|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:27:25 GMT -6
I'm willing to be that the amount of gun owners financially able to take such a loss is minimal and the $50 buy back programs are a joke. I'm sorry, my friend, but your logic makes no sense. Given that these weapons are in no way useful, and thus in no way need to be replaced, the financial loss was taken when they were purchased. Your family was already out that 6K. Your husband had a right to choose to sell them, but let's not pretend gun owners can afford to take the loss. I agree that many won't. But the choice to sell them to someone else is a hollow gesture. Again, you're looking at this from your perspective and not from someone who actually owns a gun.
|
|
euphony
Silver
Posts: 410 Likes: 1,981
|
Post by euphony on Feb 20, 2018 10:29:18 GMT -6
Regarding buy back, just take the money out of the bloated military budget and repurpose the guns to be used for actual war. Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by greykitty on Feb 20, 2018 10:31:26 GMT -6
This is another reason why we need super strict insurance requirements, so people have a financial incentive to prevent their gun from being used improperly. This is a brilliant approach, TBH. If people had to pay a premium on their home owners or renters insurance for owning guns, b/c of the real threat to safety (mostly to children)... Devil's advocate - how would the logistics be put in place? And, like so many things, this would depend on people being honest in their self-reporting, etc. There are tons of people driving around without insurance, with lapsed insurance, under-insured, and just hoping they don't get stopped. I'm on my condo association board....owners are required to have insurance for the interior of their units (well, duh, you would think). However, once their mortgage is paid (and thus not reporting to the mortgage holder), you'd be surprised how many people decide they'd rather save that $300 for the condo insurance premium. And are sadly surprised if there is damage to the interior. And some people flat out will lie to save a dollar - ignore building codes, underinsure their cars, neglect to add drivers, like about medical conditions, you name it. Sure, when it catches up with them, it's not pretty - but I think you end up going back, sadly, to all the laws in the world will not instill integrity and responsibility if a human simply doesn't want to be responsible. Now, maybe there could be an integrated requirement - want to purchase a gun? Before hand, show evidence of safety certification, show insurance, etc., then get your gun. I'm really not sure how it would work. Also not sure how the major insurers would work out the underwriting....that would be an interesting study on its own.
|
|
|
Post by shadesofgold on Feb 20, 2018 10:31:52 GMT -6
I'm just as done as the rest of you, but expecting gun owners to voluntarily turn in their guns without compensation - on enough of a scale to make any difference - is just naive. Ideal world? Yes. But we aren't living in that world. Not even close. I don't care about their feelings or what the guns cost or any of it (I'm so far from gun culture I honestly couldn't even ballpark what a gun costs), I just want a practical solution that will work beyond 2 or 3 good hearted volunteers.
|
|
euphony
Silver
Posts: 410 Likes: 1,981
|
Post by euphony on Feb 20, 2018 10:37:26 GMT -6
I'm sorry, my friend, but your logic makes no sense. Given that these weapons are in no way useful, and thus in no way need to be replaced, the financial loss was taken when they were purchased. Your family was already out that 6K. Your husband had a right to choose to sell them, but let's not pretend gun owners can afford to take the loss. I agree that many won't. But the choice to sell them to someone else is a hollow gesture. Again, you're looking at this from your perspective and not from someone who actually owns a gun. No, I am looking at it from a logical point of view. You are making a fallacious argument by comparing them to transportation. If you are saying it is not practicle to expect people to surrender their weapons for $50, then I agree with you. But your argument that they can't is weak.
