The Big Gun Control Thread

Various estimates put the costs of doing this between $4 billion (if you're paying for the equivalent of mall cops) and $18 billion (if you're paying for the equivalent of a police officer).

Since the proposed plan is designed to address a serious problem caused by firearms, it only makes sense that that industry and its adherents bear the cost of the program. After all, I'm sure every gun owner would agree that there's simply no price too high to pay for the safety of our children.

There are various ways the cost of the program could be covered. A special tax could be levied on every new gun purchase. That should only add about $1500 to the cost of buying a firearm. If that's too much, it could be lessened by expanding the tax out to ammunition purchases as well. Or the cost could be covered by simply charging an annual licensing fee of just $60 for every firearm in the country. Of course, that means that to ensure there aren't any cheaters in the system that every firearm would have to be registered and all private sales tracked.

Sort of like how Big Tobacco foots the bill for the stop smoking campaigns, and prevention in kids?

So how do the gun rights people (who are usually the same people that want small government) proposing all this works? Are they going to give guns to teachers? I thought we were supposed to hate teachers, since they're all lazy union freeloaders. I can only imagine the outcry if out Kenyan Socialist in Chief proposed hiring millions more police officers across the country to station at every school in America.

Oh, who am I kidding -- it seems that the average gun rights person assumes that picking up a handgun grants the holder superpowers like in John Woo movies (except for the Bad People, since anyone could just take then down so easily) so we can just hand them out to the school secretary or custodian.

Alternatively, we can just ask for volunteers to stand as armed guards at every school in the country. I'm sure people would be totally willing to pull eight-hour shifts guarding our children. I'm sure we could get enough true patriots to guard every school in the country year-round.

So I did some back-of the envelope calculations:

Looking it up here, there were just under 100,000 public schools in the U.S. in 2010. Adding in private schools and post-secondary gets to almost 140k. Assuming the median salary of a police officer is $55k, one officer per school would be about $7.7 billion a year. (Of course, one officer per school is probably a bit low, so let's say two per school for an even fifteen billion per year. Larger schools would almost certainly requite more coverage.) Naturally I'm abstracting because there are many more costs in administering almost 300,000 employees than just salary -- insurance, training, support personnel, et cetera but let's not go there for now.

Now as far as how to take care of this, I read in a newspaper article that roughly 7-10 billion rounds of ammunition are purchased in the U.S. annually. If we take the high number, we could institute a tax of $1.50 per bullet to cover the cost. I mean, it would almost certainly be higher but that would be a minimum. Anyway, that would mean that a 100-round box on ammo that would cost $25-30 bucks would only go up to $175. Not bad, huh? (Now, naturally that would probably be higher, as both federal and local governments wouldn't be paying that tax but I don't know what that percentage is.)

TL:DR version: All we have to do is institute a 800% tax on bullets which works out to be couple of bucks per bullet.

KingGorilla wrote:

Sort of like how Big Tobacco foots the bill for the stop smoking campaigns, and prevention in kids?

I'm sure gun owners would balk at that comparison because that would require them to admit that, like cigarettes, guns are a net societal negative.

It would be better to frame it using conservative political ideals. For example, it's a popular conservative idea that government regulators should have their operating budgets funded by the very businesses they're supposed to regulate. The logic is that tax payers won't have to shell out money to fix the problems that an industry created.

In this case the only reason the armed guards are needed is to prevent more mass shootings so it just makes sense to have the firearms industry pay to clean up their own mess. It's simple, logical, and doesn't waste any tax payer dollars.

Heck, we could make it even more appealing by eliminating any issue of taxation. Gun manufacturers would simply be required to pay a fee for every firearm they manufacture. That fee would fund the armed guards. Retail pricing for firearms would then be driven entirely by the invisible hand of the market.

OG_slinger wrote:

Heck, we could make it even more appealing by eliminating any issue of taxation. Gun manufacturers would simply be required to pay a fee for every firearm they manufacture. That fee would fund the armed guards. Retail pricing for firearms would then be driven entirely by the invisible hand of the market.

To use my model, there were 16,808,538 applications for guns in 2012. That works out to gun manufacturers adding about $1000 on to the price of every gun the make. Probably passed on to the consumer, to be sure, but when "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" it's the only reasonable course of action.

It looks like Md passed an assault weapon ban. Anyone know if it is retroactive and affects my guns?

In any event it looks like establishing NC residency is in my future.

Paleocon wrote:

In any event it looks like establishing NC residency is in my future.

Better do it before they adopt their state religion so that you can maybe be grandfathered in without Baptism and Belief certificates for Proof of Faith!

We're seeing a wave of political assassinations now, between the attempt on Gabby Giffords, the Texas and Colorado prosecutor killings, the Sheriff murdered in WV, death threats on the life of Carolyn Maloney. The last time there was this much violent dissent in American political life was the late 60s.

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/bee80c5c0555e30505eb6d216f2f677c/tumblr_mkqn02ydEd1qat9xfo1_500.png)

Also:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) declared on Wednesday that President Barack Obama and gun control advocates are possibly planning on confiscating the nation’s privately owned firearms and imposing a Nazi Germany-like “dictatorship” in this country. According to Media Matters, Huckabee made the remarks in response to a caller on his radio show.

