HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What if Gun Owners Paid a...

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:12 AM

What if Gun Owners Paid a Tax to Help Defray the High Costs of Gun Violence?

The long list of costs associated with gun violence in American is enormous. Perhaps it's time for gun owners to shoulder some of the responsibility their rights and freedoms cost everyone, gun owners and non-owners alike.

80 replies, 4287 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply What if Gun Owners Paid a Tax to Help Defray the High Costs of Gun Violence? (Original post)
dlk Oct 2017 OP
greymattermom Oct 2017 #1
Lurker Deluxe Oct 2017 #3
elehhhhna Oct 2017 #55
MindPilot Oct 2017 #4
Hangingon Oct 2017 #18
Orrex Oct 2017 #20
Hangingon Oct 2017 #21
Orrex Oct 2017 #22
Hangingon Oct 2017 #23
Ms. Toad Oct 2017 #29
Hangingon Oct 2017 #33
Orrex Oct 2017 #36
Hangingon Oct 2017 #38
Orrex Oct 2017 #40
Hangingon Oct 2017 #43
Orrex Oct 2017 #46
Crunchy Frog Oct 2017 #52
Orrex Oct 2017 #62
FSogol Oct 2017 #77
bettyellen Oct 2017 #51
Post removed Oct 2017 #57
Ms. Toad Oct 2017 #80
Orrex Oct 2017 #34
Orrex Oct 2017 #19
metalbot Oct 2017 #42
Orrex Oct 2017 #45
metalbot Oct 2017 #71
Orrex Oct 2017 #73
tymorial Oct 2017 #59
beachbum bob Oct 2017 #2
Adrahil Oct 2017 #8
beachbum bob Oct 2017 #26
Adrahil Oct 2017 #35
hack89 Oct 2017 #11
inwiththenew Oct 2017 #5
TexasProgresive Oct 2017 #15
MindPilot Oct 2017 #6
hack89 Oct 2017 #10
Orrex Oct 2017 #41
Kaleva Oct 2017 #44
Adrahil Oct 2017 #12
Kaleva Oct 2017 #47
Spartikis Oct 2017 #16
Hoyt Oct 2017 #7
hack89 Oct 2017 #9
sharedvalues Oct 2017 #13
Spartikis Oct 2017 #17
Kingofalldems Oct 2017 #69
TrishaJ Oct 2017 #14
MichMan Oct 2017 #24
Sunlei Oct 2017 #28
Man_Bear_Pig Oct 2017 #25
Sunlei Oct 2017 #27
Marengo Oct 2017 #56
Sunlei Oct 2017 #75
Alea Oct 2017 #30
Crunchy Frog Oct 2017 #49
jmg257 Oct 2017 #31
Crunchy Frog Oct 2017 #50
haele Oct 2017 #32
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #53
Orrex Oct 2017 #37
Baconator Oct 2017 #60
Orrex Oct 2017 #63
Baconator Oct 2017 #64
Orrex Oct 2017 #68
Jake Stern Oct 2017 #74
LexVegas Oct 2017 #39
LanternWaste Oct 2017 #48
Baconator Oct 2017 #61
Not Ruth Oct 2017 #65
Vinca Oct 2017 #54
samir.g Oct 2017 #58
Baconator Oct 2017 #66
ileus Oct 2017 #72
Not Ruth Oct 2017 #78
Initech Oct 2017 #67
alarimer Oct 2017 #70
guillaumeb Oct 2017 #76
Ilsa Oct 2017 #79

Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:14 AM

1. Cars are also a weapon

and you have to carry specific car insurance to drive one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:18 AM

3. and ....

If you drive that car into a crowd and kill people, the insurance is not going to pay.

Just as gun insurance would not pay if the gun was used in a criminal manner.

Insurance would cover the victim if they were injured accidentally by the gun, just like your car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:49 PM

55. That's called health insurance

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:20 AM

4. Please, cars are not a weapon. Not anymore of a weapon than a chainsaw, baseball bat, or a rock.

 

But I get your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:57 AM

18. All those can be weaponized.

ISIS uses trucks to run over people. Car bombs are routine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 09:03 AM

20. A car bomb is different from a car used as a weapon

The car is used either to transport or conceal the explosive; the car is not the weapon.

