All I know is they didn’t invite me. sigh I never go to any of the cool parties.
Alarm bells are telling me to abort. If you think stating generalizable economic principles that derive from human action means I must also accept economic science that uses equations to argue for the latest technocratic solution to social problems, then this is another one of those irreconcilably different ways to look at the world. So I will grant you your amusement at my expense! Enjoy.
(This is why P&R terrifies. Everything seems to be going fine until I almost step down an infinite rabbit hole. I feel my life flash before my eyes, then try to quickly escape and go hug my dog. Whew, dodged another one.)
Houngan
1709
Well, the science is pretty easy, make X more expensive and there will be less X bought. The problem is that you’re making a basic human right (as well as a constitutional right) utterly regressive, as well as not really dealing with the actual problem in any significant way other than to hopefully dry up the supply somewhere down the road. You would have to put a draconian, monolithic registration/confiscation/warrantless search scheme into place to begin such a measure, which of course would completely miss the actual criminals that account for 80-90% of the gun violence. Then the black market fires up, and as always we can look to the drug war to see how effective such measures are when it comes to stopping a good desired by criminals from entering the country.
A quick Google says that there are roughly 20,000,000 pounds of pot imported into the US each year. You could fit three or four handguns into the volume occupied by a pound, or one rifle for three pounds. There are around 10,000,000 firearms purchased legally in the US yearly, so by diverting maybe 20% of the drug trade you could completely fill the LEGAL gun purchases per year.
jeffd
1710
Tim: So what you’re saying is that you agree with the parts of economics that support your political views, and hogwash with the rest? :)
(seriously I’m just needling you at this point).
Houngan: Details! From an economic perspective a firearm tax set at the proper level would be a net benefit to society. Some firearms owners would probably forego paying the tax; but that would indicate that they’re not actually willing to pay the unsubsidized cost of owning a firearm. Others undoubtedly would. Probably others would just break the law and risk the attendant penalties.
Houngan
1711
Can you elaborate on “proper level?” I’m not an economist, but it seems to me that the fact firearms are not a consumable, are ubiquitous, and are ubiquitous and desirable among the non-taxable class would make the positive effect very minor. Coupled with the relatively massive cost associated with a single negative use vs. the very minor cost associated with positive use/ownership I don’t know that I see the argument.
We’re talking about their lobbying group the NRA-ILA here, not the regular organization.
Has there been a mandatory training class the NRA didn’t oppose? For that matter, are there any laws or regulations related to guns the NRA didn’t oppose?
Houngan
1713
Yes and yes, pretty much all of them that are on the books that are designed to prevent criminals from gaining access to firearms. Why would the premiere firearm training organization in the world oppose firearm training? You do know who the various Boy Scout and 4H parents go to in order to become certified to teach shooting, don’t you?
“Stop criminals from getting guns” is not firearms safety.
Why would the premiere firearm training organization in the world oppose firearm training?
They oppose mandatory firearm training near as I can tell, in the same way they oppose mandatory anything at all. Unless the law targets “bad people” or is unrelated to firearms they won’t support it.
Houngan
1715
Wait, are we talking about mandatory training tied to CCW licenses, or mandatory training tied to being able to purchase a firearm? If the latter, then yes, they probably oppose that, and it’s something with which I disagree, because I’m middle class and have the time and money to attend any training, even though it would be a complete waste of my time.
As for safety, are you unaware of the Eddie Eagle program? It’s saved a hell of a lot more kids than anything the left has done about firearms.
I’m confused, but maybe I’m too Canadian to understand this. I can accept that Americans have enshrined a right to gun ownership in their Constitution, but I don’t think anyone, anywhere else in the world sees gun ownership as a basic human right.
Houngan
1717
Self-defense is a basic human right. If you can tell me how to achieve that for a 80-year-old woman vs. a 20-year-old man with something other than a firearm, I’m all ears.
jeffd
1718
Firearm possession as a natural right is one of the more ridiculous overreaches I’ve seen today.
Houngan
1719
Do I really need to link the post directly before yours?
jeffd
1720
No, I read it. It doesn’t make your assertion any less of a reach.
Houngan
1721
Can you go into more detail? It’s only two sentences, maybe you could explain why one or both of them is such a reach, and we could discuss it, instead of you being dismissive.
I’m pretty sure “the left” would rather there not be kids with guns at all.
Houngan
1723
The program has nothing to do with “kids with guns.” It’s utterly non-political, and is based around the idea of teaching kids that if they see a gun, to leave it alone and go get an adult.
No problem. But hey, that’s like saying you agree with parts of Christianity that support your religious views. There are factions! People died! Fortunately, economists seem to be relatively non-violent about their differences of opinion.
Biased, but this is what I’m talking about: http://www.vpc.org/studies/eddie3.htm
The left would rather there be no guns around kids at all.
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this, by the way. Just pointing out that the Eddie Eagle program isn’t a factor to those on the gun control side of the debate. They don’t want the need for the program to even exist.
Also, the program being “non-political” is kind of a reach since it comes from the NRA.
What about an 80-year old woman against 10 men? 10 men in body armor? 10 men in body armor with assualt rifles?
I agree that you have a basic right to try and defend yourself. It’s not a basic right to have whatever tools are necessary to have guranteed, effective defense against all and sundry. The minute that you demand that the 80-year old woman needs overwhelming force to bring her on par, that 20-year-old man can have the same.
You’re doing what Napolitino did: I need to have whatever they (i.e., the attackers) have. It’s a circular position: whatever may be used against me, I need to be able to match or one-up. Well, once you have, they can have it. So up it again!
Self-defense as a natural right does not directly progress to having guns, as a natural right. The 2nd Amendment does give that right, but that’s separate from a natural rights argument.
