Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:51 am

patches70 wrote:Suicide is not against the law. You won't find anyone in prison for attempted suicide.
It is illegal in the US to assist someone in a suicide. One can go to jail for that, but if a person attempts suicide, the cops take that person into custody and deliver them to a mental health ward for observation. Against your will even, as attempted suicide is a sign of mental illness. Up to 96 hours one would be observed and after that it would be determined if the person requires treatment or is released, this decision is made by the doctors usually, not the cops.


To be clear, what I was obliquely referencing above (and perhaps TGD too) was actually physician-assisted suicide. That is what I believe ought to be legal, but it is a subject for a different thread.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 41
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (6)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:53 am

Metsfanmax wrote:Consider this: what is the logical reason why suicide rates are correlated with gun ownerships? Unless there is absolutely no causation between the two (unlikely, given the raw amount of data we have and what we know about those who attempt suicide), then we have to figure out why it is that increased gun ownership leads to more gun-inflicted suicides. That is what the two authors attempt to do in the first couple of paragraphs; they cite a study that shows that 70% of suicide attempts happen less than one hour after the decision to commit suicide occurs. This is a direct refutation of the narrative in which a person who commits suicide always rationally sets their plan in stone and then coldly finds a method of execution. Backing this up is their observation that "more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt... do not go on to die by suicide." It suggests that if we could find some way of limiting access to tools for the impulsive suicides (or find ways to slow down the attempt, e.g. gun lockers), that we could substantially decrease the number of suicides that occur.


Right, and the latter suggestion is not limited to guns. I've seen the PSA-type videos on locking up pharmaceuticals.

Metsfanmax wrote:Interesting question. I think that it is not relevant to the general conclusion of the study, but it is probably very relevant in determining how the various states implement a policy that best suits their attempt to limit the number of suicides caused by gunshot wound.


Interesting.

I cannot prove my hypothesis because my firm does not let me get search results from the words "firearm" or "gun." However, my hypothesis is that the "homicide by gun" rate is higher in the states that have lower rates of firearm ownership than in the state that have higher rates of firearm ownership. What conclusions can we draw from that data? Can we draw the same conclusions? On the one hand, we have data showing that higher rates of gun ownership leads to higher rates of suicide by gun (and suicide generally), therefore banning guns would make sense in limiting suicides. On the other hand, my hypothesis is that the data will show that higher rates of gun ownership leads to lower rates of homicide by gun, therefore mandating gun ownership would make sense in limiting homicides.

Wiki, which does not have all the data I want, provides that the states mentioned for low gun suicide rates, have the following gun homicide rates:

- Hawaii - 0.51 (47th)
- Massachusetts - 1.53
- Rhode Island - 1.48
- New Jersey - 2.65
- Connecticut - 2.60
- New York - 2.67

I will continue to develop this more.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby patches70 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:01 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
patches70 wrote:Suicide is not against the law. You won't find anyone in prison for attempted suicide.
It is illegal in the US to assist someone in a suicide. One can go to jail for that, but if a person attempts suicide, the cops take that person into custody and deliver them to a mental health ward for observation. Against your will even, as attempted suicide is a sign of mental illness. Up to 96 hours one would be observed and after that it would be determined if the person requires treatment or is released, this decision is made by the doctors usually, not the cops.


To be clear, what I was obliquely referencing above (and perhaps TGD too) was actually physician-assisted suicide. That is what I believe ought to be legal, but it is a subject for a different thread.


I must have misread, I thought someone had wrote that attempted suicide was illegal or criminal, which is not true.

As you were.
Corporal patches70
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm
Medals: 2
Standard Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:20 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:I have not heard anyone take umbrage to Obama finally doing his job and filling necessary governmental posts. The mandatory background checks for everybody could become extremely onerous when private individuals are trying to sell their guns to other people.


On the way home from work last night I listened to a conservative talk radio station (I usually listen to sports talk radio, but I had enough of the Chip Kelly debate). The entirety of the calls (in Philadelphia, mind you, not a rural hotspot) involved the president, the NRA, tyranny, guns, and the taking away of said guns. Most of the calls were impassioned people who could barely form coherent sentences. Where do you think they became impassioned (or ensorcelled, most likely)? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck?



Word of the Day. Thanks, TGD.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:44 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:I have not heard anyone take umbrage to Obama finally doing his job and filling necessary governmental posts. The mandatory background checks for everybody could become extremely onerous when private individuals are trying to sell their guns to other people.


