Originally posted by dadudemon
The upside, obviously, being "not those things you want to do."
Do you seriously disagree with the position that the legal process for gun ownership should be applied universally?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, looks like you are unaware that regulations on hundreds of millions of endpoints has a direct cost associated with it. There's creation, discussion, debate, draft, approval, implementation, execution, administration, penalization, adjudication, incarceration (if you wanted it to go that far), and systematic review. All of those elements cost money. A very deep reaching new gun regulation will directly cost law abiding citizens, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of dollars. However, "trust cost of ownership" is likely in the billions of dollars for the law abiding US residents for something like this. Even more likely, it will cost tens of billions of dollars in things such as tax payer money, in just 10-20 years. You want to spend that much money wasting people's time with an ineffective regulation on people who were law abiding citizens, anyway.
[/B]
Like I said before, if it costs too much, enforcement isn't really needed here.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems reasonable to ban bump stocks. I think people should get to fire automatic guns at ranges....only. And not get to keep and house them.
Bump stocks don't actually turn semi-automatics into automatics, plus you can bump fire weapons without the use of a bump stock.
Thus banning them wouldn't actually do anything other than putting another useless law on the books.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The upside being that the government isn't complicity allowing people not qualified to own guns, to own guns.
If that's you're only objective then we can throw your idea out as very poor.
Laws created to prevent violence shouldn't address mostly your feelings.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Source for this? I'm intrigued. I wasn't aware it cost money just to create, discuss, and draft laws.Like I said before, if it costs too much, enforcement isn't really needed here.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/hidden-cost-regulation
Also, I'm also the source for that.
Regulation of hundreds of millions of endpoints costs a minimum of hundreds of millions of dollars over 10-20 years. This is under the assumption that these endpoints cost cents on the dollar. These actual endpoints have variable costs from just a few dollars to thousands of dollars.
It's your law: what's your source that it will cost something else?
Originally posted by Robtard
If we're freaking out about "Mah 2nd mend'ment!" again, then gun owners should be part of a well regulated militia, you know, to ensure the security of a free State.
Yes, I like this idea. Bring back tax-funded, housed, trained, and fed militia! 😄
Wait, we kind of have that with the Reserves. 😉
Originally posted by Silent Master
Bump stocks don't actually turn semi-automatics into automatics, plus you can bump fire weapons without the use of a bump stock.Thus banning them wouldn't actually do anything other than putting another useless law on the books.
How about banning large capacity magazines 30,40,100 and then define rate of fire and prevent weapons from operating over that ?
Originally posted by dadudemon
If that's you're only objective then we can throw your idea out as very poor.Laws created to prevent violence shouldn't address mostly your feelings.
[/B]
Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/hidden-cost-regulation
[/B]
It's your law: what's your source that it will cost something else?
Originally posted by snowdragon
How about banning large capacity magazines 30,40,100 and then define rate of fire and prevent weapons from operating over that ?
Wouldn't do any real good as the shooters would just carry a few extra magazines. it's not like it takes very long to switch mags. People just want to ban them because they look scary.
How exactly would you prevent weapons from firing over a certain rate?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Wouldn't do any real good as the shooters would just carry a few extra magazines. it's not like it takes very long to switch mags. People just want to ban them because they look scary.How exactly would you prevent weapons from firing over a certain rate?
Yeah but then they have reload times say 10, 10 round magazines are a bigger pita then say 3 40 round magazines. Just a thought.
I wasn't saying do that it was a suggestion, people break the law by upgrading guns but selling guns that can't be fired over a certain rof who knows.
So aside from mass shootings what would be your suggestion for preventing gun deaths in the USA.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
This isn't about feelings. If it's illegal for people not qualified to own guns to be handed guns, then that will dissuade people from handing out guns.The article seems to be talking about how regulations can reduce the amount of profit certain businesses. If the economic cost here is that the gun industry isn't able to make as much profit off of people who aren't qualified to own guns owning guns, I don't give a sh!t.
Your articleI don't know the cost, hence why your economic argument intrigued me. However I'd like some evidence for this. It seems absurd to me simply legislating a law would cost so much money. Again, enforcement isn't really needed here if it's too expensive.
No no, you don't understand. Your idea does almost nothing except address your feelings about guns. Almost nothing at all would change.
As far as the costs, sorry, that's how it is with regulations. I'm the source. If you have a source that contradicts the ol' "endpoints" moniker, I'm all for it. Until then, I'm literally the only regulatory costing expert you know (truth).
Originally posted by dadudemon
No no, you don't understand. Your idea does almost nothing
Originally posted by dadudemonUh, shouldn't a regulatory costing expert have access to relevant evidence regarding regulatory costing?
As far as the costs, sorry, that's how it is with regulations. I'm the source. If you have a source that contradicts the ol' "endpoints" moniker, I'm all for it. Until then, I'm literally the only regulatory costing expert you know (truth). [/B]
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So it would do something, just not as much as you would hope. That it's good on the basis of principle as well(or as you say, "feelings"😉 doesn't really hurt.
So you want to spend billions to possibly save 1 or 2 lives?
Want to funnel that into stem cell research or something?
Seems much more effective at savings lives. 🙂
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Uh, shouldn't a regulatory costing expert have access to relevant evidence regarding regulatory costing?
Yes. And I gave you my estimate. lol
Oh, you want something that is specific to your regulatory idea, which doesn't exissssst! Oh, I see. Yeah, that costing information doesn't exist except the the generic endpoint moniker, like I just said. 😐
Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah but then they have reload times say 10, 10 round magazines are a bigger pita then say 3 40 round magazines. Just a thought.I wasn't saying do that it was a suggestion, people break the law by upgrading guns but selling guns that can't be fired over a certain rof who knows.
So aside from mass shootings what would be your suggestion for preventing gun deaths in the USA.
Still wouldn't really make a difference, it takes maybe an extra 15-20 seconds to empty ten 10 round mags as it would one 100 round mag. this isn't Hollywood, nobody is going to be able to close the distance or get away in the time it takes to reload.
My question was about how you'd restrict the weapons from firing over a certain rate, it'd require some kind of mechanical or electronic hardware. I'm not sure anything currently exists.
I think they need to target the criminals using the weapons and not the law abiding citizens and just hoping that it'll somehow "trickle down" to those people who are already breaking the law.
Originally posted by dadudemonHaven't there been examples of similar regulatory ideas we can refer to?Yes. And I gave you my estimate. lol
Oh, you want something that is specific to your regulatory idea, which doesn't exissssst! Oh, I see. Yeah, that costing information doesn't exist except the the generic endpoint moniker, like I just said. 😐 [/B]