You could as readily claim that shoes are weapons because asshole with a dynamite vest was wearing shoes when he blew himself up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 09:52 AM

21. That is splitting hairs.

Yes the explosive is in the car but the car is the container - bomb case. The French ramming attacks using a delivery truck produced heavy damage to innocent people. Cars and trucks are. Much easier toacquire than guns or explosives.

Yes shoes with explosives to breach aircraft pressurization are weapons. So were the underwear. TSA checks toiletries because explosives made be substituted. Sadly, this is ourorld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:12 AM

22. "Accurately Comparing Death Rates from Motor Vehicle and Firearm Use"

Here's the takeaway:
Guns are far more dangerous to use than cars- by several orders of magnitude. They’re also far more dangerous to use than hands, feet, clubs, knives, hammers, or blunt objects, all of which are used many trillions of times a year to do all sorts of things, the least frequent of which is to kill people.

Article HERE. Granted, it's from 2013, so I invite gun advocates to post a more recent article re: the relative per-use lethality of vehicles.

Additionally, the whole "cars are dangerous weapons" talking point is straight out of the NRA playbook, so it should be rejected for that reason and also because it's straight-up bullshit.

Yes shoes with explosives to breach aircraft pressurization are weapons. So were the underwear.
Yeah, but that wasn't my point. My point was the shoes (and indeed the underwear) of the asshole with the dynamite vest can't be considered weapons simply because he was wearing them.

I disagree that it's "splitting hairs" to separate a car bomb from a car-as-weapon. If I went on a killing spree by bludgeoning people to death with a bag of handguns, no one would attribute those murders to "deaths by firearm."

Transforming a car into a bomb is perverting the car from its intended use and design. Shooting a person with a gun is using the gun as it was intended and designed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #22)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:21 AM

23. Using your criteria, my concealed carry gun isn't a weapon unless I kill someone.

The intended purpose of my gun is defensive. It was designed to shoot - not necessarily shoot people. So just as a dynamite vest is merely a garment, my concealed carry is only a fashion accessory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:29 AM

29. Your contention is that it is defensive

Hence it is designed to kill or wound. People, animals, whatever. It is specifically designed to kill.

A car is designed to transport. It can be used to kill (as can a lot of other things) - but that is not its design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #29)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:43 AM

33. A gun is designed to shoot.

Its use depends on the operator - just as a car. My guns have never shot anyone, just as my car has never run over anyone. That is why guns and cars are not convicted and sentenced to prison. There're millions of car/gun owners like me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:57 AM

36. That is disingenuous

A gun was invented to kill, and--since day one--every evolution in firearm design has been specifically intended to improve its efficiency as a killing machine.

Even if you're splitting hairs and talking about a biathlon competitor's target rifle, the point is the same; that weapon benefits from centuries of design enhancements specifically meant to make firearms more deadly.

Cars, in stark and absolute contrast, undergo constant design enhancements specifically to make them less deadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #36)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 11:26 AM

38. I disagree. But we veered of on intent.

We see guns used heavily for military uses. That was where the money was. Civilian applications were quick to follow. There the prime uses were hunting and home defense. Target practice was likely an result of arms training. Despite the early design, civilian use is self defense, sporting and for food on th e table. Okay, self defense is close, but concealed carry training stresses that you shoot to stop the threat and not to kill. It is passive - a response to an external threat. When the intent changes - that day when you select the dynamite-vest from your closet with the idea that you will detonate it the coffee shop it becomes active. Of the unknown millions of guns in the USA, only a tiny fraction of them are used for killing innocents. Fact.

When there is a Las Vegas style shooting, you rush to punish millions of uninvolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #38)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 11:35 AM

40. Again, guns serve as self-defense only because they're intended to kill

No one brandishes a gun in self-defense with the intent of having the gun embarrass or insult the assailant. The gun is a killing machine, and it is recognized as a killing machine; otherwise it has no deterrent value of self-defense. This is a fact. That's how the gun was designed; that's how it's built; that's how it is sold, and that's why it is purchased.

We can talk about the fun of target shooting and respecting the intricacy of the firing mechanism and all of that, but it's still a killing machine.

Of the unknown millions of guns in the USA, only a tiny fraction of them are used for killing innocents. Fact.
That's true, but every single one of those guns is still designed, built, sold, and bought because it is a killing machine. That is also fact.

Further, if you're going to rely on the number of guns in the USA versus the number of guns used to kill innocents, then you need to abandon your claims about cars being deliberately used to kill, because the ratio doesn't favor your comparison.

