Seattle Defeats The NRA

[Wyatt earp]

How many of those crimes are done by legally obtained guns?

All of the mass shootings we have been talking about this year were. How's that for starters?

And now in Seattle the mass shooters will pay the tax and then shoot people......what exactly was solved? And then the criminals won't pay taxes on stolen bullets......

I don't think you understand how a Pigovian tax works.

A guy with a gun shoots somebody. The outcome is the expenditure of a lot of money on medical bills, funerals, etc. Those costs are not paid by the shooter. The bulk of it is paid for by the public.

With a Pigovian tax, the gun buyers is helping to pay for the externalities of medical bills and funerals.

So that is exactly what was solved.

Not completely, since the tax doesn't even come close to paying the full freight of Seattle's externalities.

No, you don't understand......the normal, law abiding gun owner does not use his gun or his bullets to shoot anyone.

And not every smoker gets lung cancer. Nonetheless, the odds of a smoker getting cancer and becoming a huge burden to the taxpayer is much greater than the odds of a non-smoker. So all smokers have to pay an extra tax as their share of their increased risk to society.

Just so with gun buyers now. Every gun owner is a greater risk than a non gun owner and so they must pay their share of their increased risk.

What the fuck?

What about Lardo fat asses ? How come we don't have yearly weigh ins and they don't have to pay a special tax?

Oh yea I forgot you are one of those.

 

[Stephanie]

And watch gun dealers move out f Seattle to the suburbs, depriving the city of tax revenue.
AMazingly every attempt to "stilck it" to gun owners falls flat.

It wouldn't, because revenue isn't the point, social engineering is. Gun dealers moving out of the city is precisely what they want.

Allegedly they want fewer guns in the city. But that of course is a pipe dream. What they'll get are fewer guns in the hands of law abiding people and more in the hands of criminals.
Because libs are too stupid to recognize the difference.

Sadly, you are wrong. They know the difference, they just don't care. They know they can't stop criminals...but with the right law...they can punish law abiding citizens who are normally out of their reach because they don't use guns to commit crimes...this way, they get to punish the people they really hate...people who own guns....criminals.....just a cost of doing business....

there it is. nothing more needs to be said. they do this because they're all freaking cowards themselves. they don't go after the GANGS, Obama JUST RELEASED 10, 000 criminals back into our society without a gawddam care about the rest of you. but hey you can BUY into their bs. Don't own a gun NO ONE CARES....BUT you won't win AGAINST the nra, because they are made up of MILLIONS of gun owners your fellow countrymen and women, unless you plan on coming armed and with MANY

 

[g5000]

Right-to-lifers believe in this exact same principal being used by Seattle: Make it tougher to get to X, and the incidence of Y will decrease.

 

[g5000]

All of the mass shootings we have been talking about this year were. How's that for starters?

And now in Seattle the mass shooters will pay the tax and then shoot people......what exactly was solved? And then the criminals won't pay taxes on stolen bullets......

I don't think you understand how a Pigovian tax works.

A guy with a gun shoots somebody. The outcome is the expenditure of a lot of money on medical bills, funerals, etc. Those costs are not paid by the shooter. The bulk of it is paid for by the public.

With a Pigovian tax, the gun buyers is helping to pay for the externalities of medical bills and funerals.

So that is exactly what was solved.

Not completely, since the tax doesn't even come close to paying the full freight of Seattle's externalities.

No, you don't understand......the normal, law abiding gun owner does not use his gun or his bullets to shoot anyone.

And not every smoker gets lung cancer. Nonetheless, the odds of a smoker getting cancer and becoming a huge burden to the taxpayer is much greater than the odds of a non-smoker. So all smokers have to pay an extra tax as their share of their increased risk to society.

Just so with gun buyers now. Every gun owner is a greater risk than a non gun owner and so they must pay their share of their increased risk.

What the fuck?

What about Lardo fat asses ? How come we don't have yearly weigh ins and they don't have to pay a special tax?

Oh yea I forgot you are one of those.

Here we see a tard making assumptions about me based on voices in his head because he can't follow a conversation beyond ten seconds.

