Author Topic: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?  (Read 365 times)

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« on: January 31, 2013, 09:21:35 AM »
ll kinds of proposals to reduce gun violence have been floated recently. One idea that has gotten the attention of economists is liability insurance. Most states require car owners to have liability insurance to cover damages their vehicles cause to others; some economists think we should require the same of gun owners.

We reached out to a few economists to get their thoughts.

Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, wrote:

The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.
The economic answer is simple: Make potential gun owners take account of these potential social costs. One way to do this would be to charge an annual license fee for each gun you keep. Research by economists Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. While that's a wide range, if we set a gun ownership license fee this high, it would force gun owners to face the true social costs of their choices, which would lead many fewer to buy guns.
Another even more powerful approach is to recognize that the problem isn't guns per se, but gun violence. Thus, instead of taxing guns, we should tax gun violence. Basically, this is the same as saying that we should make gun owners liable for any damage their guns do. Not only would this discourage some people from buying guns, it would lead those who do keep guns to be more careful with how they're stored. Indeed, greater care would surely have kept Adam Lanza out of his mother's cache. The problem, though, is that Nancy Lanza is neither with us to pay the damages her gun caused, nor could she afford to pay for the enormous damage her gun wrought in Newtown. And so the only way this solution works is if guns required mandatory liability insurance, much as we force car owners to buy insurance for the damage their machines wreak.
It's the sort of careful solution that would enable people who enjoy hunting to continue with their passions, but also push them to take the sorts of precautions that we all wish the Lanza household had taken. If the gun lobby were smart, and if they really are interested in being socially responsible while keeping their weapons, they would be pushing hard for this sort of policy.
Next, Russ Roberts, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and host of EconTalk:

Is it a good idea to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance that would cover damages caused by the guns they own? In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, such policies seem like nothing more than common sense. The cost of the insurance would deter some from owning guns or at least from owning an arsenal, as the cost of insurance would presumably rise with the size of one's collection. And there is a certain logic to requiring insurance. When a person purchases a gun, she may not consider the possible harm that might come to others from the eventual use of the gun. Adding the cost of insurance might make the purchaser bear the full cost of the gun in the future, which could easily exceed the purchase itself. After all, registering a car requires insurance on the grounds that cars can cause involuntary harm to others. The insurance forces the driver to bear those costs that might come to pass that are borne by others in an accident.
But the logic is not quite as neat as it might appear. Many people already buy and own guns illegally without license or registration. Adding the cost of insurance would further discourage honest gun ownership. That would make matters worse, not better. And is it so obvious that all guns are harmful to others and that gun ownership should be made more expensive to every owner? When an honest, law-abiding citizen uses a gun in self-defense, it often protects those nearby who are unarmed. Perhaps gun ownership should be subsidized for honest people. I don't think this is a good idea, but raising the cost of gun ownership, particularly for good and honest people who are likely to use a gun only in self-defense, is not a free lunch.
What is really behind the call for liability insurance is the natural urge to make it harder for people to own guns. Such a law might do some good if it made dishonest and violent people less likely to own guns. But liability insurance makes gun ownership more expensive for honest, law-abiding people while encouraging dishonest and dangerous people to own guns in ways we cannot see.
And, Robert Frank, professor of economics at Cornell University:

Gun ownership, even in the hands of responsible people, increases the risk of death and serious injury to others. In cases involving multiple deaths, few gun owners could afford to compensate victims' families for their losses, just as most automobile owners couldn't afford to compensate the families of accident victims. With automobiles, we require all vehicle owners to carry liability insurance. A similar approach would help with firearms.
Nothing in the constitution grants people the right to expose others to serious risk without compensation. Insurance sellers are skillful at estimating the risks posed by drivers with specific characteristics, and we could expect them to be similarly skillful at assessing the risks posed by gun owners. Requiring liability insurance isn't a total solution to the problem of excessive risk, either for autos or for guns. But in both cases, it's a positive step.
 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10917
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Karma: -1130
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2013, 09:59:08 PM »
I like the train of thought your on, about looking for free market solutions to the problem of gun violence.  But if it's a Federal Requirement to purchase insurance, like it is with car insurance, then that's not really a "free market" solution; because the government is setting the mandate.
*******

"I will make records as big or bigger than Death Row".   -Dre, Source 1996

"I didn't do nothing but make people money and I didn't leave nobody high and dry.  Any album (on death row) people are going to check for.  But it's time for Dre to worry about Dre.  I'm focused on the new Snoop Doggs, not like that but you know what I mean."

