CarpeDiem3 0 #76 November 5, 2012 QuoteSo how do you feel about a $25 poll tax? Pulling a voting booth lever doesn't cause of the death of another person. Pulling a gun trigger does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #77 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo how do you feel about a $25 poll tax? Pulling a voting booth lever doesn't cause of the death of another person. Pulling a gun trigger does. There are numerous threads and posts to the contrary. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #78 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo how do you feel about a $25 poll tax? Pulling a voting booth lever doesn't cause of the death of another person. Many here have disagreed with this"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo how do you feel about a $25 poll tax? Pulling a voting booth lever doesn't cause of the death of another person. Pulling a gun trigger does. but this tax is to buy a gun, not pull a gun trigger. You argument was that this tax wouldn't prevent someone from exercising their rights. $25 wouldn't keep anyone from voting either, right? And let's be precise - pulling the trigger *can* cause death, but when you compare the millions (billions?) of rounds shot each year versus the 25k dead (including suicides), it's nearly a rounding error that pulling the trigger does not cause death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loch1957 0 #80 November 5, 2012 You might really want to do a tad of research. here I'll do it for you, of course the table is from 2009 so its a tad off from this year. Its clear that the vast majority of death by firearms were during crimes, as in murder, rape, robberies among others. These are not your friends from work or your buddies from the drop zone pr rednecks at a beer party doing the killing. They are criminals that have chosen a predatory life and will continue that, and a tax wont stop it. 1836 were killed by knives and 623 were killed by blunt objects. I suggest you turn in everything sharp as well as anything heavy enough to cause injury.The bad guys certainly will not. There were 858 killed in robberies, makes you wonder how many of those might be alive if they had had a weapon of defense. There are no new laws or taxes needed, just enforce the ones that exist. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdfAvoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #81 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo now you want a law passed that restricts blacks from owning guns? You have really run off the rails on this one. Negative. I want killers to not be able to get guns. You can't have that because it's not possible. Jamaica decided in 1974 that only the police and military can legally own handguns with illegal possession carrying a life sentence. They created a special gun court with secret trials. The conducted warrant-less searches. Following the ban the murder rate skyrocketed past 60 per 100,000 inhabitants although at only 41 per 100,000 in 2012 it's near the post-ban low. The simplest repeating arm to manufacture is an open-bolt sub-machine gun. An AK47 machine gun is one of the most common small arms in the world. When you manage to reduce leakage from the legal market of low cost guns, the relative difficulty of getting such weapons decreases and more criminals use them instead of cheap pistols. Like the Yardies in the UK. You may be able to reduce the murder and violent crime rates by addressing the economic disparity they go with. People's income generally comes from their educational attainment and there's a huge gap there. Part of the education gap is due to how we run our schools. Public schools are paid for (through property taxes) and controlled (as in the curriculum) by the local populations. Students generally attend local schools. Black children are more likely to live in statistically poor neighborhoods. White children are more likely to live in statistically affluent neighborhoods where professional parents insist the schools provide college level courses so their kids can get into name-brand universities. Black children are therefore less likely to have the same educational opportunities as white ones. Part of it is social. Children tend to follow in their father's footsteps when it comes to education and earnings. Poor people living among the relatively wealthy will continue to kill each other until we deal with this regardless of the legal situation involving firearms. Quote Their skin color matters naught. It's the economic disparity which disproportionately affects back and Hispanic Americans. People like to cite _Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities_ (Sloan at el) as an example showing how American access to guns makes us less safe than Canadians where similar cities (size, geography, etc) are compared although this is incorrect. Although Seattle and Vancouver are similar cities on opposite sides of the border they have radically different demographics. At the time of the study white people on both sides of the border had similar economic circumstances and were safer in Seattle with 6.2 murders per 100,000 versus 6.4 per 100,000 in Vancouver. In Vancouver the minorities were more affluent than average and their murder rates were not out of line with those of the white population. In Seattle the black and Hispanic per-capita incomes from the 2000 census were about half the white population's ( $18,328 and $17,216 respectively vs $35,641) and murder rates consequently many times higher at 36.6 and 26.9 per 100,000. Quote If the black communities are suffering a larger than normal number of murders, then the gun laws there should be even more important to enforce. Sure, although putting a band-aid on the problem isn't going to fix it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #82 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo how do you feel about a $25 poll tax? Pulling a voting booth lever doesn't cause of the death of another person. It can. In this election Californians voted on whether or not to keep the death penalty. Voter directed changes in police and fire department funding may result in people's deaths. Quote Pulling a gun trigger does. Does not. I've never killed or even shot anyone in spite of firing thousands of rounds because like nearly all of the other 80,000,000+ gun owners in America with our 250,000,000+ guns that's not my intent. Even using a gun for self defense usually doesn't kill or injure anyone (criminals tend to flee before a shot is fired). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #83 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo how do you feel about a $25 poll tax? Pulling a voting booth lever doesn't cause of the death of another person. Pulling a gun trigger does. but this tax is to buy a gun, not pull a gun trigger. You argument was that this tax wouldn't prevent someone from exercising their rights. $25 wouldn't keep anyone from voting either, right? Buying a gun was a planned expenditure of hundreds of dollars to begin with, so adding $25 to that is not a significant burden. Voting is something that is free, therefore adding $25 to that IS a significant detrimental change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #84 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo how do you feel about a $25 poll tax? Pulling a voting booth lever doesn't cause of the death of another person. Pulling a gun trigger does. but this tax is to buy a gun, not pull a gun trigger. You argument was that this tax wouldn't prevent someone from exercising their rights. $25 wouldn't keep anyone from voting either, right? Buying a gun was a planned expenditure of hundreds of dollars to begin with, so adding $25 to that is not a significant burden. It's a 50% price increase on an inexpensive gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #85 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteBuying a gun was a planned expenditure of hundreds of dollars to begin with, so adding $25 to that is not a significant burden. It's a 50% price increase on an inexpensive gun. Inexpensive guns like that are a danger to the operator. They're likely to either not work when needed, or blow up in their face. It'd be doing them a favor to make them buy a more expensive, higher quality gun. Maybe we can have welfare benefits subsidize a quality gun purchase for those poor welfare recipients who live in dangerous neighborhoods. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,179 #86 November 5, 2012 You're having fun with this, aren't you? Maybe, instead, we can train people on welfare how to make the new 3D printers and their supplies, and then they can print their own guns. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #87 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteBuying a gun was a planned expenditure of hundreds of dollars to begin with, so adding $25 to that is not a significant burden. It's a 50% price increase on an inexpensive gun. Inexpensive guns like that are a danger to the operator. They are not. Quote They're likely to either not work when needed, or blow up in their face. They are not. Given our litigious society no one would be dumb enough to sell such guns and examples of such designs would not have remained on the market for over 40 years (George Jennings designed the Raven Arms MP-25 in 1970) especially with millions (the original Raven Arms company made over 2 million of these pistols before their factory burned down in 1991 and they sold the design to Phoenix Arms which continues to make them today) sold providing plenty opportunity to uncover such flaws. They are not as pleasant to own and shoot compared to many higher priced designs but will usually do the job just fine in the typical defensive encounter which usually occurs under 7 yards with no shots fired. Quote Maybe we can have welfare benefits subsidize a quality gun purchase for those poor welfare recipients who live in dangerous neighborhoods. That is a fine idea. We could also give them government surplus like M1911 pistols left over from the move to Beretta M9 or the .38 revolvers used by local police that have since moved on to semi-automatics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 November 5, 2012 Quote Voting is something that is free, therefore adding $25 to that IS a significant detrimental change. elections (and thus voting) are not remotely "free." They cost a substantial amount to administer, and a much larger fortune to campaign. But we get you - rights are only for the rich. Fuck the poor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #89 November 5, 2012 QuoteQuote Voting is something that is free, therefore adding $25 to that IS a significant detrimental change. elections (and thus voting) are not remotely "free." They cost a substantial amount to administer, and a much larger fortune to campaign. But we get you - rights are only for the rich. Fuck the poor. Voting is free to the voter, as the voter pays no fee to register, nor to enter the polling place. Sure it takes some tax money to administer the polls, but that doesn't count as a poll tax. Nor are the campaign costs of the candidates a burden upon the voters, who don't have to donate to them if they don't want to. I don't know where you get that "rich vs. poor" stuff, but it's not from me. Do you think that Chicago politicians hate the poor because they enacted a $25 tax on gun sales? Are sales taxes an unfair burden upon the poor? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #90 November 5, 2012 Quote You're having fun with this, aren't you? Maybe, instead, we can train people on welfare how to make the new 3D printers and their supplies, and then they can print their own guns. Wendy P. Don't be silly. If they can't afford a $25 gun tax, they certainly can't afford the components to a 3-D printer. And they would need a computer to run it, wouldn't they? Geez, how much is that going to cost 'em? Are we going to give the poor free computers too? Al Gore did it for the Injuns. Might be a good idea. But we shouldn't let just anyone make their own guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #91 November 5, 2012 Quote I don't know where you get that "rich vs. poor" stuff, but it's not from me. Do you think that Chicago politicians hate the poor because they enacted a $25 tax on gun sales? Yes. Many of our political leaders are members of the wealthy elite who see such people as less than full citizens. QuoteAre sales taxes an unfair burden upon the poor? Yes. This is why many states exempt things like food (for consumption at home; Richie Rich dining at a restaurant pays tax on his food, but Joe Six Pack buying it at the grocery store does not) and clothing from sales tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #92 November 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteAre sales taxes an unfair burden upon the poor? Yes. This is why many states exempt things like food... and clothing from sales tax. Well if guns are such a vital thing to own for personal protection, then we should exempt them from sales tax too, right? Having tax-free food doesn't help if some thug can just walk into your apartment and steal it from you. You gotta have a tax-free gun to go with it to protect your milk and cookies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #93 November 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre sales taxes an unfair burden upon the poor? Yes. This is why many states exempt things like food... and clothing from sales tax. Well if guns are such a vital thing to own for personal protection, then we should exempt them from sales tax too, right? Having tax-free food doesn't help if some thug can just walk into your apartment and steal it from you. You gotta have a tax-free gun to go with it to protect your milk and cookies. Right! Now you're thinking logically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #94 November 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteWell if guns are such a vital thing to own for personal protection, then we should exempt them from sales tax too, right? Having tax-free food doesn't help if some thug can just walk into your apartment and steal it from you. You gotta have a tax-free gun to go with it to protect your milk and cookies. Right! Now you're thinking logically. Glad to see we've agreed on something. "I'll have the gallon of milk, fig newtons, pork chops, mac 'n cheese, and a Smith & Wesson MP9, please." But this means that grocery stores are going to have to be able to do background checks on grocery shoppers, before they can sell them grocery-protecting guns. That's gonna really slow down the check-out line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #95 November 6, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Well if guns are such a vital thing to own for personal protection, then we should exempt them from sales tax too, right? Having tax-free food doesn't help if some thug can just walk into your apartment and steal it from you. You gotta have a tax-free gun to go with it to protect your milk and cookies. Right! Now you're thinking logically. Glad to see we've agreed on something. "I'll have the gallon of milk, fig newtons, pork chops, mac 'n cheese, and a Smith & Wesson MP9, please." But this means that grocery stores are going to have to be able to do background checks on grocery shoppers, before they can sell them grocery-protecting guns. That's gonna really slow down the check-out line. In Iowa you need only a permit to purchase or an Iowa concealed weapons permit on you. Background check pre approved Next please"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #96 November 6, 2012 Here's an idea, why not have a tax on everything and stop trying to influence the normal development of a free society. Oh wait Representative Paul already proposed that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 November 6, 2012 QuoteHere's an idea, why not have a tax on everything and stop trying to influence the normal development of a free society. Oh wait Representative Paul already proposed that. silly man - if the government doesn't show preferential treatment to every group, then they lose all their powers and, they can't pretend to advocate programs for special social manipulation which cause more harm than good ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #98 November 6, 2012 QuoteHere's an idea, why not have a tax on everything and stop trying to influence the normal development of a free society. Oh wait Representative Paul already proposed that. Or eliminate all taxes, print money, and let inflation take care of government spending. Make the money biodegradable with a 5 year half life and even inflation can be kept under control. Will discourage keeping it under your mattress too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #99 November 6, 2012 QuoteHere's an idea, why not have a tax on everything and stop trying to influence the normal development of a free society. Oh wait Representative Paul already proposed that. You're obviously some kind of radical. You'll be accused of being a racist and of hating the poor. You uncaring cold-hearted beast! ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #100 November 27, 2012 QuoteThere is already a very large excise tax on alcohol and on gasoline. I'm surprised that you want a similar tax on ammo, but OK As long as they use that tax to improve public shooting ranges (like they do gas taxes and roads)... I see no problem with a nominal tax on ammo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
