Until we do something about guns, don’t expect things to change overni (1 Viewer)

[Arsenal of Doom]

The war on drugs is a failure because it's universal. If the government attempted to ban guns and created a "war on guns", that would be a failure too. But what IS successful, for the most part, is restricting the sale of liquor to adults over 21. How do we enforce that?

You serious, Clark? Do you remember high school at all? Hell, do you remember college?

I turned 21 my senior year of college. I was drunk 9 nights out of 10 for my entire freshman, sophomore, and junior years.

Of course it happens. Straw purchases, and some straight purchases. But it is still, statistically, very effective. Or are you in favor of removing all age limit drinking restrictions?

No, it's not remotely effective. In fact, I thank you for making this analogy, as it proves my point. Seriously, Google "underage drinking". From the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

Drinking Levels among YouthThe 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey6 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days

• 39% drank some amount of alcohol.
• 22% binge drank.
• 8% drove after drinking alcohol.
• 24% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. If there was no legal minimum drinking age, more kids would drink and would almost certainly do so younger. If alcohol was totally prohibited, far few kids and adults would drink.

Just because many kids drink under the minimum drinking age doesn't mean there is no benefit to having the restriction. Other than alcohol providers having fewer sales, there isn't really a cost to society for having the regulation. So even if the return is marginal, the insignificant cost makes it worthwhile to maintain the regulation.

The return is worse than marginal. In the case of alcohol/cigarette age laws, it's even possible that the return is negative. By creating something that is taboo, we run the risk of making the appeal greater. I should note that I don't believe that "taboo appeal" translates to a background check law for guns, of course. The point is that any high school kid who wants alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana can likely obtain them pretty damn easily.

And it's not an insignificant cost. Creating black markets for goods always has a societal cost.

In the case of universal background checks for guns, it would add an actual dollar cost to every transaction. Whether that dollar cost could be classified as "significant" would be pretty subjective.

I'm open to be persuaded with data on alcohol, which should be available for pre and post age law consumption.

In the case of universal background checks, I simply do not see a large enough cost or potential for anything but a likely small but positive return to make me think they are a bad idea. There would be a small cost per unit for the check itself that would be passed on to all gun consumers, and the isolation of law-breaking sellers or black market would allow for easier targeting by law enforcement.

Of course, I have absolutely no qualms with gun registration so we're ultimately just on a different viewpoint when it comes to regulation on this... and generally of course

I was curious about this so I took a cursory look at what studies have been done on the effectiveness of underage drinking laws. The literature seems to be heavily slanted towards the laws being effective in both reducing underage drinking and some of the negative consequences associated with it. One meta-analysis I came across claimed that the laws save an average of 700+ lives per year. I didn't see any that claimed the laws are either totally ineffective or increase underage drinking. To be fair, I didn't look that hard and I didn't really scrutinize the studies I looked at. At face value though, I'm not surprised by the findings I saw. It's a basic micro-economic principle that if you create barriers to obtain something, fewer will have it than they would absent the barriers.

 

[Rayderr]

If it's one thing I've learned when it comes to the gun control debate, it is a complete waste of time trying to engage in a rational discussion with NRA supporters opponents. Tim, you've dominated this thread and been very respectful throughout, but you should probably move on and focus your energies on something meaningful. But great job though.

Wow...look at that...it works both ways.

What would be really nice is some moderation. Not all NRA supporters are completely opposed to reform, and not all NRA opponents are endorsing the disarming of every American. Why both sides of this debate have to be so freaking dismissive is beyond me.

Well, considering that the thread title is "Until we do something about guns, don’t expect things to change overnight" I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like all of our gun problems would simply vanish if we just did "something" It's a rather laughable premise, and when you start off a thread with such a title, people are going to assume the anti-gun crowd in this thread are rather extreme.

 

[Chaka]

If it's one thing I've learned when it comes to the gun control debate, it is a complete waste of time trying to engage in a rational discussion with NRA supporters opponents. Tim, you've dominated this thread and been very respectful throughout, but you should probably move on and focus your energies on something meaningful. But great job though.

Wow...look at that...it works both ways.

What would be really nice is some moderation. Not all NRA supporters are completely opposed to reform, and not all NRA opponents are endorsing the disarming of every American. Why both sides of this debate have to be so freaking dismissive is beyond me.

Well, considering that the thread title is "Until we do something about guns, don’t expect things to change overnight" I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like all of our gun problems would simply vanish if we just did "something" It's a rather laughable premise, and when you start off a thread with such a title, people are going to assume the anti-gun crowd in this thread are rather extreme.

Is doing nothing a better premise?

 

[Rayderr]

If it's one thing I've learned when it comes to the gun control debate, it is a complete waste of time trying to engage in a rational discussion with NRA supporters opponents. Tim, you've dominated this thread and been very respectful throughout, but you should probably move on and focus your energies on something meaningful. But great job though.

Wow...look at that...it works both ways.

What would be really nice is some moderation. Not all NRA supporters are completely opposed to reform, and not all NRA opponents are endorsing the disarming of every American. Why both sides of this debate have to be so freaking dismissive is beyond me.

Well, considering that the thread title is "Until we do something about guns, don’t expect things to change overnight" I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like all of our gun problems would simply vanish if we just did "something" It's a rather laughable premise, and when you start off a thread with such a title, people are going to assume the anti-gun crowd in this thread are rather extreme.

Is doing nothing a better premise?

