A Statistic to Consider...

a reply to: FyreByrd

Sounds like gun crime prevention warrants $185,000,000,000,000 ($185 TRILLION) annual budget, then.

This reminds me, its been forever since I thought about, but I used to write sometimes putting the War on Terror into this kind of algebra with other sources of annual body counts.

Americas biggest mass shooting was in 1921. Ugly but true.

1921

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: FyreByrd

Sounds like gun crime prevention warrants $185,000,000,000,000 ($185 TRILLION) annual budget, then.

This reminds me, its been forever since I thought about, but I used to write sometimes putting the War on Terror into this kind of algebra with other sources of annual body counts.

Only by your peculiar estimation. Hyperbole much?

a reply to: FyreByrd

The irony is our military adventurism is what makes people want to kill us, while the DOD budget puts to shame budgets that deal with millions of annual deaths.

The DOD is tantamount to that of like a crackhead that spends most of its money on crack in an effort to live long and prosper.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

I'd spend the money for people's time - legislators, staff, researchers, activists on both sides, public town halls, - just the types of things that are supposed to go into determining rational legislation and regulation on any subject.

First off, I agree that we spend way too much on the "War on Terror." If it were up to me, the TSA and the NSA spying programs would be gone tomorrow.

But addressing the things you list:

Legislators and their staff are already paid to make good laws. No need for extra funds there. I think researchers would fall under the same category. It's usually legislators that that form committees or hire firms to research issues. If the expense is justified then the money is made available.

I assume activists volunteer their time. If an issue is important to them, then they work to make their voices heard. If you have to pay someone to express a viewpoint, they aren't activists. They are more like lobbyists or public relations people. We shouldn't pay tax money for those services.

Real town halls are sponsored by local governments. Local government officials show up, local people show up, issues are discussed. Not a lot of need for money there. The fake town halls are organized to promote a politician or an agenda. It's hand picked speakers and a hand picked audience. Let the organizers pay for that, not the taxpayers.



I don't see the need to pour a lot of money into writing new laws to help people, something the government is supposed to do anyway. I think we would get more bang for our buck if we spend money on providing mental health care. Mental health care providers don't work for free. Mentally ill people are poor and can't afford it. Insurance companies won't cover it. It wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if we had as many health care providers on the government payroll as we do TSA agents, and give them the same budget as the NSA. It would do a lot more good than another "reasonable" gun restriction.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: FyreByrd

I found the statistic one that is ignored by many. We spend Trillions on Terrorism (for and against) but pennies on sane gun regulation here at home. That's insane.

Out of curiosity, if you could spend a billion dollars on "sane gun regulation", exactly how would the money be spent? Who would need to be paid for "sane gun regulation?" What would need to be bought?

I think it would take at least that much to pay for the funerals of those hapless "enforcers" sent around to collect up the guns that some deem unreasonable. I find it interesting and quite telling that the very folks who trot out the old, "You can't legislate morality" on other matters of personal behavior forget that phrase entirely when it comes to big, scary guns.


ETA: I can agree with you to some extent on the mental health issues. However, I've got a whole bunch of people in my family who are currently under treatment for mental health issues and it seems to me that they just get crazier by the week. I have a dear friend who has been under the care of the mental health industry for over 40 years and she's the same whining, uncertain, daddy's girl that she was in college. She's still upset over her mother not loving her father enough (in the view of the daughter, they were in fact a very happy and loving couple) despite her mother being dead now for more than 20 years.

Ge really the examples you cited ,have nothing to do with defending yourself against a government take over or possible attack on US soil,liberals never think of anything else but their own ideas at the time

a reply to: FyreByrd

I don't know if you realize, but the US has some pretty strict gun ownership regulations as is. And the places where it is the most strict (Chicago come to mind) there is the most gun related violence.

If you further restrict gun ownership, those people that are part of the 185/1 statistic that you cited in your OP would more than likely end up dead by being stabbed, bludgeoned, strangled, beaten, or dead by the hundreds of other ways you can kill another human being.

Humans have been killing each other far longer than firearms have been around. Hell Cain killed Abel with his bare hands. More regulations and red tape for legal gun owners is not the answer to this problem.

Dig into the statistics. Mostly likely you will find they are skewed. These types of articles never seem to remove the suicide gun deaths from the overall statistics, which are 2/3 of all gun deaths in the USA.