(12-19-2012 06:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 06:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 05:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, Dems are guilty of Clinton repealing part of Glass-steagell creating the massive banks that utilized CDOs that came crashing down. Reps are guilty of Bush pushing for two unfounded wars. And then there are the banks themselves that utilized these incredibly complicated CDOs that didn't really have any utilization. And then there are a whole host of other issues we could get in to, but I have a feeling this is not the right time to get into this.

Amazing how that is the generally accepted narrative--and little, if any, is true.

Well, you've got my ears.
I'm always up to learn. Can you link to some articles that explain this?

Hambone pretty well at least the CDO part. I'll try to do the rest when I have time. I don't now.

Hambone did a great job. I'm more intrigued by the other parts though.

Ive read a lot about the subprime mortgage issues (articles and The Big Short) The CDOs played a major role in the collapse. While they weren't intentional, the amount they were leveraged and the sheer volume of them was risky as Hambone mentioned. Many would argue the benefit of the CDOs created around subprime mortgages. Especially when they were often given AAA rating because it was a bunch of crap mortgages from different areas of the country. In essence, banks were saying there's no chance all of the mortgages will fail because they're spread across the country and there's no chance there is a housing crisis that is nationwide. They bet big on this (a few bet against it and made out like bandits) and lost. And that doesn't even touch on the issues with people trying to get, or being given, home loans they never should have.

At least, that's my understanding of that side of the recent economic woes.

Edit: In short, of all aspects that led to the economic collapse the subprime mortgages is what I'm most familiar with. Any insight into other issues would be appreciated.

Well, here is kind of a quick and dirty version.

The real problem was that so much bad paper got into the system. Once that happened, the rest was inevitable. The banks realized they had too much risk on their books. A CDO is basically a risk-sharing device, like insurance. If I sense that I have too much risk, then I enter into a risk-sharing device with you, you take part of the risk in exchange for some compensation, the exact form and amount determined by the specific nature of the device. Now you lay some of your risk off on a third party through some kind of risk-sharing arrangement, and your counterparty lays some of his risk off on a fourth party, and so forth. As long as the system performs within certain limits, it works fine, everybody makes money, no problem. With a performing system, these deals are particularly lucrative to the Wall Streeters who set them up, but they are performing a valuable service and should be compensated.

The problem was that these arrangements had all been entered into with expectations of loss based on historic trends, and the amount of bad paper was so huge that it blew those trends out of the water. Hambone used the example of AAA paper with an expected default rate of 2%, and an expected recovery rate (essentially, foreclosure sale proceeds) of 80% (he expressed it as 20% loss rate). What happened is that a larger than expected number of loans defaulted, and (and Hambone points this out very clearly) the recovery rates were much less than expected. And because the risk-sharing devices had proliferated, the shock was felt throughout the system.

What would have happened without the risk-sharing devices? The banks that made the loans would simply all have failed. Since that was basically all banks, the banking system would have totally failed. There would have been less damage in the rest of the system. The recession would still have happened, it would almost certainly have been as bad if not worse. The number of people who got wiped out and ended up upside down on their mortgages would have been the same. All the risk-sharing devices did was shift the risk from the banks who made the bad loans to the large financial trading institutions who cooked up the risk-sharing deals. That's actually exactly what they are supposed to do, just that nobody was prepared for it to happen on such a scale. The problem was that we not only had bad paper in the system, but nobody knew how bad, so the risk-sharing blew up. Suppose insurance companies had underpriced premiums for years, then a major storm blew in, none of the insurance companies had the funds to pay off, so your house gets wiped out and there's no insurance, and the same happens to everybody else. That's the best analogy I can come up with.

So how did the bad paper get into the system and why did nobody realize how bad? We had this huge push to get everybody into a house. Democrats wanted to do it because they thought it would help the lower classes to get them into houses, so they pushed initiatives like CRA (which gets targeted for criticism because of visibility,but in fact it was not CRA so much as other initiatives that caused the problem). Republicans were scared that the economy would crater completely after 9/11 and they would get blamed, so they wanted anything to pump up the growth numbers, and a housing bubble was anything, so they kind of looked the other way. I have seen an analysis suggesting the all of the economic growth 2000-2008 and all of the subsequent decline can be attributed solely to the housing sector; pull out housing and the economy has essentially flat-lined for a decade. I have not verified it, but it seems plausible, and that is a very telling statistic. So there was encouragement from both sides of the political aisle to make home loans to people who could not afford them. This manifested itself in so many ways that it's hard to say which part was more to blame than which other part. And at the same time there was this notion that these are home loans, they'll perform like home loans, and that's some of the safest paper we have. As for those who say the the problem was "deregulation," absolutely all of this process remained as highly regulated as any part of our economy has ever been. Basically the politicians put pressure on the regulators to pressure the banks into making these loans, and cover it up when they did. It was actually through the regulators that the signals were sent to follow the political will for making more loans. So for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways, regulators pushed banks to make loans outside their normal risk profile in order to satisfy the political goals of both major parties. When banks who made these high-risk loans realized what a bunch of junk they had, they took steps to lay off the risks. And the investment banking community, thinking they were getting AAA paper instead of junk (and the part that told them it was AAA paper was highly regulated too, and the regulators helped cover up the problems based on the pressure they got from the politicians), were all to happy to make a quick and (they thought) easy buck on the deal.

The other thing that happened is that the banks who lowered their underwriting standards to make these bad loans got dinged by the regulators, but they still had to take on so many bad loans to satisfy a different group of regulators, so they started going to third party originators like Countrywide, who bribed Chris Dodd to make sure the regulations gave them cover. So the bank calls an originator, like Countrywide, and says, "The affirmative action regulators tell me I need more loans in ZIPcode 55555 or they're going to write me up for red-lining, but the bank examiners tell me I'm already making too many bad loans. So I'll pay you to originate X loans in ZIPcode 55555 and sell them to me." Now Countrywide can't find any more qualified buyers in ZIPcode 55555 that the bank can. But they're not going to keep the note, so it's really no skin off their back if the buyer defaults, they just need to make X loans and collect their origination fees. So a buyer comes in, no W-2, no problem, here, I have a blank one in my desk, let's figure out how much money you need to make to qualify for a loan on that place, and presto, here's a W-2 to match. And the bank that gets the note says, hey, Countrywide did the due diligence so it's AAA paper, and the regulators look the other way.

What would I have done differently? I was pretty heavily involved in bailing out the last round of bank failures (1990), and based on that experience I was proposing this back in the 90s. I think it would have prevented the problem:
1. Make CRA and other programs federally guaranteed. Affordable housing is a great goal, but if you want people who can't afford houses to buy them, then instead of forcing banks to take stupid risks, you take them off the hook. If the bank gets a non-conforming loan app, they send it to the feds and the feds can guarantee it if it meets whatever their guidelines are. This by the way is a pretty effective way for the feds to monitor a bank's lending activities in ZIPcode 5555. If the feds approve, they charge something like a 1/4% override on the interest rate to fund loan losses. If the loan defaults, it goes to the feds for workout. And maybe have a program where if you default on one of these, the house goes back to the feds, you can stay in it and lease it for, say 5 years, at whatever you can afford to pay, and if you get back on your feet any time in the five years, then you an step back into the mortgage. One thing this would have greatly mitigated is the huge losses in home values when the foreclosures started, which was probably the biggest reason for the overall economy to collapse.
2. Put in a provision that if you initiate a mortgage and sell it, you have to keep at lest 25%. With some skin in the game, you do your due diligence properly in underwriting. No more fake W-2's (although that is an extreme case, most of the mistakes were not so egregious). This, by the way, was a provision in a bill around 2001 or so. Countrywide obviously didn't want this, so they got their b1tch Chris Dodd to kill it, and in return Countrywide gave him a sweetheart deal on financing his dream castle in Ireland, tra la.

What would I have done when the fit hit the sham? First of all, I think my two ideas would have prevented it. And a lot of professionals in the industry agree with me. But if not, I would have found a way to insulate the real banks and let the traders jump out of the windows in their Wall Street offices. Yeah, those banks wrote bad paper, but they did it under pretty extreme duress. And if we could have kept them whole, we'd have this whole thing way behind us by now.

I spoke to my gun dealer friend last night. I expected him to tell me that sales were double or triple normal. what he told me was that based on dollars, sales were 20-30X normal. Prices are up(50% to 150% higher), so unit sales are not up to that degree. This includes not only the AR type guns, but handguns, clips, loaders, everything gun related.

FYI.

(12-19-2012 08:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:41 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 05:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 04:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, comparing the blaming of the Jews and other mainly ethnic minoriry groups for Germany's economic woes post-WWII is the same as laying blame to a political party that was involved in creating policy that helped hurt the economy.

I honestly can't believe I just read that. Apples to oranges.

There are a variety of reasons why the economy is where it is at, and I believe the majority of them did not originate with either party, and to the extent that their are political contributions to the economy, I hardly believe that it would be fair or blame one without yoking it to the other.

By the tone of your response above, it appears that you believe laying blame is justified.

Rick, I agree with the first paragraph from above. But I actually don't believe laying blame to one group, political or not, is correct, and I realize now it comes of that way. I was more trying to say that blaming someone that had a hand in the actions leading up to the downturn doesn't seem strange or unwarranted.

IMO, Dems are guilty of Clinton repealing part of Glass-steagell creating the massive banks that utilized CDOs that came crashing down. Reps are guilty of Bush pushing for two unfounded wars. And then there are the banks themselves that utilized these incredibly complicated CDOs that didn't really have any utilization. And then there are a whole host of other issues we could get in to, but I have a feeling this is not the right time to get into this.

Anyways, I'm sorry that it came across that way. I try my hardest to stay fair in my judgements and to see both sides of the story. I do fall more often to the left, especially on social issues, but I understand and, sometimes agree, with those on the right regarding fiscal policy.

Understand, and sorry if I came across overly preachy. I probably come across fairly conservative, and that would be close to correct, but I dislike where the country is now because it's polarized and stereotyping and prejudice is as rampant now (both ways) as it was in the past, just couched in different terms, and directed in politically correct directions.

With regard to our liberties, I am very much atuned to what is happening in Venezuela, where my wife was born. As I mentioned before, it is the oldest South American democracy, and they went from a majority middle class nation (or voting demographic, either way works) in the 1960's and 1970's due to oil, to a predominantly poor country with a huge influx of population into Caracas.

The first thing Chavez did on assuming power, was to convene a Constitutional Congress and throw out the old consitution, changing the document wholesale, and eliminating term limitations that would have had him out of office for at least one term already, as I understand it.

He nationalized industries (including the PDVSA, the oil company, which is now a poorly run shell of its former self), confiscated private property and generally has presided over a steadily worsening economy and a soaring crime rate. It's my understanding that you are much safer traveling to Columbia now then Venezuela, and that's a 180 degree shift.

He also has taken control of the majority of the media and press outlets in the country (another amendment we protect here).

Tocqueville had interesting things to say about democracy in the 19th century, but one point, paraphrased greatly, is that democracy works up to the point where people realize they can vote themselves money (his quote was directed more at legislators realizing they could win votes this way). My contention is that democracy does not work well without a strong middle class (i.e., those vested in a stable system).

The United States has been stable for a long period of time, and hopefully will be for some time to come. But it is not a given that it will remain that way indefinitely.

From that standpoint, attacks on the constitution, direct or through slippery slope progression, are things that some of us fear.

My involvement in this discussion is solely based on that premise. I'm 'liberal' in some regards in ways that would surprise a few on this board (hence my problem with the stereotyping the media does in constructing public debate - it seems they do it because they don't have the intellectual honesty, or perhaps care to spend the time to do things otherwise - maybe they think the general public's attention span is too short and entertainment driven to take in nuanced detail - I suspect they are right. But it ought to infuriate everyone who knows better
For a democracy to survive, it needs to focus on doing things that will stabilize and enlarge the middle class. That is a difficult proposition in an age of globalization. (I deleted a long section here as this is too long, and it gets depressing) But suffice it to say that restricting individual liberties to maybe address a very, very small percentage of gun related deaths doesn't seem productive or properly focused.

See, Rick-- that's where many of us on the center-left take issue with you. I fail to see how a ban on even more broadly defined assault guns (that would include the AR-15 used in New Town) imposes a serious restriction on individual liberties. As I stated much earlier in this thread, I simply do not see the need or the desire by law-abiding citizens to own such weapons. There is absolutely no reason for the legal sale of such guns in today's society.

There is simply no reason for the legal sales of cars that can exceed 75MPH. Very few places have higher limits. High speed leads to more accidents and worse ones. Nobody needs a car that can travel at 120mph. They should be banned.

Walt.

The biggest advantage as I understand it of the AR-15 is that you can buy one gun, and change a few parts and have multiple calibers suitable for a wide variety of applications... from target to deer to elk to fox to home defense... without having to own 5 different guns.

(12-19-2012 09:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hambone did a great job. I'm more intrigued by the other parts though.

Ive read a lot about the subprime mortgage issues (articles and The Big Short) The CDOs played a major role in the collapse. While they weren't intentional, the amount they were leveraged and the sheer volume of them was risky as Hambone mentioned. Many would argue the benefit of the CDOs created around subprime mortgages. Especially when they were often given AAA rating because it was a bunch of crap mortgages from different areas of the country. In essence, banks were saying there's no chance all of the mortgages will fail because they're spread across the country and there's no chance there is a housing crisis that is nationwide. They bet big on this (a few bet against it and made out like bandits) and lost. And that doesn't even touch on the issues with people trying to get, or being given, home loans they never should have.

At least, that's my understanding of that side of the recent economic woes.

Edit: In short, of all aspects that led to the economic collapse the subprime mortgages is what I'm most familiar with. Any insight into other issues would be appreciated.

Ok...

1) sub-prime wasn't the only major issue, but when you expand loan criteria for one group, under the guise of "equality", then by definition, you expand it for another group. We went from 20% equity being the norm to 0% equity being the norm. Historical default numbers had a lot to do with the equity in a home... with the equity gone, the historical default numbers used to establish capital requirements goes out the window.

2) Pooling risks merely sprads the risk across a wider group. The expected loss numbers don't change, but the probablity that your loss is more like the norm increases. It avoids an "unlucky" zip code. What CMO and CDO and CBO structures did was split the expected risks... Whereby the losses from the pool would not go proportionately to all holders, but instead all of the losses would go to one owner until his investment was exhausted, and then to the next "lowest" holder etc etc etc.

Using simple math... not intended to represent any specific reality.

If the historical expected loss from an asset type (mortgages) in a "worst case" economic environment (the home price declination and default experience of the great depression) was a 20% price decline and a 20% default rate, then if we apply that experience to a group of assets, and through the structure, the most "senior" owners experience no loss, then they are given a AAA rating. The classes below can be a single "unrated" class, or multiple classes with a variety of ratings.

What CDOs did that was their biggest problem is they split the AAA class into regular and "super senior" AAAs.... with the regular class taking a loss before the "super-seniors". As the models didn't project any loss to the AAA's at all, BOTH classes were rated AAA. When the models failed, the "regular" AAAs took losses... often 100% losses, though the capital requirements for these assests was less than 1%. More significantly, even if it just APPEARED that the models would fail, the value of these assets went down by a ton... FAR in excess of the minimal capital requirements to hold the assets...

So a bank or insurer might have $10mm of these assets and reserve only 200k for loss... and experience a 50% decline in value ($5mm) with only 200k of reserves... and suddenly, the entire bank capital is at risk.

Politicians lowered reserve requirements to increase the available funds to loan to accomplish political goals
Politicians pushed/encouraged the rating agencies to lower the requirements for a AAA rating
Politicians encouraged banks to seek to spread risks, and use the brokerage firms to do this.
Brokerage, Rating agencies, banks etc etc firms utilized young, aggressive analysts who had never experienced Murphy's Law with regard to investments, and they simply couldn't imagine that their "black boxes" weren't perfect. That isn't a knock on the young.... Its actually a knock on the more seasoned people who forgot to instill this experience in thier charges.

Add Hambone's comments to mine, taking particular note of his last part. The problem was not that the financial sector was "deregulated" in any logical sense of that term. The problem was that certain regulations were perverted by certain politicians for political goals. W has some culpability here, as do particularly Messrs. Dodd and Frank. So Dodd and Frank got to write the bill that's supposed to save us. Good luck with that one.

(12-19-2012 08:42 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 02:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 04:09 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  Utility is relative to the alternatives. Cars have high utility in most of the country precisely because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity. In places where policy provides alternatives, cars don't have nearly as much utility.

That's a fairly strained view of cars. The automobile is one of the most fantastically useful things in the history of man. The ability of ordinary people to move goods and themselves cheaply, reliably, quickly, easily and virtually at will is one of the greatest drivers of growth, innovation and prosperity of all time -- not to mention one of the most personally liberating innovations in history. It is to mobility what the telephone was to communication -- and mobility and communication are the catalysts of everything. It is simply not fair to suppose that the utility of the automobile is primarily a perversion made artificially advantageous by misguided policy; while such may be true (and importanly so) at the margins, it is far from being the heart of the story.

Well, that's not what I said.

You said this: "Cars have high utility in most of the country precisely because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity."

And that's not correct. The fundamental reason that cars have high utility is not "because most of the country has chosen to build infrastructure that makes cars a necessity"; it is because cars are inherently advantageous, and tremendously so. Policy choices may accentuate that advantage, but the inherent personal and business advantages of a cheap, reliable, individually controlled vehicle are so compelling that cars would have high utility almost regardless of policy.

New York and London are choked with cars not because those cities are well-designed for automobiles, but because -- even with all the inconveniences that those cities pose and the alternative modes that they offer -- millions of people and businesses find cars fantastically useful.

Back to the gun debate. I'm watching The Walking Dead on AMC.

We should definitely consider the zombie apocalypse scenario.

(12-20-2012 12:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:41 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 05:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 04:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  There are a variety of reasons why the economy is where it is at, and I believe the majority of them did not originate with either party, and to the extent that their are political contributions to the economy, I hardly believe that it would be fair or blame one without yoking it to the other.

By the tone of your response above, it appears that you believe laying blame is justified.

Rick, I agree with the first paragraph from above. But I actually don't believe laying blame to one group, political or not, is correct, and I realize now it comes of that way. I was more trying to say that blaming someone that had a hand in the actions leading up to the downturn doesn't seem strange or unwarranted.

IMO, Dems are guilty of Clinton repealing part of Glass-steagell creating the massive banks that utilized CDOs that came crashing down. Reps are guilty of Bush pushing for two unfounded wars. And then there are the banks themselves that utilized these incredibly complicated CDOs that didn't really have any utilization. And then there are a whole host of other issues we could get in to, but I have a feeling this is not the right time to get into this.

Anyways, I'm sorry that it came across that way. I try my hardest to stay fair in my judgements and to see both sides of the story. I do fall more often to the left, especially on social issues, but I understand and, sometimes agree, with those on the right regarding fiscal policy.

Understand, and sorry if I came across overly preachy. I probably come across fairly conservative, and that would be close to correct, but I dislike where the country is now because it's polarized and stereotyping and prejudice is as rampant now (both ways) as it was in the past, just couched in different terms, and directed in politically correct directions.

With regard to our liberties, I am very much atuned to what is happening in Venezuela, where my wife was born. As I mentioned before, it is the oldest South American democracy, and they went from a majority middle class nation (or voting demographic, either way works) in the 1960's and 1970's due to oil, to a predominantly poor country with a huge influx of population into Caracas.

The first thing Chavez did on assuming power, was to convene a Constitutional Congress and throw out the old consitution, changing the document wholesale, and eliminating term limitations that would have had him out of office for at least one term already, as I understand it.

He nationalized industries (including the PDVSA, the oil company, which is now a poorly run shell of its former self), confiscated private property and generally has presided over a steadily worsening economy and a soaring crime rate. It's my understanding that you are much safer traveling to Columbia now then Venezuela, and that's a 180 degree shift.

He also has taken control of the majority of the media and press outlets in the country (another amendment we protect here).

Tocqueville had interesting things to say about democracy in the 19th century, but one point, paraphrased greatly, is that democracy works up to the point where people realize they can vote themselves money (his quote was directed more at legislators realizing they could win votes this way). My contention is that democracy does not work well without a strong middle class (i.e., those vested in a stable system).