When there is a Las Vegas style shooting, you rush to punish millions of uninvolved.
And in response to every single weekly mass shooting, gun advocates' rush to protect their guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #40)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 11:53 AM

43. And in response to every mass shooting, thinking people attempt to rehash the root cause.

That would be the person doing the shooting. Remove guns, they will weaponize cars. Remove cars they will resort to fertilizer and diesel. Remove that and we get to shoes and underwear.

Keep trying to ban the guns. It makes gun manufacturing jobs secure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #43)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:07 PM

46. No, that is yet another NRA talking point.

"They'll find something else." Maybe, maybe not.

Gun advocates--further adhering to the NRA's strategy--love to cry "slippery slope" in any discussion of gun regulation. I've heard it in the media at least a dozen times this week alone. They fear that allowing regulation X will quickly and inescapably result in door-to-door gun confiscations.

But you're happy to embrace the slippery slope fallacy when it suits you. Why?

Guns are used for mass killings because they are designed for killing, and they are very efficient to that end. The other methods that you propose are less efficient, less certain, and often require more work; therefore it is false to assume--as you are assuming--that the removal of guns will result in increased car attacks.

The removal of guns does result in decreased suicides, because the efficient lethality of guns makes impulsive suicide easy, but other methods--less quick and less certain--are not nearly as attractive. By your logic, if we remove the gun from the potential suicide victim, that victim will simply find some other way. Reality doesn't bear this out.

Nor does it support the assumption that we'll see a greater number underwear attacks in the wake of sensible gun control measures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #46)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:41 PM

52. Why can't people just use underwear for self defense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #52)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:04 PM

62. Because it would result in a brief skirmish?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #62)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 02:45 PM

77. Don't let him box you into a tight corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:37 PM

51. All NRA propaganda - you ought to be ashamed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #33)


Response to Hangingon (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 04:08 PM

80. What are guns designed for,

other than to wound or kill living things?

Your initial suggestion was that the are used for defense - their only value as a defensive tool is the threat that they will wound or kill something or someoone, or actually using it to kill or wound something or someone.

Guns used for hunting also are intended to kill living things.

There is no other design for guns. To use a gun to wound or kill is to use it precisely for the purpose for which it was intended.

That is NOT the case with cars. Cars are designed for transportation. To use the car to would or kill requires the user to circumvent the purpose for which it was designed and use it for an entirely different purpose.

Stop trying to create similarities where there are none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:46 AM

34. That's not at all true

And your intended purpose is subordinate to the gun's intended purpose.

A gun is intended to launch a projectile in order to damage or destroy a target, or else to carry the threat of damaging or destroying a target. All other post hoc uses are surrogate approximations of this intent.

You say that carry your gun for defense only, and I believe you, but that credible defense depends entirely on the fact that a gun is intended to kill.

A vehicle is intended to convey a person and/or cargo from one place to another.

It can be dismissed because it's a fallacious argument but also because it's a talking point straight out of the NRA playbook. We see their desperate effort to equate cars with weapons literally every single time someone gun-toting fuckhead shoots a bunch of people (i.e., every week).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 09:01 AM

19. "Accurately Comparing Death Rates from Motor Vehicle and Firearm Use"

Here's the takeaway:
Guns are far more dangerous to use than cars- by several orders of magnitude. They’re also far more dangerous to use than hands, feet, clubs, knives, hammers, or blunt objects, all of which are used many trillions of times a year to do all sorts of things, the least frequent of which is to kill people.

Article HERE. Granted, it's from 2013, so I invite gun advocates to post a more recent article re: the relative per-use lethality of cars

Additionally, the whole "cars are dangerous weapons" talking point is straight out of the NRA playbook, so it should be rejected for that reason and also because it's straight-up bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 11:48 AM

42. The metrics here are absurd

They are comparing fatalities per bullet fired to fatalities per mile driven.

What other comparisons might we do?

1. Let's compare the fatalities per air bag deployment to fatalities per bullet. Which one wins then?
2. How about fatalities per 100k cars compared to fatalities per 100k firearms?
3. Maybe we could compare the number of drownings per swimming pool in the US to the number of murders per firearm?

All of my metrics are crap as well - completely arbitrary, and selected to prove the point I want.