Dre -  Source 1996 cover

"Eminem will be bigger than Michael Jackson as long as he doesn't change."

-Dre, Rolling Stones mag 1999 Em cover

********
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7281
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2013, 08:47:15 AM »
I like the train of thought your on, about looking for free market solutions to the problem of gun violence.  But if it's a Federal Requirement to purchase insurance, like it is with car insurance, then that's not really a "free market" solution; because the government is setting the mandate.

Exactly. There's nothing free market about it.

It also doesn't adress the fact everyone wants to ignore, that 75 to 80 percent of gun murders are by illegal guns in the hands of gang members.

People need to stop using exceptions to define the rules. Legalize all illicit drugs and see how fast gun murders go down.
 

Will_B

  • Guest
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2013, 11:18:56 AM »
It also doesn't adress the fact everyone wants to ignore, that 75 to 80 percent of gun murders are by illegal guns in the hands of gang members.

Massacres and 'acidental' shootings however are not.
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7281
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2013, 12:02:38 PM »
It also doesn't adress the fact everyone wants to ignore, that 75 to 80 percent of gun murders are by illegal guns in the hands of gang members.

Massacres and 'acidental' shootings however are not.


Let's look that this logically, as in mathematically; There are about 12 to 15 thousand gun murders a year. 8 to 9 hundred accidental gun deaths each year, and under 2 hendred total killed from mass shootings in the history of the US, so let be me generous and say 20 people a year die from massacres by gun. Hell, I'll even up it to 50.

So you have the choice of getting rid of 10,000 murders a year or 850 murders a year plus 50 murders a year for an even 900. Just legalize the fucking drugs and Adam Lanza probably would have ODed on something months before he ever grabbed that gun.
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 01:30:13 PM »
For me, I'd try to do what I can to reduce murders by legal guns first. That's the easiest thing to do right away, then I'd worry about illegal guns. Of course I'd also legalize weed in all 50 states and set up ways drug addicts can get "harder" drugs legally and for free in an effort to stop illegal drug sales. But that's just me. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats have a much better solution. * sarcasm*
 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10917
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Karma: -1130
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2013, 06:04:40 PM »

Exactly. There's nothing free market about it.

It also doesn't adress the fact everyone wants to ignore, that 75 to 80 percent of gun murders are by illegal guns in the hands of gang members.

People need to stop using exceptions to define the rules. Legalize all illicit drugs and see how fast gun murders go down.

yep
*******

"I will make records as big or bigger than Death Row".   -Dre, Source 1996

"I didn't do nothing but make people money and I didn't leave nobody high and dry.  Any album (on death row) people are going to check for.  But it's time for Dre to worry about Dre.  I'm focused on the new Snoop Doggs, not like that but you know what I mean."

Dre -  Source 1996 cover

"Eminem will be bigger than Michael Jackson as long as he doesn't change."

-Dre, Rolling Stones mag 1999 Em cover

********
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7281
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2013, 08:44:54 PM »
For me, I'd try to do what I can to reduce murders by legal guns first. That's the easiest thing to do right away, then I'd worry about illegal guns. Of course I'd also legalize weed in all 50 states and set up ways drug addicts can get "harder" drugs legally and for free in an effort to stop illegal drug sales. But that's just me. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats have a much better solution. * sarcasm*


The problem is that most people want to stop massacres rather than gun crime from legal or illegal guns, and mainly for emotional reasons. You simply cannot prevent the 1 out of 1000 everyday loon from going extra crazy. And no matter what the laws are there is going to be someone that figures out away to kill a lot of people and then a few more people attempting to copycat the crime soon after. Then all the people that are now complaining about the gun laws as they are will look at how that person slipped through the cracks and want laws in place so that that specific crime may have been prevented.

You simply cannot watch all the people all the time and eventually someone wil sneak by whatever laws are in place and do something very bad.

If something is an epidemic that endangers the lives of people everyday something needs to be done about it, but if something happens once in a blue moon you just have to accept that. Evil has to exist. No point trying to stop it completely.  I read that there are 3 million AR-15 in the USA. How many people have died due to AR-15? A hundred maybe. What's that percentage? 0.0 something.

Adam Lanza had Asperger syndrome, apparently, and people now say that's a mental illness and no one with it should be able to get a gun. No gun law would have stoped his mother from getting guns and most wouldn't have stopped him.

Had Adam Lanza lived in Canada he would have been able to apply for a gun permit and purchase a Beretta Cx4 Storm or Ruger Mini-14 and done the same thing he did at Sandy Hook. A fully automatic Bushmaster can get off 800 RPM. The Ruger Mini can do 750. Not a huge difference. And a skilled shooter can very easily load and re-load a doubled barrel shot gun and in an eclosed school that can kill a lot of people too.

