Lewis measure promotes gun safety

[alwynsw]

http://www.newsenterpriseonline.com/articles/2005/02/23/news/news07.txt

<snip>Rep. Ron Lewis, R-Cecilia, has proposed an incentive with the aim of reducing those thefts.

The Child Protection and Home Safety Act of 2005 would provide individuals with a 25 percent tax credit of up to $250 on the cost of a theft-resistant residential gun safe, Lewis' office reports.

"Gun safety is an issue that unites people from all ideologies concerned with protecting the welfare of children and securing homes," Lewis said. "We have all read tragic stories in our local papers about gun accidents as a result of misuse. As lawmakers, we can better promote safety and responsibility by encouraging gun owners to purchase gun safes to store firearms and keep them from falling into the wrong hands."

The National Gun Safe Coalition cited a 2001 Department of Justice study that reports nearly 40 percent of violent crimes are committed with illegal firearms — stolen, drug dealer or black market — said Michael Dodge, spokesman for Lewis.

The measure has early bipartisan support and is endorsed by the gun safe coalition, Dodge said.

Regardless of the sponsor, this looks like good, common sense legislation. Nothing mandatory with a reward for doing the right and responsible thing.

[Canuckistanian]

1. Since when does the NRA represent good, common sense?

They'll fight this tooth and nail.

[slackmaster]

2. Must be the work of the Corrupt Gun Industry (TM) rat bastards

Gee, alwynsw, surely even YOU can see that this is a Conspiracy to get people to buy gun safes bigger than they need so they will be compelled to buy enough guns to fill them up.

:crazy:

The National Gun Safe Coalition...

A fake gun safety organization, probably started by a Libertarian who doesn't even own a gun. This is just a mass media marketing ploy designed to appeal to mindless gun consumers.

:dunce:

[alwynsw]

3. Ya think?

Gee, alwynsw, surely even YOU can see that this is a Conspiracy to get people to buy gun safes bigger than they need so they will be compelled to buy enough guns to fill them up.

You see a conspiracy. I see opportunity. O8)

A fake gun safety organization, probably started by a Libertarian who doesn't even own a gun. This is just a mass media marketing ploy designed to appeal to mindless gun consumers.

Devious bastards! :evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

10. Government must always force people to do the right thing

Giving people choices and trying to encourage proper behavior by kinder, gentler contingency management is something only a pussy government would do.

USAmericans are too stupid to think for themselves and need a REAL government that exerts REAL CONTROL over undesirable behavior. If you give people a choice to do right or wrong they'll do wrong and leave their guns lying around loaded where kids can get at them EVERY SINGLE TIME unless they know they'll get a good ass-whuppin' for it.

I'm sick and tired of the candy-ass liberal ideas some people are promoting on this forum. Gun safety education in schools? Tax breaks for safe gun storage devices? Forget it! People need to know they are going to get PUNISHED if they do the wrong thing, and we need to give police the power to search their homes, tap their phones, put cameras everywhere to make sure the sheep stay in line.

Better still, let's make it a felony not to store every firearm, hell, every weapon you own in a government-run armory at all times.

I'm slackmaster, and I approved this message.



BTW - This was pure sarcasm.

[Redneck Socialist]

6. LOL

"The National Gun Safe Coalition...

A fake gun safety organization, probably started by a Libertarian who doesn't even own a gun. This is just a mass media marketing ploy designed to appeal to mindless gun consumers."

See, this is why I read the gungeon every day. Good stuff. :)

[MrSandman]

4. Did you see Lee Marvin with a Lewis Gun...(off topic)

In "The Professionals"?

[slackmaster]

5. Yes, and R. Lee Ermey wielded one to great effect on Mail Call

Those Rat Bastard watermelons didn't stand a chance.

I've always liked the Lewis. The magazines remind me of old round slide projector trays. "Lemme show youse some pictures from my trip to England."

[MrSandman]

11. That sounds like the gunny...

Don't get to see it as much as I'd like.

Must be a cast iron bastard to fire w/o mounts.

[iverglas]

7. why, if I wasn't just saying ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=99753&mesg_id=99882&page=

... your proposal (in some refined version, like maybe the income tax credit/deduction plan) might be the most reasonable -- might be regarded as the "fairest" -- in your context.

It still has to meet other criteria, though. Specifically:

- is it efficient (cost-effective)?
- is it effective?

Is this expenditure of public money going to be the best in terms of achieving the goal to the greatest extent possible at the least expense possible?

Is this approach going to achieve the goal to a greater extent than another approach?

Your approach is the carrot; the approach we take here is the stick. We don't need to offer a carrot; the stick works sufficiently well. You might need to raise the stick in order to get enough people to take the carrot.

The goal isn't just to encourage people to practise safe storage -- it is for people to practise safe storage. And of course, ultimately, to reduce the numbers of stolen firearms used to commit crimes and cause harm.

Would enough people take advantage of funding programs, and then actually use the equipment they acquired under those programs, to achieve the goal of a significant reduction in those numbers?

