Another Poor Gun Victim of Violent Spree

[zyxt9]

I don't know that anybody has advoted not doing this.

well i sure have been getting some feedback that would imply people are against it, but i'll leave that for another day. as i said, whether it be chips or something else, as long as that is the end goal, i'm good.

now let's go get the 1st down.

 

[Michchamp]

why would the amount of $$$ spent on lobbying be considered an issue for taxpayers?

If the NRA wants to pay Senator So-and-so for a pricey lunch over which they can tell him how many people Bushmaster will lay off in his state if an assault weapons ban passes, it's not really a taxpayer issue.

 

[KAWDUP]

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

Where did you ever get the notion that I care how much it costs? Remember I wasn't the one who started talking about the actual costs. I am all for saving human lives. You didn't get that? The cost argument was brought up in an effort to actually gauge that cost-benefit. I am not being un-feeling just looking at curbing violence realistically, similar to when everyone is drinking the koolaid about some issue, and someone is there trying to keep it real.

The point Zyxt is making is 80% of my original point. In your rant, you are going back to arguing the original question. If you want to take that part of the conversation up again, I am willing.

Needs to be said again? With limited resources (they aren't infinite), choices where "bang for your buck" would need to be made. As I have maintained all through this, a ban on guns would be ineffective in curbing violence - at least in comparison to the myriad of things that should be done. That is where everyone brings in the idyllic world, "well if just saves one life isn't it worth anything we spend?" I already answered that. If limited resources aren't any issue, then yes of course it is. If they are an issue, as they are in a real world, possibly not.

Is it that much of a fine point that you think I am some gun nut on a 2nd Amendment mission?

Well just the opposite is true. I am trully sorry if you can't see that.

 

[KAWDUP]

why would the amount of $$$ spent on lobbying be considered an issue for taxpayers?

If the NRA wants to pay Senator So-and-so for a pricey lunch over which they can tell him how many people Bushmaster will lay off in his state if an assault weapons ban passes, it's not really a taxpayer issue.

You didn't see the explanation or just think its not possible?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Anyway, again the last assault weapon ban happened back in the 90s, and in many of those years the government budget was running at a surplus.

So it didn't have a deliterious (sp?) on the cost of government, it would seem.

 

[redandguilty]

The cost argument was brought up in an effort to actually gauge that cost-benefit. I am not being un-feeling just looking at curbing violence realistically, similar to when everyone is drinking the koolaid about some issue, and someone is there trying to keep it real.

I actually looked some numbers up, do they count?

 

[KAWDUP]

Anyway, again the last assault weapon ban happened back in the 90s, and in many of those years the government budget was running at a surplus.

So it didn't have a deliterious (sp?) on the cost of government, it would seem.

That's a pretty blanket statement. Did you analyze what it's real cost was, see how it was actually enforced, and done a study of exactly how many lives were saved?

Of course it can cost nothing if you do nothing.


EDIT: btw you were close - it is "deleterious".

 

[tinselwolverine]

That's a pretty blanket statement. Did you analyze what it's real cost was, see how it was actually enforced, and done a study of exactly how many lives were saved?

Of course it can cost nothing if you do nothing.

No, but since the discussion always turns on ideology as opposed to budgetary, the cost of the change in the law would assumably to be relatively neglible, prima facie...

 

[KAWDUP]

No, but since the discussion always turns on ideology as opposed to budgetary, the cost of the change in the law would assumably to be relatively neglible, prima facie...

OK so what's the hold-up with passing a gun ban?

 

[KAWDUP]

I actually looked some numbers up, do they count?

Sure, where did you get your 1% number?

 

[KAWDUP]

No, but since the discussion always turns on ideology as opposed to budgetary, the cost of the change in the law would assumably to be relatively neglible, prima facie...

Not sure about that - unless you are talking only about the ideology of "how effective a gun ban would be".

If you leave the emotion out of the rest of it, the discussion really doesn't turn just on ideology but on some realistic factors.

How about the life or death decisions made every day by other people in power - aren't those similar to the kinds of decisions needed? E. g. (medical boards and organ transplants). Severe example, of course, because limitations of reources there are absolute, but nonetheless a decision that needs to be made rationally the same as in our discussion? Or are you saying that turns only on ideology too?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Not sure about that - unless you are talking only about the ideology of "how effective a gun ban would be".

If you leave the emotion out of the rest of it, the discussion really doesn't turn just on ideology but on some realistic factors.

How ...discussion? Or are you saying that turns only on ideology too?

Neither ideology nor financial considerations have anything to do those decisions.

All medical decisions of that nature are determined by a lottery.

Or a karoake competion.

Sometimes a combination of the two.

 

[KAWDUP]

Neither ideology nor financial considerations have anything to do those decisions.

All medical decisions of that nature are determined by a lottery.

Or a karoake competion.

Sometimes a combination of the two.

Well certainly in practice, politics plays a pretty big part in our discussion. I equate that to your lottery/karoake competition.

Bunch of clowns running around trying to get you to vote for them.

But sometime facts do get in there to affect things don't they? Does the cigarate smokin'70 year old get the lung before the 25 year old with a wife and three kids? Are you saying that that isn't taken into consideration at all? If so, that is an even bigger tragedy.

Maybe someone who knows will weigh in.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well certainly in practice, politics plays a pretty big part in our discussion. I equate that to your lottery/karoake competition.

