Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Grek]

So here's a new topic for the new page:
Let's assume, for a moment, that Congress suddenly decides that Gun Control is a big issue and that they want to do something about it. What policies would be the most effective in preventing gun-related deaths and injuries? What legal/constitutional challenges would hamper these policies or prevent them from taking effect? Statistics, please!

[FearfulJesuit]

So here's a new topic for the new page:
Let's assume, for a moment, that Congress suddenly decides that Gun Control is a big issue and that they want to do something about it. What policies would be the most effective in preventing gun-related deaths and injuries? What legal/constitutional challenges would hamper these policies or prevent them from taking effect? Statistics, please!

Uh...well...

Too much what-iffing and navel-gazing is usually frowned upon. I'll give it a pass, since it seems a slow week in Washington, but...

[GlyphGryph]

The basics:
Lifting the laws that prevent efficiently enforcing existing gun regulations. Require gun stores to keep track of their guns, and gun owners to register when they resell their weapons, so those weapons can be tracked and gun stores that cater to criminals can be put of business.

Appoint a directory to the firearms bureau, which is currently without leadership. Grant them the ability to work efficiently through the use of computer systems, currently forbidden by law.

The more controversial:
Tightly restricting handguns. They lead in accidental deaths, criminal uses, and illegal and improper use of force. Self-defense is a terrible argument, constitutionally, and arguments of that sort are likely to be overturned, while militia-style weapons, like rifles, have a much stronger justification.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have a right to own firearms for self-defense. Any such laws will be easily challenged and struck down.

[Reelya]

I assume business is telling him to sod off, then?

Man, if the Republicans keep going like they're going, the Democrats will become the business party. No CEO likes a higher tax rate, but he's an idiot if he doesn't like going over the fiscal cliff and brain drains even more.

Business often go with short-term benefits over long-term when it's not immediate clear how every cent of tax they paid will personally benefit their company.

e.g. if you had 20 corporations funding all the university education, each corporation might not want to fund courses that don't personally benefit their corporation. so they're subsidizing the training of future employees of other corporations. But they're missing the point that the other corporations are also subsidizing the training of their future employees too.

This would be well and good if the corporations actually trained people from scratch themselves. They could get rid of taxes and train people directly. But they just don't want to do this. corporations have grown to feel entitled to a ready supply of trained graduates but bitch about having to pay taxes. If funding of university places stopped completely, those skills would become much rarer and employees could demand higher wages, and the companies would actually end up worse off than before.

This is something that doesn't factor into the Republican individualist rhetoric about taxes etc. By subsidizing education, the cost of hiring is kept down and the pool of employable people is maintained at current levels. Try doing that in a situation where everyone has to pay up-front for the full cost of tuition.

Depends on their ideological leanings. Certainly, the hardcore conservative among business seem to be revelling in watch them long-haired, hippie liberal professors squirm and fret. And there is an argument to be made that ivory tower degrees don't have the greatest job prospects compared to engineering. But that's a decision for the students and their families to make, not the Republican Party.

I'm pretty much thinking this is about "liberal indoctrination" rather than any rational economic issue. Let's kill off humanities departments because the graduates apparently are brainwashed to vote Democrat.

[GlyphGryph]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have a right to own firearms for self-defense. Any such laws will be easily challenged and struck down.

Yes, but ignoring the fact that it's a bullshit decision, and was barely upheld in the state it was in. It established a clear route for banning handguns completely, even, which isn't even required for the sort of legislation I'd propose. The judgment was clear - the only thing preventing handguns from being banned is their current popularity as a home defense weapon, and there acceptable levels of regulation that can be applied to them based on their popularity. If they became less popular, it would be constitutional to ban them, and it's constitutional to pass legislation that could eventually make them less popular (for the purposes of home defense).

They explicitly make no judgement on " laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms". The explicitly state that the 'sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”' - and only those weapons, and only for the purpose of self defense. They even said " the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

The decision was a narrow one, and explicitly refutes the sort of terrible legislation DC promoted, which I'd agree is unconstitutional based on their interpretation. But they were clear that the right doesn't apply to everyone, that qualifications have to be met, and that it doesn't apply to all weapons.

[Andrew425]

I think handguns need to be restricted more then they are now. Any conceable weapon should as well. Hunting rifles and other big guns should be much less restricted.  A magazine cap should also be around. (Between 7-12 shots)

And the majority of gun problems are solved.

[GlyphGryph]

How... how does that solve "the majority of gun problems"?

I didn't think "magazine capacity" was the central issue here...