Not at all. But I don't think anything is going to "change overnight"

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

If it's one thing I've learned when it comes to the gun control debate, it is a complete waste of time trying to engage in a rational discussion with NRA supporters opponents. Tim, you've dominated this thread and been very respectful throughout, but you should probably move on and focus your energies on something meaningful. But great job though.

Wow...look at that...it works both ways.

What would be really nice is some moderation. Not all NRA supporters are completely opposed to reform, and not all NRA opponents are endorsing the disarming of every American. Why both sides of this debate have to be so freaking dismissive is beyond me.

Well, considering that the thread title is "Until we do something about guns, don’t expect things to change overnight" I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like all of our gun problems would simply vanish if we just did "something" It's a rather laughable premise, and when you start off a thread with such a title, people are going to assume the anti-gun crowd in this thread are rather extreme.

Is doing nothing a better premise?

Not at all. But I don't think anything is going to "change overnight"

You did note who started the thread and that the title is intended to be ironic, right?

 

[Chaka]

If it's one thing I've learned when it comes to the gun control debate, it is a complete waste of time trying to engage in a rational discussion with NRA supporters opponents. Tim, you've dominated this thread and been very respectful throughout, but you should probably move on and focus your energies on something meaningful. But great job though.

Wow...look at that...it works both ways.

What would be really nice is some moderation. Not all NRA supporters are completely opposed to reform, and not all NRA opponents are endorsing the disarming of every American. Why both sides of this debate have to be so freaking dismissive is beyond me.

Well, considering that the thread title is "Until we do something about guns, don’t expect things to change overnight" I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like all of our gun problems would simply vanish if we just did "something" It's a rather laughable premise, and when you start off a thread with such a title, people are going to assume the anti-gun crowd in this thread are rather extreme.

Is doing nothing a better premise?

Not at all. But I don't think anything is going to "change overnight"

I don't think anything is going to change at all.

 

[RCon]

The war on drugs is a failure because it's universal. If the government attempted to ban guns and created a "war on guns", that would be a failure too. But what IS successful, for the most part, is restricting the sale of liquor to adults over 21. How do we enforce that?

You serious, Clark? Do you remember high school at all? Hell, do you remember college?

I turned 21 my senior year of college. I was drunk 9 nights out of 10 for my entire freshman, sophomore, and junior years.

Of course it happens. Straw purchases, and some straight purchases. But it is still, statistically, very effective. Or are you in favor of removing all age limit drinking restrictions?

No, it's not remotely effective. In fact, I thank you for making this analogy, as it proves my point. Seriously, Google "underage drinking". From the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

Drinking Levels among YouthThe 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey6 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days

• 39% drank some amount of alcohol.
• 22% binge drank.
• 8% drove after drinking alcohol.
• 24% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. If there was no legal minimum drinking age, more kids would drink and would almost certainly do so younger. If alcohol was totally prohibited, far few kids and adults would drink.

Just because many kids drink under the minimum drinking age doesn't mean there is no benefit to having the restriction. Other than alcohol providers having fewer sales, there isn't really a cost to society for having the regulation. So even if the return is marginal, the insignificant cost makes it worthwhile to maintain the regulation.

The return is worse than marginal. In the case of alcohol/cigarette age laws, it's even possible that the return is negative. By creating something that is taboo, we run the risk of making the appeal greater. I should note that I don't believe that "taboo appeal" translates to a background check law for guns, of course. The point is that any high school kid who wants alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana can likely obtain them pretty damn easily.

And it's not an insignificant cost. Creating black markets for goods always has a societal cost.

In the case of universal background checks for guns, it would add an actual dollar cost to every transaction. Whether that dollar cost could be classified as "significant" would be pretty subjective.

I'm open to be persuaded with data on alcohol, which should be available for pre and post age law consumption.

In the case of universal background checks, I simply do not see a large enough cost or potential for anything but a likely small but positive return to make me think they are a bad idea. There would be a small cost per unit for the check itself that would be passed on to all gun consumers, and the isolation of law-breaking sellers or black market would allow for easier targeting by law enforcement.

Of course, I have absolutely no qualms with gun registration so we're ultimately just on a different viewpoint when it comes to regulation on this... and generally of course

I was curious about this so I took a cursory look at what studies have been done on the effectiveness of underage drinking laws. The literature seems to be heavily slanted towards the laws being effective in both reducing underage drinking and some of the negative consequences associated with it. One meta-analysis I came across claimed that the laws save an average of 700+ lives per year. I didn't see any that claimed the laws are either totally ineffective or increase underage drinking. To be fair, I didn't look that hard and I didn't really scrutinize the studies I looked at. At face value though, I'm not surprised by the findings I saw. It's a basic micro-economic principle that if you create barriers to obtain something, fewer will have it than they would absent the barriers.

What are the comparisons? We've had a drinking age as long as I can remember.

Regardless, I'm not surprised by your findings, and the analogy isn't perfect in one particular area. Specifically, when we make a law that forbids a certain group of people from acquiring an item, there are pretty much three subgroups that comprise the "certain group": 1) people who didn't want the item anyway, whether it would be legal or not, 2) people who do want the item, but aren't willing to risk breaking the law to acquire it, and 3) people who do want the item, and are willing to risk breaking the law. This applies to both underage drinking laws and background check laws that, ostensibly, prevent criminals from acquiring guns.

The difference is that subgroup 2 doesn't really exist with the background check laws, since we already know that the entire group of people we're trying to prevent from acquiring guns is willing to break the law. To this extent, background check laws are less effective than underage drinking laws. Of course, as I noted earlier, the taboo effect, which would apply only to underage drinking laws, would partially negate that.