My point is that if when the i-phone6 comes out and at the New York or Chicago premiere a loon drives a honda civic propane filled car bomb into the lineup and blows up 300 people, and then a toyota blows up 200 at another preimiere 4 months later you would hear idiots on TV and in congress talking about banning japanese cars, propane, and even the amount of people allowed at a premiere or big premieres in general. "If propane wasn't so readily avaliable those people wouldn't have died". I garaunfuckingtee you'd hear that.


Oh, and appaently El Paso and Laredo Texas have some of the loosest gun laws in the country and have more guns than people and are of the safest cities in America, while right across the lake is Jurez Mexico with very strict gun laws and a whole lot of murder. And the majority of El Paso are from Juarez. You know what probably would have happened to Adam Lanza in El Paso? He would have gotten shot by a neighbor by the time he made it to the first class room, once said neighbor heard gun shots coming from the school. But God Forbid anyone talk about how many violent crimes are prevented because of the existence of legal guns in law abiding hands.
 

Russell Bell

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1869
  • Karma: -219
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2013, 08:50:04 PM »
For me, I'd try to do what I can to reduce murders by legal guns first. That's the easiest thing to do right away, then I'd worry about illegal guns. Of course I'd also legalize weed in all 50 states and set up ways drug addicts can get "harder" drugs legally and for free in an effort to stop illegal drug sales. But that's just me. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats have a much better solution. * sarcasm*


The problem is that most people want to stop massacres rather than gun crime from legal or illegal guns, and mainly for emotional reasons. You simply cannot prevent the 1 out of 1000 everyday loon from going extra crazy. And no matter what the laws are there is going to be someone that figures out away to kill a lot of people and then a few more people attempting to copycat the crime soon after. Then all the people that are now complaining about the gun laws as they are will look at how that person slipped through the cracks and want laws in place so that that specific crime may have been prevented.

You simply cannot watch all the people all the time and eventually someone wil sneak by whatever laws are in place and do something very bad.

If something is an epidemic that endangers the lives of people everyday something needs to be done about it, but if something happens once in a blue moon you just have to accept that. Evil has to exist. No point trying to stop it completely.  I read that there are 3 million AR-15 in the USA. How many people have died due to AR-15? A hundred maybe. What's that percentage? 0.0 something.

Adam Lanza had Asperger syndrome, apparently, and people now say that's a mental illness and no one with it should be able to get a gun. No gun law would have stoped his mother from getting guns and most wouldn't have stopped him.

Had Adam Lanza lived in Canada he would have been able to apply for a gun permit and purchase a Beretta Cx4 Storm or Ruger Mini-14 and done the same thing he did at Sandy Hook. A fully automatic Bushmaster can get off 800 RPM. The Ruger Mini can do 750. Not a huge difference. And a skilled shooter can very easily load and re-load a doubled barrel shot gun and in an eclosed school that can kill a lot of people too.

My point is that if when the i-phone6 comes out and at the New York or Chicago premiere a loon drives a honda civic propane filled car bomb into the lineup and blows up 300 people, and then a toyota blows up 200 at another preimiere 4 months later you would hear idiots on TV and in congress talking about banning japanese cars, propane, and even the amount of people allowed at a premiere or big premieres in general. "If propane wasn't so readily avaliable those people wouldn't have died". I garaunfuckingtee you'd hear that.


Oh, and appaently El Paso and Laredo Texas have some of the loosest gun laws in the country and have more guns than people and are of the safest cities in America, while right across the lake is Jurez Mexico with very strict gun laws and a whole lot of murder. And the majority of El Paso are from Juarez. You know what probably would have happened to Adam Lanza in El Paso? He would have gotten shot by a neighbor by the time he made it to the first class room, once said neighbor heard gun shots coming from the school. But God Forbid anyone talk about how many violent crimes are prevented because of the existence of legal guns in law abiding hands.

How dare you put facts and context to this issue.

What a stupid American.
Money like Draymond Green.....yuuup
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2013, 10:33:53 PM »
For me, I'd try to do what I can to reduce murders by legal guns first. That's the easiest thing to do right away, then I'd worry about illegal guns. Of course I'd also legalize weed in all 50 states and set up ways drug addicts can get "harder" drugs legally and for free in an effort to stop illegal drug sales. But that's just me. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats have a much better solution. * sarcasm*


The problem is that most people want to stop massacres rather than gun crime from legal or illegal guns, and mainly for emotional reasons. You simply cannot prevent the 1 out of 1000 everyday loon from going extra crazy. And no matter what the laws are there is going to be someone that figures out away to kill a lot of people and then a few more people attempting to copycat the crime soon after. Then all the people that are now complaining about the gun laws as they are will look at how that person slipped through the cracks and want laws in place so that that specific crime may have been prevented.

