Gun control/being safe out there....

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Win
It's a big deal if you're poor and don't have $100.
It shouldn't cost anything to exercise a right.

The Bill of Rights doesn't mandate that a person must be able to afford a weapon, tax on that weapon or the cost of the ammunition or the permit for the weapon. It just guarantees the "right" to be able to keep a weapon.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Benito
All this talk about shotguns being hard to handle, and then we have this.

An 11 year old boy shoots an 8 year old girl with a shotgun from inside his trailer home. Maybe she should have been packing an AR15 to defend herself. Or maybe she needed better situational awareness.

http://fox6now.com/2015/10/05/this-is-no...ent-over-puppy/


A clear failure in parental/adult responsibility. The 11 year old should not have access to his parent's weapons...of any kind.

One of the big lines of outreach from the NRA is gun safety and education. They spend millions (and since 92% of their budget comes from the dues of members, they are representing their membership's desires/priorities on this effort) educating the public in general, and children in particular, on the safe storage and handling of firearms.

Anti-gun groups vilified the "Eddie Eagle" program to help keep kids safe if they find a gun (which would, again, be the result of adult irresponsibility). Largely because the cartoon format was attractive to children...but that was the point: to make the safety message accessible and attractive, so that kids would listen and remember how to keep themselves safe.

Like all safety/security efforts, layering the approach, providing multiple barriers to the chain of events that leads to tragedy, is the the most effective.

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

And make no mistake, this was a tragedy. It will be exploited, as all tragedies are, to skew the debate.

If you focused only on the tragedies (which we will call risks), and ignored the benefits, or the other postive aspects, of any endeavor, you would cancel every endeavor that you analyze...see my earlier comments on poor risk analysis being part of the problem in this debate.

There are some great ways to address this tragedy, like Eddie Eagle, like responsible gun ownership, without trampling the rights of responsible, legal owners.

 

[Rust_Belt_Pete]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Win
It's a big deal if you're poor and don't have $100.
It shouldn't cost anything to exercise a right.

The Bill of Rights doesn't mandate that a person must be able to afford a weapon, tax on that weapon or the cost of the ammunition or the permit for the weapon. It just guarantees the "right" to be able to keep a weapon.


Actually that is a form of poll tax which has been made illegal due to it being commonly used to deny the poor and minorities the right to vote.

 

[Alfred_B]

How is obtaining license to carry a gun the same as voting in an election?

 

[Rust_Belt_Pete]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
How is obtaining license to carry a gun the same as voting in an election?


How is making some one pay 500$ for the right to vote acceptable?

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Rust_Belt_Pete


Actually that is a form of poll tax which has been made illegal due to it being commonly used to deny the poor and minorities the right to vote.

Actually the 24th Amendment to the Constitution outlawed the Poll Tax. Nice try.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
There are some great ways to address this tragedy, like Eddie Eagle, like responsible gun ownership, without trampling the rights of responsible, legal owners.



Well Canada seems to have some regulations around what "responsible gun ownership" means. Maybe we can learn from them and not just Eddie Eagle.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: Win
It's a big deal if you're poor and don't have $100.

It shouldn't cost anything to exercise a right.



That's unrealistic idealism. Guns cost money, or should they be provided by the gubment?


I don't know what I was thinking.

Which rights do you want people to pay for the exercise of?

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Al
...
The Bill of Rights doesn't mandate that a person must be able to afford a weapon, tax on that weapon or the cost of the ammunition or the permit for the weapon. It just guarantees the "right" to be able to keep a weapon.


That's just wrong. It's "keep and bear", not "keep". Big difference.

And of course it doesn't require taxpayers to buy me a gun, anymore than it requires them to buy me a megaphone so my voice can be better heard, or build me a church so I can worship.

That's just silly.

 

[Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: Astro14
There are some great ways to address this tragedy, like Eddie Eagle, like responsible gun ownership, without trampling the rights of responsible, legal owners.



Well Canada seems to have some regulations around what "responsible gun ownership" means. Maybe we can learn from them and not just Eddie Eagle.


The USA is not Canada.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
How is obtaining license to carry a gun the same as voting in an election?



Well, they're similar in the sense that there always has been, and always will be, people that think they are smarter than everybody else, that think they know better than everybody else, that think they should control everybody else that does not think like them, and that will use the power of government to keep people in their place by imposing financial, intellectual, or other requirements on people to limit their participation in events that they would otherwise be lawfully entitled to engage in.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: Win
It's a big deal if you're poor and don't have $100.

It shouldn't cost anything to exercise a right.



That's unrealistic idealism. Guns cost money, or should they be provided by the gubment?


I don't know what I was thinking.

Which rights do you want people to pay for the exercise of?


Let's get practical for a minute.

Exercising almost anything in life costs money in some shape or form.

Free speech costs money whether it's publishing pamphlets or a computer and internet. So there should be no sales tax on computers and internet service then because it restricts the 1st amendment? Or should there be free computers and internet for everyone?

