Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This helpful guide might help:
The difference isn't relevant to the issue =/= There is no difference in ages 0-17

But I think there is a difference between an innocent 6 year old being shot and a 16 year gangmember being caught in the crosshairs. I don't think many people would agree that they are the same thing, outside of you originally.

I just think it's funny that when someone brought up that difference your first thought was to compare his argument to that of a child rapist arguing that "well, 16 year olds aren't really kids."

But in a thread about an actual child rapist, with people arguing that 16 year olds aren't reallly kids, your first thought was to thank them.

I think at best it shows hypocrisy and a lack of conviction for your actual arguments, at best. Meh, I'll drop it, because I actually agree with what you originally said, I just hope you take your own advice in the future:

"Let's let child rapists and dirty teachers keep the "well, 16 year olds aren't really kids" argument."

[CaptainCrunch]

Sorry misunderstood you. I know that the Mexican cartels are basically armies, but I always assumed that their logistical train went through mexican ports. But what your describing is logical. Its not like US customs agents look at a lot of trucks going into Mexico.

A lot of the weapons that you see the Cartels using, the AK-47/74/ UZI's and other weapons are usually stamped out in China and the Philippines, so my assumption are that these weapons or the majority of them go straight to Mexican ports, and most of the weapons that hit US ports go into the US markets.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As well, you outlaw gun sales that you can control. But until the American's gain control over their borders the Chinese for example sell 42% of the rifles sold in the States or something like that.

This might have been the case for a few years between the late 80's and 1994, but I believe that China is still under an arms embargo by the US. I do know that Canadian owners of Chinese firearms are prohibited to sell them to Americans or cross the border with them (even those with ATF permits).

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure if you're saying a centralized, robust firearms registry would be impossible or that it wouldn't be effective. I see no reason why it would be practically impossible. I see lots of reasons why it wouldn't be effective.

The level of compliance with a registry in the US would be so low that there would be no point to implement one. If the Canadian LGR didn't even get half of the long guns on the registry and only about 65% of owners registered anything at all, imagine how low the US numbers would be. Toss in the fact that plenty of law enforcement departments have already said they won't enforce laws that they feel contravene the Second Amendment and you'd just have a money pit worse than Canada's.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

This might have been the case for a few years between the late 80's and 1994, but I believe that China is still under an arms embargo by the US. I do know that Canadian owners of Chinese firearms are prohibited to sell them to Americans or cross the border with them (even those with ATF permits).

I think that embargo expired in 2004.

I could be wrong.

[CaptainCrunch]

The bottom line is that they're never going to ban guns. So whats the solution. How about a mind set change.

How about requiring the purchase of fire arm insurance. If you lose your gun, you keep paying into the insurance until its found, but if someone uses your gun to hurt others, blammo your insurance makes you responsible.

If you shoot someone, you'd better be up to date on your insurance or your going to jail for longer. If your gun isn't secured properly and a kid hurts themself, at least their insurance to help with health care and funeral costs.

There's an estimated 310 million guns in 2015. At the same time the economic impact of fatal and non fatal gun violence is $310 billion dollars. So lets say that if you want to buy a gun no matter what the gun, its $1000.00 a year for insurance. First of all, economically it would make people think twice about buying guns. Second of all, It would match the annual economic impact of fatal and non fatal gun violence.

Also if you hurt someone with your fire arm you would have to pay a $1000.00 deductible by law.

On top of it, you really want gun companies suddenly being on side with proper background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of kids and the mentally ill and forcing things like proper storage. Make them under write the insurance fund for the first year.

If we can't get rid of guns, lets make people really financially responsible for them.

Oh officer its tragic that someone stole my gun and used it in a violent crime.

Get our your up to date insurance papers.

[troutman]

Tax the #### out of bullets.

https://www.the-american-interest.co...t-tax-bullets/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/ny...n-control.html

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

Tax the #### out of bullets.

https://www.the-american-interest.co...t-tax-bullets/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/ny...n-control.html

I have yet to hear anyone explain why this is a bad idea, other than "it makes hunting prohibitively expensive".

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I have yet to hear anyone explain why this is a bad idea, other than "it makes hunting prohibitively expensive".

Target shooting at gun ranges is very popular in the U.S.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The bottom line is that they're never going to ban guns. So whats the solution. How about a mind set change.

How about requiring the purchase of fire arm insurance. If you lose your gun, you keep paying into the insurance until its found, but if someone uses your gun to hurt others, blammo your insurance makes you responsible.

If you shoot someone, you'd better be up to date on your insurance or your going to jail for longer. If your gun isn't secured properly and a kid hurts themself, at least their insurance to help with health care and funeral costs.

There's an estimated 310 million guns in 2015. At the same time the economic impact of fatal and non fatal gun violence is $310 billion dollars. So lets say that if you want to buy a gun no matter what the gun, its $1000.00 a year for insurance. First of all, economically it would make people think twice about buying guns. Second of all, It would match the annual economic impact of fatal and non fatal gun violence.

Also if you hurt someone with your fire arm you would have to pay a $1000.00 deductible by law.

On top of it, you really want gun companies suddenly being on side with proper background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of kids and the mentally ill and forcing things like proper storage. Make them under write the insurance fund for the first year.

If we can't get rid of guns, lets make people really financially responsible for them.

Oh officer its tragic that someone stole my gun and used it in a violent crime.

Get our your up to date insurance papers.

