Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

[Night Strike]

So are any of these new laws needed because of things actually happening or just to write new laws for the sake of writing them? Hunters already do these things.

[BigBallinStalin]

What more laws are needed? We have plenty of laws on the books already to keep guns away from criminals. And we have many other laws that keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens such as outright bans in some locations as well as burdensome registration fees, both of which are probably unconstitutional. The NRA has been fighting against MORE gun laws because the ones that are needed are already on the books. They just need to be followed properly (like many laws that the government doesn't actually follow, just so they can write more laws).

I am not necessarily talking about more laws, though some are needed(mostly local ordinances to protect specific areas and such) .

If everyone were responsible than we should be perfectly safe in our houses, at the camps during hunting season (not counting the drunken idiot incidents particularly ... ironically they seem to be more self-contained..and mostly the guns are put away before). they are not. So, we do need laws. We need laws saying that you need to know not just what you see, but what is behind.. know of someone's house is there, etc. and don't shoot if you are close enough to hit that house (or the public restroom, etc.). We need laws saying gun shows cannot "demo" machine guns to 8 year old. etc.

And note, nothing in that is talking about taking away people's guns for protection or anything else. Laws are the boundaries that help control and teach idiots.

Looks like you're talking about having more laws while saying you aren't talking about having more laws.

[natty dread]

I think Player makes some good points.

[natty dread]

Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.

[PLAYER57832]

So are any of these new laws needed because of things actually happening or just to write new laws for the sake of writing them?

Each of those refers to one or more specific incidents. I picked ones on the national news and that were discussed here in the forums even (though a few months ago), because (as always) I don't want to give out "identifying information".

Hunters already do these things.

Sometimes, but lately the NRA is in the forefront of saying any legislation any limits are just bad, on principle.. no matter what.

Look at your first knee-jerk response to what I said. And, I want to be clear about something else. These are things I am saying to hunters, to sportsfolk... either myself or through a network of wives. (in this case, that is not a generality. We are all wives). I am not out parading on the downtown streets of the veggie-ville section of SF.. or even Pittsburgh. I have spoken privately to some legislators, with very specific details and information.

But, here is my greatest concern. Although I live in a hunting area now, I actually did not grow up with hunting, per se. My father is European and just did not hunt. (its for wealthy people there). However, neighbors did. The neighbors, along with my parents made sure I knew that real guns and bows and arrows were all dangerous, not toys. "Avoid them until you get older" was the absolute lesson. At the same time, I was brought up to understand that hunting, like farming, was part of "where we got our food". We ate venison, wild pig, etc. (Growing up on a farm, I certainly had no qualms about eating meat!). Sure, it was as much about sport. Later, my father made sure I knew how to shoot, to be safe around a gun in action (finances had more to do with my dropping it once past the basics than anything else).

I always associated the NRA with that ethic... hunting, and shooting for sports. It was a positive message. Not something for everyone, but positive. In many locals, mostly rural areas that still holds. Now, though, on the national level, it seems it has become more about everybody has to have a gun to defend their house... and "gun" can include a machine gun or semi-automatic if that is what folks want. By mixing all those issues, they lose a lot of the credibility they once had with non-shooters, non-hunters. AND, are alienating a great deal of people, even those in the hunting community.

Yes, the negativity is much more found in the women. However, I am not talking about prissy city girls. (The "prisses" here may have their nails done, but chances are they also know one end of a gun from the other ). I am talking about women with father and brothers who hunted, who married hunters and then saw one too many incidents that make them question whether they really want their sons involved. Sometimes, if the husband is not really much into it anyway, they are part of hunting dying off in that family. Sometimes, they quietly "simmer" or say just a little... but believe me, there is an absolute change.

Of course, you have some "push back", but ironically, some of that actually makes it worse. Because, as I said, these are not women who just grew up hating guns and were "taught" that hunting is "bad", etc. So, when the first reaction is like you gave me... well, most won't bother to take the time to say "Hey.. NO! You have it wrong".

Like just about anything, when people stop listening, stop communcating, then the battle is already lost. In this case, hunters and shooting sports aficianados are far, far outnumbered by those who have barely seen a gun, except on TV and to whom a gun means gangs/soldiers or violent crimes. So, if hunters and sportsfolk want to keep having what they have, keep having their say, they need to actually take the time to LISTEN to the non-hunters and concerned alike.

[Woodruff]

Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.

That doesn't have much to do with "gun laws" really, though. That applies much more to "adrenaline rushers" and "those who are suicidally aggressive about enjoying themselves".