And there are restrictions on free speech which can be enforced through the courts. Running the court system costs money which we all pay for through taxation.

Keeping and bearing arms costs money whether it's guns, ammunition, storage, training or some sort of regulation. Regulation on firearms has always been recognized as being necessary and within the remit of various governments. And regulation, as with those other items, costs something to be both framed, implemented and enforced.

The problem with legal idealism is that it ignores the fact that everything costs money. Legal folk make great politicians which is why we end up with such badly framed policies and tax systems when you look at it from an economics perspective.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: Astro14
There are some great ways to address this tragedy, like Eddie Eagle, like responsible gun ownership, without trampling the rights of responsible, legal owners.



Well Canada seems to have some regulations around what "responsible gun ownership" means. Maybe we can learn from them and not just Eddie Eagle.


The USA is not Canada.


You seem to follow me around Mystic, don't you?

Good observation. The USA is not Canada. Thank you for that.

Btw, how is your support for the national gun registry going?

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: Win
It's a big deal if you're poor and don't have $100.

It shouldn't cost anything to exercise a right.



That's unrealistic idealism. Guns cost money, or should they be provided by the gubment?


I don't know what I was thinking.

Which rights do you want people to pay for the exercise of?


Let's get practical for a minute.

Exercising almost anything in life costs money in some shape or form.

Free speech costs money whether it's publishing pamphlets or a computer and internet. So there should be no sales tax on computers and internet service then because it restricts the 1st amendment? Or should there be free computers and internet for everyone?

And there are restrictions on free speech which can be enforced through the courts. Running the court system costs money which we all pay for through taxation.

Keeping and bearing arms costs money whether it's guns, ammunition, storage, training or some sort of regulation. Regulation on firearms has always been recognized as being necessary and within the remit of various governments. And regulation, as with those other items, costs something to be both framed, implemented and enforced.

The problem with legal idealism is that it ignores the fact that everything costs money. Legal folk make great politicians which is why we end up with such badly framed policies and tax systems when you look at it from an economics perspective.


Blah, blah, ... blah.

Which rights do you want people to pay a fee to the government to exercise?

 

[Mystic]

And you seem to post a lot of anti-police stuff and make a lot of anti-gun statements. I can remember some others who did that-like hotwheels.

I suppose if somebody has tremendous hatred for the police and is extremely anti-gun it is hard to resist.

I am logical. I know the police are necessary and that most police are just trying to do their jobs. There will always be a few bad actors in any profession, regardless what profession you are talking about. There are bad mechanics, bad teachers, etc. Usually the bad actors wind up going out the door sooner or later.

It is kind of 'in' right now to attack the police. At least it is in some circles. I don't follow what is 'in.'

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Win

Blah, blah, ... blah.

Which rights do you want people to pay a fee to the government to exercise?



Going ad hominem on me huh?

It's a question of subsidizing my friend. I see no reason to subsidize those whose decisions to exercise their rights require more costs.

Take traveling for example. You decide to go by plane, I decide to go by road. Plane travel requires TSA. Your ticket includes a security fee. My costs of road travel shouldn't pay for your TSA fee should it?

When I go by plane, I don't complain that Win should be paying for my TSA security fee because the government has no right to ask me for a fee to exercise my right to travel.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: Win

Blah, blah, ... blah.

Which rights do you want people to pay a fee to the government to exercise?



Going ad hominem on me huh?

It's a question of subsidizing my friend. I see no reason to subsidize those whose decisions to exercise their rights require more costs.

Take traveling for example. You decide to go by plane, I decide to go by road. Plane travel requires TSA. Your ticket includes a security fee. My costs of road travel shouldn't pay for your TSA fee should it?

When I go by plane, I don't complain that Win should be paying for my TSA security fee because the government has no right to ask me for a fee to exercise my right to travel.


Not at all.

I'm asking a simple question, phrased simply: Which rights do you want people to pay a fee to the government to exercise?

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I don't follow what is 'in.'


Are you sure? You seem to regurgitate talking points.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Win
Not at all.

I'm asking a simple question, phrased simply: Which rights do you want people to pay a fee to the government to exercise?


I think I've answered it to the best of my ability. Where there is a law of the land that is associated with the exercise of a right, where there is a cost associated with following that law, and where the cost of exercising that right in relation to the law can be identified, then the person exercising that right should pay the fee.

Because otherwise, others would be subsidizing somebody's exercising of their right and that is kind of like socialism / communism.

The TSA security fee was an example of that. You have the right to travel unhindered across state lines. You go to the airport and due to various laws there are costs associated with you exercising that right. The TSA security fee is added to your plane ticket and you pay for the exercise of your right to travel.

And I should be clear. Any fee covers the cost. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[turtlevette]

It seems like spoiled punks do a lot of these shootings. We need to make it open season on spoiled punks.

I'm not sure how to do that but it starts with the parents. They are culpible as they raised a punk. We need to buldoze their houses like the Israelis do. Or maybe relatives of the dead need to take care of business. I see much more value in a plan like this than attempting to take guns away from everyone.