I suspect not. So I might propose a carrot+stick approach: here is a subsidy for doing what we want you to do, and here is a law that requires you to do it.

If the people who take advantage of the tax credit are those who

(a) are already willing to spend money for this purpose, and

(b) are already willing to adjust their behaviour in this manner

-- which it's pretty reasonable to assume will be who takes advantage of the funding -- then what of the others? Will this program be an effective way of reducing the number of stolen firearms available to people who use them to commit crimes and cause injuries and death -- or will it just be a bonus for the people whose firearms are perhaps least likely to be at risk of theft already?

Unless a high rate of participation is achieved, the effect will be negligible. And without a mandatory component, the tax credit really is likely to be just a bonus for people who already have the money and inclination to do what it's encouraging people to do.

[alwynsw]

12. Beat them rather than feed them...

interesting concept.

You've once again reaffirmed my joy in living here rather than in the frozen wasteland to the north.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

14. You just don't get the freedom concept.

More's the pity.

[Columbia]

15. Sure she does

Freedom is slavery.

Remember that thread?

[alwynsw]

16. Fuckin' duh! n/t

[iverglas]

21. and a fine one it was

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=77598

Between the strong and the weak, between the rich and the poor, between master and servant, it is liberty that oppresses and the law that sets free.

Liberty for the armed, subjection to the will and whim of the armed for everybody else ...

[davepc]

22. Liberty for the armed, subjection to the will and whim of the armed for ev

sounds like a police state.

Free men and women need to take responsibility for their own persons, safety, and security, and defend those things from persons (be it individuals alone or acting as part of a goverment) who would seek to deprive them of such.

But that's just more of that quaint enlightenment stuff that you think is so 18th century.

[iverglas]

23. funny

Whether you put it as I did:

Liberty for the armed, subjection to the will and whim of the armed for everybody else ...

or as you did:

Free men and women need to take responsibility for their own persons, safety, and security, and defend those things from persons (be it individuals alone or acting as part of a goverment) who would seek to deprive them of such.

... it sounds the same, and it sounds like the jungle, to me.

Everybody swinging from trees ... some, by the neck ...

[MrSandman]

24. And when nearly all...

can be armed, then all are free.

[iverglas]

25. I guess some folks

just don't see a distinction between "freedom" and a "free-for-all". Fortunately, others do.


And when nearly all...
can be armed, then all are free.

Silly me, I still prefer not to live in a world where five-year-olds are armed. But how else to keep 'em free, eh?

Oh, well, I suppose they're among those excluded in that "nearly all" formulation. That will leave some of them free but dead, of course. And not just them; lots of others too -- and assuredly others will be dead, no matter how armed they are -- given how some folks just do have a propensity for doing unpleasant, or stupid, things with that "freedom" stuff when they've got the weapons to help them do it.

But oh well, better dead than red.

I swan, though, seldom do I have the pleasure of reading such nonsense, so I must express my gratitude for the opportunity afforded here on such a regular basis.

Odd how there are so few fans of that (some, anyway, would say) great Democrat, F.D. Roosevelt, hereabouts. Freedom from fear ... who needs it?

[MrSandman]

26. Again, we agree...

Silly me, I still prefer not to live in a world where five-year-olds are armed.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

20. oh dear

Beat them rather than feed them...
interesting concept.
You've once again reaffirmed my joy in living here
rather than in the frozen wasteland to the north.

It seems that my helpful explanation of the concept of "figure of speech" and the difficulty that some people have in, er, understanding it offended.

Yes indeed, a reference to the dilemma of whether to use the stick or the carrot in order to motivate the donkey to pull the cart is actually a suggestion that people be beaten rather than fed. Yes indeed. And we here in Canada regularly beat people in order to make them do their jobs, rather than feeding them so that they can work. Yup, it's one big concentration camp up here. When ya gonna lock and load them things and come spread a little freedom this way?

[iverglas]

8. and an interesting tidbit

from that well-loved National Academies report:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091241?OpenDocument

-- There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist.

Ya can't keep children away from firearms, so (if ya care about such things) ya gotta keep firearms away from children.

But hell, let's reward those who do it, and never mind about those who don't ...

[anonymous44]

9. indeed

it's for the children:)

[alwynsw]

18. Bear with me on this.

One area that should be looked into on this topic is the Hollywood angle.

Hollywood demonizes smoking (slow suicide). Teen smoking in the U.S> is at a 28 year low.

Hollywood glorifies the indiscriminate use of firearms. High body count = high box office receipts.

I wonder what the correlation might be to the Hollywood glorification of irresponsible firearms use and teen firearms abuses.

I also could not help but notice that most of the panel members live and work in states or nations with terribly restrictive firearms cutailment laws. I wonder how that will play out in the final conclusions.

[MrSandman]

19. Hasn't worked in WVa...

Teen smoking in the U.S> is at a 28 year low.

Somewhere between 25% and 30% for teens. Adult rates are comparable...big surprise:eyes: .

So many want to use the firearm/auto analogy, I appreciate the firearm/tobacco analogy. The same agency, in name, even regulates both.