Project Gunrunner

Again, that's what I thought.

 

Your support for a nonsense blubbering does you no justice.

 

Background checks are already performed. You must have a license to carry a weapon. Already done. Next?

 

That's why I try not to support your posts.

 

This is an ignorant reply as you ignored the content in the post: license fee as a price correction!

 

You support low brow rant. It guarantees your poor debating position. I follow objective literature review methods. That guarantees I'm ignored by the low brow types you pat on the head. I celebrate that though!

 

Putting aside your hyperbole and assuming your contention is accurate (which is impossible to ascertain based on your lack of a source), it is clear that you are painting with a broad brush here. You have taken ONE Democrat and her history(?) to paint ALL people whom you call "Anti-gun Loony".

Do you bark at the moon, too?

 

Either you have not understood his post, or you are being purposefully obtuse and deceptive.

You DO, of course realize that "background checks" are not license fees (such inanity!), and you DO realize that possession of a "license" (actually a concealed carry permit) is not relevant to Reiver's reference to a "fee" that accounts for society's true costs. How did you miss this?

 

Ayuh,... So lets make the Criminal pay the fees to cover society's true costs for their Criminal behavior...

What you Loony Leftwing Nuts propose only makes Illegal activities More Illegal,..??

 

Ayuh,... Yet another example of your failed hypothesis...

It's for those who cause harm to pay,...ei: the Criminals...
Not the honest citizens exercising their Rights...

You Fail once again...

 

Its a simple adaptation of externalities. You ignore such effects because you're not interested in objective study. You're therefore adopting an anti-individualist approach that celebrate coercion

 

Nope,... It's Your Failure to put Blame, where Blame belongs...

It appears yer failed hypothesis doesn't account for Not enforcing current laws against those who are involved in Criminal activities...

Your failed hypothesis places Blame where there is No blame, 'n Not where it belongs...

Your failing,... Miserably....

 

Its nothing to do with 'blame'. Its simply a price failure. Ignoring that price failure continues to be an assault of individualism

 

I can understand your confusion. You would have to have some grasp of how our laws are affected by the Constitution to realize the answer is accurate.

The 'optimal' law depends on what is allowed by the constitution. If a law is passed restricting gun ownership and that law is struck down by the SCOTUS.... get it? With that in mind hopefully you will be able to better understand what I was saying.

 

See my response above.

 

Once again, you have not answered the question. Here are two new ones, since you are having such difficulty making a case for what you say.

What are some liberal positions on gun control?

What are some non liberal positions on gun control?

Let me give you a hint: Liberal positions are usually NOT pro-liberty.

 

Price correction for what exactly?

 

You keep believing that my cocky friend.

 

How is a law-abiding gun owner that is trying to protect himself/herself and their family a cost to society?

 

The important aspect is how the legal and illegal gun markets are related, with gun prevalence subsequently increasing the lethality of crime. It becomes a market failure problem. The individual's preference for guns is fair enough. They just should face the 'true' cost from that preference (with the license fee correcting for the negative 'crime' externalities)

The problem we have is that you haven't studied the topic and you're making invalid comment based on nothing more but blind opinion. It has ensured your support for irrational result

 

You are just a typical uninformed Liberal that believes the drive-by media. The illegal gun market is the result of illegal activity, much of which our own government has a part of. You cannot blame the law-abiding gun owners and gun retailers. Using a so-called fee to correct for illegal activity is plain wrong. You would just price law-abiding citizens out of the market, and illegal activity will just continue as usual.

 

A stupendously ignorant remark. I'm not a liberal. My stance is also purely based on an objective study of the research on the topic. You've responded with childish "I'm right cos I say I am", ignoring the available evidence and how its inconsistent with your opinion

Within a methodological individualist approach, not correcting for externalities is 'plain wrong'. You're ignoring the coercive relationships generated through the gun market. That ensures a significant well-being loss and an irrational result that ignores the available evidence. Reality is certainly a problem for the gun fiends

 

Your repeated use of derision does not improve your argument, friend.

 

Reality is when guns are restricted, crime goes up. Just look at Washington DC and Chicago with their gun bans, increase in crime, and subsequent decision by the SCOTUS to overturn the unconstitutional bans.

Some foreign countries mandate that every family arm themselves, and go through annual training. They have some of the lowest crime rates worldwide.

 

Reality? You're confusing yourself again! You have nothing but spurious relationship to utilise. There isn't one person with an understanding of criminology that argues that one factor impacts on crime rates. Given we therefore know that multiple factors are involved, we have to refer to analysis that isolates gun effects. That evidence shows significant postive effects from gun control.

Reality is your enemy!

And they also have numerous non-firearm related factors that deter crime. Bleedin obvious, but you fellows need reminding of it constantly