[QUOTE=Antdawg;48566305]Yes dealers have the right to not sell guns to people if they don't trust them, but they don't have the incentive to prevent that sale because they aren't penalised if they make the sale and it's used to commit murder. The dealer could simply say 'oh I didn't know he was going to use the gun to murder someone', even if the dealer knew that that kind of customer had a higher propensity to commit crime.
The premise of my idea is to create that incentive by placing risk on the operations of the business. The dealer has to actively make sure they use every tool at their disposal to ensure that guns sold aren't sold to customers who will use then to commit crimes.[/QUOTE]
But WHY? You act like everybody who handles guns are heartless bastards just looking to kill someone. That's fundamentally flawed. It sounds more to me like you're projecting your insecurities and lack of self control onto others.
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48568420]Oh I see you are a republican, so at this point you are undecided on the republican candidates? Might I ask why you don't like Bernie other than the gun debates because it seems like its a single issue when there are many other things you can agree with, with Bernie.[/QUOTE]
I don't have a favorite yet per-se. Too early to tell right now.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48568679]I don't have a favorite yet per-se. Too early to tell right now.[/QUOTE]
What would you get out of waiting? and why are you voting republican in the first place? Just curious.
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48568799]What would you get out of waiting? and why are you voting republican in the first place? Just curious.[/QUOTE]
Because democrats have a nasty history in this country of spending too much, raising taxes and pissing all over the Bill of Rights.
Maryland got its first republican governor in 50 years and the state immediately lost a ton of bullshit taxes that O'Malley put in.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48568854]Because democrats have a nasty history in this country of spending too much, raising taxes and pissing all over the Bill of Rights.
Maryland got its first republican governor in 50 years and the state immediately lost a ton of bullshit taxes that O'Malley put in.[/QUOTE]
And so you think Bernie Sanders would do the same?
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48568949]And so you think Bernie Sanders would do the same?[/QUOTE]
He already said he's for banning certain types of weapons, which is not the answer.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48568952]He already said he's for banning certain types of weapons, which is not the answer.[/QUOTE]
And so with that single issue you are discounting Bernie Sanders?
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48568956]And so with that single issue you are discounting Bernie Sanders?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48568963]Yes.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, you can choose who you vote. But I just think its a bit petty you know.
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48568972]Fair enough, you can choose who you vote. But I just think its a bit petty you know.[/QUOTE]
Not when gun rights are something I believe strongly in, along with fixing sick people.
If he is for making a law that forces the release of mental health records, maybe I can overlook it. But banning certain guns is what Maryland has already done and it hasn't fixed shit. The fact that he wants to come in and do the same thing is kind of retarded.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48568952]He already said he's for banning certain types of weapons, which is not the answer.[/QUOTE]
Banning modern semi-autos from import != banning from sale/possession. He's also pro-import of antique/historic guns... and current lawmakers are not. That's a welcome change for me.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48568996]Banning from import != banning from sale/possession. He's also pro-import of antique/historic guns... and current lawmakers are not. That's a welcome change for me.[/QUOTE]
That's all well and good but he was like: "I want to ban AR15s from cities like Baltimore, and etc" when yeah, not gonna do anything but be a waste of time and money to pass a law like that.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48568980]Not when gun rights are something I believe strongly in, along with fixing sick people.
If he is for making a law that forces the release of mental health records, maybe I can overlook it. But banning certain guns is what Maryland has already done and it hasn't fixed shit. The fact that he wants to come in and do the same thing is kind of retarded.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure Bernie has stated that he's all for fixing the mental health system.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48569048]I'm pretty sure Bernie has stated that he's all for fixing the mental health system.[/QUOTE]
So why ban more shit?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48569113]So why ban more shit?[/QUOTE]
Because just fixing the mental healthcare system isn't going to change much?
So, you've gone and done it. You've made the perfect mental health system on the planet. Anybody who comes to you recieves perfect treatment. People who have expressed murderous thoughts don't any more. You've won. But wait...how are you sure you're helping everyone who needs it? Crazy people don't tend to actually know they're crazy after all. A prospective shooter may never even appear as a blip on your welfare radar as they kept to themselves, and their family refused to admit there was a problem.
