2019 dem primary debates

[glenn1]

Don't forget, I could have murdered 7 people between the time I bought that first gun from you and the time I want to buy the second.

If every time you wanted to drive a car do you go check in with the police first to ensure you don't have a DUI since the last time you drove?

I mean, that's kind of the point isn't it? To limit the flow of firearms, as well as track who's got them? That sounds more like a feature, not a bug.

Someone who seriously wants a firearm is going to go through the rigmarole, and someone who's on a 'whim' or possibly looking to do something on the spur of the moment will have a chance to reconsider after the second or third trip to the FFL.

Most (if not all) the recent mass shooters have gotten their firearms while being completely compliant with the gun control laws in place. Someone planning to mass murder dozens of people likely isn't going to reconsider just because they need to make 2 trips to the FFL any more than someone planning a car bomb would be troubled by making more than 1 trip to the DMV. For the 99.999% of people just wanting to transact business with the least amount of hassles though, making them just through unneeded hoops won't have any more effect than the 24-hour waiting period does to reduce abortions. It will just annoy them and make them reconsider doing things the "legal" way.

Like I said, I know you don't care about whether a prospective gun owner is hassled anymore than pro-lifers care about whether a woman seeking an abortion is hassled in getting hers. Considering that compliance rates with legal safeguards are directly influenced by the amount of hassles you put in place, you'd think whatever you can do to make things easier for folks to comply would be a good thing. If you gave someone a "verified firearms background check" ID card good for a year which a seller could run against a free database, you'd still catch the guy who "just murdered 7 people since last week" without the need for a trip to the FFL dealer. It's not like the FFL dealer has arrest powers, so who cares if the FFL dealer does the check or the private party seller. The buyer still has the on-demand background check performed, the government still gets the data the person is acquiring a new firearm, and they don't need to drive to the FFL or give him $40 for doing a check they could do themselves online for free.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Most (if not all) the recent mass shooters have gotten their firearms while being completely compliant with the gun control laws in place. Someone planning to mass murder dozens of people likely isn't going to reconsider just because they need to make 2 trips to the FFL any more than someone planning a car bomb would be troubled by making more than 1 trip to the DMV. For the 99.999% of people just wanting to transact business with the least amount of hassles though, making them just through unneeded hoops won't have any more effect than the 24-hour waiting period does to reduce abortions. It will just annoy them and make them reconsider doing things the "legal" way.

For mass shootings I agree with you. I do believe there's some data to back up this as a suicide deterrent (if not pure prevention) measure, since those are often times very short-term impulses. I don't have that data in front of me though, and I do agree that this primarily inhibits normal, law-abiding citizens. I'm generally against laws that do that kind of thing, but I also recognize that we're going to hit a breaking point with guns at some point, even if by pure attrition of the people that grew up in the era of school shootings becoming the primary voice. I'm part of that group, just barely. Columbine was during my HS years, and we had a few gun/bomb threats that caused evacs at my school, along with half the schools in the nation during that time period. I'm a pretty ardent defender of freedom, 2A included, but I don't know what the solution is here. I'd rather a compromise than a hostile takeover.

Like I said, I know you don't care about whether a prospective gun owner is hassled anymore than pro-lifers care about whether a woman seeking an abortion is hassled in getting hers. Considering that compliance rates with legal safeguards are directly influenced by the amount of hassles you put in place, you'd think whatever you can do to make things easier for folks to comply would be a good thing. If you gave someone a "verified firearms background check" ID card good for a year which a seller could run against a free database, you'd still catch the guy who "just murdered 7 people since last week" without the need for a trip to the FFL dealer. It's not like the FFL dealer has arrest powers, so who cares if the FFL dealer does the check or the private party seller. The buyer still has the on-demand background check performed, the government still gets the data the person is acquiring a new firearm, and they don't need to drive to the FFL or give him $40 for doing a check they could do themselves online for free.

I actually care about both, as I said above, I'm a proponent of freedoms over just about everything else, that includes both abortion rights and 2A. I agree that it's very probable that increased bureaucracy is likely to increase subscription into the grey market, which isn't good for anyone.

I think your idea isn't terrible, and it's pretty close to the existing system, albeit smarter since the existing system ends up having to search for people that have common names like 'john smith'. When I worked for WalMart selling guns, anyone with weirdie names usually got a pass immediately... anyone with common names ended up needing to either sit there for 20m or call back in a day-week after they verified who it was.

 

[Ken g6]

"Medicare for all that want it" - As I mentioned earlier, a public option. Seems great. As I said earlier, offer it to everyone as an OPTION - with other options for competition. If the Government option beats out the competition over time, then so be it.

Let me tell you the problem with this. People want insurance options other than Medicare. That's fine. But as it stands, that means doctors have to deal with all those different insurance plans with differing requirements, payments, copays, exclusions, and general paperwork. What a mess!