On the way home from work last night I listened to a conservative talk radio station (I usually listen to sports talk radio, but I had enough of the Chip Kelly debate). The entirety of the calls (in Philadelphia, mind you, not a rural hotspot) involved the president, the NRA, tyranny, guns, and the taking away of said guns. Most of the calls were impassioned people who could barely form coherent sentences. Where do you think they became impassioned (or ensorcelled, most likely)? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck?


People become more impassioned whenever they hear that the government wants to directly regulate their personal activities and rights. We should have more people become passionate about protecting their Constitutional rights, not fewer. Gun ownership and use is a Constitutional right. We don't need more laws that will keep more law-abiding citizens from owning the guns they want to own. We already ban automatic and heavy weapons; we don't need to ban more weapons simply because some politicians think they look scary.


Yes, this is the rhetoric that I heard last night.

It appears, at least from this post, that your point is that the government wants to ban scary-looking weapons and that you don't want them to ban scary-looking weapons. So the sticking point is the scary-looking weapons issue.


Considering gun control advocates don't even use the proper terminology to discuss the guns they want to ban (equating assault with semi-automatic and automatic), I think "scary-looking weapons" is more accurate than what they use.

thegreekdog wrote:The sticking point is not your constitutional rights and yet that's all the conservatives are discussing at this point. You still have the right to own the same weapons, they just look different. Frankly, I think conservatives could score some points by sighing and saying, "Yeah, we should ban these scary-looking weapons." Protecting them doesn't really do you any good; you just look like morons and crazy people since you're not actually arguing for anything substantive.


And after those are banned, they'll work to ban handguns. The encroachment on Constitutional rights never ends for progressives, so we have to draw the line somewhere. The line is currently drawn at banning automatic and heavy weapons. There's absolutely no reason to ban more.

thegreekdog wrote:Also, regulation is perfectly constitutional and legitimate. So I'm not sure why there's outrage against these types of items. Let me ask you this Night Strike - are you in favor of waiting periods and restrictions comparable to regular purchases of guns for gun show purchases of guns? If not, why not? What is the constitutional difference between purchasing a gun from a store and purchasing a gun from a gun show?


Regulations cannot infringe on Constitutional rights, especially when the 2nd amendment specifically states "shall not be infringed". We cannot continue regulating our right to own and carry guns until that right is gone.

Waiting periods are stupid and should not be mandated. If I pay for a product, I expect to receive it immediately (knowing of course if something has to be shipped, etc.). The government shouldn't get to dictate which products I have to buy and then wait days to receive. As for background checks, I already stated that forcing every private individual to call up the FBI and wait for a background check is quite onerous. If businesses sell at gun shows, then they should still be required to carry out the background checks. However, if I own a gun and wish to go sell it to someone, I should have that ability, just like how I don't have to get a license or authorization for anything else I want to sell.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8625
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 77
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (10) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:01 pm

Night Strike wrote:Considering gun control advocates don't even use the proper terminology to discuss the guns they want to ban (equating assault with semi-automatic and automatic), I think "scary-looking weapons" is more accurate than what they use.


I agree. It's either moronic or disengenous, depending on who is relaying the message.

Night Strike wrote:And after those are banned, they'll work to ban handguns. The encroachment on Constitutional rights never ends for progressives, so we have to draw the line somewhere. The line is currently drawn at banning automatic and heavy weapons. There's absolutely no reason to ban more.


But again, the ban wouldn't actually change gun ownership. It merely bans scary looking weapons. You can use the same exact weapon and paint it pink and you're good to go. So why fight that kind of law? You are using up all your political capital fighting something that is ineffective.

Night Strike wrote:Regulations cannot infringe on Constitutional rights, especially when the 2nd amendment specifically states "shall not be infringed". We cannot continue regulating our right to own and carry guns until that right is gone.

Waiting periods are stupid and should not be mandated. If I pay for a product, I expect to receive it immediately (knowing of course if something has to be shipped, etc.). The government shouldn't get to dictate which products I have to buy and then wait days to receive. As for background checks, I already stated that forcing every private individual to call up the FBI and wait for a background check is quite onerous. If businesses sell at gun shows, then they should still be required to carry out the background checks. However, if I own a gun and wish to go sell it to someone, I should have that ability, just like how I don't have to get a license or authorization for anything else I want to sell.


Regulations can infringe on Constitutional rights. There are examples of this with respect to free speech rights, self-incrimination rights, religious rights, privacy rights, and voting rights. Your rights across the board are subject to regulation.

You should absolutely not have the ability to sell a gun to anyone. Most guns used in crimes here in Philadelphia were illegally obtained. What does that mean? That means that someone purchased a gun legally and then immediately sold it to someone who used it in a crime. It's called a straw man purchase.