As for a fat tax, I suppose it is just a matter of time before liberals pursue that avenue. We saw Bloomberg open the gate with his cup size limits.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I own one gun, and you own no guns, the gun ownership rate between the two of us is 50%.

If I go out and buy ten more guns, and you still have no gun, the gun ownership rate between the two of us is still 50%.

This is what the innumerate don't get. "More guns" does not mean "more gun owners".

The rate of gun ownership has plunged dramatically. You are far less likely to be around someone with a gun, or guns, than ever before.

You keep asserting that with nothing but flawed data to back it up. Self reporting surveys like that are always inaccurate.

 

[g5000]

If I own one gun, and you own no guns, the gun ownership rate between the two of us is 50%.

If I go out and buy ten more guns, and you still have no gun, the gun ownership rate between the two of us is still 50%.

This is what the innumerate don't get. "More guns" does not mean "more gun owners".

The rate of gun ownership has plunged dramatically. You are far less likely to be around someone with a gun, or guns, than ever before.

You keep asserting that with nothing but flawed data to back it up. Self reporting surveys like that are always inaccurate.

You can't just claim the survey is inaccurate. Doesn't work that way. Prove the data is flawed.

The survey question is in the link.

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean those intent on murdering their spouse already have sufficient stockpiles?

If less people own guns, then the chances of spousal murder drops.

Point of fact, the percentage of gun owners is at an all time record low, as is the homicide rate. That's not a coincidence.

Nope...gun ownership is currently on the rise as more women and minorities.....historically under represented in gun ownership....are beginning to buy guns for self defense.

This is just flat out wrong. The percentage of gun owners is at record lows. You are less likely to be around someone with a gun than ever before.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

Gun murder is going down as more Americans own guns.

The gun murder rate is going down as a smaller percentage of Americans own guns.

How many of those households had convicted felons in them?
Oops.

What point do you think you are making?

Households with felons will not self report gun ownership. Ergo such studies are flawed.

 

[Stephanie]

If I own one gun, and you own no guns, the gun ownership rate between the two of us is 50%.

If I go out and buy ten more guns, and you still have no gun, the gun ownership rate between the two of us is still 50%.

This is what the innumerate don't get. "More guns" does not mean "more gun owners".

The rate of gun ownership has plunged dramatically. You are far less likely to be around someone with a gun, or guns, than ever before.

You keep asserting that with nothing but flawed data to back it up. Self reporting surveys like that are always inaccurate.

they aren't ever honest EVER

 

[The Rabbi]

If I own one gun, and you own no guns, the gun ownership rate between the two of us is 50%.

If I go out and buy ten more guns, and you still have no gun, the gun ownership rate between the two of us is still 50%.

This is what the innumerate don't get. "More guns" does not mean "more gun owners".

The rate of gun ownership has plunged dramatically. You are far less likely to be around someone with a gun, or guns, than ever before.

You keep asserting that with nothing but flawed data to back it up. Self reporting surveys like that are always inaccurate.

You can't just claim the survey is inaccurate. Doesn't work that way. Prove it.

I shoewd why.
Add to that the huge increases in carry permits and it is obvious gun ownership is going up.

 

[2aguy]

It's amazing how many people believe "If the gun shops close, the whole city's gonna die!"

Only innocent people die if the gun shops close...

You mean those intent on murdering their spouse already have sufficient stockpiles?

Well, since most of them are already criminals of some sort odds are they have illegally owned guns....or hatchets...or their fists...

 

[g5000]

If less people own guns, then the chances of spousal murder drops.

Point of fact, the percentage of gun owners is at an all time record low, as is the homicide rate. That's not a coincidence.

Nope...gun ownership is currently on the rise as more women and minorities.....historically under represented in gun ownership....are beginning to buy guns for self defense.

This is just flat out wrong. The percentage of gun owners is at record lows. You are less likely to be around someone with a gun than ever before.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

Gun murder is going down as more Americans own guns.

The gun murder rate is going down as a smaller percentage of Americans own guns.

How many of those households had convicted felons in them?
Oops.

