Print

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

[Bauglir]

Were it me, I'd have two parallel systems set up, one for tracking firearms and one for owners - the former containing a history of registered owners, the latter containing relevant information for background checks and firearms known to be owned. The latter is populated by license applications, the former by gun sales that check the owner database and then update that database with the sale info. The owner database only exists to expedite sales and other consumer-side stuff, the firearm database is purely for crime-related things and from NinjaBoot's post would be of dubious worth. The consumer one, though, is going to save huge amounts of money at the cost of being subsidized by the government instead of private business; it'll look like a net loss for the government, but overall efficiency would drastically improve, and for once I'll take the conservative side and suggest that the money saved by the weapons manufacturers and merchants could trickle down to improve the economy :p

[Epithemius]

Well I don't see it saving any lives on its own, although who knows. What I do see is it reducing human error is acquiring a gun, while streamlining the process, making it easier if you are legally allowed to have a gun, harder if you are not, and reducing the cost to tax payers.

Unless there is currently no licencing system in place, then yes, it would cause a reduction in gun crime, as evident by somebodies post earlier when it showed a trend in gun crimes before and after the introduction of a licence.

I was thinking more along the lines of catching repeat offenders, and also preventing the wrong people from getting weapons. However, I'm probably missing the point entirely of your suggested system and saying something that's completely irrelevant. 

[Max White]

Hmm, I guess it could be used for such a task. If you ever wanted to make a guns registry for that, it would be a lot easier when you already had a list of people who were allowed to own guns.
People have already pointed out that past gun registries have failed, so it might be tricky to pull off, but starting with a solid foundation such as an owners registry would certainly help.

[NinjaBoot]

Having a registry is not bothering to address why there is a need for one in the first place.

And no, it is not guns.  Even if you lock away every single gun and ensure none gets into the country, criminals will just resort to using other weapons. 

It would be crime.

[Max White]

To cut the cost of people having to manually do a background check every time you want to buy a gun, thus reducing human error, and cutting the possibility of somebody with a history of crime or mental health problems buying a gun. We have been over this.

[NinjaBoot]

To cut the cost of people having to manually do a background check every time you want to buy a gun, thus reducing human error, and cutting the possibility of somebody with a history of crime or mental health problems buying a gun. We have been over this.

The possibility of a person with a history of crime or mental health problems acquiring a gun from a licensed dealer is zero (current gun laws).  The chance of human error is next to zero since all gun dealers do not want to lose their license to sell fire arms (or be fined and jailed).

Will it actually cut the cost of whatever system they may have that already ensures strict gun-sales?  Most likely not, since government has a nasty habit of understating estimates and overshooting budgets. 

Will it stop criminals and mentally ill people from getting guns?  Nope (black market 'n all that jazz).

[Max White]

But we can identify exactly where these savings will come in. Take the number of people in the US who are currently employed to the task of doing background checks and times it by their annual salary, and that is how much you will save per annum. It is a very easy number to figure out.

[NinjaBoot]

But we can identify exactly where these savings will come in. Take the number of people in the US who are currently employed to the task of doing background checks and times it by their annual salary, and that is how much you will save per annum. It is a very easy number to figure out.

The distinction must be made that it is public sector employees we are talking about.  Unfortunately public sector employees also have a union. 

I doubt the job itself is something that specifically requires a singular job description and position.  I would assume it is something that falls under the "What To Do" list of public sector employees who manage these kinds of databases themselves. 

If it is a singular job, then well.. more reason to cut down the size of government as a whole.  Cause quite honestly, the fact that there is a public sector union is obnoxious.

[Max White]

Well when you make a request to these people, average waiting time is apparently between half an hour to a few days. This would seem to suggest that their is enough demand to require specialists that do this sort of work exclusively, although that is irrelevant. If people are required to do this task in addition to other tasks, then reducing their workload would mean you could cut staff.

As for these unions, people objected to the industrial revolution for the same reason...

[NinjaBoot]

Well when you make a request to these people, average waiting time is apparently between half an hour to a few days. This would seem to suggest that their is enough demand to require specialists that do this sort of work exclusively, although that is irrelevant. If people are required to do this task in addition to other tasks, then reducing their workload would mean you could cut staff.

As for these unions, people objected to the industrial revolution for the same reason...

Unions are very touchy about cutting back staff, since less staff means less union dues..

If you ask me, Unions have out-lived their usefulness. 

What they fought for when they were initially started, a minimum wage and proper compensation for all workers by private companies, has now been ensured by the government through minimum wage laws.  Private industry and its need for good workers naturally takes care of the proper compensation part, because companies are more than willing to properly pay someone who is good at what they do (whatever it is). 

All that unions are doing now is driving up the cost of goods and services everywhere by forcing companies to pay more for employee wages, above and beyond what the average market rate is.

