Another Poor Gun Victim of Violent Spree

[Thumb]

BTW - in my mind you sarcastically implied that he was the only one in the discussion using logic. Maybe I was mistaken? If not than in that particular case it probably wasn't narcssisim. But I digress . . .

Still hung up on this huh? Let it go man, let it go.

 

[Thumb]

Nice recovery, you wouldn't want to be seen take sides. :*)

OK numbers man here is how I would calculate the cost.

Total budget for legislative duties in a year divided by the # of bills passed/considered.
+
Total lobby budget on both sides for a typical gun law case.
+
Total amount of extra effort and cost of the pork needed to get it passed.
+
The difference in cost for the current agencies that would be required to enforce.

I don't have a clue as to what this comes out to be. But i still bet its more nothing.

Is that resaonable?

So you're talking about total money spent by all parties, not just cost in tax dollars?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm going to say 1.5 billion. That's the smallest amount you should use the word billions on.

So what would the smallest amount you would use "billions and billions" on? Would it be 4 billion, or would it be 3 billion?

 

[KAWDUP]

So you're talking about total money spent by all parties, not just cost in tax dollars?

Well that is an added cost, no? No bill - no lobby money needed to promote/kill it?

 

[KAWDUP]

So you're talking about total money spent by all parties, not just cost in tax dollars?

Well except for a resaonable size portion of the lobby money, what part isn't being paid by our taxes?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well that is an added cost, no? No bill - no lobby money needed to promote/kill it?

I'm not putting words into your mouth, but I believe in a previous you used the term (or close to) the cost to "John Q Public..."

So I would say, whatever private interests spend isn't part of the calculus, no...

 

[KAWDUP]

Still hung up on this huh? Let it go man, let it go.

Not hung up on it so much as butt hurt over being thought of as not making a logical argument in this case. I never let anything go, don't you know that by now?

 

[redandguilty]

Nice recovery, you wouldn't want to be seen as taking sides. :*)

OK numbers man here is how I would calculate the cost.

Total budget for legislative duties in a year divided by the # of bills passed/considered.
+
Total lobby budget on both sides for a typical gun law case.
+
Total amount of extra effort and cost of the pork needed to get it passed.
+
The difference in cost for the current agencies that would be required to enforce.

I don't have a clue as to what this comes out to be. But i still bet it's more than nothing.

Is that resaonable?

I wouldn't count all of it. If the Koch bros spend money trying to stop something from happening, that shouldn't count as a cost. But I think it's clear that most stuff proposed would probably be worth it. If you use the government human life value, the cost of 1% of the gun death in the US is equivalent to 2.4 times the entire ATF budget. Based on that, I think it's safe to say we should stick to ideological arguments because the fiscal ones just aren't there. You could double the ATF budget, pay $1.6 billion to cover pork and such, and if the number of gun deaths dropped just 1% it would be worth it...even in cold-hearted, unfeeling, numbers driven terms.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well except for a resaonable size portion of the lobby money, what part isn't being paid by our taxes?

Yes, it's all paid by taxes, and yes, the cost probably won't be zero.

But I wouldn't see why it would significantly raise the cost of the day to day operation of the ATF that is already in place.

There might be a very slight drop in tax revenues from the end of the taxes on the sales on the assault weaapons; again, probably not significant...

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm not putting words into your mouth, but I believe in a previous you used the term (or close to) the cost to "John Q Public..."

So I would say, whatever private interests spend isn't part of the calculus, no...

Ok, we would need to determine what percentage was really being funded by sources other than those based on taxes in some way. I know that it is way above 0 from some personal experience with a lobbyist friend I have.

What percentage would you recommend? 30-50? Whatever it is, multiply that lobby value by the approriate percentage.

 

[redandguilty]

So what would the smallest amount you would use "billions and billions" on? Would it be 4 billion, or would it be 3 billion?

More. Maybe 6. Seems like it has to be more than a few.

 

[KAWDUP]

I wouldn't count all of it. If the Koch bros spend money trying to stop something from happening, that shouldn't count as a cost. But I think it's clear that most stuff proposed would probably be worth it. If you use the government human life value, the cost of 1% of the gun death in the US is equivalent to 2.4 times the entire ATF budget. Based on that, I think it's safe to say we should stick to ideological arguments because the fiscal ones just aren't there. You could double the ATF budget, pay $1.6 billion to cover pork and such, and if the number of gun deaths dropped just 1% it would be worth it...even in cold-hearted, unfeeling, numbers driven terms.

Not so fast. You think 1% is reasonable? Is that what happend the previous time we did it? I don't know so I am asking, but my number would come in pretty far below that.

