NAOS
Well-Known Member
here we go again. This has to happen, what, like, 2 or 3 times a year? You hold onto thinks all sad.
Welcome to 'Murica
- Thread starter JimLes
- Start date
here we go again. This has to happen, what, like, 2 or 3 times a year? You hold onto thinks all sad.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of ways to blow suspicion at the buyback programs. Maybe I should be more suspicious, too; but I also get the sense that this suspicion is too well-rehearsed.
Maybe I'll compromise by knocking it lower down the "scale" than I already did. It's small scale. But isn't it a strange kind of market that will give you money for goods and then immediately take those goods out of circulation forever? I think so, and that's cool. Isn't it possible to think about scaling this up far enough to significantly disrupt the market prices for guns (used guns is particular)? and taking a lot of guns out of circulation?
As for the bolded: I'll admit an overstatement there. I was trying to get at Stoked's (apparent) insistence that all of this remain an abstract exercise outside of real political possibility. I don't like those sentiments. In truth, it's difficult to say exactly what happened here, and I'd have to be a lot closer to things in order to feel comfortable saying. I disagree that I need to show there are fewer guns in order to say that this intervention can tap into the flow of guns; after the exercise was over, they had more of them.
Ignore the click-baityness of the headline, here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
No that's how food, fuel and a whole bunch of other stuff works.
I don't see how a voluntary gun buy back program could do anything other than support the market. If you spend money to buyback guns more guns will be produced. In the same way that if you spend money to buyback strawberries more strawberries will be produced. Voluntary gun buyback programs just don't make a whole lot of sense imo. Unless you are a gun manufacturer that is.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
It's a possible piece of a possible pie. If another possible piece is the cessation of gun manufacturing, and we entertain that as something that could succeed, then the only other way to apply a lot of your sentiments is to say that "bootleg" style gun manufactory will still flourish to a significant degree, and that the buyback market would work as a support. You might be right, but a flow of unmarked guns of unknown manufactory could certainly lead to investigations or the alteration of the gun buyback policies. Or something else. Maybe it's a bad idea. On the scale I'm imagining, we only have hypotheses.
I could try to poke holes in some of this by reaching out in some holistic way, but my original point is that gun buyback programs don't easily or necessarily fit in the rubrics/definitions of a marketplace for guns. Especially when paired with the other stated objectives. It has more of a parasitic relationship to the marketplace, which makes it significantly different than food. Species of animals and plants that form our foodweb are, from a certain perspective, flourishing. They're territorializing us as we're territorializing them. A double-capture. Can the marketplace for fossil fuels be described as viral? The carbon is still very much in circulation and affecting other markets. Dunno; seems different. I do know that weapons are a special class of thing.
The difference is that the other goods (food, gasoline, etc) are purchased to be used to provide, generally, energy of one form or another, whereas with a gun buyback program, they would be purchased for the specific purpose of NOT using them.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
NAOS
Well-Known Member
While I agree that USE VALUE is a difference that can be explored here, I'm certain that salt13 was talking specifically about the dynamics involving MONETARY VALUE, which has important distinctions from the former.
Ok. You might be right but there are conflicting studies that fall on both sides of the argument. The important thing to remember is that for many the right to carry concealed stems from a philosophical standpoint and that's where many of you hoplophobes fall short in your argument. The 2A is clear in it's use of the words "keep" and "carry." The inalienable right to life inherently gives a person the right to defend themselves. Whether said person chooses to or not is besides the point.
Furthermore, in regards to concealed carry or open carry many if not all of the hoplophobes on the left cry visions of the wild west. The reality is that this is never the case with states that allow either of the aforementioned scenarios.
Florida is a great example. They started issuing in 1987 and as of 2012 were close to 1 million CC owners.
https://politics.heraldtribune.com/...e-home-of-1-million-concealed-weapons-owners/
Here is Florida's crime rate:
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Menu/Crime-Trends/Total-Index-Crimes.aspx
Here's an interesting anecdote...
As I stated earlier, FL started issuing CC licenses in 1987. In the early 1990's Florida started having a big problem with car jackings. The people that were getting car jacked were tourists to the state because at the time, rental cars from the airport had these stickers on them that stated they were rental cars. If you were a criminal why would you car jack a Florida resident, especially in a state where residents could be armed. So, the criminals started jacking the tourists. Obviously, tourism suffered so Florida passed legislation to get these stickers off the car. The car jackings stopped. Yes, correlation is not causation but like you and I, most criminals want to continue living. It's just something to think about.