What point do you think you are making?

Households with felons will not self report gun ownership. Ergo such studies are flawed.

Wow. Look at you making shit up out of whole cloth. You will now have to prove this claim.

Show the plunge in the numbers is due to "households with felons". Prove also that gun owners have come down with a bad case of reluctance in the past 40 years on surveys that they didn't have before.

I anticipate much hilarity. This is some desperate denial of reality we are seeing here.

 

[2aguy]

Again with the mantra..." Background checks,......background checks...." why do you keep saying that?...you say it as though it has some importance in stopping gun crime.....

Because it does.

Take a gander at this:

See that sudden plunge after 1993?

That's when the Brady Act was passed. The Brady Act is when federal background checks were first implemented.

Again, not a coincidence.

You realize that this is exactly when concealed carry laws were being passed..right...and that studies show that the Brady law didn't lower the crime rate..right?

 

[2aguy]

Again with the mantra..." Background checks,......background checks...." why do you keep saying that?...you say it as though it has some importance in stopping gun crime.....

Because it does.

Take a gander at this:

See that sudden plunge after 1993?

That's when the Brady Act was passed. The Brady Act is when federal background checks were first implemented.

Again, not a coincidence.

Here, someone who actually did some research...

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed," Cook said. "It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect."

Data on gun suicides showed the same trends, though Cook said there is "some hint of an effect" on the gun suicide rate for persons over age 55, some of whom appear to be deterred by the waiting period. But overall suicide rates do not decline, suggesting that some people simply changed their method when they couldn't get a gun more easily.

Cook, who acknowledged that his personal sympathies are for gun control, said, "Maybe the law did save a handful of lives, a couple hundred per year," and that other public health and safety laws are enacted to save similar numbers of lives.

 

[g5000]

There are quite a few studies which show the percentage of gun ownership has plunged. I would like to see Rabbi prove every last one of them is bullshit.

This is willful blindness in the extreme, boys and girls.

 

[g5000]

Again with the mantra..." Background checks,......background checks...." why do you keep saying that?...you say it as though it has some importance in stopping gun crime.....

Because it does.

Take a gander at this:

See that sudden plunge after 1993?

That's when the Brady Act was passed. The Brady Act is when federal background checks were first implemented.

Again, not a coincidence.

Here, someone who actually did some research...

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed," Cook said. "It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect."

Data on gun suicides showed the same trends, though Cook said there is "some hint of an effect" on the gun suicide rate for persons over age 55, some of whom appear to be deterred by the waiting period. But overall suicide rates do not decline, suggesting that some people simply changed their method when they couldn't get a gun more easily.

Cook, who acknowledged that his personal sympathies are for gun control, said, "Maybe the law did save a handful of lives, a couple hundred per year," and that other public health and safety laws are enacted to save similar numbers of lives.

Also from the link:

On the plus side, there is strong evidence that the law undermined gun-running operations that were buying large numbers of guns in southern states and transporting them north for resale, he said. The law has also helped improve criminal history records.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are quite a few surveys which show the percentage of gun ownership has plunged. I would like to see Rabbi prove every last one of them is bullshit.

This is willful blindness in the extreme, boys and girls.

One in Three Americans Own Guns; Culture a Factor, Study Finds
Wrong. It may have gone down in anti gun states. But it has gone up in pro gun states. And anti gun states are showing bigger increases in crime.
More guns=less crime More guns=less crime More guns=less crime.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again with the mantra..." Background checks,......background checks...." why do you keep saying that?...you say it as though it has some importance in stopping gun crime.....

Because it does.

Take a gander at this:

See that sudden plunge after 1993?

That's when the Brady Act was passed. The Brady Act is when federal background checks were first implemented.

Again, not a coincidence.

Here, someone who actually did some research...

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed," Cook said. "It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect."

Data on gun suicides showed the same trends, though Cook said there is "some hint of an effect" on the gun suicide rate for persons over age 55, some of whom appear to be deterred by the waiting period. But overall suicide rates do not decline, suggesting that some people simply changed their method when they couldn't get a gun more easily.

