[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Steve Moss]

It seems we can at least agree that blind people should not have a gun. I think someone in Iowa has taken the Ray Charles scene in The Blues Brothers a bit too literally.

Small quibble- I don't think blind people should be carrying guns in public. There is a large issue relating to situational awareness and target acquisition. I don't care if they have them in their own house.

[jim mk2]

Small quibble- I don't think blind people should be carrying guns in public. There is a large issue relating to situational awareness and target acquisition. I don't care if they have them in their own house.

Only an American could write that.

[thenodrog]

It seems we can at least agree that blind people should not have a gun. I think someone in Iowa has taken the Ray Charles scene in The Blues Brothers a bit too literally.

Do people that come to rob and kill usually put the light on Norbert? In the dead of night David Blunkett can see every bit as well as I.

[Guest Norbert]

There's 'that's a bit dark', and then there is 'I have no eyes in my head'. My ex-wife's brother is literally the latter, and I would not want him with a real gun about his person. He head butted a table playing with his daughter last time I saw him.

[Stuart]

Thanks for rescuing my Monday morning mood Norbert!

[Guest Norbert]

That's OK, I just think any thoughts of someone with no eyes will have so much trouble with, as Steve Moss puts it, target acquisition, that having a gun around is asking for some accident whether they're going shopping or watching TV at home.

For instance, let's assume Mr. Magoo has a child, and the gun is locked in a safe. It would take a few awkward minutes to open the safe if they believe a baddie is breaking into the house as they try to find the right combination, get the gun, and try to find the baddie to challenge him. By that time the burgler could have stolen the TV and either run away or probably had a go at Mr. Magoo with his gun, or baseball bat. That is assuming it is a burgler, and not the wife coming back blottoed after a night out at the bingo with the girls, generally making a noise.

And you don't need me to say how stupid it would be if you had a gun that was just in a draw or something. Especially if there are children about.

So you can see that I think blind people with guns is a bit dangerous.

[jim mk2]

Hurrah for the USA !

Press Association

SACKED BAND PLAYER KILLS PARTNERS

1 US Brooklyn 2nd Lead

A musician thrown out of his indie rock band shot three of his fellow players dead and wounded a fourth before killing himself in New York.

The band members were all from Iran but had gone to the United States seeking more musical freedom.

The shooting happened shortly after midnight in at the band's apartment in Brooklyn.

The gunman was found on the roof with a self-inflicted shot to the head, police said. A rifle was found next to the body.

Martin Greenman, 63, who works nearby, said he often saw the band members coming and going with their instruments.

``They seemed really nice, not violent or anything, just your typical guys,'' he said. ``They never caused any trouble. I see them almost every day, it's really a shock.''

The group played recent gigs in the New York indie rock scene at venues like the Knitting Factory and Brooklyn Bowl.

[Steve Moss]

And I personally think it's for Mr. Magoo and Norbert's ex-brother in law to decide what's safe and what's not in the privacy of their own home. Not a bunch of busybodies who think they have the right to tell others what to do.

[Stuart]

Tell that to Mr Magoo's postman...

[Steve Moss]

What's Mr. Magoo's postman doing inside of Mr. Magoo's house?

However, if Mr. Magoo is firing through the door, Mr. Magoo is a murderer and should be locked up.

Owning a firearm is not a license to be irresponsible with it.

[jim mk2]

Law of probability - if someone owns a firearm then sooner or later they are going to use it.

Better to have a law that prohibits their use - then innocent people don't get killed.

And it's getting worse

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/30/four-mass-killings-in-four-days/3317821/

[thenodrog]

Law of probability - if someone owns a firearm then sooner or later they are going to use it.

Better to have a law that prohibits their use - then innocent people don't get killed.

Thats Steve's point in a nutshell. Innocent people are getting killed.

[Guest Norbert]

And I personally think it's for Mr. Magoo and Norbert's ex-brother in law to decide what's safe and what's not in the privacy of their own home. Not a bunch of busybodies who think they have the right to tell others what to do.

I suspected you came from a very libertarian angle. Out of interest, would you go as far as anarcho-capitalism, or would you have a state that say, gets enough tax to pay for a police force to catch the rapists, paedos and murderers, keep an army going and make sure there are proper schools? I know this does not have much to do with guns etc.

[Steve Moss]

Law of probability - if someone owns a firearm then sooner or later they are going to use it.

Better to have a law that prohibits their use - then innocent people don't get killed.

Are you serious? More than 300 million firearms but you think its more than likely they'll all get used?

And last I checked, there are laws that prevent their illegal use. Here's a clue- Law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals don't.

I suspected you came from a very libertarian angle. Out of interest, would you go as far as anarcho-capitalism, or would you have a state that say, gets enough tax to pay for a police force to catch the rapists, paedos and murderers, keep an army going and make sure there are proper schools? I know this does not have much to do with guns etc.

Anarcho-capitalists are like Marxists- it sounds good in theory but I suspect would lead to untold misery in practice.

I'm very much in favor of police, the military and schools. And also roads, parks, libraries, hospitals, space exploration and scientific research in general. What does any of that have to do with an individual's personal liberties?

As to the funding mechanism, I don't object to taxes. I do object if what the government takes gets anywhere near 50% of a person's income. 10% sounds far more reasonable.

And before you laugh at such a low tax rate, if the income tax were abolished now, we'd still have enough revenue from other sources to: 1) fund the government at 1992 levels; and, 2) balance the budget. Last I checked, we had a powerful military, roads, schools, and plenty of social services in 1992. Which is yet another indicator that the government is enormously wasteful which undermines its credibility. Which is a shame as it does plenty of good, though its bang for the buck quotient is not very high.

[Mike E]

One thing the US definitely benefits from (and is brilliant at imo) is the work it majes their prisoners do. Isn't 100% of military protection and clothing made in prison over there? That's a HUGE saving.

[jim mk2]

Are you serious? More than 300 million firearms but you think its more than likely they'll all get used?

300 million firearms, - almost one each for every man woman and child, are you serious ? And the world wonders why you have so many guns atrocities and violence.

[Steve Moss]

One thing the US definitely benefits from (and is brilliant at imo) is the work it majes their prisoners do. Isn't 100% of military protection and clothing made in prison over there? That's a HUGE saving.

Seriously? Where do you guys get this stuff from?

Here's a link to the supplier of military clothing. http://amappinc.com/the_company

From what I've seen (and I should know, I'm a politician), prisoners are used to mow grass, pick up trash, paint graffiti (mostly at the parks and other public places) and walk dogs and play with the cats at the pound. All of which is purely voluntary. And not so surprisingly they are lining up to volunteer as it gets them outside in the sun, not locked up in a concrete fortress, for the day.

There is a push in some states to expand inmate labor, and some companies are willing to hire them, both sides justifying it as teaching the inmates job skills and allowing them to work off their fines in prison but it isn't for the serious offenders and it isn't for jobs requiring serious brain power. And for the most part, consumers aren't ken on the idea.

[ultrablue]

And before you laugh at such a low tax rate, if the income tax were abolished now, we'd still have enough revenue from other sources to: 1) fund the government at 1992 levels; and, 2) balance the budget. Last I checked, we had a powerful military, roads, schools, and plenty of social services in 1992. Which is yet another indicator that the government is enormously wasteful which undermines its credibility. Which is a shame as it does plenty of good, though its bang for the buck quotient is not very high.

I'm interesred as to where you found that statistic.

As you probably know the federal government was run with a large deficit under Clinton raised taxes in 1993.

[Mike E]

Seriously? Where do you guys get this stuff from?

Here's a link to the supplier of military clothing. http://amappinc.com/the_company

From what I've seen (and I should know, I'm a politician), prisoners are used to mow grass, pick up trash, paint graffiti (mostly at the parks and other public places) and walk dogs and play with the cats at the pound. All of which is purely voluntary. And not so surprisingly they are lining up to volunteer as it gets them outside in the sun, not locked up in a concrete fortress, for the day.

There is a push in some states to expand inmate labor, and some companies are willing to hire them, both sides justifying it as teaching the inmates job skills and allowing them to work off their fines in prison but it isn't for the serious offenders and it isn't for jobs requiring serious brain power. And for the most part, consumers aren't ken on the idea.

I got the 'fact' from a tv show over here called QI. The premise ended up being that for various things, the US has essentially reinvented the slave trade :$

[Steve Moss]

I'm interested as to where you found that statistic.

As you probably know the federal government was run with a large deficit under Clinton raised taxes in 1993.

For 2013, the USA has $2.7 trillion in actual federal revenue. Of that, $1.2 trillion is the personal income tax. If the personal income tax were eliminated, we'd have operating funds of $1.5 trillion.

In 1992, the USA had $1.3 trillion in federal outlays. Subtracting these outlays from the 2013 federal receipts (sans personal income tax) leaves a surplus of $200 billion a year for debt service.

This is just basic math. It does not account for the explosion in personal income (and hence spending) that people would realize if the government was not taking a huge chunk of their wages. This increased spending would generate additional revenue for the government, which would create even more funds for debt service.

Here is the data:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

Personally, I think the both the debt and the income tax is immoral and wrong as:

1. The huge debts means we're enslaving our children and grandchildren to pay for the government services (such as they are) of today; and,

2. The income tax essentially means I'm coerced into laboring for others and, if I decline, I either starve or face prison. If I work, I keep enough to provide for myself and my family, with the excess going to the government. Historically, that's called slavery (or perhaps more accurately, serfdom); and the modern version of it is very clever indeed. We've exchanged overseers for centralized government. As a practical matter, no one (or few) would care if the burden were light, but we're way beyond that.

Our generation has a lot to account for; we're certainly the worst stewards of our nation's prosperity in our respective democratic histories. Our forefathers would be taking a horsewhip to us if they were around to see the utter mess we've made of things.

I got the 'fact' from a tv show over here called QI. The premise ended up being that for various things, the US has essentially reinvented the slave trade :$

A citation would be nice, as I don't think I have time or inclination to watch past episodes of QI. I suspect that either you misunderstood or, alternatively, they got it wrong, but I'm happy to be proved wrong and learn new things.

[Mike E]

Here's a video 3mins onwards. And I was a little off with '100%'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zYuwN5giyVA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzYuwN5giyVA

Whether it's genuinely accurate or not, I'm unsure however QI do research things very thoroughly before putting it on TV. This was about 4 years ago though.

[Steve Moss]

Here's a video 3mins onwards. And I was a little off with '100%'.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zYuwN5giyVA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzYuwN5giyVA

Whether it's genuinely accurate or not, I'm unsure however QI do research things very thoroughly before putting it on TV. This was about 4 years ago though.

I watched the video (it helps that I find Stephen Fry amusing) and then did some research.

Federal prisoners do manufacturer certain goods which are consumed by the USA federal government. This does appear to include helmets (44,000 of which were recalled) and other incidental military equipment. Federal prisoners also make federal office furniture, etc. Here's the link which describes it in a bit more detail- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries

Texas and California do something similar, apparently, with their prison labor, and they are also restricted to only selling to government entities.

Frankly I'm surprised at how extensive it is. I believe it is morally wrong, to boot.

I owe you an apology, Mike Ellison.

[Mike E]

Don't worry about it, mistakes get made and most importantly: you just learned something interesting

QI episodes are available on YouTube if ever you want to watch them. I love the show with a passion

Though I must add, I don't see how you can be against it. Prisoners are 'paid' in privileges and gain skillsets to use when they get out. Occasionally they even get full vocational training. It can only be a good thing?

[ultrablue]

For 2013, the USA has $2.7 trillion in actual federal revenue. Of that, $1.2 trillion is the personal income tax. If the personal income tax were eliminated, we'd have operating funds of $1.5 trillion.

In 1992, the USA had $1.3 trillion in federal outlays. Subtracting these outlays from the 2013 federal receipts (sans personal income tax) leaves a surplus of $200 billion a year for debt service.

This is just basic math. It does not account for the explosion in personal income (and hence spending) that people would realize if the government was not taking a huge chunk of their wages. This increased spending would generate additional revenue for the government, which would create even more funds for debt service.

Here is the data:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

OK even if we continue to talk crap and ignore that inflation exists, those statistics say your basic maths is wrong.

.

2013 Federal revenue: $2,712,000,000,000

2013 Individual income tax receipt: $1,234,000,000,000 (rounded down slightly)

= $1,478,000,000,000 federal revenue without individual income taxes

minus 1992 Federal outlays: $1,381,500,000,000

= $96,500,000,000

That is less than half of the $200 billion surplus you quoted.

Now about balancing the budget. That's a $96.5 billion surplus on a 1992 budget, when interest expenses on national debt were $292 billion. Today's government has interest expenses of $454billion. So that ($454 billion - $292 billion) $162 billion extra that this government has to spend on debt compared to 1992. That money has to be found from somewhere if the government wants the debt to stop rising. This means the $1.381 trillion spending figure cannot possibly provide the same services in 2013 as it did in 1992. Services must be cut to pay back the higher interest bill. (Again, this is all exacerbated by the fact inflation does exist). Figures: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Where did this massive debt come from? Well military spending in 2013 is going to be $634 billion. Military spending in 1992 was $286 billion, or $441 billion adjusted for inflation (damn, back to the real world). These figures do not include spending in Iraq or Afghanistan. You don't hear anyone on the right of American politics suggest cutting the military budget by nearly $190 billion dollars. However I presume that as in your eyes 1992 had it right, you believe defense spending should be slashed

Figures: http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/06/14/us-military-spending-over-the-years/

You are in good company as in 1992 future Vice-President, then Defense Secretary Dick "I-Shot-My-Friend-in-the-Face" Cheney was insisting on huge military spending cuts and a 25% downsizing in Armed Forces personnel. "We are anticipating peace. We are banking on it" his Pentagon said. Less than ten years later the US was blind sighted by 9/11 and went into two wars they simply couldn't afford. Article:http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-01/news/mn-362_1_gulf-war

The myth espoused by the American Right that you can cut taxes, cut spending, balance the budget and remain a world superpower spending more on defense than the next ten countries combined, is utter nonsense and downright dangerous. Something has got to give. Just ask Dick Cheney.

Anyway, sorry for all the bar stool economics, back to why the mentally ill and blind people should not be denied the right to carry military grade assault rifles.

[Steve Moss]

The myth espoused by the American Right that you can cut taxes, cut spending, balance the budget and remain a world superpower spending more on defense than the next ten countries combined, is utter nonsense and downright dangerous. Something has got to give. Just ask Dick Cheney.

Being a world superpower is overrated and not high on my personal priority list. I suspect "superpower" status is more likely linked to domestic prosperity than it is to military spending, so I, for one, have absolutely no problem with cutting "defense" along with social programs.

OK even if we continue to talk crap and ignore that inflation exists, those statistics say your basic maths is wrong.

.

2013 Federal revenue: $2,712,000,000,000

2013 Individual income tax receipt: $1,234,000,000,000 (rounded down slightly)

= $1,478,000,000,000 federal revenue without individual income taxes

minus 1992 Federal outlays: $1,381,500,000,000

= $96,500,000,000

That is less than half of the $200 billion surplus you quoted.

I apologize for the cardinal sin of rounding down for the sake of informal discussion on a message board. However, I'm amazed you conceded there is a surplus.