On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(01-02-2013 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-02-2013 09:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The wikipedia article for Switzerland was for the ammunition supplied by the government. I realize they can still have personal ammo but the fact that the government recognizes the need to control ammunition is a good thing.

As for Australia's shooting incidents, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_...ass_deaths

Like I said, let's just take from the 80's onward. There is more than one, there were 8 in that span that I mention and 9 if we take it back to the mid-70's. The reason that is important is that if we plot shooting incidents over time, they were averaging around 1 every 2 years from 1980 to 1995 (8 incidents divided by 15 years equals a rate of 0.5 incidents per year). Since the gun laws changed, they have been shooting-free for >10 years.

To the point on my "tax the hell out of them" solution, I did not say tax everything into oblivion. That does not mean a bullet should be taxed at $10 per but maybe an increase of 50 cents per or a dollar per and guns get taxed differently depending on its use. Ergo, rifles for hunting are considered luxury since you don't need to hunt (very few do and they could get an exemption based on income) and are at a higher rate than those bought for defense.

And you are making an assumption that the government will just misuse or screw-up the taxation because you don't like the government charging more taxes. The solution to our problems is not to get rid of government, nor is it to blindly trust it. But it certainly isn't to just assume that all government is bad and inefficient.

I am well aware of just how poor most of Tennessee is (heck, I ain't feeding towards the top of the barrel either) but places like that arguably need guns for self-defense the least as rural areas have lower crime rates. I know how much some of them spend on guns and ammunition and taxing it would not break them (like my brother). Additional taxes for his hobby is not adding any real burden. Now, the people who don't make as much and spend more on their guns? Yea. They are going to have to get a new hobby besides their death machine.

What is the tax for? Is it merely punitive? A sin tax? Taxation for social engineering?

No, that would be a true douchebag move. And while I am an asshole, I am not that big of one. The taxes would go towards paying for the background checks and mental health checks necessary to evaluate the individuals buying guns and ammunition.

Ergo, the taxes would fund mental health specialists and researchers to monitor and evaluate the gun owners registering and re-registering their weapons. Not simply a money-making tool but one that gets funneled right back into the system being taxed. Perhaps it would even be enough to fund more police officers whose job is specifically enforcement of gun laws. Basically, that person would be like a constable and would have the job of securing unauthorized weapons or making them inoperational until the owner reconciles whatever issue caused them to lose their rights to its use.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line - TheBeardedDude - 01-02-2013 09:58 AM
Forum Jump: