ForumGarden

What a great idea this is! We tax cigarettes and alcohol because they damage our society, why not guns which are doing much more damage?

Taxing guns and bullets no more infringes on a the right to OWN a gun than taxing cigarettes infringes on the right to smoke. But it does do one thing well: it makes the person take responsibility for the damage to society they create in a very real way.

(Personally, I'd like to see bullets sell for $100 each.)

Using sales taxes as a gun control tool

By: Rachael Bade

April 9, 2013 04:39 AM EDT

State and local officials are pushing a new way to expand gun control: taxes.

Gun owners in and around Chicago last week started paying a new $25 tax on every firearm they purchase. In California, a statehouse panel on April 15 will hear testimony on a nickel-per-bullet tax measure, and in New Jersey, lawmakers want to slap an additional 5 percent sales tax on guns and ammo.

The effort to impose new taxes on guns and bullets faces serious opposition from pro-gun groups, but it shows how far some states and localities are willing to go in this new frontier on gun control — especially as Washington struggles to find consensus even on the most scaled-back gun proposals being debated in Congress.



“There are costs incurred as a result of gun violence which are borne by the general taxpayer — both social and economical, California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who put forward a nickel ammo tax proposal in January, said in an interview. “There ought to be a cost ¦ to those who want to buy firearms.

“I’m not asking to take away people’s guns, I’m just saying that for an activity that is relatively dangerous, obviously, people who participate in that activity should pay the full costs of that activity, said Maryland state Delegate Jon Cardin of Baltimore, who in January introduced legislation to tax bullets at 50 percent.

Gun and ammo tax supporters say those costs include law enforcement programs and paying for the medical care of gunshot victims.

Using sales taxes as a gun control tool - POLITICO.com Print View

Whatever the method, American citizens must be disarmed now!

They are the rogue country of the world and this stands fully in the way of any type of global governing body and is a killer of peace throughout the world.

Tax the illegal contraband as well.

Next thing you know, we will be taxing carbs, sugar, fat. Think how much we could tax bacon alone. Oh and salt for sure. We also need to tax all sports at every level to try and keep people from hurting themselves. Tax computers because people sit around all day without exercise. We need to put in a toll booth at all Macdonalds. We must keep everyone safe from everything through taxes..

Saint_;1424033 wrote: What a great idea this is! We tax cigarettes and alcohol because they damage our society, why not guns which are doing much more damage?

Taxing guns and bullets no more infringes on a the right to OWN a gun than taxing cigarettes infringes on the right to smoke. But it does do one thing well: it makes the person take responsibility for the damage to society they create in a very real way.
Minor detail: There's no recognized right to smoke immortalized in our Constitution.

But that's okay. You'd support a regressive tax that imposes a greater burden on the poor than on the rich? I'm sure Washington is cool with that, too. After all, it's only the poor people that can't be trusted with guns, right?

Accountable;1424091 wrote: Minor detail: There's no recognized right to smoke immortalized in our Constitution.


Surre there is: the right to "pursue happiness."

But that's okay. You'd support a regressive tax that imposes a greater burden on the poor than on the rich?


More poor people own guns than rich people? Really? The law says you can't stop people from owning guns. It says nothing about how much they should pay for the devastation it causes to society.



As for taxing carbs sugar and fat, we just did that. We are requiring health insurance for everyone because our society can't continue to pay the medical bills for everyone who deliberately screws their health.

Moral to the story: you hurt society with your personal behavior, you should pay for that damage. It's called "responsibility."

The power to tax is the power to destroy

In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court under John Marshall said that the State of Maryland could not use the power to tax to basically nullify a federal law. I would argue than an attempt to erase citizens Constitutional Rights by taxation would also be unConstitutional.

Saint_;1424100 wrote: Surre there is: the right to "pursue happiness."


:-3 right to smoke equals pursuit of happiness? Did you find that in The Federalist?.

Saint_;1424100 wrote: Moral to the story: you hurt society with your personal behavior, you should pay for that damage. It's called "responsibility."


I couldn't agree more. That is why we have tens of thousands of laws regarding misuse of firearms.

Before you know it there will be laws against soda pop and bottled water.

Ooops, I misspoke, there already are.

Saint_;1424100 wrote: Surre there is: the right to "pursue happiness."



More poor people own guns than rich people? Really? The law says you can't stop people from owning guns. It says nothing about how much they should pay for the devastation it causes to society.Histrionic pap.



Saint_;1424100 wrote: As for taxing carbs sugar and fat, we just did that. We are requiring health insurance for everyone because our society can't continue to pay the medical bills for everyone who deliberately screws their health.Blatantly unconstitutional socialism to counteract earlier socialist policy.

Saint_;1424100 wrote: Moral to the story: you hurt society with your personal behavior, you should pay for that damage. It's called "responsibility."
The way you go about it is the antonym of responsibility. If you truly were for people taking responsibility for themselves then you wouldn't have included your senseless rant about carbs. Rather than that, you are plainly in favor of government taking responsibility away from individuals and forcing your own morality upon them.

America is obese and dying from it by the hundreds of thousands.

America is killing it's citizens by the tens of thousands with guns.

America is killing hundreds of whole families by drunk driving.

Doesn't all that carnage prove that people, on a massive or even planetary scale, are fundamentally incapable of taking care of themselves?

People instinctively know this. That's why we developed governments. Then we rant against them. I've seen the same thing in children. They say they don't want rules, but they do.

Saint_;1424108 wrote: America is obese and dying from it by the hundreds of thousands.


Life Expectancy Graphs

Yea, we are just dropping off like flies.

Obesity does contribute to serious health problems. And your answer is to tax?

Tax what?

The problem is not simple. It does not affect all races, social economic, regional, cultures, etc. people equally.

Centers for Disease and Contorl

America is killing it's citizens by the tens of thousands with guns.

By the tens of thousands?

If you count suicides,

2010, United States

Suicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000

All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages

ICD-10 Codes: X72-X74





Number of

Deaths Population Crude

Rate Age-Adjusted

Rate**

19,392 308,745,538 6.28 6.06




2010, United States

Homicide/Legal Intervention Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000

All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages

ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95,Y35.0, *U01.4





Number of

Deaths Population Crude

Rate Age-Adjusted

Rate**

11,422 308,745,538 3.70 3.73


Oh BTW total suicides,

10, United States

Suicide Injury Deaths and Rates per 100,000

All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages

ICD-10 Codes: X60-X84, Y87.0,*U03





Number of

Deaths Population Crude

Rate Age-Adjusted

Rate**

38,364 308,745,538 12.43 12.08


So firearms account for about half of all suicides.

This is an interesting chart which I cannot just picture here.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/1 ... 2010-a.pdf

America is killing hundreds of whole families by drunk driving.

Whole Families, OK



Drunk Driving Fatalities Fall Below 10,000

By MADD | December 10, 2012| 8 Comments | Filed in: Drunk Driving

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released new data today showing 9,878 drunk driving fatalities in 2011. As a result, MADD is celebrating an historic milestone in the nation’s fight against drunk driving: the first time drunk driving fatalities have fallen below 10,000.

Not only did the number of people killed in drunk driving crashes in 2011 (9,878) drop by 2.5 percent from the number killed in 2010 (10,136), but this decline outpaced the 1.9 percent decrease in overall highway deaths. LINK


I am no fan of either MADD or drunk drivers, but I thought we already learned from Prohibition.

Saint_;1424108 wrote: Doesn't all that carnage prove that people, on a massive or even planetary scale, are fundamentally incapable of taking care of themselves?


no

Saint_;1424108 wrote: People instinctively know this.


Uhh, there are a lot of things I could say people instinctively know.

I have a list, and if King, most people would not like it, but that is to bad as we accept the concept of self government.

Saint_;1424108 wrote: That's why we developed governments. Then we rant against them. I've seen the same thing in children. They say they don't want rules, but they do.


Dude, you are just blowing my mind man, really for sure.

Saint_;1424108 wrote: America is obese and dying from it by the hundreds of thousands.

America is killing it's citizens by the tens of thousands with guns.

America is killing hundreds of whole families by drunk driving.

Doesn't all that carnage prove that people, on a massive or even planetary scale, are fundamentally incapable of taking care of themselves?No.

Saint_;1424108 wrote: People instinctively know this. That's why we developed governments. Then we rant against them. I've seen the same thing in children. They say they don't want rules, but they do.If you want to be treated like a child, then feel free to have yourself declared incompetent and find someone to take care of you. Don't try to presume that everyone is as incompetent and irresponsible as you. Don't try to presume that everyone is as afraid of caring for themselves as you. The vast majority (tens of millions) of Americans are capable of taking care of themselves and do so quite successfully.

Sorry you don't count yourself among them.

Accountable;1424143 wrote: Americans are capable of taking care of themselves and do so quite successfully.


But they don't. You didn't grow the cow you ate for dinner, nor did you grow the feed for the cow. You cannot construct a highway for yourself to drive on, nor are you capable of building a car to drive on it. You didn't build the house you live in, and you can't build a similar house out of modern materials yourself.

Our civilization is so big and complex that, even though you tell yourself you are capable of taking care of yourself...you are not. That's exactly why we need laws and government. One person, in the wild, with the right knowledge and tools might be able to take care of themselves. Three hundred million, intimately interconnected and interdependent, cannot and you know that. Do I have to stretch your imagination and ask you what would happen if all civic government was instantly disbanded? You know as well as I do it would be chaos.



It doesn't make you "helpless" or "incompetent" or threaten your manhood, so smooth your ruffled feathers. It just makes you dependent on a larger organization that can coordinate the myriad nuances that make life with millions of your fellow human beings possible.

Back to topic: Anything that creates discord, chaos, death, or destruction is detrimental to the health of the society. (See: drunk driving) It must and will be outlawed eventually or the society will die. guns fall in that category and I believe we will see them outlawed in our society within this century. That's the kind of thing that happens when a civilization matures.

You jump from obesity to paving your own personal road as if they are synonymous. How in hell .... you string together unrelated crap worse than a politician.

Drunk driving is outlawed not because of it's detriment to society, but because drunk it endangers the health, safety, and property of people besides the drunk driver. Same with drunk hunting, by the way. Note that being drunk is not outlawed, nor is driving. Cars are not outlawed. Neither is alcohol. Drunk driving is a deed.

Guns are in no way synonymous with drunk driving. Guns are not detrimental to society. Guns do not endanger the health, safety, or property of anyone. A gun is not a deed.

Accountable;1424184 wrote: You jump from obesity to paving your own personal road as if they are synonymous. How in hell .... you string together unrelated crap worse than a politician.


Sorry, I was pointing out that we need gun control because our society is so large. Lots of thing, like highways, are the domain of the government because individuals do not have the ability to do that. The government does other things, like passing laws, to preserve the safety of the individual and society as a whole.

You make the statement, "Drunk driving is outlawed not because of it's detriment to society, but because drunk it endangers the health, safety, and property of people besides the drunk driver."

That's exactly what guns do, so they fall in the same category.

Note that being drunk is not outlawed, nor is driving. Cars are not outlawed. Neither is alcohol.


Cars are regulated...because they are dangerous. Alcohol is regulated, for the same reason. Guns should also be completely regulated.

Guns do not endanger the health, safety, or property of anyone.


Try convincing the parents of twenty dead children that.

Saint_;1424187 wrote:

Cars are regulated...because they are dangerous. Alcohol is regulated, for the same reason. Guns should also be completely regulated.


Guns in themselves are no more dangerous than cars.

Cars are regulated for the purpose to taxation, not because they are dangerous. We use cars everyday on public property (roads) intermingled with other cars. Despite best efforts sometimes collide, or just plain run over people. Hence insurance laws, licensing.

The average person does not use guns everyday (though I would like to), and certainly not in public. Where and when one can use a gun is strictly regulated. Much more so than alcohol or cars.

It is obvious firearm registration does not increase safety for anybody. It's the first step towards confiscation. At least you're honest enough to admit that is what you want.

The example of Great Britain is prima face example that gun confiscation actually creates a more dangerous society. Chicago, 500 murders last year, and guns are all but illegal.

And as I already pointed out, for all the hoopla about semiautomatic rifles (so called assault weapons), the worries are greatly misdirected. Regulate hammers or knives, which are used more often for murder than all rifles combined.



Saint_;1424187 wrote: Try convincing the parents of twenty dead children that.


"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel quotes ...

tude dog;1424204 wrote: Guns in themselves are no more dangerous than cars.


Which is to say extremely dangerous.

Cars are regulated for the purpose to taxation, not because they are dangerous.


Then what is the point of the driver's exam? Why license plates? Why registration?

We use cars everyday


Apparently, that's what Americans do with guns as well.

Despite best efforts sometimes collide, or just plain run over people. Hence insurance laws, licensing.


Despite our best efforts, sometimes guns shoot people, hence my idea for insurance laws, licensing.

(and don't try "guns don't kill people, people kill people", because I'll come back with cars don't run over people, people run over people!)

Where and when one can use a gun is strictly regulated. Much more so than alcohol or cars.


No. and THAT'S my point. You can buy guns without paperwork, you can't do that with either alcohol or cars. To operate a car, you must be insured because you can kill someone accidentally or on purpose. Guns do not have to be insured even though they can have the same results. Cars are licensed and registered to a specific owner so that they can be traced if stolen, or linked to that person if used to commit a crime. Guns do not have to be.

It is obvious firearm registration does not increase safety for anybody.


Why? It works for cars. That is nothing but your opinion and is contrary to evidence.

It's the first step towards confiscation.


Paranoia.

At least you're honest enough to admit that is what you want.


Oh no, you get me wrong. I don't want to confiscate anyone's guns. I want to make it impossible for anyone get them in the future. Big difference. I'll let time itslef erase those already in existence.

The example of Great Britain is prima face example that gun confiscation actually creates a more dangerous society.


58 Murders a Year by Firearms in Britain, 8,775 in US

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

22 July 12



umber of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638

(Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58

(equivalent to 290 US murders)

Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2

(equivalent to 10 US murders).

For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.

Regulate hammers or knives, which are used more often for murder than all rifles combined.


Source please. (Knowing full well that that statement is ridiculous.)





"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. .


Well, I finally got you to admit guns are a serious crisis in our country. We are making excellent progress!

Guns in themselves are no more dangerous than cars.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Which is to say extremely dangerous.


I am sitting here about 4' from a loaded handgun. My truck is outside parked. Gun and truck are no danger to anybody. They are only a danger when operated carelessly.

Cars are regulated for the purpose of taxation, not because they are dangerous.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Then what is the point of the driver's exam?


OK, I gotta be more clear.

Drivers exam does not make the car more safe. It is an attempt to insure drivers understand the basic laws etc. of vehicle operation.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Why license plates? Why registration?
License plate is for easy identification which shows taxes have been paid.

I don't know about where you live, but in the two states I have lived and registered cars, the fee was based on the appraised value of the vehicle. Zero to do with safety.

It is the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) identifies the individual vehicle.

A VIN is much like the serial number stamped on every gun since 1968. Deface that you can be looking at some serious trouble with the Feds. Destroy the VIN on a car, one may have some splaining to do.

We use cars everyday

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Apparently, that's what Americans do with guns as well.


To be clear, I wrote

"The average person does not use guns everyday."

Though I didn't specify, by saying I would like to, thought it was clear I would like to be at the shooting range.

And you are correct, for a myriad of reasons, guns are used every day. I don't know if it counts as a use, but many of us carry one every where legal.

Despite best efforts sometimes collide, or just plain run over people. Hence insurance laws, licensing.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Despite our best efforts, sometimes guns shoot people, hence my idea for insurance laws, licensing.


I would say such regulation is an infringement on our right.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: (and don't try "guns don't kill people, people kill people", because I'll come back with cars don't run over people, people run over people!)


Get no argument from me.

Where and when one can use a gun is strictly regulated. Much more so than alcohol or cars.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: No. and THAT'S my point. You can buy guns without paperwork, you can't do that with either alcohol or cars.


No totally true about guns. All guns sold by a FFL (Federal Firearm License), whether in a retail outlet, gun show or anywhere, you must fill out Form 4473.

This is not required in face to face transaction between average citizens. However firearms crossing state lines between regular folk is another story.

Maybe where you live, but I don't know of anywhere the law requires paperwork to buy alcohol or cars.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: To operate a car, you must be insured because you can kill someone accidentally or on purpose. Guns do not have to be insured even though they can have the same results.


Same can be said of many items, like ladders, chainsaws.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Cars are licensed and registered to a specific owner so that they can be traced if stolen, or linked to that person if used to commit a crime. Guns do not have to be.


I guarantee, if any of my firearms end up stolen, I will provide all information to the authorities. If later my stolen gun is used in a crime, I don't see how it helps knowing the serial number of my gun to catch the criminal.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: It is obvious firearm registration does not increase safety for anybody.

Why? It works for cars. That is nothing but your opinion and is contrary to evidence.


I have yet seen where registration of anything increases safety.

It's the first step towards confiscation.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Paranoia.


I dunno about that. Especially since registration has no practical purpose.

At least you're honest enough to admit that is what you want.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Oh no, you get me wrong. I don't want to confiscate anyone's guns. I want to make it impossible for anyone get them in the future. Big difference. I'll let time itslef erase those already in existence.


I wish ya all bad luck on that endenvour.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: The example of Great Britain is prima face example that gun confiscation actually creates a more dangerous society.

58 Murders a Year by Firearms in Britain, 8,775 in US

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

22 July 12



umber of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638

(Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58

(equivalent to 290 US murders)

Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2

(equivalent to 10 US murders).

For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.


OK, GB doesn't suffer much of a murder problem as compared to the US.

Regulate hammers or knives, which are used more often for murder than all rifles combined.

Source please. (Knowing full well that that statement is ridiculous.)


yr 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rifles 453 380 351 367 323

Knives or cutting instruments 1817 1888 1,83 1,732 1,694

Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 647 603 623 549 496

FBI

Overall, when it comes to crime GB is a rotten place to live.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.


And of course there is Chicago, gun free(?) city.

[url=http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/]Crime rates for Chicago, IL



"You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Well, I finally got you to admit guns are a serious crisis in our country. We are making excellent progress!


:wah:

You're a funny guy. You just ignore it was in response to your comment about the children murdered in Newtown, Connecticut.

Saint_;1424187 wrote: Sorry, I was pointing out that we need gun control because our society is so large. Lots of thing, like highways, are the domain of the government because individuals do not have the ability to do that. The government does other things, like passing laws, to preserve the safety of the individual and society as a whole.

You make the statement, "Drunk driving is outlawed not because of it's detriment to society, but because drunk it endangers the health, safety, and property of people besides the drunk driver."

That's exactly what guns do, so they fall in the same category.Your repeating a false statement doesn't make it true. I know that politicians and other liars make it seem so, but it's not.



Saint_;1424187 wrote: Cars are regulated...because they are dangerous. Alcohol is regulated, for the same reason. Guns should also be completely regulated.Guns are regulated as much or more than alcohol. You can do your little semantic dance on your own, trying to convince yourself of this false analogy.

Saint_;1424187 wrote: Try convincing the parents of twenty dead children that.You can walk through a parking lot full of cars and be perfectly safe. You can walk into a room filled with loaded guns and be just as safe.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: No. and THAT'S my point. You can buy guns without paperwork, you can't do that with either alcohol or cars. To operate a car, you must be insured because you can kill someone accidentally or on purpose. Guns do not have to be insured even though they can have the same results. Cars are licensed and registered to a specific owner so that they can be traced if stolen, or linked to that person if used to commit a crime. Guns do not have to be.You can't buy alcohol without paperwork? :yh_rotfl

At MOST all the paperwork you need for alcohol is an ID card and paper money. Wanna try the paranoid song & dance about buying used guns? Better back it up with describing the paperwork needed to do the equivalent with alcohol.

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Why? It works for cars. That is nothing but your opinion and is contrary to evidence.In your own words:Saint_;1424209 wrote: Source please. (Knowing full well that that statement is ridiculous.):yh_eyebro

Saint_;1424209 wrote: Oh no, you get me wrong. I don't want to confiscate anyone's guns. I want to make it impossible for anyone get them in the future. Big difference. I'll let time itslef erase those already in existence.Same ends. How is your passive-aggressive approach any better? Any different? Any less unconstitutional?