Political Roundtable - Part VI

[penbeast0]

^
I've been through Lively many times, just drove through last weekend. Talk about an ironic name.

Once my brother-in-law was showing me the Lancaster Museum (or whatever it's called) near Lively. It was after closing, after dark. I tried the front door (for no good reason) and it opened. I realized immediately I'd set off an alarm, and told my brother-in-law we should leave. He insisted on staying to explain to the responding officer, who he likely knew. I was pretty surprised when a police car showed up within minutes. Most of the crimes there seem to be DUIs or other alcohol-related offenses. It's another world.

Had to sit through criminal day there because the contractor that was suing my father had pissed off the scheduling clerk, that day they sentenced about 12 people. All but two were young black men convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute (and not a single one of whom was living with his parents although the grandparents and guardians included a school board member and two police officers); the other two were middle aged white men both accused of stealing boats while drunk. For what it's worth.

[Zonkerbl]

But that's still an infinitesimally small percentage of gun owners.

You're saying they shouldn't bear the costs because they're innocent. They're not. By owning a gun they contribute to a problem that affects everybody. Not everybody who is exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer. But cigarette smokers are all responsible for the cancer cases that result.

This is a fundamental flaw in your logic. How is a law abiding gun owner whose gun was never used to kill someone contributing to the problem?

*facepalm*

You'll get it eventually, Nate. Try reading what I wrote?

[Induveca]

You're saying they shouldn't bear the costs because they're innocent. They're not. By owning a gun they contribute to a problem that affects everybody. Not everybody who is exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer. But cigarette smokers are all responsible for the cancer cases that result.

This is a fundamental flaw in your logic. How is a law abiding gun owner whose gun was never used to kill someone contributing to the problem?

*facepalm*

You'll get it eventually, Nate. Try reading what I wrote?

Zonk he has a excellent point. People are also stabbed to death.....your logic would also apply to all knife owners.

I think we all get you are passionate about gun control. But many here simply don't agree with your premise that guns are *only* used to kill people.

Guns are used by many as deterrents, to protect themselves. My guard as a child had a shotgun, but we gave him no bullets. Him being seen with that gun kept criminals away in my neighborhood in the Dominican Republic.

Prior to having the guard/gun we had been robbed numerous times. After that, never again.

[montestewart]

^
So what you're saying is just get rid of the bullets? A variation on Chris Rock's bullet tax.

[Induveca]

^
So what you're saying is just get rid of the bullets? A variation on Chris Rock's bullet tax.

No.......point is we used it as a deterrent. Believe it or not in dangerous/secluded areas the mere sight of a gun makes criminals pass up your home and move on to an easier target.

Is this the case in most of America? Likely not...far less professional criminals. I speak from Latin American experience.

However I am sure the "deterrent" logic remains for a large portion of American gun owners.

[montestewart]

^
So what you're saying is just get rid of the bullets? A variation on Chris Rock's bullet tax.

No.......point is we used it as a deterrent. Believe it or not in dangerous/secluded areas the mere sight of a gun makes criminals pass up your home and move on to an easier target.

Is this the case in most of America? Likely not...far less professional criminals. I speak from Latin American experience.

However I am sure the "deterrent" logic remains for a large portion of American gun owners.

Yeah, I got it. Just thought it was funny pointing out a use for guns other than killing, and that use specifically called for the gun not having bullets. If all guns were without bullets, I don't think Zonkerbl would be sweating guns so much. Incidentally, why didn't you give the guard bullets?

I grew up around gun owners and still know many. "Deterrent" is a primary reason people own guns, and here I'm talking primarily about handguns, although rifles and shotguns would scare the crap out of most people too. Another primary reason for owning a gun I've observed is as a libertarian toy, a macho affectation of individualism. I guess that's fine if no innocents get hurt, but I've seen quite a few gun owners who didn't seem to take the death dealing aspect of handguns very seriously. Most people I know that own guns either have them far too secured to be useful in a timely emergency, or the guns aren't secured enough (you know, from kids, burglars, etc).

My stepfather used to be a member of NRA, for many years. He stopped because he thought it lost its way, transformed from an organization representing gun owners and promoting firearm safety and education, to one that represented gun manufacturers and sellers. I was never a member myself (not much of a joiner) but I've seen that NRA transition in my own lifetime.