The United States has been stable for a long period of time, and hopefully will be for some time to come. But it is not a given that it will remain that way indefinitely.

From that standpoint, attacks on the constitution, direct or through slippery slope progression, are things that some of us fear.

My involvement in this discussion is solely based on that premise. I'm 'liberal' in some regards in ways that would surprise a few on this board (hence my problem with the stereotyping the media does in constructing public debate - it seems they do it because they don't have the intellectual honesty, or perhaps care to spend the time to do things otherwise - maybe they think the general public's attention span is too short and entertainment driven to take in nuanced detail - I suspect they are right. But it ought to infuriate everyone who knows better
For a democracy to survive, it needs to focus on doing things that will stabilize and enlarge the middle class. That is a difficult proposition in an age of globalization. (I deleted a long section here as this is too long, and it gets depressing) But suffice it to say that restricting individual liberties to maybe address a very, very small percentage of gun related deaths doesn't seem productive or properly focused.

See, Rick-- that's where many of us on the center-left take issue with you. I fail to see how a ban on even more broadly defined assault guns (that would include the AR-15 used in New Town) imposes a serious restriction on individual liberties. As I stated much earlier in this thread, I simply do not see the need or the desire by law-abiding citizens to own such weapons. There is absolutely no reason for the legal sale of such guns in today's society.

There is simply no reason for the legal sales of cars that can exceed 75MPH. Very few places have higher limits. High speed leads to more accidents and worse ones. Nobody needs a car that can travel at 120mph. They should be banned.

:car:

:bandit:

(12-18-2012 02:34 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I would be curious as to what percentage of the Board thinks that the overall standard of living in this country will be better or worse than today in 30 years?

Worse. Our day is over, it is nothing but decline from here. Our days of creating value and wealth are done. We will do okay for a bit longer, borrowing from the future and spending what prior generations created in the past. When that runs out, stick a fork in us.

(12-19-2012 08:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  See, Rick-- that's where many of us on the center-left take issue with you. I fail to see how a ban on even more broadly defined assault guns (that would include the AR-15 used in New Town) imposes a serious restriction on individual liberties. As I stated much earlier in this thread, I simply do not see the need or the desire by law-abiding citizens to own such weapons. There is absolutely no reason for the legal sale of such guns in today's society.

And here's where I take issue with you, Walt. For someone else to decide that a) I don't need something, and therefore b) I can't have it, is IMO a serious restriction on my individual liberty. Doesn't matter what it is. As long as I use it responsibly, it should be none of your business--and most definitely none of government's business--what I have or don't have.

Our approach is strong punishment for those who do use it irresponsibly, not penalizing those who use it responsibly. Penalize the bad actors, not the good.

(12-21-2012 08:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 08:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  See, Rick-- that's where many of us on the center-left take issue with you. I fail to see how a ban on even more broadly defined assault guns (that would include the AR-15 used in New Town) imposes a serious restriction on individual liberties. As I stated much earlier in this thread, I simply do not see the need or the desire by law-abiding citizens to own such weapons. There is absolutely no reason for the legal sale of such guns in today's society.

And here's where I take issue with you, Walt. For someone else to decide that a) I don't need something, and therefore b) I can't have it, is IMO a serious restriction on my individual liberty. Doesn't matter what it is. As long as I use it responsibly, it should be none of your business--and most definitely none of government's business--what I have or don't have.

Our approach is strong punishment for those who do use it irresponsibly, not penalizing those who use it responsibly. Penalize the bad actors, not the good.

I understand this thought and agree with you, but mostly in matters when the risk of using the item on their own are basically limited to the user (i.e. drugs and alcohol). Since the actual use of them is only detrimental on the users health, it's only secondary effects that can cause harm to others, I dont think they should be completely outlawed, but I'm still fine eith regulation/taxation for public health. Where as a guns direct result is violence, I don't mind reducing the types that are legal and making tight restrictions.

With your thoughts, do you oppose the automatic weapons ban, drug criminalization, etc? Why/why not?

I can't legally own a sawed-off shotgun.

