8 sensible gun bills introduced today (with 2 stupid ones)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 9:18 PM GMT
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/04/1397911/eight-smart-gun-bills/

    1. Banning high-capacity ammunition. HR 138.

    2. Closing the ‘gun show loophole.’ HR 141.

    3. Making the database of who cannot buy guns effective. HR 137.

    4. Regulating where and how ammunition is purchased. HR 142.

    5. Requiring handguns to be registered. HR 117.

    6. Regulating how gun licenses are issued. HR 34.

    7. Raising the age of legal handgun ownership to 21. HR 65.

    8. Requiring the reporting of stolen guns. HR 21.

    9. & 10. Eliminating ‘gun free zones’ in schools. HR 35 and HR 133.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2013 9:19 PM GMT
    tumblr_mcy0o9SH1X1rbug0do1_250.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Jan 05, 2013 4:31 PM GMT
    The legal age for owning a handgun should be raised to 25. 21 is still a little too young for handgun ownership because it is part of that high risk group of young adults most prone to committing violent gun crimes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2013 6:36 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidThe legal age for owning a handgun should be raised to 25. 21 is still a little too young for handgun ownership because it is part of that high risk group of young adults most prone to committing violent gun crimes.


    Voting age should probably moved back up to 21 for similar reasons - lack of life experience and maturity.

    It does seem that younger gang members have little problem getting access to guns.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Jan 05, 2013 7:27 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn said
    roadbikeRob saidThe legal age for owning a handgun should be raised to 25. 21 is still a little too young for handgun ownership because it is part of that high risk group of young adults most prone to committing violent gun crimes.


    Voting age should probably moved back up to 21 for similar reasons - lack of life experience and maturity.

    It does seem that younger gang members have little problem getting access to guns.
    No the voting age should be permanently fixed at 18. I think that young people 18-19 years of age have sufficient life experience to vote and participate in the political life of this country. If you are old enough to be drafted and sent to fight in a war than you are old enough to vote. I think the reason for the lack of maturity is the increasingly poor way in which kids are brought up today. There is no emphasis on responsibility just giving them all the latest high tech gadgets.

    One important thing missing in this new federal legislation is prohibiting people with mental illnesses from owning guns. The young adult who shot up the elementary school in Connecticut had serious mental health issues. Allowing any person who is suffering from any mental illness free access to any firearms is very dangerous.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 05, 2013 9:45 PM GMT
    itsmejeff said
    q1w2e3 saidhttp://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/04/1397911/eight-smart-gun-bills/

    None of these can or will be effective in reducing crime. They are knee jerk reactions to appease the stupid. They make dumb people feel safer while having minimal effect on public safety.

    Liberals tend to be morons who hate and fear everyone. They also seem to hate facts and math even more than conservatives, which is saying something. That is why they support this nonsense. They believe that there are simple solutions to complex social problems. Experts say that this is not the case, but what do they know? Emotion should always trump logic and rational thought.

    But they just want to stop the killing of innocent children. That is why they voted for the guy who bombs kids overseas...


    Knee jerk?
    When the NRA has spent millions upon millions and basically has bought every single member of congress three times over and has them quaking in their boots if they utter a word against them ANY response AT ALL is amazing
    Too bad twenty little kids had to have the heads blown off by a weapon that HAS NO REASON to exist outside of warfare to do it

    Oh and I Love your parting statement ... as if Barack Obama specifically goes after little overseas children to kill
    When you call for the detention of the War Criminals who dreamt up "Shock and Awe" I'll let that pass
    How many Little kids got blown up in their beds with that one I wonder
    I'll see ya in the Hague icon_wink.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 06, 2013 4:57 PM GMT
    You don't see it do you?
    The NRA and people Like You placed that weapon within his reach
    He might not have given his life to charity and IF his mother was unable to have purchased a multicapacity rifle he would habern been unable to have killed so many children within that short period
    But no you still spout the same right wing garbage that has made is the gun capital of the civilized world
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2013 5:09 PM GMT
    These bills are a start, but ultimately people respond to economics better. The cost of people's guns should be born somehow by people who own them.