|
|
jkjacq
Ruby
Posts: 21,742 Likes: 94,334
|
Post by jkjacq on Feb 20, 2018 10:38:00 GMT -6
I'm willing to be that the amount of gun owners financially able to take such a loss is minimal and the $50 buy back programs are a joke. I'm sorry, my friend, but your logic makes no sense. Given that these weapons are in no way useful, and thus in no way need to be replaced, the financial loss was taken when they were purchased. Y our family was already out that 6K. Your husband had a right to choose to sell them, but let's not pretend gun owners can afford to take the loss. I agree that many won't. But the choice to sell them to someone else is a hollow gesture. Six thousand? LOL Cabelas is currently running a bunch of sales. More like 500 bucks, for an AR-556 semiautomatic tactical Ruger. Guns are cheap.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:40:19 GMT -6
But what happens when a perfectly responsible gun owner becomes an unreliable, volatile or dangerous gun owner? (ie comes back from war with a TBI or develops a substance abuse disorder.) I'd be willing to invest in a robust buy back program. Right? I think of the Las Vegas shooter. He'd owned guns for decades without murdering anyone. Then he did. I've been reading a lot of literature on the research surrounding gun violence & when it comes to mass shootings, it is nearly impossible to determine who will actually do this. There are so many gun owners w/ issues, and most of them never do anything terrible. There are so many gun owners who seem NOT to have issues then who *do* do terrible things. There are so many people who make threats and say crazy things, and most of them never do anything terrible, either. The number who follow through are small, and that's part of why they slip through the cracks w/ mental health professionals, teachers, law enforcement, etc. It's why virtually all research on the matter asserts that you can't effectively stop mass shootings specifically and gun violence generally by targeting the who. You have to target the mechanism for mass shootings: easy access to guns. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
|
|
jkjacq
Ruby
Posts: 21,742 Likes: 94,334
|
Post by jkjacq on Feb 20, 2018 10:40:32 GMT -6
You guys. Guns are not 'expensive'. adding in the one time cost of a safe (which will run thousands) and ammo make them a little more expensive but they are not cost prohibitive.
|
|
mb3
Sapphire
Posts: 4,500 Likes: 20,802
|
Post by mb3 on Feb 20, 2018 10:41:39 GMT -6
I'm just as done as the rest of you, but expecting gun owners to voluntarily turn in their guns without compensation - on enough of a scale to make any difference - is just naive. Ideal world? Yes. But we aren't living in that world. Not even close. I don't care about their feelings or what the guns cost or any of it (I'm so far from gun culture I honestly couldn't even ballpark what a gun costs), I just want a practical solution that will work beyond 2 or 3 good hearted volunteers. I’m not trying to be naive and I know a realistic solution is needed. I just couldn’t resist my comment earlier. I’m also really really tired of gun owners being treated like the hurt party that we need to cater to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:42:57 GMT -6
One thing we need to demand is charges and prosecution for so called “accidental” shootings. If you own a gun and someone picks it up and does harm with it, that’s on you. It’s not an accident, it’s criminal negligence. Let’s call it what it is and treat it as such.
|
|
|
Post by enchanted on Feb 20, 2018 10:45:22 GMT -6
I’ve been trying so hard since the beginning to keep up with and understand all of the Russian interference info coming out and I just can’t. FFTC? I feel like I’m not that dense but I need a room full of flow charts, pictures, and copious amounts of coffee. Anytime something new breaks, this is me. I was comparing it to the Russian novels like War and Peace and Anna Karenina with the list of characters at the front for you to refer back to. We need that.
|
|
euphony
Silver
Posts: 410 Likes: 1,981
|
Post by euphony on Feb 20, 2018 10:46:58 GMT -6
I'm sorry, my friend, but your logic makes no sense. Given that these weapons are in no way useful, and thus in no way need to be replaced, the financial loss was taken when they were purchased. Y our family was already out that 6K. Your husband had a right to choose to sell them, but let's not pretend gun owners can afford to take the loss. I agree that many won't. But the choice to sell them to someone else is a hollow gesture. Six thousand? LOL Cabelas is currently running a bunch of sales. More like 500 bucks, for an AR-556 semiautomatic tactical Ruger. Guns are cheap. She said her husband sold his at 3k each. I have no actual clue what they cost usually.
|
|
dc2london
Admin
Press Secretary
Posts: 61,631 Likes: 419,455
|
Post by dc2london on Feb 20, 2018 10:47:03 GMT -6
Rep Swallwell with the mic drop
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:47:27 GMT -6
I’m going to be frank. I give less than two shits about anyone’s investment in guns. My dad has antique guns (nothing automatic or more than hunting rifles) that have been in his family for generations. He has it written in his will that I can have them destroyed upon his passing. He’s pretty close to doing it himself right now even though he has them so secured they never see the light of day. This is a man that had them hanging on his bedroom wall when I was younger. He’s evolved in his position because he values life over money or objects.