The "takeaway" of that study is that it's intellectually dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #42)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:02 PM

45. Yes, gun advocates always say that

Following the NRA's playbook, they love to demonize cars as killing machines after every weekly shooting spree leaves people dead. They are happy to point out rare anomalies like the Nice van attack, and they hold these up as "proof" that cars are more dangerous than guns. Yet somehow we are required to exclude mass shootings from our discussions about the need for gun regulation

Your metrics are crap by your own admission, but for another reason other than what you seem to intend:
1. Let's compare the fatalities per air bag deployment to fatalities per bullet. Which one wins then?
2. How about fatalities per 100k cars compared to fatalities per 100k firearms?
3. Maybe we could compare the number of drownings per swimming pool in the US to the number of murders per firearm?
#2 is wrong because it misses the real comparison to be made here. Deliberately or otherwise, you're conflating accidental death and deliberately-caused death. That's intellectually dishonest, especially since gun advocates insist on excluding suicides when we discuss the 30,000+ annual gun deaths.

Regardless, we must consider the number of deaths that people deliberately cause with guns versus the number of deaths that people deliberately cause with vehicles, and the article shows the numbers quite plainly. There is frankly no comparison.

One can certainly point out the very large number of accidental vehicular deaths, and these absolutely should be addressed, but they are tangential to the subject at hand--namely that guns are used to cause more deliberate deaths in far greater numbers than vehicles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #45)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:46 PM

71. I don't think we're disputing that guns are the instrument of murder more than cars by a huge margin

I'm taking specific issue with the study YOU cite entitled "Accurately comparing death rates from motor vehicle and firearm use". It's the title YOU used for YOUR post, and is the title of the article you reference.

That article argues:
1. Cars kill at a rate of 1 per 60 million miles traveled
2. Guns kill at a rate of 1 per 475000 rounds fired
3. Therefore guns are orders of magnitude more dangerous

Sorry, that's just sloppy bad math, research, and journalism. There is nothing "Accurate" about this methodology. When I say that the metrics that I suggested are crap, I mean that if you accept that mine are crap, then you surely must accept that the ones in the article are as well.

Nobody is disputing that people are intentionally killed with firearms orders of magnitude more often than with cars, and homicide statistics support this far better than the article you reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metalbot (Reply #71)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 02:10 PM

73. Well, if your dispute is with the title of the article, that's on the article's author

That's why I included it in quotes, in fact.

Honestly, I find that to be a minor objection to the larger point, but I'm not heavily invested in that particular word, so I'm content to let that drop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:57 PM

59. Indeed. I am totally in board with this.

License tax + liability insurance + tax per registered fire arm


We tax the hell out of smokers as a way of dissuading them from use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:14 AM

2. shoul be insurance on individual guns as well as amunition and the money goes into a

 

national pool to pay for the healthcare cost of those injured by guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:37 AM

8. how do you insure ammo? NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:25 AM

26. a dollar a per 50 rounds goes into insurance pool....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:54 AM

35. Ah, so not really insurance....

 

but a fund. I suppose it's a victim's relief fund?

I could support something like that. $1/50rds might be low. AR-15 5.56mm round costs about $.30-$.40 a round, so a box of 50 is $15-$20. Charge 10%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:41 AM

11. Government run program like flood insurance?

how do you know who has a gun? How do you get criminals to pay? Uninsured drivers are a huge problem where I live - how do you address that with guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:24 AM

5. There is a 10% excise tax that goes to the states for wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation

On all new firearms and ammunition sold to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year so there is precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inwiththenew (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:44 AM

15. My thought as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:26 AM

6. I think a heavy tax on ammunition would be easier to put into effect.

 

The 2A mentions only arms, not ammo. One could argue that's implied, but if a single bullet is taxed like a pack of cigarettes, I think we may see gun violence decreased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:39 AM

10. Defacto bans are unconstitutional.

settled law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 11:45 AM

41. Well, sort of. On paper? Sure. In reality? Well...

Every state in the union has de facto bans on abortion and, unconstitutional or not, they persist.

And when they are occasionally struck down, a nearly identical de facto ban goes into effect, rather like the way gun manufacturers dodge regulation by changing inconsequential bits of Deadly Killing Machine X to turn it into Deadly Killing Machine X.01.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:01 PM

44. The $200 stamp tax was a defacto ban

When the law was first enacted back in the 30's, only the wealthy could afford such a tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:42 AM

12. Historically, ammunition is considered "arms"

 


Also, there are some downsides to restricting ammo.... the likelihood that accidents increase, as does the likelihood the shooter misses the intended target.

Guns are dangerous, and practice with them is important to maintain competency. If one owns a gun, reasonly frequent practice is important to ensure you know how to actually operate the weapon and don't fire it when you do not mean to. And that you can actually hit what you intend to hit. And that applies to sport shooters too. One thing that scares the crap out of me every fall is seeing how many hunters are terrible shots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:12 PM

47. I practice about 3 times a week using dummy rounds.

One of the reasons I got a revolver instead of a pistol was that I could practice the fundamentals using snaps.

Being on a very limited budget, I shoot live rounds about every 3-4 months and only about a dozen rounds each time. But I handle the revolver with confidence and am accrate with it.

That's an advantage break action, lever action, pump action, bolt action and revolvers have over semiautomatics. You can get more practice in with them using dummy rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:46 AM

16. devils advocate

 

Good idea in theory.

Problem is most criminals get their firearms and ammo through theft or on the black market. So the people actually committing the crime wouldn't be paying the tax, it would be the citizens who follow laws that would.

Also what would we do with the money? Increase police presence? that's not exactly something most people are a fan of.

If two drug dealers shoot each other who does the money go to then?

I think taxing ammo and guns heavily would reduce the number of guns owned but may not decrease crime which is the real problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:35 AM

7. I like idea of tax, more importantly we need to get rid of law that protects gun profiteers.


I usually consider Ron Insana a right wing, Wall Street shill, but here is a quote from an article he wrote yesterday.

The time for polite debate on gun control is over --

"Gun-makers, as tobacco companies have been, should be held accountable, and legally liable, for the mass casualties that their products are responsible for, with severe penalties, class action lawsuits and other disincentives awaiting them at every turn."

"The NRA, touting Second Amendment rights, not only through TV ads but also through enormous contributions to congressional and presidential campaigns alike, has prevented even the most sensible reforms from passing as laws, as the New York Times has outlined."


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/the-time-for-polite-debate-on-gun-control-is-over.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:38 AM

9. We do pay a tax. Just redirect it to healthcare. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:43 AM

13. YES. E.g. metal detectors at schools

Plus medical care
Fund for lost business at places like Mandalay Bay
Compensating Sandy Hook parents for suffering

We have a gas tax to fund roads. Cigarette tax. Liquor tax.
Time for a gun tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:54 AM

17. states

 

I believe several states already have taxes on ammo, not sure how much but have not heard of it doing much.

I mean cigarettes are insanely expensive and literally give you cancer but people still line up at the gas station to buy them. High taxes wont stop gun owners, they will just buy one 10 guns instead of 20 or shoot every other month instead of every month. Again none of that stops crime...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spartikis (Reply #17)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:40 PM

69. Funny I have never seen a line for cigarettes. Where is this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 08:44 AM

14. Tax the hell out of ammunition,

Is a good start

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrishaJ (Reply #14)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:22 AM

24. Making sure only the rich have guns.... nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:27 AM

28. first box of ammo, no tax so the "poor" can defend themselves!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:24 AM

25. Most states do not have gun registration.

 

Do you own guns?

Gun Owner: Nope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:26 AM

27. ammo should have a federal tax of $1 a round to pay for NON-profit healthcare system for Americans.

one standard box of ammo no tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #27)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:50 PM

56. What is a "standard" box of ammo? How would the seller know the "standard" box has already...

 

Been purchased?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #56)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 02:24 PM

75. 100 rounds tax free. because you deduct your tax paid on your yearly IRS report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:29 AM

30. Tax the hell out of them so poor people can't own guns

not even going to waste time with the sarcasm emoticon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alea (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:29 PM

49. Tax the hell out of them so the poor/uninsured or underinsured

can get all the care they need without facing economic ruin when they get shot through no fault of of their own.

I think that's a bigger concern than being able to afford firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:35 AM

31. Maybe those actually committing the violence,

And their estates, should take it on?

Though most purchases are taxed already too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:33 PM

50. There should be liability if YOUR GUN is used to kill or injure

or commit a crime.

That might at least discourage people from leaving them lying around, or giving them to that unbalanced relative, or selling to a total stranger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 10:40 AM

32. It's probably about 5 - 6% of the population at most.

Legal owners that buy at legal venues - the ones you could tax or charge a fee to, that is. Not a lot you can get, still puts the majority of the cost burden on the general public.
Remember, only 3% of the population own something like 80% of the guns in the U.S.

