. Exactly.
I repeat: Markets are social constructs. Just like tax codes. The market that distributed the wealth in the first place is at least as arbitrary and inequitable as the taxation your creed holds equivalent to "robbery."
If I steal $1,000,000,000 from you and others, and the government makes me pay a penny of it back (I keep the other $999,999,999.99), then that's clearly robbery from me! I should be allowed to keep all of what everyone else works for. Because obviously I work hundreds of times harder than everyone else in the country combined.
Guys, c'mon. I'm all for robust discussions of national economic policy, but maybe it deserves its own thread?
Guys, c'mon. I'm all for robust discussions of national economic policy, but maybe it deserves its own thread?
Sorry!
|
|
Right. Because taxation is exactly like theft. Exactly.
No, it isn't... But being given an additional tax solely because one is wealthier than everyone else, is pretty darn close to theft!
At any rate, Scott is correct; this is the wrong thread for all of this, so I shall say no more about it here...
My ubiquitous and irritating raison d'etre is to hammer home to you radical-liberal types that the Democrats are just as much stooges of the plutocracy as the Republicans.The thing is -- we get it. Who doesn't?
In my experiences on the left over the past 20 years, and, in particular, as a union and Occupy activist over the past 2: most of America, most liberals and, indeed, most radicals. If not you, congrats!
More to say, but I've got to go to work...and it's off-topic.
Not that that ever stopped me before!
(Thank you for the kind words, Comrade MeanDM)
|
Your comment makes me think you didn't watch this video.And so, somehow, being successful (or lucky enough to be born into a family of means, which nobody can choose to do BTW), one should be penalized, and quite frankly, robbed, by the US government because they have what - too much money??
I'd love to be a multi-billionaire or what have you, but I know that I have not worked hard enough to be one, nor been fortunate enough to be born into a family of means. I can live with that...
It's not a penalty or robbery.
Seriously, go back and really LOOK at the data in that video. If you had to pay for a something in the federal budget, who are you going to even be able to get money from?
Is it more fair to:
A) Raise the taxes of the top 5% by around 2%
B) Confiscate the entire wealth of the bottom 40% of AmericansBoth would reduce the deficit this year by the same amount. Unfortunately one couldn't really be repeated with the same results next year though.
Not strictly true, since that was wealth distribution, not income and we don't normally tax wealth. A 2% tax on the wealth of the top 5% would be a huge increase.
The general point holds though. You have to go where the money is and for the last 3-4 decades more and more of it has been going to the very top.
I'm sorry, I meant to say tax their income.
A 2% tax on income of the wealthiest 1% (alone) yields $75 billion per year.
The bottom 40% are worth $108 billion.The top 1% make every year almost as much as the bottom 40% have managed to scrounge together in their entire lives.
Edit: sorry, that's wrong, the top 1% in one year make 34 times what the bottom...
And it is still not your place to tell them how much of what they earn they deserve to keep