    While I don't agree with a lot in this paper, the conclusion is pretty solid:

    http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/gun.control.htmWe could employ elements of a policy we use to control another inherently dangerous object: dynamite. Dynamite has many beneficial uses. That is why we permit people to own it under specifiable conditions, e.g., to build a road. But it is also inherently dangerous. That is why we heavily restrict its purchase, storage, and use. I cannot own dynamite for recreation (I like the flash), for hunting (I am a lousy shot) or for protection (I would not hear an intruder). Owning dynamite is rarely a significant interest, and never a fundamental one. More important to the present point, even when we do permit people to own dynamite, we subject them to strict legal liability. The owner is financially liable for any harm caused by his dynamite, even if he was not negligent.

    I propose we make handgun owners (and perhaps ultimately all gun owners) strictly liability for harm caused by the use of their guns. If Jones' child takes his gun and kills someone while committing a crime, then Jones will be financially responsible to those harmed. If Jones's child accidentally kills a neighbor's child, Jones will be financially responsible to the child's family. If someone steals Jones's gun and kills someone while robbing them, then Jones will owe the victim compensatory damages. And if Jones were negligent in the storing of the gun, he could be subject to punitive damages as well. Perhaps if he were grossly negligent in the storing the gun (he left if lying in his front yard, next to a school playground), we might even bring criminal charges against him.

    This procedure is justified since guns are inherently dangerous, and it is only reasonable to expect people to take responsibility for their risky actions. The benefits are notable: many people would be disinclined to own guns, while those owning guns would likely take greater care in storing, handling, and using them. This could arguably achieve the central aims of gun control without direct government intervention. Doubtless that means that some people will be forced to pay for the misdeeds or mistakes of others in ways we might dislike. However, that is a more attractive policy than continuing the current scheme in which guns are easily obtained in the United States or than in completely denying individuals' interest in owning guns.

    To make this option more palatable, we could let gun owners purchase liability insurance to cover potential losses. We might even require them to purchase insurance. After all, most states require drivers to have automobile insurance. This insurance-backed system of strict liability would make people take more care with any guns they own, while providing financial remuneration to those harmed by the use of those guns.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2013 5:34 PM GMT
    Ban gun nuts, men with tiny dicks and crazy people who solve problems with violence. Issue solved, next.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2013 5:06 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    rkyjockdn said
    roadbikeRob saidThe legal age for owning a handgun should be raised to 25. 21 is still a little too young for handgun ownership because it is part of that high risk group of young adults most prone to committing violent gun crimes.


    Voting age should probably moved back up to 21 for similar reasons - lack of life experience and maturity.

    It does seem that younger gang members have little problem getting access to guns.
    No the voting age should be permanently fixed at 18. I think that young people 18-19 years of age have sufficient life experience to vote and participate in the political life of this country. If you are old enough to be drafted and sent to fight in a war than you are old enough to vote. I think the reason for the lack of maturity is the increasingly poor way in which kids are brought up today. There is no emphasis on responsibility just giving them all the latest high tech gadgets.

    One important thing missing in this new federal legislation is prohibiting people with mental illnesses from owning guns. The young adult who shot up the elementary school in Connecticut had serious mental health issues. Allowing any person who is suffering from any mental illness free access to any firearms is very dangerous.


    My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I'd rather not see Constitutional rights legislated away by arbitrary age requirements.

    But, likewise, if you're old enough to carry a fully automatic gun in war, you're old enough to own a civilian handgun or rifle.

    The elementary school shoot was 20, too young to purchace a gun at a dealer. (in fact he tried and was denied). Likewise it's already illegal for a person with mental illness to purchase a gun. That's one of the items on form 4473 that's filled out by ever person who purchases a gun at a dealer.

    Obviously, there have to be improvements in tracking those who are mentally ill and getting that info in the FBI gun verification database. The Connecticut shooter, the Aurora theater shooter, and the Giffords shooter all were sufficiently mentally ill to have been prohibited.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2013 5:16 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidThese bills are a start, but ultimately people respond to economics better. The cost of people's guns should be born somehow by people who own them.


    The problem with using economics to solve social problems like this is that it's fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

    Economics is the study of supply and demand for goods and services, the value of things is their ability to procure other things in the future. But is this monetary value the correct way to value human life as is implicit in preventing gun massacres?

    I'm quite aware of the efficacy of behavioral economics, I just think it fails to value the things it purports to cure properly. And in doing so, it prevents us from having a proper discussion of the values that underlie the debate. Because the NRA, really, are telling us that they value semi-automatic weapons over human life. The more this is understood, the more likely they are to lose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2013 10:35 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    q1w2e3 saidThese bills are a start, but ultimately people respond to economics better. The cost of people's guns should be born somehow by people who own them.


