Yet another school massacre today, 22 children wounded:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/....html?_r=0

In China. A knife.

Losing faith in humanity, bit by bit, one day at a time. Maybe we should hope the Mayans were right.

(12-14-2012 11:24 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 11:23 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Yet another school massacre today, 22 children dead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/....html?_r=0

In China. A knife.

Losing faith in humanity, bit by bit, one day at a time. Maybe we should hope the Mayans were right.

Wounded, not killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_atta...2010–2011)

Might I add, the reason most of these people are wielding knives is that they can't *afford* guns, even those sold legally, much less with black market mark ups going to criminal syndicates.

(12-14-2012 11:24 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 11:23 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Yet another school massacre today, 22 children dead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/....html?_r=0

In China. A knife.

Losing faith in humanity, bit by bit, one day at a time. Maybe we should hope the Mayans were right.

Wounded, not killed.

Indeed. Fixed.

But hey ... if guns are your standard ... here you go .... school gun shootings in China, which has the strictest gun control of any major world power.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2006/10/a-s...sons-blog/

(12-14-2012 11:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 11:24 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 11:23 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Yet another school massacre today, 22 children dead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/....html?_r=0

In China. A knife.

Losing faith in humanity, bit by bit, one day at a time. Maybe we should hope the Mayans were right.

Wounded, not killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_atta...2010–2011)

Might I add, the reason most of these people are wielding knives is that they can't *afford* guns, even those sold legally, much less with black market mark ups going to criminal syndicates.

You don't need a gun to kill lots of people, but a gun is much more efficient.

But you raise an interesting point, maybe we need to look at ways to increase the cost of guns to price a large portion of criminals out of the gun market. Does anyone have any data on the elasticity of the US gun market?

(12-14-2012 11:30 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  You don't need a gun to kill lots of people, but a gun is much more efficient.

But you raise an interesting point, maybe we need to look at ways to increase the cost of guns to price a large portion of criminals out of the gun market. Does anyone have any data on the elasticity of the US gun market?

If that is your goal, then you want the US living in abject poverty, with most citizens living on less than $10 USD/day ... child labor ... widespread Foxconn style conditions ... etc. So if that is your goal, tell the Federal Reserve to keep on doubling the money supply every few years like they are now, and eventually the currency itself will collapse. Then you'll get your poor as dirt United States where (apparently thankfully) you can't afford a gun anymore.

the mental gymnastics you just did to come to that conclusion from Atlantics statement would make our gold medal winning gymnasts look on in awe

(12-14-2012 11:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 11:30 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  You don't need a gun to kill lots of people, but a gun is much more efficient.

But you raise an interesting point, maybe we need to look at ways to increase the cost of guns to price a large portion of criminals out of the gun market. Does anyone have any data on the elasticity of the US gun market?

If that is your goal, then you want the US living in abject poverty, with most citizens living on less than $10 USD/day ... child labor ... widespread Foxconn style conditions ... etc. So if that is your goal, tell the Federal Reserve to keep on doubling the money supply every few years like they are now, and eventually the currency itself will collapse. Then you'll get your poor as dirt United States where (apparently thankfully) you can't afford a gun anymore.

Well you could work to lower everyone's wages... or you could work to increase gun prices. You could slap a 1,000% tax on new guns, slowly driving up the cost of all guns as the supply starts to decline. This would take decades and would have a handful of significant unintended consequences that would have to be managed.

(12-14-2012 11:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  You could slap a 1,000% tax on new guns, slowly driving up the cost of all guns as the supply starts to decline. This would take decades and would have a handful of significant unintended consequences that would have to be managed.

Every organized crime syndicate in North America would love for you to do that. Your local drug dealer now doubles as your local armory. How could that possibly go wrong?

OK, OK...so to stop rape we should cut off every guys ****.

(12-15-2012 12:56 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  OK, OK...so to stop rape we should cut off every guys ****.

Don't forget banning spoons to make everybody stop being fat.

(12-15-2012 01:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 12:56 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  OK, OK...so to stop rape we should cut off every guys ****.

Don't forget banning spoons to make everybody stop being fat.

Don't worry, the city of New York knows that the line is drawn at 16 ozs. America is safe, yet again!

Assault weapons shoud be banned outright and handguns should be restricted to home protection and in special circumstances a vehichle.