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haele (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:44 PM

53. actually over 80 million Americans own guns

So around 30%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 11:24 AM

37. Step 1: Recognize the NRA as a terrorist organization

Step 2: Allow a 30-day grace period in which NRA members can formally disavow that terrorist organization; beginning on day 31, they are explicitly guilty of abetting terrorism, and all of their firearms shall be confiscated and destroyed.

Step 3: Redefine "arms" as "any and all weapons extant or designed as of the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment." Anything designed or built after that date shall not be considered "arms" under the 2nd amendment and are therefore subject to tight restrictions.

Step 4: Laugh at the gun advocates who insist that their precious, precious guns are already subject to tight restrictions.

Step 5: Laugh at the gun advocates who then squawk that "the founding fathers didn't predict the internet, either," and remind them that what applies to one amendment absolutely need not apply to any others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #37)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:59 PM

60. Posts like this are why you'll a tough time getting restrictions on bump stocks through...

Strong 2nd amendment types point to stuff like this when they say "Give an inch and take a mile"

Emotional, hyperbolic and riddled with legal fallacies...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baconator (Reply #60)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:07 PM

63. Well, fuck them.

The NRA has been directly dictating policy for decades, and they own the GOP.

I am also unimpressed by NRA enablers who presume to scold me for emotionalism or hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #63)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:10 PM

64. I suppose it's a question of priorities...

Do you want to win or do you want to vent?

Obviously, none of the patently illegal suggestions you made could happen but some expanded gun control measures could get through if stuff like your post wasn't gumming up the works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baconator (Reply #64)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:29 PM

68. Your legal speculations are unpersuasive, and the NRA thanks you for your support

I'm flattered that you think me so important, but it seems unlikely that my post is doing anything to slow down meaningful gun regulation, especially when the NRA is dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into its campaign to elect subservient toadies, suppress real data, and broadcast bullshit that gun advocates are then happy to parrot for free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #37)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 02:17 PM

74. Are you REALLY sure you want to open that door?

"Step 5: Laugh at the gun advocates who then squawk that "the founding fathers didn't predict the internet, either," and remind them that what applies to one amendment absolutely need not apply to any others."

You don't think that some fascist federal judge or those assholes on the 5th Circuit would hesitate to use that precedent to uphold a Trump supported law censoring the internet or TV or radio?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 11:27 AM

39. Marshmallows are a weapon.

We gonna tax those extra too?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:15 PM

48. This is one of the few instances when a conservative demographic wants everyone else to pay for thei

 

This is one of the few instances when a conservative demographic wants everyone else to pay for their collective mess, and rationalizes reasons why insurance, valid in all other walks of life, is unworkable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #48)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:02 PM

61. Are you suggesting that insurance should cover illegal acts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baconator (Reply #61)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:14 PM

65. That would be a really interesting approach

 

Imagine if you had a 20% tax on all revenue towards illegal acts that you paid for your entire life. After a certain amount of time, you could get it back, say 20 years, and you would start over, IF you never did anything illegal. Of course, if you did something illegal, it goes into a fund to help victims, and you forfeit your contributions and start contributing to the fund from scratch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:46 PM

54. Dead is dead and taxing guns won't bring people back to life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:56 PM

58. Confiscate all assets of the NRA and gun manufacturers

Nationalize the industry, then stop selling to civilians.

I know, we can't do this until we repeal the 2nd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samir.g (Reply #58)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:18 PM

66. ... and the 5th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samir.g (Reply #58)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:56 PM

72. Also confiscate all assets of gun owners...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #72)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 02:50 PM

78. What political system are you thinking of where this might happen?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:26 PM

67. Yeah because if there's one thing gun owners love, it is paying taxes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:44 PM

70. Yes, and liability insurance

A substantial tax on all guns and ammunition to put into a fund that covers the care for victims, who face crippling lifetime injuries and medical bills.

Odd how anyone can have hundreds of guns in this country, yet we cannot manage universal health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 02:41 PM

76. Or the weapons manufacturers themselves.

At this point, all of the costs of gun violence are externalized onto society at large. The weapons manufacturers make the profits and taxpayers pay for the carnage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 03:02 PM

79. Insurance. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread