Isn't the NRA the answer They have a respect for guns that is missing from urban high crime areas There should be urban education on how to approach guns, because they do The first exposure to a gun for a 10 year old should not be from a gang member who is trying to recruit that 10 year old It should come in a classroom setting where they learn about guns and practice firing them. It might take some of the coolness from being taught by the local gang
This is what the NRA used to do. The organization used to be focused on gun safety and education. Not so much anymore. The NRA has gone complete off the rails. We need a new national organization to drive gun education and safety.
You were ahead until you suggested banning good clean fun. I know you're joking, and its a great photograph by the way, but these are not the kinds of weapons we are proposing be banned. By the way, you should give credit to the photographer, unless you were the photographer, of course. I did not see that. Even if it is your personal photograph, in which case congratulations, it's a good idea to mention the photo's source. Just the right thing to do.
If it's your belief that banning snowball throwing is something that could never happen, then you are woefully misguided. I hope that is not the case.
Can you explain this in 5 cent words? It's too fancy for me to understand. Yah. here is where he fed could logically play a role. Reg T. They could change it from 50% to say 40%. [I wish they would, though it would create a buying opportunity.] So yes we can put some blame on the fed for bubbles, but the main reason remains human nature. (See Soros.) Well over-leverage, yes. The fed must shoulder some blame because of failure to tighten Reg T in a timely manner. But mis-allocation of capital, No, that's a real stretch to blame that on the fed. We have to keep both feet on the ground and recognize that the fed is just (just!!!) the banking part of our government's overall Treasury-Banking operation. Ultimately Congress calls the shots. I'll get back to you. when I am more rested. on the other question, which is really of greater importance here. I.E., the question of whether if the government were to "call in" "assault rifles," as they defined them, would they be calling mainly what were previously legally owned guns, or what were already illegal guns before they decided to call them in.
Essentially the manipulation of the yield curve through treasury buying causes risk taking to go to extremes it wouldn't if the curve were allowed to freely move. That's how I understand it. I'm not sure its a stretch to blame the institution providing overly cheap credit for overly cheap credit being driven to companies that don't deserve it, thereby creating zombie institutions. Don't you blame the arsonist for the fire? Not since they relinquished control and asked the Fed to be responsible for unemployment. Show me one congressman or woman that truly understands the Fed and the markets. Maybe Rand Paul (I know he is a senator)? I'm not saying they couldn't "call in" guns that they suddenly made illegal through legislation. I'm asking you how you get the guns that are owned illegally, by criminals, and not trackable. how do you get them? Because if you can't tell me how you would get them, then you are disarming the part of the population that doesn't commit crimes and preventing them from defending themselves from the criminals that won't follow your laws anyway. Essentially you're placing foxes in the hen house and taking out the sheep dogs. Don't disappear again, Piezoe. Sometimes you do that - claim you're going to get back to me and then vanish (minimum wage argument).
OK I promise I'll get back to you. I don't mind criticism, deserved or otherwise. In this case, I think it is deserved.
So there was a big bolt of lightening, just as I was replying to you. It cut my power off mid sentence. So now let me finish my thought and response. It could happen. Not likely on a national scale though. In fact, It has happened on a local scale! My buddy, Harry, and I were throwing snowballs in high school. The Ass't Principle came out to inform us that throwing snowballs on the schools grounds was forbidden. My buddy engaged the Ass't principal with what he thought was a reasonable counter argument. To which the Ass't Principal responded, "irregardless, blah blah blah." Harry then proceeded to correct the Ass't Principal's English, by maintaining that there was no such word as "irregardless". Needless to say, it was more or less downhill from there for both of us.
I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't think anyone expects it to be easy to get weapons out of hands of true criminals. But it can be done over time. But that's not what I'm talking about here. First point: I am only suggesting that only very specific kinds of guns be outlawed. Ideally those that are outlawed in Cananda, which would mean that many (MOST!) pistols in the U.S. would no longer qualify as legal -- barrels too short.) I know this is a step too far for Americans. But I think real progress can be made with a less ambitious program. Let's not get confused and start arguing about something that no one is proposing. No one is proposing making all guns illegal. That would be a clear violation of the Second Amendment! What's being proposed is to stop the sale of "assault style" weapons with large magazines" of the type that have been used in a lot of recent mass killings. Then add to that completely uniform background checking in all 50 States and closing the private sale loophole. Everyone, no matter what side of the issue you're on, agrees that the laws need to be the same everywhere if they are to be effective. So in addition to just stopping the sale of specific types of guns and their ammunition , if it is unique to those types of guns, I would suggest that it is not impossible to call in all the guns of the type that are to be no longer sold. Then, as you very correctly point out, law abiding citizens will turn them in, but most criminals won't! We can both agree on that. So let's find out what we don't agree on. This might be one of those spots. It is my impression that the assault rifles that have been used in nearly all, if not all, the recent mass shootings, were legally purchased. Is that true or not? And those shooters, before they committed these horrible crimes were not considered criminals. Is that true or not? Here is what I'd like you to respond to. If both of the above are true (I don't know that they are) Then It is true, by definition, that getting these particular types of weapons out of the hands of "non-criminals" should reduce somewhat the probability of these mass shootings. We might even find that hardened criminals are NOT the ones perpetrating these horrible mass shootings, but rather it's people that are distraught or having mental issues. I am also of the opinion, and that's all it is, that greatly reducing the number of these particular types of weapons by calling them in, will make it more likely that the few that don't get turned in will, over time, turn up and get confiscated. Isn't that exactly what happened when fully automatic guns were outlawed? . No one in their right mind would suggest that we can make gun violence disappear completely by making certain types of guns illegal. But I think there is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence to link the frequency of types of gun incidents with the prevalence of these types of weapons. Is that true, or isn't it? Now you've made it clear that if there is a chance that someone is going to invade your home armed with one of these semi-automatics with a large magazine that you certainly want to be prepared to counter such an invasion with a similar gun. It is difficult for me to get into that mind set. Because i think the probability of such a thing happening is similar to the probability of being struck by lightening. And let say it does happen and there are two people both armed with assault style semi automatics with large magazines firing away at each other. What's that going to amount to!!!!! To me, this kind of worry reminds me of my dad who didn't like to take chances. He lived in a Condo over his garage in Colorado. He had experienced a pipe freezing and breaking once in the garage during January. He subsequently purchased a heating tape he wrapped the pipe in. This heating tape drew something like 25 watts and got slightly warm to the touch. Rather then plug it in in late December and unplug it in mid February, he dutifully made the treak down and up a flight of stairs to his garage twice a day. In the evening he would plug the heating tape in. In the morning he would unplug the heating tape. I asked him, "Dad, why don't you just plug it in in December and unplug it in February?" He said he was worried about a mouse chewing the tape or it causing a fire. This was insane, it made absolutely no sense in that the only thing he was doing was to cut in half an already insignificant probability, yet in every other way my dad was perfectly sane.
Many of the shooters did not legally possess firearms. That makes them criminals. If you look at the vast preponderance of murders by firearm (and we're talking 80-90% each year, if not higher) it is done by criminals. People with criminal records. Felons. Gang members. If you're going to focus on media sensationalist reporting, which is a tiny sliver of the actual homicide picture (because of the narrative) then the proportion of those who owned a firearm illegally is lower. But it is still the majority. Both of the above were not true, so you may need to rethink your proposal. I would like to review data that suggests this. Because the data I have during the Clinton "assault weapons" ban does not show this. Additionally, when NY state tried it, they received about 4% compliance (if memory serves) and the program was an utter failure. Of course, neither of these programs outlawed the possession of a type of firearm outright, so its hard to say as there is no precedence. If you're asking if these types of guns are the ones that are involved in the crime, then of course they are. That was never the argument. The argument is how to get them out of the hands of those that commit the crimes. A lot of this is because you don't understand firearms or the scenarios involved in defending oneself from firearms. Its not your fault and I'm not trying to insult you here. But the military (as an example) doesn't show up with a jeep when they're facing a tank. I don't know where this comparison comes from or what you're trying to say. I asked a simple, basic question that still hasn't been answered. "How are you going to get the guns out of the hands of criminals?"