(12-15-2012 12:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 11:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  You could slap a 1,000% tax on new guns, slowly driving up the cost of all guns as the supply starts to decline. This would take decades and would have a handful of significant unintended consequences that would have to be managed.

Every organized crime syndicate in North America would love for you to do that. Your local drug dealer now doubles as your local armory. How could that possibly go wrong?

Every one of the 270 million guns in the US was originally purchased legally from a manufacturer somewhere in the world. Yes, this would create even more demand for illegally purchased new guns from other countries, but it would dramatically cut down on the number of new guns introduced into the US supply. People could buy used guns without the tax, effectively raising the demand for existing guns, and thus raising the price for all guns in the US. Raise the price high enough, and you can start pricing the average criminal out of the market.

Would this stop someone from buying guns and shooting people? No, but gun control laws that try to restrict access don't work either. What this would do is slowly start to reduce the total supply of guns in the country.

(12-15-2012 07:59 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Assault weapons shoud be banned outright and handguns should be restricted to home protection and in special circumstances a vehichle.

How could you possibly enforce restricting hand guns to the home?

Laws geared to restricting access and use do nothing to reduce the overall supply of guns in the country.

(12-15-2012 07:59 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Assault weapons shoud be banned outright and handguns should be restricted to home protection and in special circumstances a vehichle.

Yeah, that would have slowed this guy down exactly .02 nanoseconds.

Actually, not that long.

(12-15-2012 09:37 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 07:59 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Assault weapons shoud be banned outright and handguns should be restricted to home protection and in special circumstances a vehichle.

Yeah, that would have slowed this guy down exactly .02 nanoseconds.

Actually, not that long.

But with that law, the handguns wouldn't have ever left his mother's house after he killed her. Or if they did, they'd have stayed in the car. Just like the "Gun-Free Zone" sign made him turn around and go home.

From the Libertarian Party Facebook Page.......

Quote:Meanwhile in an elementary school in Israel...

(12-14-2012 10:43 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-14-2012 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But the NRA is attempting to make sure that there is no effective check to ensure that the 'right people' have most of the weapons.

Here's what could be done, without infringing on anyones 2nd Amendment rights.

1) An end to 'no-check' gun sales. If people want to privately sell a weapon, the purchaser and buyer can go to the police station, where both their records are checked. Increased oversight of gun shows and other legal points where guns are sold.

2) A 48 hour cooling off period for purchases. The liberal bastion of Alabama (!) has this law

3) Increased ATF funding for more agents to ensure that straw sales laws are more vigorously enforced.

4) A ban or tax on high capacity clips. Or if that isn't constitutionally feasable, a requirement to register such guns.

5) Increased criminal penalties for those breaking firearm access laws.

If you want a gun - be my guest! If you want to sell your gun (or enable those that do) to someone who may be insane, a straw purchaser, or a criminal, then unfortunately its all our business.

#1 and #2 is incredibly naive. It won't stop jack. Criminals will get their guns if they want them. Hell -- the ATF will throw them at you if you're close enough to the border.

#3 ... the ATF has proven conclusively through gun running they cannot be trusted. They need to be abolished. They serve no legitimate purpose that the FBI, state, and local police doesn't already serve.

#4 ... because reloading takes sooooooooo long amirite? And if you didn't follow the law in acquiring the weapon, you'll surely follow it for magazine capacities amirite?? Again ... VERY naive.

Lastly ... the NRA is no great bastion of defense of the 2nd amendment. They are increasingly full of cop-out and compromising liberal lites. The real no compromise gun lobby in Washington is GOA ... and I'm proud to be a Life Member.

Member of the GOA = Not a Libertarian. Also not a supporter of private property rights.

GOA doesn't believe in private property rights. They think that I, as a property owner should not be able to say "no, you can't come onto my property with a firearm". And that includes my parking lot and my business. If you are an employee of mine, you shouldn't be allowed to bring firearms onto my property without my consent (which I'm not giving), including in your car if you park it on my property. I don't care what kind of CCL you have. I don't want guns on my property. And that includes my parking lot.

Your rights end at my property line.

The NRA is very bad. The GOA is insane.

(12-15-2012 09:42 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  From the Libertarian Party Facebook Page.......

Quote:Meanwhile in an elementary school in Israel...

Arm the kids.