Cook, who acknowledged that his personal sympathies are for gun control, said, "Maybe the law did save a handful of lives, a couple hundred per year," and that other public health and safety laws are enacted to save similar numbers of lives.

Also from the link:

On the plus side, there is strong evidence that the law undermined gun-running operations that were buying large numbers of guns in southern states and transporting them north for resale, he said. The law has also helped improve criminal history records.

And yet tjhe explanation for high rates of gun violence in Chicago etc is that people are running guns from southern states.
Oops

 

[2aguy]

Again with the mantra..." Background checks,......background checks...." why do you keep saying that?...you say it as though it has some importance in stopping gun crime.....

Because it does.

Take a gander at this:

See that sudden plunge after 1993?

That's when the Brady Act was passed. The Brady Act is when federal background checks were first implemented.

Again, not a coincidence.

Here, someone who actually did some research...

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed," Cook said. "It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect."

Data on gun suicides showed the same trends, though Cook said there is "some hint of an effect" on the gun suicide rate for persons over age 55, some of whom appear to be deterred by the waiting period. But overall suicide rates do not decline, suggesting that some people simply changed their method when they couldn't get a gun more easily.

Cook, who acknowledged that his personal sympathies are for gun control, said, "Maybe the law did save a handful of lives, a couple hundred per year," and that other public health and safety laws are enacted to save similar numbers of lives.

Also from the link:

On the plus side, there is strong evidence that the law undermined gun-running operations that were buying large numbers of guns in southern states and transporting them north for resale, he said. The law has also helped improve criminal history records.

Again with the mantra..." Background checks,......background checks...." why do you keep saying that?...you say it as though it has some importance in stopping gun crime.....

Because it does.

Take a gander at this:

See that sudden plunge after 1993?

That's when the Brady Act was passed. The Brady Act is when federal background checks were first implemented.

Again, not a coincidence.

Here, someone who actually did some research...

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed," Cook said. "It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect."

Data on gun suicides showed the same trends, though Cook said there is "some hint of an effect" on the gun suicide rate for persons over age 55, some of whom appear to be deterred by the waiting period. But overall suicide rates do not decline, suggesting that some people simply changed their method when they couldn't get a gun more easily.

Cook, who acknowledged that his personal sympathies are for gun control, said, "Maybe the law did save a handful of lives, a couple hundred per year," and that other public health and safety laws are enacted to save similar numbers of lives.

Also from the link:

On the plus side, there is strong evidence that the law undermined gun-running operations that were buying large numbers of guns in southern states and transporting them north for resale, he said. The law has also helped improve criminal history records.

Sorry.......it specifically states it had no effect on gun homicide rates showing your graphic is wrong...

Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed,"

And gun traffickers are still getting guns aren't they........and police are breaking them up the old fashioned way...with snitches and undercover police officers....

 

[g5000]

There is a story perpetuated by propaganda ministries that the number of gun sales have gone up, and that is why murders have gone down. We've seen that story parroted right here in this topic.

This is why it is particularly funny to see someone saying that correlation does not equal causation when confronted with the fact the percentage of gun ownership has plunged.

"More guns" does not mean "more gun owners".

It's a simple fact there is a much smaller percentage of gun owners in America.

If the rubes buy into the story that gun ownership is linked to the murder rate, then how come they suddenly deny it is when shown the percentage of owners is at a record low?


Hmmmm...

 

[2aguy]

There is a story perpetuated by propaganda ministries that the number of gun sales have gone up, and that is why murders have gone down. We've seen that story parroted right here in this topic.

This is why it is particularly funny to see someone saying that correlation does not equal causation when confronted with the fact the percentage of gun ownership has plunged.

"More guns" does not mean "more gun owners".

It's a simple fact there is a much smaller percentage of gun owners in America.

If the rubes buy into the story that gun ownership is linked to the murder rate, then how come they suddenly deny it is when shown the percentage of owners is at a record low?


Hmmmm...

Because gun ownership is not at a record low......gun owners have stopped reporting their gun ownership to pollsters.......