[PLAYER57832]

Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.

That doesn't have much to do with "gun laws" really, though. That applies much more to "adrenaline rushers" and "those who are suicidally aggressive about enjoying themselves".

Unless the friend was a child (or you were at the time), then it gets to instruction, safety, control and education (of parents and children).

[Woodruff]

Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.

That doesn't have much to do with "gun laws" really, though. That applies much more to "adrenaline rushers" and "those who are suicidally aggressive about enjoying themselves".

Unless the friend was a child (or you were at the time), then it gets to instruction, safety, control and education (of parents and children).

Which again don't have much to do with "new gun laws". I haven't seen ANY gun laws that designate that instruction, safety, control and education of parents and children should not take place. I HAVE, however, seen gun laws that designate that instruction, safety, control and education of parents and children SHOULD take place.

So I'll have to disagree with you on that point.

[Phatscotty]

gun control, naked

[PLAYER57832]

Some years ago, a former friend of mine pulled a gun on my head and pulled the trigger. The gun was empty. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't be here posting now.

That doesn't have much to do with "gun laws" really, though. That applies much more to "adrenaline rushers" and "those who are suicidally aggressive about enjoying themselves".

Unless the friend was a child (or you were at the time), then it gets to instruction, safety, control and education (of parents and children).

Which again don't have much to do with "new gun laws". I haven't seen ANY gun laws that designate that instruction, safety, control and education of parents and children should not take place. I HAVE, however, seen gun laws that designate that instruction, safety, control and education of parents and children SHOULD take place.
So I'll have to disagree with you on that point.

Yes, and no. The NRA is all in favor of voluntary education, does a GREAT deal of it. However, talk about legally increasing the requirements and they almost always object. There are a few narrow exceptions in regards to education of kids, but not many.

But I have said as much as I care to on it for now.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

[natty dread]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives.

[BigBallinStalin]

Again, it's an issue of whether the government should intervene and educate people on how to live their lives, or whether that education should be left more directly to the communities themselves.


PLAYER is a huge proponent for the state, so she believes that the state should provide the education and make it legally enforcable to attend the educational programs.

Other people don't trust the government, and/or they see the problems associated with yet another top-down approach with political incentives at play and the upcoming wasteful expenditure of resources--these people support other methods of educating others.


Instead, people should actually contribute to the forms of education that they wish. If player is so concerned about gun education in her neighboorhood, then she should "put her money where her mouth is" and actually contribute, instead of requiring the government to do something which it will inevitably perform poorly and wastefully.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives.

Why be so arbitrary?

The point is to save lives, so let's save lives--especially since obesity is reponsible for killing 300,000 American lives per year according to surgeongeneral.gov http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_consequences.htm.

Accidental deaths from the mishandling of guns is responsible for how many deaths? 600 per year? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2023823/posts). Down 95% since the early 1900s? (without the need for state intervention with legally required gun control classes for gun owners). Trying googling it and it's difficult to even show the numbers because the problem is so insignificant compared to other factors that kill more people.


Say 90% of welfare recipient eat unhealthily. Then later, they incur further costs on the national healthcare program (medicare, medicaid, etc). Look at the cost they imposed on all of society! They should have been educated on how to live their lives (using PLAYER's and apparently your logic favoring state intervention), so that they could be saved!

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's another interesting fact:

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Compare that to 300,000 deaths per year related to obesity.

"WE NEED STATE INTERVENTION NOW TO SAVE OUR LIVES!!!!!"

My opinion: This is a topic du'jour for statists.

[spurgistan]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T. The party has become a social left, economic Kenseyn (sp?) system supporting establishment, which the constituency is sick of. that is why Ron Paul is such a moving force. he wants to go with the government where the people such as myself want the government to go. DOWN in size, and BACk in it's intrusion on privacy. (See liberty defined, chapter 6)

Umm, see, the thing is, the Republican Party is farther to the right then it's been in around 50 years, at least economically. Note how the health care reform package we passed less year was significantly less comprehensive than Nixon's. Our taxes-to-GDP ratio was higher under Reagan source for BBS. BUPotY your ass.

Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher.

In other words, a taxes-to-GDP ratio is limited in its application--it doesn't say much.

But, as far as the American Right is concerned, Murray Rothbard wrote a book called Betrayal of the American Right, which is free at mises.org (http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf). His book discusses the history of the American Right, and how it has shifted into what a portion of it is today.