[montestewart]

And speaking of guns and the NRA, here's a story from a brother-in-law, who tells of taking marksmanship training at the old NRA building on Scott Circle (they had a range in the basement). He said he rode the bus up Pennsylvania Avenue from Anacostia, rifle on his knee. If I remember the story correctly, he would transfer to a 16th St bus . . . right @ 16th & PA Ave, just standing in front of the White House with a rifle over his shoulder. You sure can't do that anymore. OK WTA, that's your cue.

[Zonkerbl]

If you had actually read my posts you would understand that the mere fact of owning a gun leads to murder. More than half of murders committed are the results of arguments. That means some hothead got mad at his wife or neighbor, got out his gun, and shot somebody. The possibility of that happening does not disappear because you consider yourself "law-abiding" (whatever the hell that means. If you go through life without murdering anyone or having your kid use your gun to kill himself with or having your two year old shot by accident, congratu-****-lations. The fact that you have decided to own a gun increases the possibility of that happening. The cases of that happening are the result of people JUST LIKE YOU owning guns. YOUR decision to buy a gun increases the chances of these things happening. When people like you get in an argument and don't have a gun, chances are nobody dies. The chances are much higher if you do own a gun.

Many times the people who die as a result are not the gun owner. That means your decision to purchase a gun as a deterrent means the likelihood that someone will die by your hand increases. You're delusional if you think, "oh, but i'm a good person. My gun will never be used for evil. All the deaths that occur are the result of evil or stupid people. That would never happen to me." WRONG. that's EXACTLY what happens. Someone buys a gun as a deterrent. Gets in an argument. Shoots his neighbor. Or your kids friend steals your gun and kills someone or himself with it. Or your five year old picks the gun up and shoots his two year old sibling with it. I know you guys are in denial BUT THESE THINGS DO HAPPEN. NOT TO EVIL OR STUPID PEOPLE. PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU.

[nate33]

If you had actually read my posts you would understand that the mere fact of owning a gun leads to murder. More than half of murders committed are the results of arguments. That means some hothead got mad at his wife or neighbor, got out his gun, and shot somebody. The possibility of that happening does not disappear because you consider yourself "law-abiding" (whatever the hell that means. If you go through life without murdering anyone or having your kid use your gun to kill himself with or having your two year old shot by accident, congratu-****-lations. The fact that you have decided to own a gun increases the possibility of that happening. The cases of that happening are the result of people JUST LIKE YOU owning guns. YOUR decision to buy a gun increases the chances of these things happening. When people like you get in an argument and don't have a gun, chances are nobody dies. The chances are much higher if you do own a gun.

Many times the people who die as a result are not the gun owner. That means your decision to purchase a gun as a deterrent means the likelihood that someone will die by your hand increases. You're delusional if you think, "oh, but i'm a good person. My gun will never be used for evil. All the deaths that occur are the result of evil or stupid people. That would never happen to me." WRONG. that's EXACTLY what happens. Someone buys a gun as a deterrent. Gets in an argument. Shoots his neighbor. Or your kids friend steals your gun and kills someone or himself with it. Or your five year old picks the gun up and shoots his two year old sibling with it. I know you guys are in denial BUT THESE THINGS DO HAPPEN. NOT TO EVIL OR STUPID PEOPLE. PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU.

I have read your posts and I'll say again that you are not making any logical sense. You have failed to explain why the fact of just owning a gun causes deaths when it's not YOUR gun causing the death.

[Zonkerbl]

If you had actually read my posts you would understand that the mere fact of owning a gun leads to murder. More than half of murders committed are the results of arguments. That means some hothead got mad at his wife or neighbor, got out his gun, and shot somebody. The possibility of that happening does not disappear because you consider yourself "law-abiding" (whatever the hell that means. If you go through life without murdering anyone or having your kid use your gun to kill himself with or having your two year old shot by accident, congratu-****-lations. The fact that you have decided to own a gun increases the possibility of that happening. The cases of that happening are the result of people JUST LIKE YOU owning guns. YOUR decision to buy a gun increases the chances of these things happening. When people like you get in an argument and don't have a gun, chances are nobody dies. The chances are much higher if you do own a gun.

Many times the people who die as a result are not the gun owner. That means your decision to purchase a gun as a deterrent means the likelihood that someone will die by your hand increases. You're delusional if you think, "oh, but i'm a good person. My gun will never be used for evil. All the deaths that occur are the result of evil or stupid people. That would never happen to me." WRONG. that's EXACTLY what happens. Someone buys a gun as a deterrent. Gets in an argument. Shoots his neighbor. Or your kids friend steals your gun and kills someone or himself with it. Or your five year old picks the gun up and shoots his two year old sibling with it. I know you guys are in denial BUT THESE THINGS DO HAPPEN. NOT TO EVIL OR STUPID PEOPLE. PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU.

I have read your posts and I'll say again that you are not making any logical sense. You have failed to explain why the fact of just owning a gun causes deaths when it's not YOUR gun causing the death.

But it is your gun. Read what I wrote.

[Zonkerbl]

Let me put it this way. Why should I respond to your delusional claim that your gun can't possibly, ever be used to kill someone? That's what they're FOR. What facts underly your claim?

[nate33]

You still aren't making any sense. Just because more guns increases the probability that one can be used in a murder or suicide, it does not follow that an individual who purchased a gun that was never used for murder or suicide should have to bear the cost for other people who do so. By that argument all automobile owners should pay a Pigovian tax on cars because of the damned fools who kill people while drunk driving.

If you wanted to fine the parents when their gun was used by their teenager to kill themselves, I'd be fine with it. But you can't fine the neighbor across the street who had nothing to do with the suicide.

You are misapplying the Pigovian tax. The Pigovian tax makes sense for something like carbon emissions because anybody emitting carbon theoretically contributes to the problem. Guns are not the same thing.

[popper]

The War on Women continues .....................................

WSJ Slams Obama's Horrible Mother's Day Gift to American Women: Veto Threat on Flex Time Bill

Just in time for Mother's Day this year, President Obama has threatened a veto on a bill that would be of great benefit to working moms throughout the country.

In the May 11-12 edition of the Wall Street Journal, the editorial board took Mr. Obama to task for pledging to kill a bill that would reform the Fair Labor Standards Act "to allow employees to swap overtime pay for compensatory time off." The bill, "sponsored by Alabama Republican (and mother of two young children Martha Roby," passed the House last week. If signed into law, it would give private sector non-union employees the sort of flexibility that federal government employees have had since 1985.

So what's the president's hangup? Well, even though “polls show working mothers are eager for this kind of flexibility, since it lets them adjust their busy schedules for school-age children or aging parents," the president is more concerned with the special interest that labor unions have in the matter.

"The politics at play here is White House fealty to unions. The only way for many private workers to obtain flex-time is if a union negotiates it as part of a collective-bargaining agreement," the Journal's editorial board explained. Naturally, "if workers can negotiate overtime pay for flexible work hours on their own, they have one less reason to join a union and pay the dues that fund Democratic campaigns."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shephe ... z2T7cBXoN6

[Zonkerbl]

:banghead:

You still aren't making any sense. Just because more guns increases the probability that one can be used in a murder or suicide, it does not follow that an individual who purchased a gun that was never used for murder or suicide should have to bear the cost for other people who do so. By that argument all automobile owners should pay a Pigovian tax on cars because of the damned fools who kill people while drunk driving.

If you wanted to fine the parents when their gun was used by their teenager to kill themselves, I'd be fine with it. But you can't fine the neighbor across the street who had nothing to do with the suicide.

You are misapplying the Pigovian tax. The Pigovian tax makes sense for something like carbon emissions because anybody emitting carbon theoretically contributes to the problem. Guns are not the same thing.

Let's suppose I'm a smoker and I produce second hand smoke at my office. Let's suppose also that you track everybody in that office for the next 90 years to see if anyone got cancer, and it turns out no one does. Is it fair that I have to pay the sin tax on cigarettes?

When you buy a gun, you don't know if that gun will be used to kill someone, so it's the same situation as with second-hand smoke. You're paying for the possibility the gun will be used to kill someone.

The alternative is, as you say, fining people when their guns are used to kill someone. Ok. So the value of a human life is about $7.5 million, so most people won't be able to pay that, so you would have to buy gun owners' insurance. So think of the pigouvian tax as gun owners' insurance.

[nate33]

:banghead:

You still aren't making any sense. Just because more guns increases the probability that one can be used in a murder or suicide, it does not follow that an individual who purchased a gun that was never used for murder or suicide should have to bear the cost for other people who do so. By that argument all automobile owners should pay a Pigovian tax on cars because of the damned fools who kill people while drunk driving.

If you wanted to fine the parents when their gun was used by their teenager to kill themselves, I'd be fine with it. But you can't fine the neighbor across the street who had nothing to do with the suicide.

You are misapplying the Pigovian tax. The Pigovian tax makes sense for something like carbon emissions because anybody emitting carbon theoretically contributes to the problem. Guns are not the same thing.

Let's suppose I'm a smoker and I produce second hand smoke at my office. Let's suppose also that you track everybody in that office for the next 90 years to see if anyone got cancer, and it turns out no one does. Is it fair that I have to pay the sin tax on cigarettes?

When you buy a gun, you don't know if that gun will be used to kill someone, so it's the same situation as with second-hand smoke. You're paying for the possibility the gun will be used to kill someone.

The alternative is, as you say, fining people when their guns are used to kill someone. Ok. So the value of a human life is about $7.5 million, so most people won't be able to pay that, so you would have to buy gun owners' insurance. So think of the pigouvian tax as gun owners' insurance.

The smoker is a false analogy. Smoking is equivalent to fossil fuel use in the carbon tax model. It does affect everybody assuming the smoker smokes in public places with any regularity. That smoker is likely to have contributed to the death of another via second hand smoke. A gun doesn't effect anyone in any way whatsoever unless it's one of the infinitesimally small percentage of guns that is actually used to kill someone.

[Zonkerbl]

I don't get the distinction. Don't want to argue over that point though, since you've given me a good idea. The one valid difference between guns and smoking is that, when you get cancer 20 years later, you have no idea whose smoke it was that gave you cancer. You correctly point out that it's much easier to identify who is responsible for a gun death. Thus the gun owners' insurance idea. I don't have a problem with requiring people to buy gun owners insurance, with the understanding that you have to pay a $7.5 million fine if the gun you purchase is used to kill someone (no matter whose fault it is). Let the market figure out how much that insurance should cost.

So you would have the option of paying for the insurance in a lump sum, say, $1,000 on purchase of the gun, or you could buy a policy where you pay $10 a month or whatever.

That's actually a much better solution than the pigouvian tax because there's less of an affordability issue.

[pancakes3]

Isn't the point of the pigouvian tax for there to be an affordability issue? As a deterrent?

[Zonkerbl]

the issue that a $1000 tax means only the wealthy can afford to protect themselves.

This is turning into a rather interesting research problem.

Surely when someone is killed by a gun, the courts get a say in who is at fault and who gets compensated. Is death by negligence covered by homeowner's insurance? I bet it isn't. Maybe life insurance, I guess? I wonder if life insurance agencies ask if you own a gun and charge you a extra if you do?

Yeah, would be totally interesting to see, for the 30,000 gun deaths, who was found at fault, how much the damages were, and whether the defendant ended up paying the whole sum, either through insurance or some sort of lien on wages or such like. I bet there's a big difference between the awards and how much actually gets paid, because people can just declare bankruptcy.

After all, if you define the property rights clearly, the sums of money involved are high enough to make this a problem that's solvable by the court system. Maybe the solution is as simple as passing a law mandating that gun owners purchase gun owner insurance, establish some guidelines for the amount of money that gets awarded, and clarify that the guilty party is ALWAYS the last registered owner of the gun (if it gets stolen, that's your fault because there wouldn't have been a gun to steal if you had never purchased the gun in the first place). In other words, if you buy a gun, and someone dies, it's your fault, no matter what.

[popper]

I'm going to reveal my most valuable secret to a happy marriage and avoidance of any issue that you'd rather not discuss. It works with spouses, roommates, siblings, children, etc.

Whenever anyone brings up a subject that might reveal your lazy disposition, irresponsible behavior, or ambivalence to executing needed tasks, simply respond with the following:

"Don't worry about whether or not I (fill in the blank). It doesn't really concern you. You''re to blame."

This simple string of phraseology will render your critic helpless and on the defensive. Works every time.

[Induveca]

I'm going to reveal my most valuable secret to a happy marriage and avoidance of any issue that you'd rather not discuss. It works with spouses, roommates, siblings, children, etc.

Whenever anyone brings up a subject that might reveal your lazy disposition, irresponsible behavior, or ambivalence to executing needed tasks, simply respond with the following:

"Don't worry about whether or not I (fill in the blank). It doesn't really concern you. You''re to blame."

This simple string of phraseology will render your critic helpless and on the defensive. Works every time.

Got a good laugh...certainly applicable.