Now unless you're going to screen every single citizen every few years, how is a improved mental healthcare system going to actually catch potential threats and help them in time?
Your systems do need reform, after a friend went through the NY state system last year, compared to even the NHS services which are hugely under funded, it wasn't super great. But it is not and will never be the ultimate fix. Also I can't see a single Republican candidate who actually approaches this topic. I don't think most of them even believe in mental illness going by some of the crackpots you've got running.
So how is voting Republican going to fix your fucked systems?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48569179]Because just fixing the mental healthcare system isn't going to change much?
So, you've gone and done it. You've made the perfect mental health system on the planet. Anybody who comes to you recieves perfect treatment. People who have expressed murderous thoughts don't any more. You've won. But wait...how are you sure you're helping everyone who needs it? Crazy people don't tend to actually know they're crazy after all. A prospective shooter may never even appear as a blip on your welfare radar as they kept to themselves, and their family refused to admit there was a problem.
Now unless you're going to screen every single citizen every few years, how is a improved mental healthcare system going to actually catch potential threats and help them in time?
Your systems do need reform, after a friend went through the NY state system last year, compared to even the NHS services which are hugely under funded, it wasn't super great. But it is not and will never be the ultimate fix. Also I can't see a single Republican candidate who actually approaches this topic. I don't think most of them even believe in mental illness going by some of the crackpots you've got running.
So how is voting Republican going to fix your fucked systems?[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it will or won't fix it. Why are you trying to change what party I affiliate with?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48569770]I'm not saying it will or won't fix it. Why are you trying to change what party I affiliate with?[/QUOTE]
I'm not? I'm just saying for a guy who claims to want mental health reform and actual solutions to this problem you seem to be willing to vote for candidates who provide neither in favour of "rights" that can have have changed historically.
I hate how there is this perception that certain types of gun owners have, where there are people who are actively hurting them when they suggest for stricter gun laws based on logical reasoning and facts. As if somebody was about to go out and burn their house down, murder their children, or something for just trying to have some regulation over deadly weapons. It couldn't be further from the truth.
They are inanimate objects, guns don't deserve reverence over other peoples lives. For all intents and purposes in today's day and age they are toys. You use them because they are fun to use, not because you require them to live and function like you did in 1790.
Nobody is going to literally pass legislation that is going to rip guns out of the hands of people that already own them, just basic necessities like getting rid of gun show loopholes, but we can't even have that because any time our country attempts to pass anything like it did with the sandy hook shooting it just gets immediately shut down by special interests lobby groups like the NRA and the culture that promotes it.
The NRA is the largest special interest group in America, that is right people, out of all the things being looked out for and taken care of in America, nobody has it better right now than gun owners, and guns themselves. This lobby has more power in our current legislation, and more propaganda spewing out from its lips than things like the American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Yet still you have these bleeding hearts for protecting the rights of gun owners in the face of this overwhelming support. It's one of the most ridiculous things about our politics I think.
I think it is really pathetic when people try to compare things like the right to own firearms to things like the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other amendments in the bill of rights as if they had the same level of significance. I think it highlights how fucked up your priorities are in life when you value the right to own deadly weapons at the same level of importance of letting people live their lives freely in our society. We can't get health care bills passed to help the people who do these sorts of crimes because a lot of these sorts of organizations and their supporters stand directly in the way to solving the problem.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48564383]Just curious, is the US government able to sue gun shops who sell guns to people who then use them to commit awful acts like this? Are the guns even traceable back to the retailer? Like I just thought that if the US government were able to charge the gun shop a significant fine if they sell a gun which if used the next day to murder someone, that this might encourage gun shops to self-regulate, to perform background checks on every new customer and to use discretion to refuse to serve customers all in an effort to manage risk. A 'market-based solution'.[/QUOTE]
Why should they be held liable? Seriously, the fuck is up with that? I sold my gun recently to a friend, it was a legal transfer, should I be held liable even though it was a legal transfer if that gun were stole and then used in a crime? Should he be held liable for something out of his control? That entire argument is utterly retarded. Should the Chevy dealership be sued because a guy got a Camaro from it and then killed someone on a sidewalk for shits and giggles?