Perhaps a magazine capacity of 3 or 4 shots would be an improvement though. I'd argue most self-defense cases are resolved in that many shots, but would help to make larger higher capacity weapons more popular as well...

[Reelya]

Now they have the problem that 3D printers can make bigger magazines for assault rifles, though. Gotta deal with that in another way and can't rely on limited access to large magazines. Luckily for now, it takes some brains to run a 3D printer set-up so blithering morons won't have instant access for a while.

So, forget solutions with magazine limits, they're not going to work. It's clear, the only long-term answer is to fix the social conditions which lead to crime & violence. Good family planning has already gone a long way towards that (avoiding millions of children born to poor families since Roe-vs-Wade has obviously made a dent in welfare costs as well as population in extreme poverty).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hate to break it to you, but "a while" could be a very short time indeed. 3D printers are growing exponentially in popularity and capabilities. It could sneak up on you.

Only way to keep people from printing guns with 3D printers is to ban 3D printers entirely, and that'll only stop some of it. Of course, banning 3D printers is unacceptable because it smothers a promising new field in its sleep.

[Grek]

Well, you could restrict handguns without forbidding the ownership of them in several ways. For example:
1. Require that anyone wishing to own and operate a firearm purchase a gun insurance policy which they are required to keep with the gun at all times. Just like car insurance, except with 'gun' instead of 'car'. Covers both loss/theft of the gun and medical expenses resulting from its improper use.
2. Require that all unplanned discharges of a firearm be reported to your local police department within 24 hours of the gun being fired, on penalty of a heavy fine, and that all planned discharges of a gun be reported 3 days in advance.
3. Require all firearms be inspected by the BATF annually for proper maintenance, that no illegal modifications have been made, that it is up to all the safety standards, etc.
4. Add depression to the list of mental illnesses which disqualify you for handgun ownership. Suicide attempts using guns are 5 times more likely result in death than the average suicide attempt.

And, yeah. This would result in a significant decrease in their popularity. Which may or may not open them up to being banned under DoC v. Heller.

[GlyphGryph]

And even if they aren't, I don't want a total ban anyway. All of those seem like remarkably good policies on their own.

[Reelya]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have a right to own firearms for self-defense. Any such laws will be easily challenged and struck down.

Yes, but ignoring the fact that it's a bullshit decision, and was barely upheld in the state it was in. It established a clear route for banning handguns completely, even, which isn't even required for the sort of legislation I'd propose. The judgment was clear - the only thing preventing handguns from being banned is their current popularity as a home defense weapon, and there acceptable levels of regulation that can be applied to them based on their popularity. If they became less popular, it would be constitutional to ban them, and it's constitutional to pass legislation that could eventually make them less popular (for the purposes of home defense).

How about minimum age restrictions on gun ownership? Start it at 21, but do it as a regulation rather than the actual age codified in the bill. Later, jack up the minimum age to buy a gun in increments until it's 30 years old. Let's use the conservative distrust of young people to our advantage.

[Nadaka]

Im pretty much going to have to disagree with all of that.

Guns are less dangerous than cars. And while there are good reasons to subject them to more scrutiny and regulation than a typical object, all that goes pretty damn far beyond the pale.

I am all for mandatory registration, just like cars, I am all for mandatory proficiency tests, just like cars. But you don't have to register interstate travel 3 days in advance or report an unplanned trip to the pizza palace in case you got the munchies.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have a right to own firearms for self-defense. Any such laws will be easily challenged and struck down.

Yes, but ignoring the fact that it's a bullshit decision, and was barely upheld in the state it was in. It established a clear route for banning handguns completely, even, which isn't even required for the sort of legislation I'd propose. The judgment was clear - the only thing preventing handguns from being banned is their current popularity as a home defense weapon, and there acceptable levels of regulation that can be applied to them based on their popularity. If they became less popular, it would be constitutional to ban them, and it's constitutional to pass legislation that could eventually make them less popular (for the purposes of home defense).

How about minimum age restrictions on gun ownership? Start it at 21, but do it as a regulation rather than the actual age codified in the bill. Later, jack up the minimum age to buy a gun in increments until it's 30 years old. Let's use the conservative distrust of young people to our advantage.

age discrimination. at 18 you are subject to compulsory military service. You damn well better be allowed to own and use a gun. And even that I find uncomfortable. 60 years ago, no one batted an eye at the concept of a 12 year old hunting squirrel or plinking bottles and cans with a .22.

[Andrew425]

I don't like age restrictions.  Once an adult you get full rights and responsibility.

As for gun laws I think the U.S. should look up north and follow a bit of Canada's lead on gun control