A lot of gun advocates, and maybe you, live in this idyllic world where bad things don't happen with respect to guns. Guns cannot be left unregulated. Your agrument for deregulation (and the relevant infringement upon constitutional rights) would call for the deregulation of bazookas, for example. Do you, Night Strike, want the deregulation of bazookas? You accuse gun control advocates of slippery slope... can the same be said for you?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby stahrgazer on Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Night Strike wrote: As for background checks, I already stated that forcing every private individual to call up the FBI and wait for a background check is quite onerous. If businesses sell at gun shows, then they should still be required to carry out the background checks. However, if I own a gun and wish to go sell it to someone, I should have that ability, just like how I don't have to get a license or authorization for anything else I want to sell.


Actually, you can't buy a prescription drug and then resell it without violating a law, even if you want to sell it.

Restaurants can't buy fish from jo-fisher and resell it in their restaurant, even if they want to because they think it's fresher that way - not unless jo-fisher is commercially licensed himself; which also means jo-fisher can't catch a fish and sell it without a license. At least, not legally.

That said, I agree with you about individuals and background checks. The problem is the "loophole" of someone without a record (probably need to add "yet" to that statement) buying something and then selling it to someone when they know the someone is not legally supposed to have a gun//could not buy one himself.

But I get weary of folks looking for all the loopholes and using those to violate the intentions of laws, and I get weary of governments trying to over-regulate to close all the loopholes when those really only hurt those who would do things legally and morally.

No matter what law is written, criminals are gonna break it. I have issue with laws suddenly making law-abiding citizens pay the price for the criminals because the criminals are breaking laws.

Just go after the criminals, dangit, and leave me alone. STOP insisting I wear a seatbelt or get a ticket, whether I wear a seatbelt or not isn't going to hurt ANYONE else. Meanwhile, you're pulling someone over bc of no seatbelt and letting someone who didn't use a turn signal go scott free - while, their refusal to signal COULD hurt someone else.

And STOP trying to say my gun of any type should be illegal because some dickwad somewhere did wrong things with a gun. Go find the dickwads and stop THEM, and leave me alone.
Image
User avatar
Captain stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...
Medals: 52
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:22 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Regulations can infringe on Constitutional rights. There are examples of this with respect to free speech rights, self-incrimination rights, religious rights, privacy rights, and voting rights. Your rights across the board are subject to regulation.

You should absolutely not have the ability to sell a gun to anyone. Most guns used in crimes here in Philadelphia were illegally obtained. What does that mean? That means that someone purchased a gun legally and then immediately sold it to someone who used it in a crime. It's called a straw man purchase.

A lot of gun advocates, and maybe you, live in this idyllic world where bad things don't happen with respect to guns. Guns cannot be left unregulated. Your agrument for deregulation (and the relevant infringement upon constitutional rights) would call for the deregulation of bazookas, for example. Do you, Night Strike, want the deregulation of bazookas? You accuse gun control advocates of slippery slope... can the same be said for you?


According to the FBI, only 2.2% of homicides in this country are called "justified."

But NS reminded me of this old quote I read a million years ago:
President Millard Fillmore 1850 wrote:"It is an existing evil for which we are not responsible. We must endure it, and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the Constitution."


stahrgazer wrote:No matter what law is written, criminals are gonna break it. I have issue with laws suddenly making law-abiding citizens pay the price for the criminals because the criminals are breaking laws.

Just go after the criminals, dangit, and leave me alone. STOP insisting I wear a seatbelt or get a ticket, whether I wear a seatbelt or not isn't going to hurt ANYONE else. Meanwhile, you're pulling someone over bc of no seatbelt and letting someone who didn't use a turn signal go scott free - while, their refusal to signal COULD hurt someone else

This is a terrible argument. Why should we have any laws at all? Why should you pay taxes for police or firemen? You don't start fires, that funding should be other people's responsibility, right?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!
Medals: 21
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby KoolBak on Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:47 am

I believe Star referred ONLY to Gun Control regs that punish honest people and do nothing to criminals. The seatbelt / helmet was an example, which I also DETEST. I taught my children to be safe but, dammit, I don't want to have to wear that shit all the time. I did learn, however, WHY they passed those laws.....