So, what can we do to compromise? I think doctors need to be required to accept a basic Medicare payment for all services. It would be even better if we could figure out "outcome-based payment", whatever that means. Then you pay your insurance one way, and they pay Medicare at its rate. The problem is this creates a perverse incentive for insurance to get paid more by having you treated more, unless we could figure out "outcome-based payment".

Another option would be for insurance companies to make optional deals with doctors and hospitals to get you treated sooner (skip the waitlist!) by paying more. But that does bring back more paperwork.

My wife who is an immigrant actually offered up a reasonable solution for illegal immigration - Anyone that is illegal must pay a penalty tax that no others have to pay. For this, you will not be deported. You will not be arrested, etc... presuming that you do not commit crimes. Don't like it? Leave and get back in line.

And that is one common proposal as part of a "pathway to citizenship". It's a pathway, not an open gate.

"A wealth tax" - We already have a progressive income tax. Try again. If people want all these additional programs listed above then it is a 100% requirement that we start taxing the middle and lower class instead of giving them all handouts or we simply cannot self-sustain

That's confusing. The proposal in the picture above is part of a progressive income tax. I do advocate for a real wealth tax - with a deduction of whatever you pay employees, up to 4x the poverty line for each employee. The wealth must be spread around, but I'm happy if it's done in a capitalist way.

It's weird that more people want in the Paris Climate Agreement than want a carbon tax.

 

[dank69]

If every time you wanted to drive a car do you go check in with the police first to ensure you don't have a DUI since the last time you drove?
...

Try harder. You lose your license when you get a DUI or whatever.

 

[Phynaz]

Fuck legalizing marijuana, legalize it all and tax the shit out of it.

California tried this. They taxed themselves right out of the market. The black market has actually grown in California, and now they are rolling back the taxes.

Sin taxes don't work, they are just another form of prohibition.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

California tried this. They taxed themselves right out of the market. The black market has actually grown in California, and now they are rolling back the taxes.

Sin taxes don't work, they are just another form of prohibition.

Sin taxes don't work? Then why do so few people smoke now?

The problem is California does it wrong with tons of hoops, regulations, and beauracracy that creates so much headache for the people selling it that it drives up the costs beyond repair.

If weed could be sold at a base reasonable price - and then you toss a simple additional sales tax on it then it wouldn't be a cost issue anymore.

There is a reason why Colorado doesn't have the same issues as NIMBY GUBMENT regulation heavy Californistan.

 

[SMOGZINN]

California tried this. They taxed themselves right out of the market. The black market has actually grown in California, and now they are rolling back the taxes.

Sin taxes don't work, they are just another form of prohibition.

But you can tax it, and make a mint off of it. It just requires that you find the right tax rate. To high and the black market is a better option, but there is a tax rate where the vast majority of people would rather pay it than deal with an unreliable and often sketchy black market.

 

[glenn1]

Try harder. You lose your license when you get a DUI or whatever.

And if you had a "verified firearms purchaser" license it would likewise be revoked if you engaged in crime. Thus if you attempted to buy a gun you'd be denied no matter whether the next background check was run by an FFL or another private citizen. No one is arguing that buyers should be exempt from a check each time, just that making someone physically go to an FFL and pay them to do the background check on a non-public system literally each time they purchase a firearm is capital S stupid. Run an initial background check, issue them an ID card/unique identifier number which can be subsequently checked in a database updated in real time, and open the database to any seller (preferably without cost). You could even turn it into a smartphone app where you scan the buyer's card and it gives you near instant results and logs both you as the seller and the other person as the buyer.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And if you had a "verified firearms purchaser" license it would likewise be revoked if you engaged in crime. Thus if you attempted to buy a gun you'd be denied no matter whether the next background check was run by an FFL or another private citizen. No one is arguing that buyers should be exempt from a check each time, just that making someone physically go to an FFL and pay them to do the background check on a non-public system literally each time they purchase a firearm is capital S stupid. Run an initial background check, issue them an ID card/unique identifier number which can be subsequently checked in a database updated in real time, and open the database to any seller (preferably without cost). You could even turn it into a smartphone app where you scan the buyer's card and it gives you near instant results and logs both you as the seller and the other person as the buyer.

What's funny is they kind of already do that with concealed carry permits, you just write down their CC number rather than do a call-in (or at least it was for me). I don't see why they couldn't adapt that system to have an 'ownership permit' alongside the CC permit, and just DB-check either one at purchase time.

 

[hal2kilo]

California tried this. They taxed themselves right out of the market. The black market has actually grown in California, and now they are rolling back the taxes.

Sin taxes don't work, they are just another form of prohibition.

Washington state should get a clue.

 

[Phynaz]

Sin taxes don't work? Then why do so few people smoke now?

Education, workplace policies, Chantix.

Look at who smokes now, in general it's people that reside on the lower end of the education scale.

I smoked from age 14 until 44. I quit 12 years ago.

 

[Phynaz]

But you can tax it, and make a mint off of it. It just requires that you find the right tax rate. To high and the black market is a better option, but there is a tax rate where the vast majority of people would rather pay it than deal with an unreliable and often sketchy black market.

Which is exactly what California is doing.