You simply cannot watch all the people all the time and eventually someone wil sneak by whatever laws are in place and do something very bad.

If something is an epidemic that endangers the lives of people everyday something needs to be done about it, but if something happens once in a blue moon you just have to accept that. Evil has to exist. No point trying to stop it completely.  I read that there are 3 million AR-15 in the USA. How many people have died due to AR-15? A hundred maybe. What's that percentage? 0.0 something.

Adam Lanza had Asperger syndrome, apparently, and people now say that's a mental illness and no one with it should be able to get a gun. No gun law would have stoped his mother from getting guns and most wouldn't have stopped him.

Had Adam Lanza lived in Canada he would have been able to apply for a gun permit and purchase a Beretta Cx4 Storm or Ruger Mini-14 and done the same thing he did at Sandy Hook. A fully automatic Bushmaster can get off 800 RPM. The Ruger Mini can do 750. Not a huge difference. And a skilled shooter can very easily load and re-load a doubled barrel shot gun and in an eclosed school that can kill a lot of people too.

My point is that if when the i-phone6 comes out and at the New York or Chicago premiere a loon drives a honda civic propane filled car bomb into the lineup and blows up 300 people, and then a toyota blows up 200 at another preimiere 4 months later you would hear idiots on TV and in congress talking about banning japanese cars, propane, and even the amount of people allowed at a premiere or big premieres in general. "If propane wasn't so readily avaliable those people wouldn't have died". I garaunfuckingtee you'd hear that.


Oh, and appaently El Paso and Laredo Texas have some of the loosest gun laws in the country and have more guns than people and are of the safest cities in America, while right across the lake is Jurez Mexico with very strict gun laws and a whole lot of murder. And the majority of El Paso are from Juarez. You know what probably would have happened to Adam Lanza in El Paso? He would have gotten shot by a neighbor by the time he made it to the first class room, once said neighbor heard gun shots coming from the school. But God Forbid anyone talk about how many violent crimes are prevented because of the existence of legal guns in law abiding hands.

How dare you put facts and context to this issue.

What a stupid American.

I think he made my point. I was being sarcastic.

I saw the article about economist wanting to use the method, and though, DUBCC is a free market place, why not see what people think. You know what, this section is suppose to get you THINKING!!
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7281
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2013, 07:08:07 AM »
For me, I'd try to do what I can to reduce murders by legal guns first. That's the easiest thing to do right away, then I'd worry about illegal guns. Of course I'd also legalize weed in all 50 states and set up ways drug addicts can get "harder" drugs legally and for free in an effort to stop illegal drug sales. But that's just me. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats have a much better solution. * sarcasm*


The problem is that most people want to stop massacres rather than gun crime from legal or illegal guns, and mainly for emotional reasons. You simply cannot prevent the 1 out of 1000 everyday loon from going extra crazy. And no matter what the laws are there is going to be someone that figures out away to kill a lot of people and then a few more people attempting to copycat the crime soon after. Then all the people that are now complaining about the gun laws as they are will look at how that person slipped through the cracks and want laws in place so that that specific crime may have been prevented.

You simply cannot watch all the people all the time and eventually someone wil sneak by whatever laws are in place and do something very bad.

If something is an epidemic that endangers the lives of people everyday something needs to be done about it, but if something happens once in a blue moon you just have to accept that. Evil has to exist. No point trying to stop it completely.  I read that there are 3 million AR-15 in the USA. How many people have died due to AR-15? A hundred maybe. What's that percentage? 0.0 something.

Adam Lanza had Asperger syndrome, apparently, and people now say that's a mental illness and no one with it should be able to get a gun. No gun law would have stoped his mother from getting guns and most wouldn't have stopped him.

Had Adam Lanza lived in Canada he would have been able to apply for a gun permit and purchase a Beretta Cx4 Storm or Ruger Mini-14 and done the same thing he did at Sandy Hook. A fully automatic Bushmaster can get off 800 RPM. The Ruger Mini can do 750. Not a huge difference. And a skilled shooter can very easily load and re-load a doubled barrel shot gun and in an eclosed school that can kill a lot of people too.