I lol'ed at "social left, economic Keynesian system" [whatthefuckamireading.jpg]

So, if a tax revenue-to-GDP ratio isn't an accurate indication of the level of taxation, what is? Whatever the Chamber of Commerce says? Just "Too High?" It seems like expecting tax revenue to rise as overall GDP rises would make sense, no? Which would keep the ratio even. Which makes this not some sort of statistical game, unless there's something I'm missing here.

[thegreekdog]

So, if a tax revenue-to-GDP ratio isn't an accurate indication of the level of taxation, what is? Whatever the Chamber of Commerce says? Just "Too High?" It seems like expecting tax revenue to rise as overall GDP rises would make sense, no? Which would keep the ratio even. Which makes this not some sort of statistical game, unless there's something I'm missing here.

This is just a thought, but it could be that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world... but that's just a thought.

[natty dread]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives.

Why be so arbitrary?

The point is to save lives, so let's save lives--especially since obesity is reponsible for killing 300,000 American lives per year according to surgeongeneral.gov http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_consequences.htm.

Accidental deaths from the mishandling of guns is responsible for how many deaths? 600 per year? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2023823/posts). Down 95% since the early 1900s? (without the need for state intervention with legally required gun control classes for gun owners). Trying googling it and it's difficult to even show the numbers because the problem is so insignificant compared to other factors that kill more people.


Say 90% of welfare recipient eat unhealthily. Then later, they incur further costs on the national healthcare program (medicare, medicaid, etc). Look at the cost they imposed on all of society! They should have been educated on how to live their lives (using PLAYER's and apparently your logic favoring state intervention), so that they could be saved!

Excuse me, but I don't believe I have yet expressed my opinion on the matter. Aren't you the one who's always offended when other people assume what your opinions are?

[BigBallinStalin]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T. The party has become a social left, economic Kenseyn (sp?) system supporting establishment, which the constituency is sick of. that is why Ron Paul is such a moving force. he wants to go with the government where the people such as myself want the government to go. DOWN in size, and BACk in it's intrusion on privacy. (See liberty defined, chapter 6)

Umm, see, the thing is, the Republican Party is farther to the right then it's been in around 50 years, at least economically. Note how the health care reform package we passed less year was significantly less comprehensive than Nixon's. Our taxes-to-GDP ratio was higher under Reagan source for BBS. BUPotY your ass.

Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher.

In other words, a taxes-to-GDP ratio is limited in its application--it doesn't say much.

But, as far as the American Right is concerned, Murray Rothbard wrote a book called Betrayal of the American Right, which is free at mises.org (http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf). His book discusses the history of the American Right, and how it has shifted into what a portion of it is today.


I lol'ed at "social left, economic Keynesian system" [whatthefuckamireading.jpg]

So, if a tax revenue-to-GDP ratio isn't an accurate indication of the level of taxation, what is? Whatever the Chamber of Commerce says? Just "Too High?" It seems like expecting tax revenue to rise as overall GDP rises would make sense, no? Which would keep the ratio even. Which makes this not some sort of statistical game, unless there's something I'm missing here.

Tax rates on income along set brackets and adjusted for inflation would be a much better indicator of whatever you're trying to show.

[thegreekdog]

Aren't you the one who's always offended when other people assume what your opinions are?

No that's me. As I recall you accused me of being homophobic. BBS has no problem with people making assumptions about him.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not legally require that kids should be taught how to eat healthily?

The US could pass many laws and enforce them to make sure that people eat healthily to avoid later consequences and costs on the national healthcare system (and costs incurred by the legal system and other people through frivolous lawsuits regarding obesity and what not).

Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives.

Why be so arbitrary?

The point is to save lives, so let's save lives--especially since obesity is reponsible for killing 300,000 American lives per year according to surgeongeneral.gov http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_consequences.htm.

Accidental deaths from the mishandling of guns is responsible for how many deaths? 600 per year? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2023823/posts). Down 95% since the early 1900s? (without the need for state intervention with legally required gun control classes for gun owners). Trying googling it and it's difficult to even show the numbers because the problem is so insignificant compared to other factors that kill more people.


Say 90% of welfare recipient eat unhealthily. Then later, they incur further costs on the national healthcare program (medicare, medicaid, etc). Look at the cost they imposed on all of society! They should have been educated on how to live their lives (using PLAYER's and apparently your logic favoring state intervention), so that they could be saved!

Excuse me, but I don't believe I have yet expressed my opinion on the matter. Aren't you the one who's always offended when other people assume what your opinions are?

"Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives"

[mentioning posts about kids getting killed because they don't know how to handle guns]

"I think Player makes some good points" (regarding enforcing laws which I don't support)
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=145048&start=90#p3168637
(and your response in relation to hers below it).

Therefore, you have been reasonably placed into Player's line of thinking (i.e. state intervention, etc etc about being the proper solution).

[spurgistan]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

[natty dread]

"Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives"

[mentioning posts about kids getting killed because they don't know how to handle guns]

"I think Player makes some good points" (regarding enforcing laws which I don't support)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=145048&start=90#p3168637
(and your response in relation to hers below it).

Therefore, you have been reasonably placed into Player's line of thinking (i.e. state intervention, etc etc about being the proper solution).

I think you read too much into posts with too few words in them.

Me saying that Player makes some good points does not indicate that I agree with her 100%.

I also believe you also make some good points.

As for the first quote, I was merely pointing out how I consider it somewhat invalid to directly compare the issues of gun safety vs. obesity. They are not directly comparable, and can not be treated the same.

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids. Some governments are already doing that - encouraging schools to teach kids about nutrition and to serve healthy meals. But governments shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people can or can't eat. It's the parents' job to ensure their kids get proper nutrition.

I also do believe that some amount of gun control is necessary. There need to be limits and guidelines to how guns are handled, who can own a gun, etc.

I do not believe that governments should ban guns from their peoples alltogether. It's a tricky issue though, where to put the limits. Guns for sports and hunting are reasonably ok, as long as safety-guidelines are followed - and if they are not, then the licenses should be revoked instantly and for life.

But I don't think a government should allow people who are batshit crazy to own guns.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Whatever I'm arguing" is that the current American tax regime, far from being unprecedentedly heavy, was a greater share of our GDP under Reagan, and pretty much everybody in the 40 years before that. Inflation don't mean jack shit.

Ok.

Percentages of GDP can be misleading because the GDP itself varies. Therefore, when measurements of percentages of GDP are made, they are distorted by whatever business cycle the economy is riding... (as I already stated).

"Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher. (Do you see how that works?)

__________________________

Inflation matters because inflation changes the real price of goods. When one calculates the real price of goods in the 1980s (taxes, for instance), then one must use a set date like 2008 or 2006 as the base year to determine the real prices of goods and taxes. This helps show the real prices of taxes and income at some time in the past. (ALso, depending on one's base year, the numbers change. So if you pick a year with high inflation compared with a year of low inflation, the numbers from the past change.)

_________________________

In conclusion, using GDP proportions for taxation is misleading (especially if other data are not included). You've fallen for a statistical lie, but there's no need to get all butthurt over it.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Your kid eating unhealthily doesn't immediately threaten other people's lives"

[mentioning posts about kids getting killed because they don't know how to handle guns]

"I think Player makes some good points" (regarding enforcing laws which I don't support)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=145048&start=90#p3168637
(and your response in relation to hers below it).

Therefore, you have been reasonably placed into Player's line of thinking (i.e. state intervention, etc etc about being the proper solution).

I think you read too much into posts with too few words in them.

Me saying that Player makes some good points does not indicate that I agree with her 100%.

I also believe you also make some good points.

As for the first quote, I was merely pointing out how I consider it somewhat invalid to directly compare the issues of gun safety vs. obesity. They are not directly comparable, and can not be treated the same.

Sure they can. Going with PLAYER's logic, it just takes education and state-enforced laws. By using her logic, I'm expressing how ridiculous her standpoint is.


I apologize for my 80% mixing your support for her points as believing that you actually think her points being made are good (i.e. in favor of state programs to educate people on gun safety, which would require it to be involuntary and for it to target gun owners in order for the program to be "effective")

To elaborate: I do believe the government should teach healthy eating habits to kids. Some governments are already doing that - encouraging schools to teach kids about nutrition and to serve healthy meals. But governments shouldn't be allowed to dictate what people can or can't eat. It's the parents' job to ensure their kids get proper nutrition.

As long as that's voluntary, then I agree.

I also do believe that some amount of gun control is necessary. There need to be limits and guidelines to how guns are handled, who can own a gun, etc.

I do not believe that governments should ban guns from their peoples alltogether. It's a tricky issue though, where to put the limits. Guns for sports and hunting are reasonably ok, as long as safety-guidelines are followed - and if they are not, then the licenses should be revoked instantly and for life.

But I don't think a government should allow people who are batshit crazy to own guns.

Regarding current US gun control laws, I'm tolerable towards them.