Bunch of clowns running around trying to get you to vote for them.

But sometime facts do get in there to affect things don't they? Does the cigarate smokin'70 year old get the lung before the 25 year old with a wife and three kids? Are you saying that that isn't taken into consideration at all? If so, that is an even bigger tragedy.

Maybe someone who knows will weigh in.

Mickey Mantle got a liver while those around him died.

Then he died of cancer about five minutes later.

Go figure.

 

[KAWDUP]

Mickey Mantle got a liver while those around him died.

Then he died of cancer about five minutes later.

Go figure.

He had a bigger more powerful lobby.

 

[redandguilty]

Sure, where did you get your 1% number?

I selected it to represent a small percentage. I started with the arbitrary 1% I selected and determined, using the value for life the government used in 2011, how much would the benefit of a 1% improvement be worth. The number I got was 2.4 times the entire ATF budget. That allows us some frame of reference when we talk about these things. I don't know how much of the ATF budget is focused of just the F part, but something banning firearms...you wouldn't think would increase the budget of the entire organization by more than 10%...not just to expand on what they already do. So the practical gains needed to justify the move would only require a fraction of 1%. Nevermind that it probably wouldn't have a significant impact, the number of people it would have to save to justify the expense is small even in cold-hearted terms (13 people). At that point, it's not the finances driving the argument anyway.

1 person = 0.79% of the ATF budget. 10 people = 7.9%. 100 people = 79%.

You've got a plan that would save 1,000 lives? If it doesn't cost more than 8 times the budget of the ATF, money isn't the issue.

 

[KAWDUP]

I selected it to represent a small percentage. I started with the arbitrary 1% I selected and determined, using the value for life the government used in 2011, how much would the benefit of a 1% improvement be worth. The number I got was 2.4 times the entire ATF budget. That allows us some frame of reference when we talk about these things. I don't know how much of the ATF budget is focused of just the F part, but something banning firearms...you wouldn't think would increase the budget of the entire organization by more than 10%...not just to expand on what they already do. So the practical gains needed to justify the move would only require a fraction of 1%. Nevermind that it probably wouldn't have a significant impact, the number of people it would have to save to justify the expense is small even in cold-hearted terms (13 people). At that point, it's not the finances driving the argument anyway.

1 person = 0.79% of the ATF budget. 10 people = 7.9%. 100 people = 79%.

You've got a plan that would save 1,000 lives? If it doesn't cost more than 8 times the budget of the ATF, money isn't the issue.

How many people, based on violent deaths is 1%? So are you saying there were 1300 violent deaths total in the US, or is that 1300 people killed with a specific type of weapon being banned? . . . or something else. Someone posted a link to the crime figures - I will have to go back and look.

 

[redandguilty]

How many people, based on violent deaths is 1%? So are you saying there were 1300 violent deaths total in the US, or is that 1300 people killed with a specific type of weapon being banned? . . . or something else. Someone posted a link to the crime figures - I will have to go back and look.

Don't worry about the 1%. I thought it would be helpful, but I just muddled the issue with the 1%. 1 life saved = 0.79% of the ATF budget. Go with that.

 

[KAWDUP]

Don't worry about the 1%. I thought it would be helpful, but I just muddled the issue with the 1%. 1 life saved = 0.79% of the ATF budget. Go with that.

I guess I am confused by this statement: "You've got a plan that would save 1,000 lives? If it doesn't cost more than 8 times the budget of the ATF, money isn't the issue. "

Are you saying that unless something costs more than $10.8 Billion, for 1000 lives saved, it is good, it is worth it, it is more more economical, or it is just that a gun ban would be better than the said plan? Trying to see what your conclusion (.79% = 1 life saved) gets you as it pertains to statements made about the amount of money available to spend on curbing violence?

Maybe I'd be interested in what your estimate would be for how many lives a gun ban would save? Then I could relate that to the total cost, and thus have something to compare cost vs lives saved for other methods.

I guess the convo died - you can skip the answer if you prefer.

 

[redandguilty]

I guess I am confused by this statement: "You've got a plan that would save 1,000 lives? If it doesn't cost more than 8 times the budget of the ATF, money isn't the issue. "

Are you saying that unless something costs more than $10.8 Billion, for 1000 lives saved, it is good, it is worth it, it is more more economical, or it is just that a gun ban would be better than the said plan? Trying to see what your conclusion (.79% = 1 life saved) gets you as it pertains to statements made about the amount of money available to spend on curbing violence?

Maybe I'd be interested in what your estimate would be for how many lives a gun ban would save? Then I could relate that to the total cost, and thus have something to compare cost vs lives saved for other methods.

I guess the convo died - you can skip the answer if you prefer.

The government already makes these kinds of decisions. The most recent number I found was from 2011. At that time, the value of a human life was estimated to be $9.1 million. So 1,000 lives would be worth $9.1 billion which is about 8 times the budget of the ATF. I haven't made any estimate about how many lives something would save. You can make your own estimate, and this comparison should make it clear that the main argument for or against whatever it is you're talking about isn't money. The argument can be about effectiveness or individual rights or some other thing, but it's not about money. To come up with an estimate where a program isn't worth the cost, you have to 1st decide that the strategy just doesn't work...and if that's what you really want to say, then say that.