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48570087]
Nobody is going to literally pass legislation that is going to rip guns out of the hands of people that already own them[/QUOTE]
After Katrina, New Orleans (after illegally taking guns) said: "Yeah, sure you can have them back. But you need to know the serial number." They required this since they literally threw them into bins without attaching a name or address to the firearm. Who remembers serial numbers?
They don't need to pass laws to just go do it anyway, post-Katrina proves it. This was only ten years ago.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48570318]After Katrina, New Orleans (after illegally taking guns) said: "Yeah, sure you can have them back. But you need to know the serial number." They required this since they literally threw them into bins without attaching a name or address to the firearm. Who remembers serial numbers?
They don't need to pass laws to just go do it anyway, post-Katrina proves it. This was only ten years ago.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the reasons I keep a list of my guns with serial numbers and everyone else should, too. If a gun is stolen from you you can't get it back from the police without a SN.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48569770]I'm not saying it will or won't fix it. Why are you trying to change what party I affiliate with?[/QUOTE]
We're not trying to change your affiliated party. We're calling you out on your poor voting reasoning.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48571150]We're not trying to change your affiliated party. We're calling you out on your poor voting reasoning.[/QUOTE]
The big reason I saw him say was he wants Republicans for their economic policies, which I haven't seen anyone refute yet, only the gun claims.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48570093]Why should they be held liable? Seriously, the fuck is up with that? I sold my gun recently to a friend, it was a legal transfer, should I be held liable even though it was a legal transfer if that gun were stole and then used in a crime? Should he be held liable for something out of his control? That entire argument is utterly retarded. Should the Chevy dealership be sued because a guy got a Camaro from it and then killed someone on a sidewalk for shits and giggles?[/QUOTE]
The whole point is that dealers wouldn't break the law, and so they would practice discretion with untrusted customers who they sell to, to manage risk. If they're unsure about a new customer, they'll refuse the sale, or make the choice to perform a background check and require the new customer to prove themself trustworthy by being signed up with the local gun club for a month first where they will be psychologically vetted. If it's Bob the redneck who has been buying guns and ammo for 20 years from that dealer, the dealer can trust them and would make the sale.
Like what's the alternative? Not do anything about gun violence? Arm absolutely everyone and breed the image of a society where the right to self-protection is more important than the right to freely live in a peaceful society where you don't need self-protection? Or an authoritarian gun control scheme? Choose one. Because what I'm suggesting is the least-worse of all of them.
[QUOTE=plunger435;48571538]The big reason I saw him say was he wants Republicans for their economic policies, which I haven't seen anyone refute yet, only the gun claims.[/QUOTE]
The economy has historically done better under Democratic governments.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48571557]The whole point is that dealers wouldn't break the law, and so they would practice discretion with untrusted customers who they sell to. If they're unsure about a new customer, they'll refuse the sale. If it's Bob the redneck who has been buying guns and ammo for 20 years from that dealer, the dealer can trust them and would make the sale.
Like what's the alternative? Not do anything about gun violence? Arm absolutely everyone and breed the image of a society where the right to self-protection is more important than the right to freely live in a peaceful society where you don't need self-protection? Or an authoritarian gun control scheme? Choose one. Because what I'm suggesting is the least-worse of all of them.[/QUOTE]
As far as I can tell, you want gun store operators (and anyone else who sells a firearm to another person) to be held liable for anything anyone who they sold a weapon to does after they sell it to them. Many people who go on to become would-be criminal shooters do not have any prior history of mental illness that would come up in background checks or could possibly be known about. Many of these individuals also show outwardly as not being suspicious or crazy-looking. What you're suggesting is that gun store operators could essentially be charged and hit with heavy life-wrecking fines for a criminal act that they did not commit, that could also happen at any time completely at random. Even if the shooter consciously made the choice to perform the act, the gun dealer could not possibly have any prior knowledge of it.