“People do forget that,” said Huckabee. “And by the way, know that when you bring that up you get people who get crazy on us, and they’ll start saying, ‘Oh there you go comparing to the Nazis.’ And I understand the reaction, but it’s the truth. You cannot take people’s rights away if they’re resisting and if they have the means to resist, but once they’re disarmed and the people who are trying to take over have all the power, not just political, not just financial, but they have the physical power to domesticate us and to subjugate us to their will, there’s not a whole lot we can do about it other than just plan to die in the course of resistance.”

And also, also:
Senators Agree: The UN Is Gonna Take Our Guns!

Conservative senators, including two Democrats, are ratcheting up fears about a treaty the United Nations approved Tuesday to regulate global arm sales to tyrannical regimes. The lawmakers are echoing dubious claims by the National Rifle Association that it would impede gun rights in the United States.

The treaty, which received U.S. support and passed 154-3, would have no effect on domestic gun sales or laws. While it lacks a clear enforcement mechanism, its aim is to crack down on the sale of weapons to countries with poor human rights records — which is why only Iran, North Korea and Syria voted against it.

But the politically charged mix of guns and U.N. action is fertile soil for NRA-fueled paranoia, and pro-gun senators — either concerned about a gun-lobby backlash or supportive of NRA’s broader efforts — are racing to stoke it.

We DON'T allow domestic abusers to own weapons, if your charged even with a misdemeanor, you can't own a gun.

Is that so?

Usually misdemeanor convictions have no effect on obtaining a firearm unless there is a condition of a probation that prohibits such action. Even then it would in the form of a probation violation rather than legally preventing gun ownership.
Answer Applies to: Missouri
It may effect your chances but only a felony makes you ineligible to get a gun permit or possess a firearm. Most people with a misdemeanor conviction will not have a problem.
Answer Applies to: New York
No only certain domestic violence convictions disqualify one from owning a firearm.
Answer Applies to: Washington
A misdemeanor conviction should not affect your ability to own a firearm. Federal laws prohibit felons from owning or having access to firearms. Your state may have stricter laws, however, and you should consult a local lawyer to be sure.
Answer Applies to: Alabama
No People who are prohibited from owning a firearm in Utah include the following:Persons convicted of a crime of violence Defined as "aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, housebreaking, extortion, or blackmail accompanied by threats of violence, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to commit any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, arson punishable by more than one year, or attempt to commit any of these offenses." Addicted to illegal. over been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to a mental institution .On parole or probation, or under indictment
Answer Applies to: Utah
MaverickDago wrote:

We DON'T allow domestic abusers to own weapons, if your charged even with a misdemeanor, you can't own a gun.

That's definitely a state thing. When looking at the Florida law on concealed carry, they had rules specifically regarding people convicted of violent misdemeanors

DISQUALIFYING CRIMES: MISDEMEANOR VIOLENCE
(not domestic violence)

You will be disqualified if you have been found guilty of, or had adjudication of guilt withheld for, a misdemeanor crime of violence UNLESS THREE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE PROBATION OR ANY OTHER COURT-IMPOSED CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED (or the record has been sealed or expunged.) This does not apply to misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. DISQUALIFYING CRIMES: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

If you have been convicted of a domestic crime of violence, you will be deemed ineligible unless you can show proof of one of the following three conditions:
a) that you have received relief from federal firearms disabilities;
b) that you have received a presidential pardon; or,
c) that a court has sealed or expunged the record.

If you have had adjudication of guilt withheld or imposition of sentence suspended on any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, you will be INELIGIBLE for licensure UNLESS THREE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE PROBATION OR ANY OTHER COURT-IMPOSED CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED (or the record has been sealed or expunged)

source (PDF warning)

I didn't see anything that said a conviction for any misdemeanor automatically disqualified people from owning a gun, let alone just being charged with one.

Your quoted part isn't about domestic violence. Maybe I didn't say it correctly, even if your hit with a MISDEMEANOR domestic violence charge, you can't own a gun, not any ol misdemeanor.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...

Really? It's right there, but here it is again:

If you have been convicted of a domestic crime of violence, you will be deemed ineligible unless you can show proof of one of the following three conditions:
a) that you have received relief from federal firearms disabilities;
b) that you have received a presidential pardon; or,
c) that a court has sealed or expunged the record.

If you have had adjudication of guilt withheld or imposition of sentence suspended on any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, you will be INELIGIBLE for licensure UNLESS THREE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE PROBATION OR ANY OTHER COURT-IMPOSED CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED (or the record has been sealed or expunged)

But yes, you are right. If you've been formally convicted (not just charged as you earlier said) you're not allowed to own a gun. The "adjudication of guilt withheld or imposition of sentence suspended" means that someone could still be found guilty (just not formally convicted) or take a plea bargain for domestic abuse and still own a gun three years after their probation ends or whatever other terms the court assigned are met. In other words, domestic abusers can own a gun, but only in specific circumstances.

Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

In any event it looks like establishing NC residency is in my future.

Better do it before they adopt their state religion so that you can maybe be grandfathered in without Baptism and Belief certificates for Proof of Faith! :twisted:

I tried telling folks around here that I was flattered by their efforts, but I really didn't need their adoration that badly. Simple tribute and respect would be good enough.

Arizona Lawmakers Are Invited To Wear Bullet-Proof Vests On The Job

An Arizona state representative has a novel idea to increase safety among state lawmakers: start wearing bullet-proof vests.

State Rep. Bob Thorpe (R) sent an email on Thursday to all Arizona House and Senate members, inviting them to attend an event this coming Wednesday at the capitol, where someone from a company called Arizona Tactical is scheduled to educate lawmakers about the protective vests it sells.

In his email, Thorpe said he has been researching body armor in the wake of the Tucson, Ariz. shooting that injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and led her to step down from Congress. He suggested the vests could be worn at public events like town halls and parades. “Just like our police and DPS (Department of Public Safety) officers, you typically wear the vest under a shirt or top, which conceals their use,” Thorpe wrote, adding that the company would cut the lawmakers a deal and offer the vests at the same price law enforcement officials pay.

But Rep Giffords was shot in the head!

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

But Rep Giffords was shot in the head!

Bulletproof burkas for the female lawmakers.

Yes, but it's pretty clear that Mr. Thorpe has nothing to worry about when it comes to the possibility of brain damage.

So how much has this company donated to his re-election campaign?

So how do the gun rights people (who are usually the same people that want small government) proposing all this works? Are they going to give guns to teachers? I thought we were supposed to hate teachers, since they're all lazy union freeloaders. I can only imagine the outcry if out Kenyan Socialist in Chief proposed hiring millions more police officers across the country to station at every school in America.

Obama Arms Teacher's Union!

Americans Really Don’t Understand The Nation’s Gun Laws

It’s emerged as one of the go-to talking points for pro-gun advocates like National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre. Why should we institute new gun laws, they argue, if we aren’t even adequately enforcing the laws that are already on the books?

But a recent survey conducted by Democratic pollster Benenson Strategy Group on behalf of the Democratic National Committee revealed that Americans actually know very little about existing gun laws, and many believe the laws are much stricter than they really are. The pollsters detailed some of their findings in an op-ed published Sunday in the print edition of the New York Times.

The most striking part of their survey focused on just respondents who said they preferred the government to do a better job of enforcing current laws rather than writing new ones.

Perhaps the least surprising news since...ever.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, announced early Monday that 13 senators had signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to oppose "any legislation that would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms." Lee, along with Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have led efforts to hold up the legislation. The lawmakers would do so by trying to require a 60-vote threshold, which could kill the legislation.

Link. It doesn't matter since the legislation was never going to pass the House anyway, but I really do loathe the filibuster. Democrats should kill that mutherfreakin' procedure the next chance they get (which they won't- so...never mind.)

So, a guy shot himself at the Nascar race sponsored by the NRA this weekend.

Funkenpants wrote:

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, announced early Monday that 13 senators had signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to oppose "any legislation that would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms."

Wouldn't it be neat if our Congress was as unreservedly protective of something like women's rights or the environment? No, our "right to bear arms" has to be the only thing these people can stand up for. Everything else is going down the toilet but by gosh we'll have guns!

edosan wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, announced early Monday that 13 senators had signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to oppose "any legislation that would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms."

Wouldn't it be neat if our Congress was as unreservedly protective of something like women's rights or the environment? No, our "right to bear arms" has to be the only thing these people can stand up for. Everything else is going down the toilet but by gosh we'll have guns!

It's actually - and comically - related. We don't need to protect women's rights if all women have guns and just shoot bad guys all the time.

I remain a huge supporter of gun ownership, but only a fool would deny that a huge, huge portion of gun advocates secretly view the Gun as the invincibility star from Super Mario Bros.

edosan wrote:

Wouldn't it be neat if our Congress was as unreservedly protective of something like women's rights or the environment? No, our "right to bear arms" has to be the only thing these people can stand up for. Everything else is going down the toilet but by gosh we'll have guns!

IMAGE(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/12/12-stockman-bumper-sticker.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg)

Seth wrote:
edosan wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, announced early Monday that 13 senators had signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid threatening to oppose "any legislation that would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms."

Wouldn't it be neat if our Congress was as unreservedly protective of something like women's rights or the environment? No, our "right to bear arms" has to be the only thing these people can stand up for. Everything else is going down the toilet but by gosh we'll have guns!

It's actually - and comically - related. We don't need to protect women's rights if all women have guns and just shoot bad guys all the time.

"Why won't you pay me as much as a man?"
"Because you're a chick."
BANG!

With the defeat a few seconds ago by cloture rather than a majority, if we couldn't get even a little gun control after Newton, I guess we never will.

Good to see that the consensus bare minimum that even most Republican voters agree with is too radical to pass.