My point is that if when the i-phone6 comes out and at the New York or Chicago premiere a loon drives a honda civic propane filled car bomb into the lineup and blows up 300 people, and then a toyota blows up 200 at another preimiere 4 months later you would hear idiots on TV and in congress talking about banning japanese cars, propane, and even the amount of people allowed at a premiere or big premieres in general. "If propane wasn't so readily avaliable those people wouldn't have died". I garaunfuckingtee you'd hear that.


Oh, and appaently El Paso and Laredo Texas have some of the loosest gun laws in the country and have more guns than people and are of the safest cities in America, while right across the lake is Jurez Mexico with very strict gun laws and a whole lot of murder. And the majority of El Paso are from Juarez. You know what probably would have happened to Adam Lanza in El Paso? He would have gotten shot by a neighbor by the time he made it to the first class room, once said neighbor heard gun shots coming from the school. But God Forbid anyone talk about how many violent crimes are prevented because of the existence of legal guns in law abiding hands.

How dare you put facts and context to this issue.

What a stupid American.

I think he made my point. I was being sarcastic.

I saw the article about economist wanting to use the method, and though, DUBCC is a free market place, why not see what people think. You know what, this section is suppose to get you THINKING!!


Sorry, I thought the sarcsam part only applied to the Dems and Reps having a better solution.
 

M Dogg™

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: Is there a free market solution to stopping gun violence?
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2013, 02:27:17 PM »
For me, I'd try to do what I can to reduce murders by legal guns first. That's the easiest thing to do right away, then I'd worry about illegal guns. Of course I'd also legalize weed in all 50 states and set up ways drug addicts can get "harder" drugs legally and for free in an effort to stop illegal drug sales. But that's just me. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats have a much better solution. * sarcasm*


The problem is that most people want to stop massacres rather than gun crime from legal or illegal guns, and mainly for emotional reasons. You simply cannot prevent the 1 out of 1000 everyday loon from going extra crazy. And no matter what the laws are there is going to be someone that figures out away to kill a lot of people and then a few more people attempting to copycat the crime soon after. Then all the people that are now complaining about the gun laws as they are will look at how that person slipped through the cracks and want laws in place so that that specific crime may have been prevented.

You simply cannot watch all the people all the time and eventually someone wil sneak by whatever laws are in place and do something very bad.

If something is an epidemic that endangers the lives of people everyday something needs to be done about it, but if something happens once in a blue moon you just have to accept that. Evil has to exist. No point trying to stop it completely.  I read that there are 3 million AR-15 in the USA. How many people have died due to AR-15? A hundred maybe. What's that percentage? 0.0 something.

Adam Lanza had Asperger syndrome, apparently, and people now say that's a mental illness and no one with it should be able to get a gun. No gun law would have stoped his mother from getting guns and most wouldn't have stopped him.

Had Adam Lanza lived in Canada he would have been able to apply for a gun permit and purchase a Beretta Cx4 Storm or Ruger Mini-14 and done the same thing he did at Sandy Hook. A fully automatic Bushmaster can get off 800 RPM. The Ruger Mini can do 750. Not a huge difference. And a skilled shooter can very easily load and re-load a doubled barrel shot gun and in an eclosed school that can kill a lot of people too.

My point is that if when the i-phone6 comes out and at the New York or Chicago premiere a loon drives a honda civic propane filled car bomb into the lineup and blows up 300 people, and then a toyota blows up 200 at another preimiere 4 months later you would hear idiots on TV and in congress talking about banning japanese cars, propane, and even the amount of people allowed at a premiere or big premieres in general. "If propane wasn't so readily avaliable those people wouldn't have died". I garaunfuckingtee you'd hear that.


Oh, and appaently El Paso and Laredo Texas have some of the loosest gun laws in the country and have more guns than people and are of the safest cities in America, while right across the lake is Jurez Mexico with very strict gun laws and a whole lot of murder. And the majority of El Paso are from Juarez. You know what probably would have happened to Adam Lanza in El Paso? He would have gotten shot by a neighbor by the time he made it to the first class room, once said neighbor heard gun shots coming from the school. But God Forbid anyone talk about how many violent crimes are prevented because of the existence of legal guns in law abiding hands.

How dare you put facts and context to this issue.

What a stupid American.

I think he made my point. I was being sarcastic.

I saw the article about economist wanting to use the method, and though, DUBCC is a free market place, why not see what people think. You know what, this section is suppose to get you THINKING!!


Sorry, I thought the sarcsam part only applied to the Dems and Reps having a better solution.

Let's put it this way, the only thing I wasn't sarcastic about was the legalizing weed part.