We’ve done it this way for hundreds of years and it’s not working. Let’s try something different. Will it be tough, yes. Will it be divisive, yes. But if it saves even one person’s life it is worth trying. And it will. I mean, come on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:48:14 GMT -6
You guys. Guns are not 'expensive'. adding in the one time cost of a safe (which will run thousands) and ammo make them a little more expensive but they are not cost prohibitive. Well, the cost of them significantly rose (as sick as it may be) after Newtown because of the thought that "Obama was going to get your guns." It's a supply and demand thing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:48:59 GMT -6
In other news, I’m at an 11 over Donnie Jr’s little pay to play trip to India. He’s “on business” but will be giving a motherfucking policy speech to the prime minister.
WTAF? This is so wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:50:01 GMT -6
You guys. Guns are not 'expensive'. adding in the one time cost of a safe (which will run thousands) and ammo make them a little more expensive but they are not cost prohibitive. Well, the cost of them significantly rose (as sick as it may be) after Newtown because of the thought that "Obama was going to get your guns." It's a supply and demand thing. And capitalizing on the rise in demand/cost is sick as fuck. I’m sorry. It just is to me. It’s morally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by enchanted on Feb 20, 2018 10:51:26 GMT -6
Dallas' mayor is urging the NRA to find a different city to host their convention.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:52:58 GMT -6
Dallas' mayor is urging the NRA to find a different city to host their convention. That’s a start! Let’s see if they put their money where their mouth is and follow through.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:53:26 GMT -6
There's a tweet for everything: Is this for real??? Fucking Mitt.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:54:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:55:41 GMT -6
I am on team @juliagulia. I don't care one iota about some perceived loss. I know I sound like a raging lunatic but something has just snapped in me when I hear those students talk about how it is on us as adults to protect them. Damn right. How can anyone argue with that? It’s on us to sacrifice to keep them safe. There is very little I have that I would cling to if I thought keeping it (or my right to keep it) would possibly harm children.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 11:02:27 GMT -6
I know I sound like a raging lunatic but something has just snapped in me when I hear those students talk about how it is on us as adults to protect them. Damn right. How can anyone argue with that? It’s on us to sacrifice to keep them safe. There is very little I have that I would cling to if I thought keeping it (or my right to keep it) would possibly harm children. I think it's true that there will need to be some sort of incentive, but at what cost? There are more guns than people in the U.S. right now. Most gun buy backs in my area give $100. That seems pretty damn good to me. 🤷🏻♀️
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 11:12:36 GMT -6
Also this
|
|
|
Post by enchanted on Feb 20, 2018 11:20:03 GMT -6
Never Again posted a statement that George and Amal Clooney are donating half a million dollars to help out with the planned march on DC and will be marching with them.
|
|
|
Post by enchanted on Feb 20, 2018 11:21:00 GMT -6
I don't know why, but them doing that has me weepy.
ETA: Them being George and Amal.
|
|
|
Post by shadesofgold on Feb 20, 2018 11:27:48 GMT -6
But what happens when a perfectly responsible gun owner becomes an unreliable, volatile or dangerous gun owner? (ie comes back from war with a TBI or develops a substance abuse disorder.) I'd be willing to invest in a robust buy back program. Right? I think of the Las Vegas shooter. He'd owned guns for decades without murdering anyone. Then he did. I've been reading a lot of literature on the research surrounding gun violence & when it comes to mass shootings, it is nearly impossible to determine who will actually do this. There are so many gun owners w/ issues, and most of them never do anything terrible. There are so many gun owners who seem NOT to have issues then who *do* do terrible things. There are so many people who make threats and say crazy things, and most of them never do anything terrible, either. The number who follow through are small, and that's part of why they slip through the cracks w/ mental health professionals, teachers, law enforcement, etc. It's why virtually all research on the matter asserts that you can't effectively stop mass shootings specifically and gun violence generally by targeting the who. You have to target the mechanism for mass shootings: easy access to guns. And plus, speaking from direct personal experience, when people are in small towns going through mental health crises, their family may be less likely to call the cops or tell anyone, and even if the cops are called they may not file a report or take objective action to "protect" a friend's reputation. So even people who should have a criminal record won't necessarily. There are way too many opportunities for human error to rely on trusting humans.