I got a seatbelt ticket and could either pay $200 or pay $20 and take a class. So, this class was hours of preaching and a horrendous triple-R rated real movie of people fucked up in accidents. 2 people in the class ran out to puke....several were crying...it was awful. But in the end, the Doctor (yes Doctor) that was teaching the class said in a nutshell, the law was passed so the govt ends up footing the bill for fewer living vegetables subsequent to lack of seatbelt / helmet accidents. Apparently it's a multi billion dollar annual expense......makes sense; it's not for our safety, it's for their checkbook.....lol.

Anyway...I liked your post Star....back to the ropes.
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca
User avatar
Sergeant KoolBak
 
Posts: 3642
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest
Medals: 26
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:44 am

KoolBak wrote:I got a seatbelt ticket and could either pay $200 or pay $20 and take a class. So, this class was hours of preaching and a horrendous triple-R rated real movie of people fucked up in accidents. 2 people in the class ran out to puke....several were crying...it was awful. But in the end, the Doctor (yes Doctor) that was teaching the class said in a nutshell, the law was passed so the govt ends up footing the bill for fewer living vegetables subsequent to lack of seatbelt / helmet accidents. Apparently it's a multi billion dollar annual expense......makes sense; it's not for our safety, it's for their checkbook.....lol.


You mean for our checkbooks. We are the ones who pay the taxes.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 41
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (6)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:53 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
KoolBak wrote:I got a seatbelt ticket and could either pay $200 or pay $20 and take a class. So, this class was hours of preaching and a horrendous triple-R rated real movie of people fucked up in accidents. 2 people in the class ran out to puke....several were crying...it was awful. But in the end, the Doctor (yes Doctor) that was teaching the class said in a nutshell, the law was passed so the govt ends up footing the bill for fewer living vegetables subsequent to lack of seatbelt / helmet accidents. Apparently it's a multi billion dollar annual expense......makes sense; it's not for our safety, it's for their checkbook.....lol.


You mean for our checkbooks. We are the ones who pay the taxes.


Actually, at the federal level, we only pay 60% of the costs. They just charge the rest to future generations.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Night Strike
Tournament Director
Tournament Director
 
Posts: 8625
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm
Medals: 77
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (10) Tournament Contribution (12) General Contribution (18)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby KoolBak on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:29 pm

Indeed....thanks for the clarification ;)
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca
User avatar
Sergeant KoolBak
 
Posts: 3642
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest
Medals: 26
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:40 pm

Faith in the State wrote:
KoolBak wrote:I got a seatbelt ticket and could either pay $200 or pay $20 and take a class. So, this class was hours of preaching and a horrendous triple-R rated real movie of people fucked up in accidents. 2 people in the class ran out to puke....several were crying...it was awful. But in the end, the Doctor (yes Doctor) that was teaching the class said in a nutshell, the law was passed so the govt ends up footing the bill for fewer living vegetables subsequent to lack of seatbelt / helmet accidents. Apparently it's a multi billion dollar annual expense......makes sense; it's not for our safety, it's for their checkbook.....lol.


You mean for our checkbooks. We are the ones who pay the taxes.


I wonder if an impartial cost-benefit analysis was conducted in order to determine if the current expenditures are more effective and actually save the taxpayers more money--compared to simply paying a $200 ticket.

Here, we can invent several assumptions about the government:

(1) Why, yes, BBS. Bureaucracies fiercely pursue cost-saving methods--regardless of how much it highlights how unnecessary that bureaucracy is and regardless of how much it lowers the budget, and the prestige, power, salaries, and what not of its bureaucrats. Never mind what other bureaucrats have told you how it is!

(2) I doubt it. Each bureaucracy fights to maintain and to expand its current budget--regardless of the cost-effectiveness. They're using other people's money which was gained involuntarily, so the use of such money tends not to be judicious. The many bureaucracies would reject an impartial agency which would monitor them for cost-effectiveness, but they'd be open to an 'impartial' agency to give them the guise of 'doing it right'.

The organization of government does not behave like businesses in the market, so satisfying customers becomes exceedingly difficult without the benefit of making decisions based on changes in profit. It may be the case that issuing $200 or $500 tickets is the most cost-effective manner, but such avenues of discovery are curbed in favor of more 'profitable' endeavors (e.g. expensive TV programs hosted by well-paid doctors which supposedly and without a doubt decrease total Human Vegetables--which the government covers and not including those covered by private insurance and by non-public individuals).
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:58 pm

I wasn't commenting on whether it was the right choice. Just that whatever decision is made is ultimately going to affect us and how much we pay in taxes.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 41
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (6)

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:44 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:I wasn't commenting on whether it was the right choice. Just that whatever decision is made is ultimately going to affect us and how much we pay in taxes.


Aye, and around 12PM it is noon.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Login