    The problem with using economics to solve social problems like this is that it's fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

    Economics is the study of supply and demand for goods and services, the value of things is their ability to procure other things in the future. But is this monetary value the correct way to value human life as is implicit in preventing gun massacres?

    I'm quite aware of the efficacy of behavioral economics, I just think it fails to value the things it purports to cure properly. And in doing so, it prevents us from having a proper discussion of the values that underlie the debate. Because the NRA, really, are telling us that they value semi-automatic weapons over human life. The more this is understood, the more likely they are to lose.


    I agree with you. In fact, I've been trying to find the title of the course that I took in college (and the book that was written by the professor that taught that course)--that not everything can be reduced to economics, that some things have an intrinsic value that cannot be economized, so to speak. It was an orange paperback, if I remember right.

    Having said that, behavioral economics is efficient in modifying behavior, if not the underlying motivations. I'm with Skinner on this one--who cares about motivations, egos and ids when it's behavior that truly matters?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2013 11:13 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    TigerTim said
    q1w2e3 saidThese bills are a start, but ultimately people respond to economics better. The cost of people's guns should be born somehow by people who own them.


    The problem with using economics to solve social problems like this is that it's fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

    Economics is the study of supply and demand for goods and services, the value of things is their ability to procure other things in the future. But is this monetary value the correct way to value human life as is implicit in preventing gun massacres?

    I'm quite aware of the efficacy of behavioral economics, I just think it fails to value the things it purports to cure properly. And in doing so, it prevents us from having a proper discussion of the values that underlie the debate. Because the NRA, really, are telling us that they value semi-automatic weapons over human life. The more this is understood, the more likely they are to lose.


    I agree with you. In fact, I've been trying to find the title of the course that I took in college (and the book that was written by the professor that taught that course)--that not everything can be reduced to economics, that some things have an intrinsic value that cannot be economized, so to speak. It was an orange paperback, if I remember right.

    Having said that, behavioral economics is efficient in modifying behavior, if not the underlying motivations. I'm with Skinner on this one--who cares about motivations, egos and ids when it's behavior that truly matters?


    Michael Sandel has a lovely book "What Money Can't Buy" which deals with this very theme.

    And dear q1w2e3, I do want to say how much I value your sane, measured, well written posts. You're just about the only person left on here worth talking to!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2013 11:47 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Michael Sandel has a lovely book "What Money Can't Buy" which deals with this very theme.

    And dear q1w2e3, I do want to say how much I value your sane, measured, well written posts. You're just about the only person left on here worth talking to!


    I thought about taking his course but it seemed too much work then. icon_lol.gif
    Instead, I took a similar Core course (which turned out to be equally hard). I just can't place that prof's name (he's older than Sandel, circa 1994-5).

    And let's start a mutual admiration treehouse.icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2013 11:47 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    TigerTim said
    Michael Sandel has a lovely book "What Money Can't Buy" which deals with this very theme.

    And dear q1w2e3, I do want to say how much I value your sane, measured, well written posts. You're just about the only person left on here worth talking to!


    I thought about taking his course but it seemed too much work then. icon_lol.gif
    Instead, I took a similar Core course (which turned out to be equally hard). I just can't place that prof's name (he's older than Sandel, circa 1994-5).

    And let's start a mutual admiration treehouse.icon_biggrin.gif


    <3

    It's quite quiet these days, isn't it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2013 2:27 AM GMT
    itsmejeff said
    q1w2e3 said
    While I don't agree with a lot in this paper, the conclusion is pretty solid:

    Except is not solid. It makes no sense. Culpability already exists. So does civil liability. We already have that. What do you think attorneys are doing all day?


    That is not true. Strict liability only exists when one pulls the trigger. The idea is for that liability to be applied to gun owners even if the gun is in somebody else's hands, i.e. the seller of a gun would think twice and check twice before selling it. That will entail records of gun sales, making sure it's all legal (background checks, etc). Gun shows (with their loopholes) and backdoor gun sellers will be out of business in no time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2013 2:32 AM GMT
    People should really be familiar with the Swiss Cheese model:

    4370a0177ed0f.gif

    Imagine those 8 bills are plugging the holes of those pieces of cheese.