|
|
|
Post by oreobitsy on Feb 20, 2018 11:28:24 GMT -6
As I read these comments, I'm watching the Olympics nordic race where they target shoot and ski. I totally get the sport aspect of guns. What I don't understand is how the idea of sport went from something like target shooting and marksmanship to owning automatic weapons that shoot so many rounds so quickly.
|
|
dc2london
Admin
Press Secretary
Posts: 61,631 Likes: 419,455
|
Post by dc2london on Feb 20, 2018 11:30:36 GMT -6
You guys. Guns are not 'expensive'. adding in the one time cost of a safe (which will run thousands) and ammo make them a little more expensive but they are not cost prohibitive. Well. Some guns *are* expensive, and some people have large collections that run into the tens of thousands of dollars. I know a lot of people who consider themselves collectors & their guns are as much a source of investment as they are a source of sport/protection/etc. They may buy when their financial situation is good, then sell if they lose a job or need to cash in for a big one-time purchase like a car or a down payment on their home. (Where I'm from, this is actually super common.) So to argue there is no financial investment here is sort of ridiculous. For some people, underpriced buybacks might constitute tens of thousands of dollars in investment income. I think appropriately funding buy-back programs and grandfathering in ownership of some guns for some owners would be necessary if we wanted to encourage gun owners to turn over their collections. Many would view anything less as government theft, even non-radical gun owners. That being said: I think a lot of gun owners wouldn't be moved at all by a buyback program. The financial investment is a component, but it's the *principle* that matters most. Many view them not only as necessary to protect themselves from home intruders, etc. but also as necessary to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. They think they need military-grade weapons to fight back against the actual American military, and frankly, I feel like there's a huge swath of mainstream gun owners in America who have been radicalized to believe this is the *real* reason for gun ownership as backed by the 2a. These are the people who are intractable, irrational, and think children dying in schools is perfectly acceptable collateral damage in their ability to arm themselves against the federal government. Personally, I'm sick of catering to those at the absolute most unreasonable fringe of our society. Why should the desires of a tiny portion of people override those of the vast majority of people--gun owners and non-gun owners alike--who feel there is a lot that can be done to reduce gun violence. There are so many things we could be doing that fall short of a total gun ban that could help with the current situation. Someone mentioned making gun ownership an insurance liability. That's a great example of something that has *nothing* to do with outright limiting who owns guns. There is limiting tools that allow people to modify existing weapons to make them more deadly. We could stop selling high capacity magazines. We should be keeping databases of gun ownership & monitor people who are stockpiling weapons the same way we monitor people who stockpile fertilizer. We could close the loopholes on background checks, tighten the requirements on background checks, and require ongoing, extensive training & licensure for gun owners. We need to push for stronger safety & security regulations for gun manufacturers, and dismantle the laws that make it impossible to sue gun manufacturers or study gun violence as a public health issue. If we've got rules to child-proof bottles of pills, why tf can't we do the same for guns? Anti-gun control folks keep mentioning drunk drivers as similar to mass shooters, but for the most part, mass shooters haven't done anything prior to actually killing people that is illegal. Drunk driving is illegal on its own, not just at the point at which someone dies. Maybe we need to think about proactive laws that, for instance, insure people w/ a history of violence or making violent threats are unable to buy guns. Not imprisoned. Just unable to procure weapons. We need to pass stronger penalties for people who fail to secure their weapons, whose weapons are stolen, etc. There are a million things that can be done to limit gun ownership, to promote responsible gun ownership, to make behavior that shows you at risk of killing someone to be unable to get your hands on a weapon, to improve the safety of guns, etc. We aren't doing any of them, b/c we're too busy fighting with the fringe of society instead of building a coalition of gun owners and non-gun owners who think the 2a shouldn't mean anyone should be able to get their hands on a gun & insane amounts of ammo & come into schools or concerts or churches or movie theatres or malls and murder children. If a felony costs you your right to vote,it should also cost you your right to own firearms
|
|
dc2london
Admin
Press Secretary
Posts: 61,631 Likes: 419,455
|
Post by dc2london on Feb 20, 2018 11:32:22 GMT -6
Tbc, when I'm talking about buyback programs I'm talking specifically for semiautomatic weapons . While I'd love to see every gun on Earth melted down and turned into a bridge, that's not reasonable or Constitutional. But SCOTUS has ruled that semiautomatic weapons are not protected under 2a
|
|