I don't see this as a threat to my freedom.

I expect the ATF to pass a regulation that if you own what is ultimately defined as an "assault weapon" you will be required to own a gun safe of a certain specification .

Kinda hard for the NRA to oppose this.

(12-19-2012 03:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, comparing the blaming of the Jews and other mainly ethnic minoriry groups for Germany's economic woes post-WWII is the same as laying blame to a political party that was involved in creating policy that helped hurt the economy.

I honestly can't believe I just read that. Apples to oranges.

I see gun-toting, bible thumping rednecks blamed for a myriad of the world's problems... It just depends on where you look.

(12-21-2012 09:04 AM)JSA Wrote:  I can't legally own a sawed-off shotgun.

I don't see this as a threat to my freedom.

But the question would be, why?

A shotgun is perhaps the MOST effective weapon in the world in home defense. It makes a lot of noise (especially a pump) and is easy to aim/hit your target. The shorter barrel of a "sawed off" gun makes it more effective in the potentially tight quarters of a hallway or a bedroom.

The reason it is illegal is because criminals can hide it under their coats better than a regular shotgun, but not as well as a pistol.

So people are robbed of one of the best tools for home defense because of criminals. FTR, 375 people were murdered by ALL shotguns in the US in 2010. A fraction of that number by "sawed off' ones... vs 13,000 by handgun.

While you may not feel more threatened, the stats say you aren't helped much either... and you can't/shouldn't take away rights just because you think it doesn't hurt you to lose them.

Frankly, it seems to me that having MORE sawed off shotguns for home defense would be better than handguns. Rather than take them away, we should encourage people to trade pistols for them for home defense

(12-21-2012 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, comparing the blaming of the Jews and other mainly ethnic minoriry groups for Germany's economic woes post-WWII is the same as laying blame to a political party that was involved in creating policy that helped hurt the economy.

I honestly can't believe I just read that. Apples to oranges.

I see gun-toting, bible thumping rednecks blamed for a myriad of the world's problems... It just depends on where you look.

(12-21-2012 09:04 AM)JSA Wrote:  I can't legally own a sawed-off shotgun.

I don't see this as a threat to my freedom.

But the question would be, why?

A shotgun is perhaps the MOST effective weapon in the world in home defense. It makes a lot of noise (especially a pump) and is easy to aim/hit your target. The shorter barrel of a "sawed off" gun makes it more effective in the potentially tight quarters of a hallway or a bedroom.

The reason it is illegal is because criminals can hide it under their coats better than a regular shotgun, but not as well as a pistol.

So people are robbed of one of the best tools for home defense because of criminals. FTR, 375 people were murdered by ALL shotguns in the US in 2010. A fraction of that number by "sawed off' ones... vs 13,000 by handgun.

While you may not feel more threatened, the stats say you aren't helped much either... and you can't/shouldn't take away rights just because you think it doesn't hurt you to lose them.

Frankly, it seems to me that having MORE sawed off shotguns for home defense would be better than handguns. Rather than take them away, we should encourage people to trade pistols for them for home defense

So where does your line get drawn? Do you believe that any sort of weapon should be able to be legally purchased since any sort of weapon restrictions would, if you 're reading the 2nd Amendment as I think you are, be taking away rights?

(12-21-2012 09:31 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I expect the ATF to pass a regulation that if you own what is ultimately defined as an "assault weapon" you will be required to own a gun safe of a certain specification .

Kinda hard for the NRA to oppose this.

I guess if you are a member of a mexican cartel, you can get an exemption from the ATF.

Seriously, though, my gun dealer friend says he expects these kinds of weapons to be named a "Class three" weapon - similar to machine guns. To own a class three weapon you have to have permission.

(12-21-2012 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, comparing the blaming of the Jews and other mainly ethnic minoriry groups for Germany's economic woes post-WWII is the same as laying blame to a political party that was involved in creating policy that helped hurt the economy.

I honestly can't believe I just read that. Apples to oranges.

I see gun-toting, bible thumping rednecks blamed for a myriad of the world's problems... It just depends on where you look.

You don't have to tote a gun or thump a bible to get blamed, but it helps.