Not even Canada would pass legislation that makes someone liable for the criminal actions of a third party. What you are proposing is basically saying that if my house is broken into and my gun is stolen, I am now on the hook for whatever the criminal who victimized me does with it.

No one is ever going to be on board with making people financially liable for the actions of others. Especially when those actions already have criminal consequences.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Target shooting at gun ranges is very popular in the U.S.

Neat. Then budget for it. If the demand is there so will the supply, cost be damned. I don't believe anything in the 2nd amendment mentions affordably priced ammunition.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I have yet to hear anyone explain why this is a bad idea, other than "it makes hunting prohibitively expensive".

No one wants to the be the one to try and pass a bill that would be devastating to an industry worth hundreds of billions.

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Neat. Then budget for it. If the demand is there so will the supply, cost be damned. I don't believe anything in the 2nd amendment mentions affordably priced ammunition.

In your mind, what would a round of 9mm or .223 ammo cost?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Not even Canada would pass legislation that makes someone liable for the criminal actions of a third party. What you are proposing is basically saying that if my house is broken into and my gun is stolen, I am now on the hook for whatever the criminal who victimized me does with it.

No one is ever going to be on board with making people financially liable for the actions of others. Especially when those actions already have criminal consequences.

Maybe that comes from redefining how we treat guns under the law. To me they are designed for one purpose and that's to kill stuff. Target shooting, that's not the true reason for a gun. Its designed to kill stuff.

So what your saying above, to me doesn't matter personally.

This isn't a car that's been stolen who's primary design is to drive someone, or your stereo, which may kill due to the musical stylings of Justin Bieber.

But a gun, you should be ultimately responsible for the weapons that you own. If its stolen (fine I'll add a rider) and you had it improperly stored, then you should absolutely be liable for it. just like if your kid can grab your gun and shoot himself with it or his friend, you didn't have it stored properly so you should be liable.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Neat. Then budget for it. If the demand is there so will the supply, cost be damned. I don't believe anything in the 2nd amendment mentions affordably priced ammunition.

I'm not suggesting it does. Just pointing that a lot of people shoot loads of ammunition as part of their sports/hobby, and they'll likely be strongly opposed to an increase in the price of bullets.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Target shooting at gun ranges is very popular in the U.S.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm not suggesting it does. Just pointing that a lot of people shoot loads of ammunition as part of their sports/hobby, and they'll likely be strongly opposed to an increase in the price of bullets.

This is easily solved and is referred to in the article that troutman linked to. Simply exempt any bullets sold by gun ranges from the tax, and have laws in place to ensure that they're not removed from the range. Cheap bullets, as long as you use them before you leave (or keep them secured in your locker at the range).

You could even use some portion of the revenue raised by the bullet tax to subsidize the use of gun ranges, and provide free firearms safety training, to get more gun enthusiasts on side.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is easily solved and is referred to in the article that troutman linked to. Simply exempt any bullets sold by gun ranges from the tax, and have laws in place to ensure that they're not removed from the range. Cheap bullets, as long as you use them before you leave (or keep them secured in your locker at the range).

You could even use some portion of the revenue raised by the bullet tax to subsidize the use of gun ranges, and provide free firearms safety training, to get more gun enthusiasts on side.

This is basically what paintball places do.

That said, I think that by taxing bullets or whatever, you would cause other types of crime.

Potentially more robberies of ammunition storage facilities (like aforementioned ranges), and a blackmarket for illicit production.

I think that the USA just has a gun culture that has a lot of violent tendencies, and is currently going through some bizarre psycho-cultural crisis that is leading to a lot of these mass shootings.

A simple little policy probably won't do a thing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

That said, I think that by taxing bullets or whatever, you would cause other types of crime.

Potentially more robberies of ammunition storage facilities (like aforementioned ranges), and a blackmarket for illicit production.

Probably, but if overall gun deaths go down, they might just be willing to... bite the bullet.

... I'll show myself out.

A simple little policy probably won't do a thing.

As discussed above, a major tax on bullets that causes them to skyrocket in cost is not a small policy, even though it's a simple one. It certainly would significantly impact manufacturing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Probably, but if overall gun deaths go down, they might just be willing to... bite the bullet.

... I'll show myself out.

As discussed above, a major tax on bullets that causes them to skyrocket in cost is not a small policy, even though it's a simple one. It certainly would significantly impact manufacturing.

I agree. I am just pretty skeptical about "one bullet" solutions in any case.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

I agree. I am just pretty skeptical about "one bullet" solutions in any case.

I think there's room to be skeptical about every possible solution and it's effectiveness. Problem being, you eventually have to pick one, because I can't imagine anything worse that continuing to do nothing.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Target shooting at gun ranges is very popular in the U.S.

That technicality shouldn't get in the way of this idea. Have cartridges that are stamped for shooting range use, sold only at shooting ranges, are taxed at a lower rate, and carry heavy fines if you're caught with them elsewhere. Require shooting ranges to buy back their unused cartridges (so if a customer uses only half of what they buy at the range, they aren't faced with the choice of bringing them home or losing them for nothing).

Combine that with widespread adoption of the microstamping technology already in use in California (firing pins are engraved with microscoping markings that are transferred to the cartridge), and you'd have a system where if authorities recover a shooting range cartridge somewhere outside a range, they could trace it back to the gun owner who used it.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

In your mind, what would a round of 9mm or .223 ammo cost?

Let's go with something nice and even, $100 for a 50 round box. That's a mere $2 a round! Surely one could work that into their entertainment budget.

Or more is fine too. $200? I think someone's life is worth at least $4. That seems fair.