 

[KAWDUP]

More. Maybe 6. Seems like it has to be more than a few.

. . . but would saying X billions imply "billiions and billions"

Based on 1.5 number, I would guess no, but thought I would ask as that is what I said. Billions and billions came from somewhere else.

 

[KAWDUP]

Yes, it's all paid by taxes, and yes, the cost probably won't be zero.

But I wouldn't see why it would significantly raise the cost of the day to day operation of the ATF that is already in place.

There might be a very slight drop in tax revenues from the end of the taxes on the sales on the assault weaapons; again, probably not significant...

No more employees needed for any extra enforcement needed? No increase in administrative costs to track the data needed, both for efficient operation and reporting back to Congress to determine success?

i'm sure there are more, but will have to think about it some.

 

[redandguilty]

Not so fast. You think 1% is reasonable? Is that what happend the previous time we did it? I don't know so I am asking, but my number would come in pretty far below that.

I don't know. That's why I went with such a small impact, to see if these things were even of the same magnitude. If a 1% reduction in death only got you a 5% increase in the ATF budgetl, then maybe it's unclear if the finances work out.

I think it's safe to assume that if you pass legislation that results in double the ATF budget, you'd get more than a 1% reduction in guns deaths. Depends on the legislation of course, but any reasonable effort should get some response. If the reduction is 10%, then it's a financial slam-dunk.

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm not putting words into your mouth, but I believe in a previous you used the term (or close to) the cost to "John Q Public..."

So I would say, whatever private interests spend isn't part of the calculus, no...

Correct - it depends on how much of the union money, the warchest money, etc was gotten from just personal input and not stemming from taxes. Certainly tax advantages are gained all the time through lobbying, and that means serious bucks garnered from a tax break. Or are we not counting that?

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't know. That's why I went with such a small impact, to see if these things were even of the same magnitude. If a 1% reduction in death only got you a 5% increase in the ATF budgetl, then maybe it's unclear if the finances work out.

I think it's safe to assume that if you pass legislation that results in double the ATF budget, you'd get more than a 1% reduction in guns deaths. Depends on the legislation of course, but any reasonable effort should get some response. If the reduction is 10%, then it's a financial slam-dunk.

Well you said it, not me - it depends on the legislation. Suppose the bill just bans certain magazine clips and some assault weapons. You are assuming a bunch more than I ever implied. I am still talking about gun bans and the way they have always been implemented in the past. I don't think I am making a big leap of faith that it would be any different than previous attempts?

Keep in mind I am not talking about a gun control bill that does all kind of neat stuff to remove loopholes and share information. Specifically a gun ban bill.

 

[redandguilty]

Alternately, you could create an organization the size of the ATF, and have another $1.6 billion (every year) on the side to cover pork, that just worries about background checks and ways to identify and counsel people that might try to hurt themselves or others...and a 1% reduction in gun deaths would justify the expense.

 

[Thumb]

This may be a bit below the belt, but fuck it.

KAWDUP why don't you call some people from Columbine or Aurora or Sandy Hook and ask then if it matters where the money being spent comes from?

You're seriously going to fret over the cost of potentially saving hundreds or more lives, and making our society safer? This country has wasted untold TRILLIONS (someone translate exactly how much I mean by that) on wars and all sorts of things, but suddenly you're worried that the fiscal cost per/life might not be worth it?

Who fucking cares what it costs? The level of gun violence is staggering, and lets not try to say it was all because of mental problems and fix them with nano chips, because plenty of sane people decided to bust a few caps too.

Were constantly inundated with the message that guns are an extension of our own hands, and a "constitutional" and "god given right" of all Americans to possess and carry, and all these people are upset that Billy Bob and Roscoe might not be able to have 40 round mags for their AK's and AR's because of bunch of "bleedin' heart libs wanna take yer guns!" Zyxt is right on one thing, it's going to take more than just this legislation to make much of a difference, but we have to start somewhere. You can count the dollars for us okay?

/rant

 

[redandguilty]

Well you said it, not me - it depends on the legislation. Suppose the bill just bans certain magazine clips and some assault weapons. You are assuming a bunch more than I ever implied. I am still talking about gun bans and the way they have always been implemented in the past. I don't think I am making a big leap of faith that it would be any different than previous attempts?

Keep in mind I am not talking about a gun control bill that does all kind of neat stuff to remove loopholes and share information. Specifically a gun ban bill.

I'm just talking about cost sensitivity. You can start a whole new ATF sized organization just to enforce the new gun ban and it barely has to do squat to justify its existence financially.