(12-21-2012 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So where does your line get drawn? Do you believe that any sort of weapon should be able to be legally purchased since any sort of weapon restrictions would, if you 're reading the 2nd Amendment as I think you are, be taking away rights?

In general, yes. I think the denial of any "gun" is an infringement, but certain infringements are allowed under the 5th. I think explosives can be banned because they are not arms. I think nuclear and biologic weapons can be banned, because there is no way to use them for any legal purpose, including home defense or even entertainment without infringing on others rights.

I think technology can be "banned or restricted", i.e. explosive frag bullets or radar jamming devices.... and potentially even laser or radar guided weapons. While you can't generally ban an Apache Helicopter, I suspect you can ban or restrict most of the technology that makes an Apache different from most other helicopters.

And of course, you can generally ban ANYTHING from any individual the moment they use it in a threatening manner by court order/due process... but not until then.

The MAIN point I want to make, and I could alter this argument to virtually ANY weapon, is that there are somewhere between 10 and 30mm "assault rifles" in this country (depending on what constitutes an assault rifle) and easily tens more millions of regular rifles... yet rifles, as a group are responsible for fewer than 350 deaths. This means that the vast vast majority of rifles are operated responsibly. Why would we deny tens of millions of people who act responsibly their rights... because of a few hundred who don't? PARTICULARLY in that it is easily arguable that the vast majority of the people who COMMIT those crimes, are already illegal owners, meaning they won't respond to the ban anyway. Assume it's 50/50 legal/illegal, and I think that is very generous... You'll deny more than 20mm people their rights to stop 175 murders?

The MUCH better solution is to stop the other 175 (THE ILLEGAL OWNERS) because then, you also likely stop more like 6500 or more murders by illegal guns of ALL kinds.

You only have to be 3% effective in getting guns away from criminals to have the same effect as a 100% ban on rifles of any kind or shotguns of any kind.

(12-21-2012 01:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So where does your line get drawn? Do you believe that any sort of weapon should be able to be legally purchased since any sort of weapon restrictions would, if you 're reading the 2nd Amendment as I think you are, be taking away rights?

In general, yes. I think the denial of any "gun" is an infringement, but certain infringements are allowed under the 5th. I think explosives can be banned because they are not arms. I think nuclear and biologic weapons can be banned, because there is no way to use them for any legal purpose, including home defense or even entertainment without infringing on others rights.

I think technology can be "banned or restricted", i.e. explosive frag bullets or radar jamming devices.... and potentially even laser or radar guided weapons. While you can't generally ban an Apache Helicopter, I suspect you can ban or restrict most of the technology that makes an Apache different from most other helicopters.

And of course, you can generally ban ANYTHING from any individual the moment they use it in a threatening manner by court order/due process... but not until then.

The MAIN point I want to make, and I could alter this argument to virtually ANY weapon, is that there are somewhere between 10 and 30mm "assault rifles" in this country (depending on what constitutes an assault rifle) and easily tens more millions of regular rifles... yet rifles, as a group are responsible for fewer than 350 deaths. This means that the vast vast majority of rifles are operated responsibly. Why would we deny tens of millions of people who act responsibly their rights... because of a few hundred who don't? PARTICULARLY in that it is easily arguable that the vast majority of the people who COMMIT those crimes, are already illegal owners, meaning they won't respond to the ban anyway. Assume it's 50/50 legal/illegal, and I think that is very generous... You'll deny more than 20mm people their rights to stop 175 murders?

The MUCH better solution is to stop the other 175 (THE ILLEGAL OWNERS) because then, you also likely stop more like 6500 or more murders by illegal guns of ALL kinds.

You only have to be 3% effective in getting guns away from criminals to have the same effect as a 100% ban on rifles of any kind or shotguns of any kind.

Fair enough.

So let's assume that no new gun ban legislation is enacted. But gun restriction is, as in, it makes it harder to be able to purchase due to deeper background checks, longer waiting periods, etc. How do you feel about that?

In essence, trying to ensure that only those who do act responsibly when handling firearms are able to LEGALLY buy them. If law enforcement the. Also beefed up their efforts to stop illegal gun purchases, the potential that crimes committed by illegally purchased rifles would decrease.