I am not completely on board the Trout train when it comes to him referencing the media and the effect it has on the these awkward and socially misfitted individuals but with many of them the screeds they've left behind have been filled with clinical examples of narcissistic personality disorder. I think it's a mistake to NOT take the media's affect on these deranged individuals especially when many complain of being ignored in their daily lives.
You're right but to compare the early 20th century to the now "always on" media both in the terms of social connection and news aggregation, I think it's ludicrous to think that the media DOES NOT have a discernible influence on the populace. I guess, a chicken vs egg argument can be made in regards to who influenced who but in the end, I think we walk hand in hand.
I don't know. I want to say that I once heard that certain countries do NOT publish the names of folks that have committed crimes but I can't find anything to substantiate that claim. I will say that what is of importance here is the culture and how different we are from our European brothers and sisters.
Also, no, no one said media had zero role but, then again, no one said that the media was completely to blame, well, other than Trout.
How can we know since most of these killers either end up dead by their own devices or killed by LE? Only a few have been captured and of those the common thread has been SSRI's.
Most if not all of these mass shootings have taken place in areas that have been deemed "gun free zones" which in mass killer parlance is basically, "unarmed civilian target practice." The hoplophobes have yet to see the failure in their policies. Furthermore, in this most recent mass shooting, the shooter obtained his guns legally and in a state that recently tightened it's gun laws.
Judge Judy is a legalistic simpleton.
The problems I see right off the top of my head:
Who pays for this? If the answer is the gun owner, than you've just added another "tax" to the ownership of a firearm which is regressive as it affects the poor and minorities more than it does the wealthy and non-minorities. I don't think I have to explain that the poor and minorities are MORE likely to live in crime ridden areas than the wealthy and non-minorities.
What's the baseline? Meaning, what condition bars you from owning a firearm? Who decides that baseline? Do you have to have a current condition or what if you had depression a decade ago, does that bar you? There are so many problems with this idea it's laughable.
How long will the test take? Who'll administer it? What's the waiting time?
Are you going to tell this woman that she does NOT have a right to defend herself because she's hasn't taken a psych test?
https://www.wafb.com/story/30207162/sheriff-woman-pulls-gun-on-ex-boyfriend-to-defend-herself
Will you tell all of these folks that they don't have a right to stop violence because they haven't taken a test yet?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-stop-mass-shootings/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
Or will you tell this woman and her kids that they should have just dealt with their situation because Mr. Ragakus had not been tested?
Every single day, there are people defending themselves. And like in the last instance, many times, not a single shot has to be fired. Deterrence is very much a factor.
None.
Could this woman have defended herself in the middle of the night without her force multiplier/ equalizer?
https://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Police-Overbrook-woman-shoots-intruder-overnight-331406542.html
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that any mass shooters have made their choice of location because of the lack of armed citizens, and, in fact, most of the mass shootings have NOT taken place in gun-free zones.
https://www.armedwithreason.com/the...ip-between-gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings/
And, just out of curiosity, how is the fact that the shooter obtained his guns legally supposed to make us feel? Like the laws should be LOOSENED? Really?
As far as I recall (and I'm not doing any research on this right now because it's late), most of the mass shootings recently have been done with guns that were purchased legally, either directly by the shooter or by someone close to them.
And every single day, hundreds of people are killed with guns. Over 11000 by homicide in 2010 (I think the year was on the stats I pulled earlier) and 21000 by suicide. That is nearly 1000 a day combined. Until you can provide evidence that more people are saved by private firearms, all you're doing is telling us that those people's lives are the cost of you being able to hold your gun wherever and whenever you want.
Would this little girl still be alive if the boy hadn't had a gun? Or do you then advocate for HER walking around strapped?
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/us/tennessee-girl-killed-puppy/
Trust me, you don't want to make this a war of anecdotes. Also, if you stop trying to brand guns as "force multiplier/equalizers," I won't start calling them "portable death machines," which is just as valid a description.
Last edited:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I've never claimed that the media played ZERO role in the problem. It's definitely down the list a ways, though.