What's more authoritarian? A background check ran by police and civil servants before buying a gun, or police randomly busting down people's doors, arresting people for crimes they did not commit and could not have possibly known about and with no way for the the person being arrested to have possibly prevented it? Keep in mind, from the buyer's point of view, the process is the same: they want to buy a gun and they have to wait 3-4 for a bureaucratical process where someone does a background check on them to see if they should be buying a gun, it doesn't matter to them whether the background check is being done by a gun club or by a government official, it takes just as long either way. The only difference between the two scenarios is that in one scenario the gun dealer is held accountable and could be forced to pay back-breaking fines to the government, and in the other scenario the government is accountable for not doing a good enough background check (if it was indeed possible to do so).
I'm not suggesting for people to be arrested, only the business fined. And it's not like it would be back-breaking if it does happen; I imagine private insurance plans would pop-up for arms dealers to cover the costs of fines if received. And I also imagine a condition of those private insurance plans would be the arms dealer taking measures the mitigate the risk of selling guns to bad people. Of course insurance can be expensive, so a change attached to the bill might be something like exempting income derived from arms and ammo sales from income tax.
Obviously an arms dealer wouldn't know exactly what each and every of their customers would plan to do. Some would slip through the cracks, some would patiently do whatever is asked of them by the dealer as a condition of buying the gun. Not all laws completely discourage undesirable activity. But it's a measure that can curb it, and it's up for the market to choose how they want to approach the issue rather than big government and big bureaucracy telling them to do this or that. It's regulation of guns that gets around the second amendment as it's administered by the market.
And yes there could be an exemption from the fines if the guns are used a long way down the line to commit crime. For instance if a gun brought today is used in a crime two years later, there's not necessarily a significant nexus between buying the gun for the purpose of committing a crime. This law would discourage those spur of the moment events of murder and suicide.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48571827]I'm not suggesting for people to be arrested, only the business fined. And it's not like it would be back-breaking if it does happen; I imagine private insurance plans would pop-up for arms dealers to cover the costs of fines if received. And I also imagine a condition of those private insurance plans would be the arms dealer taking measures the mitigate the risk of selling guns to bad people. Of course insurance can be expensive, so a change attached to the bill might be something like exempting income derived from arms and ammo sales from income tax.
Obviously an arms dealer wouldn't know exactly what each and every of their customers would plan to do. Some would slip through the cracks, some would patiently do whatever is asked of them by the dealer as a condition of buying the gun. Not all laws completely discourage undesirable activity. But it's a measure that can curb it, and it's up for the market to choose how they want to approach the issue rather than big government and big bureaucracy telling them to do this or that. It's regulation of guns that gets around the second amendment as it's administered by the market.[/QUOTE]
But why do it? People shouldn't be fined for no explicable reason completely randomly at any point of time. It just ends up hurting people who don't have insurance to cover the fines and makes no actual difference from the perspective of the person purchasing the gun. There's just as much bureaucracy either way, just in one scenario people are being fined by the government for something they didn't do and in the other they aren't.
How does this actually curb the issue in any way that background checks run by the government doesn't? Also, how do gun control background checks run by a private institution not break the second amendment in the same way a background check run by the government would or wouldn't? If someone out there has some bright idea for how to regulate gun control that doesn't infringe upon people's rights, then they could just come out and say so and we could campaign to get it put into law, that way people wouldn't be fined for no reason by government officials and perhaps be unable to pay the fines. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that a better approach to gun control might be invented if we privatized gun control, but if that idea existed why not just come out with it now? The NRA and other groups already have an economic incentive to come up with solutions for Gun Control that don't hurt sales of firearms, if they had any ideas for how to do it they'd have come out with them by now.
[QUOTE]For instance if a gun brought today is used in a crime two years later, there's not necessarily a significant nexus between buying the gun for the purpose of committing a crime. This law would discourage those spur of the moment events of murder and suicide. [/QUOTE]
But someone could still buy a gun without any prior history of mental illness and no outward signs of being deranged and use it immediately without there being any indication that they would do so. Why put gun dealers through that kind of headache when it's totally unnecessary?