Take GM for example.  Regardless of what decisions they made in regards to product line, features offered, price options, etc etc.. they could simply not compete against foreign car makers and other American car companies through virtue of the need to counter their increased employee costs through a more expensive product (car). 

This is the reason why the government had to "bail out" GM, and now, along with the Ontario Government, and the same union who "represents" the employees, are now the owners of the company. 

There's also this nice story where the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) "pressured" the state government to pass a law that requires parents who provide their special needs children with home-care (ie: by themselves, on their own dime) to pay union dues. 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forced-unionization-seiu-collects-union-dues-from-disabled-kids-medicaid-checks/

Google "SEIU forces parents to join union" for more information!

And all those shenanigans going on over in Wisconsin because Scott Walker decided to fight the unions.

And the government also has a union?!  Thats a pure load of bollocks simply because government workers are paid for by the taxpayers themselves.

[Reelya]

Having a registry is not bothering to address why there is a need for one in the first place.

And no, it is not guns.  Even if you lock away every single gun and ensure none gets into the country, criminals will just resort to using other weapons. 

It would be crime.

The graph of gun homicides i pointed out on page 831 of this thread disproves that point. When Reagan passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986, this was followed by a huge increase in handgun-homicides. When Clinton passed the Brady Bill in 1994, that lead to a HUGE drop in handgun homicides - and other types of homicide DID NOT INCREASE.

Point disproven.

[NinjaBoot]

Having a registry is not bothering to address why there is a need for one in the first place.

And no, it is not guns.  Even if you lock away every single gun and ensure none gets into the country, criminals will just resort to using other weapons. 

It would be crime.

The graph of gun homicides i pointed out on page 831 of this thread disproves that point. When Reagan passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986, this was followed by a huge increase in handgun-homicides. When Clinton passed the Brady Bill in 1994, that lead to a HUGE drop in handgun homicides - and other types of homicide DID NOT INCREASE.

Point disproven.

Touche!

[scriver]

Unions are very touchy about cutting back staff, since less staff means less union dues..

If you ask me, Unions have out-lived their usefulness. 

What they fought for when they were initially started, a minimum wage and proper compensation for all workers by private companies, has now been ensured by the government through minimum wage laws.  Private industry and its need for good workers naturally takes care of the proper compensation part, because companies are more than willing to properly pay someone who is good at what they do (whatever it is). 

If unions did not exist, the laws protecting the employees would disappear in no time, first in practice and then in law. Private industry does not give a crap about proper compensation, because there will always be someone just as skilled as you and if the corporations can choose they'll always choose the one who they can pay less.

And the government also has a union?!  Thats a pure load of bollocks simply because government workers are paid for by the taxpayers themselves.

How is it even relevant that they're paid with tax money? Government employees still need to protect their interests and make sure they're treated fairly.

[MadocComadrin]

Having a registry is not bothering to address why there is a need for one in the first place.

And no, it is not guns.  Even if you lock away every single gun and ensure none gets into the country, criminals will just resort to using other weapons. 

It would be crime.

The graph of gun homicides i pointed out on page 831 of this thread disproves that point. When Reagan passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986, this was followed by a huge increase in handgun-homicides. When Clinton passed the Brady Bill in 1994, that lead to a HUGE drop in handgun homicides - and other types of homicide DID NOT INCREASE.

Point disproven.

You still have to prove causation there. Nonetheless, the number of incidents where people felt that guns have saved a life still outnumber the firearm homicide numbers, if not all violent crime numbers, iirc.

How is it even relevant that they're paid with tax money? Government employees still need to protect their interests and make sure they're treated fairly.

Civil service tends to offer protection and fair payment as part of the job. Likewise, a union really can't argue with the taxpayers about anything. If the taxpayers feel that a job isn't worth as much as a person is being payed, or that it even needs to exist having a union of government employees go against the taxpayers (aka the constituents) is pretty silly in any democratic government, as it would be the minority trying to impress its will on the majority.

Granted, a union could raise it's concerns civilly, and if there is an issue, raise public awareness, but that falls under persuading the taxpayers, not being opposed to them.

[scriver]

How is it even relevant that they're paid with tax money? Government employees still need to protect their interests and make sure they're treated fairly.

Civil service tends to offer protection and fair payment as part of the job. Likewise, a union really can't argue with the taxpayers about anything. If the taxpayers feel that a job isn't worth as much as a person is being payed, or that it even needs to exist having a union of government employees go against the taxpayers (aka the constituents) is pretty silly in any democratic government, as it would be the minority trying to impress its will on the majority.

Granted, a union could raise it's concerns civilly, and if there is an issue, raise public awareness, but that falls under persuading the taxpayers, not being opposed to them.

The tax payers provide the money for the wages, but they neither set the wages of nor pay the government employees; the higher ups in the organisation does that. And like in any other organisation they'd be perfectly happy to pay less wages if they could get away with it. The only thing stopping them would be the ability to organise unions and demand fair treatment.