When governments force dealers to do background checks, the dealer is only meeting the minimum of their legal obligation; they have no incentive to go further. This would be them meeting the minimum of their aversion to risk. The background checks could be more extensive, for instance, dealers could have their new customers psychologically vetted (such as referred to a psychologist first).
Gun control run by the market doesn't break the second amendment because the second amendment restricts what the federal government can do, not restrict what the market can do.
You already see a similar approach happening in the U.S. anyways. Families of the victims suing the arms dealers and manufacturers. Only this would be federal government fining the dealers. But you also don't see what I specifically mention because Democrats are for big-government regulation, and Republicans preach what the NRA tells them. The NRA wouldn't like this for exact reasons you imply - the risk of costs on arms dealers. I never said what I would propose would be popular.
There's also the conflict of interest with the NRA because they want as many sales as possible, that's how the NRA is funded. That's why they say 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' - because that's more gun sales.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48571886]When governments force dealers to do background checks, the dealer is only meeting the minimum of their legal obligation. This would be them meeting the minimum of their aversion to risk. The background checks could be more extensive, for instance, dealers could have their new customers psychologically vetted (such as referred to a psychologist first).
Gun control run by the market doesn't break the second amendment because the second amendment restricts what the federal government can do, not restrict what the market can do.
You already see a similar approach happening in the U.S. anyways. Families of the victims suing the arms dealers and manufacturers. But you also don't see what I specifically mention because Democrats are for big-government regulation, and Republicans preach what the NRA tells them. The NRA wouldn't like this for exact reasons you imply - the risk of costs on arms dealers. I never said what I would propose would be popular.[/QUOTE]
That's changing the argument you originally made where you said that gun dealers would be held accountable if someone used a firearm they sold to commit criminal violence. In this new scenario there's no incentive for gun dealers to do more extensive background checks because it doesn't make them any more money (and in fact probably costs them money). There's no free market because there's no market for privatized gun control, it doesn't make any money. The government actually has more of an incentive to crack down on extensive background checks because their constituents might get pissed if they don't.
[QUOTE]
You already see a similar approach happening in the U.S. anyways. Families of the victims suing the arms dealers and manufacturers. But you also don't see what I specifically mention because Democrats are for big-government regulation, and Republicans preach what the NRA tells them. The NRA wouldn't like this for exact reasons you imply - the risk of costs on arms dealers. I never said what I would propose would be popular. [/QUOTE]
So if there's risk of costs on arm dealers in one scenario and not in the other, how is this a good system? Obviously both governments and actual firearms businesses (in the form of the NRA) think there is no market for this, so what's the point in instigating it when it's more inconvenient than the alternative of having the federal government do it?
[QUOTE]There's also the conflict of interest with the NRA because they want as many sales as possible, that's how the NRA is funded. [/QUOTE]
Exactly, they want to make money. They also think that privatizing gun control wouldn't be profitable, which they have no reason to lie about because their sole motivation is making money.
What you're suggesting would actually make the government BIGGER and the private sector SMALLER by potentially causing the private sector to lose dealers and business and giving the government another way to suck money out of people.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48571931]That's changing the argument you originally made where you said that gun dealers would be held accountable if someone used a firearm they sold to commit criminal violence. In this new scenario there's no incentive for gun dealers to do more extensive background checks because it doesn't make them any more money (and in fact probably costs them money). There's no free market because there's no market for privatized gun control, it doesn't make any money. The government actually has more of an incentive to crack down on extensive background checks because their constituents might get pissed if they don't.
So if there's risk of costs on arm dealers in one scenario and not in the other, how is this a good system? Obviously both governments and actual firearms businesses (in the form of the NRA) think there is no market for this, so what's the point in instigating it when it's more inconvenient than the alternative of having the federal government do it?
Exactly, they want to make money. They also think that privatizing gun control wouldn't be profitable, which they have no reason to lie about because their sole motivation is making money.
What you're suggesting would actually make the government BIGGER and the private sector SMALLER by potentially causing the private sector to lose dealers and business and giving the government another way to suck money out of people.[/QUOTE]
Gun dealers aren't on the hook to do background checks. That's on the government to do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.