And ANOTHER school shooting

[Dr. Zaus]

Are you trying to protect people from guns or protect them from themselves?

If you want to protect people from feral renegade guns, then ban guns. If you want to protect people from harming themselves, ban suicide.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/


According to this Harvard study prolific gun ownership is a major enabler of suicide.

And if I could tax suicide attempts out of existence I would.

 

[CZroe]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/


According to this Harvard study prolific gun ownership is a major enabler of suicide.

And if I could tax suicide attempts out of existence I would.

So, your freedoms would be limited because of what someone else chose to do to his/her self?

Should tall bridges be taxed out of existence?

The role of the government is not to keep me from hurting myself or to keep you from hurting yourself. It's to ensure our continued freedom and liberty. Restricting our liberty to protect us from ourselves is only OK where you would use that liberty to infringe on someone else's. That isn't the case with suicide. "Enables suicide" is not a justification for taxing/restricting guns.

 

[Phoenix86]

And suicide?

Not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in china, but it's also down in vs. 20 years ago with an uptick recently (around the time the economy went south). It's much more difficult to slice and dice suicide data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0

I find it for hard to understand how you just glossed over the gun homicide chart. Here, I'll hot link it so everyone can easily see.

I thought the premise of "ANOTHER school shooting" is gun homicides are up. Actually, I had no idea gun homicides were reduced by such a wide margin. Given 24 hour news cycle and ANOTHER school shooting, you'd think it's way UP.

Perhaps school shooting are up, perhaps not. If they are, and total gun crime is down, do you think gun control is the way to address it?

 

[Phoenix86]

And if I could tax suicide attempts out of existence I would.

When has this EVER worked?

Alcohol?
Cigarettes?
Prostitution?
Any sin tax ever?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

When has this EVER worked?

No.

Taxes reduce the number of gun owners there are. Which is the only rational goal of our gun policy if one's interest is human life.

Perhaps school shooting are up, perhaps not.

They are not, life in the US is getting better and better.

So, your freedoms would be limited because of what someone else chose to do to his/her self?
The role of the government is not to keep me from hurting myself or to keep you from hurting yourself.

If you don't think the role of government should be helping people not-die that's fine... it's a radical libertarian perspective, no doubt, but at least its an ethos.


But I never argued that your rights should be taken away; I said we should increase taxes on guns so that they are owned by fewer people.

 

[CZroe]

If you don't think the role of government should be helping people not-die that's fine... it's a radical libertarian perspective, no doubt, but at least its an ethos.


But I never argued that your rights should be taken away; I said we should increase taxes on guns so that they are owned by fewer people.

Nothing radical about the original intentions of the U.S. Constitution.

Absolute safety has always been the trade off for freedom and liberty. It's VERY CLEAR that the constitution was only meant to enable the government to protect us as far as our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. We are supposed to have absolute control over those individual rights as they apply to ourselves unless they infringe on someone else's rights.

Which do you think the founding fathers prioritized in the U.S. Constitution?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

You'd be depriving people of their freedom to own and purchase a gun without government discouragement so that someone else doesn't hurt themselves. That would set a precedent by which any activity that isn't 100% safe could be banned/controlled/restricted.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Nothing radical about the original intentions of the U.S. Constitution.

In modern America your perspective is very radical.

Think about all the government institutions that would have to come down and how fundamentally how we relate to each other would have to change to implement this world view.

That would set a precedent by which any activity that isn't 100% safe could be banned/controlled/restricted.

Like with cigarets, alcohol, DDT, obama care, and automatic weapons?

 

[CZroe]

In modern America your perspective is very radical.

Think about all the government institutions that would have to come down and how fundamentally how we relate to each other would have to change to implement this world view.

Like with cigarets, alcohol, DDT, obama care, and automatic weapons?

Your careless use of cigarettes and DDT and such DO infringe on the Constitutional rights of others (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) which is precisely why they are controlled. That's perfectly constitutional. I can turn up the music on my stereo up until it interferes with my neighbor's reasonable right to pursue happiness. Telling us that we can't have salt on the table or get drinks over 8oz because it encourages us to be unhealthy would not be constitutional. Relatively simple.

Addictive substances infringe on an adult's right to chose if they became addicted before they were mature enough to be capable of making a reasoned decision based on the known effects. That's why it's illegal to sell children alcohol and booze. It's not some out-dated logic. It's the same logic we are supposed to be following today and which usually passes without issue. It's when something clearly crosses the same line that the founders drew that it becomes controversial because that same line exists today whether or not you think it's "radical."

Government compelling us to purchase health insurance is unprecedented in the USA because the Constitution has never allowed them to for a paid product on regular working citizens in the past (vehicle insurance is not "forced" because driving is not a right). That's precisely why it's no unpopular. Your attempt to frame similar objections as "radical" amuses me. It's a very manipulative way to discuss issues, like when you start a discussion on banned weapons with "you don't need that to hunt!" as if hunting was the only reason weapons should be legal.

 

[tortillasoup]

What I can't understand is how does a shooting occur at a gun free zone! There are signs that clearly say no guns allowed! Maybe they should pass a law that says you'll be in trouble if you bring a gun into a gun free zone or pass a law that makes guns not work in gun free zones.

 

[Phoenix86]

No.

Taxes reduce the number of gun owners there are. Which is the only rational goal of our gun policy if one's interest is human life.

They are not, life in the US is getting better and better.

I asked for examples how taxing prevents something (much less ending it), and you reply with conjecture and sarcasm, meanwhile still glossing over the facts that gun crime is at a ~20 year low.

This is why people can't have a reasonable conversation about gun control.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I asked for examples how taxing prevents something (much less ending it),

You asked "Has this ever worked"

And I answered No.

Why the hell would I provide an 'example' of the straw man that I wasn't arguing in the first place?

I said taxing guns would reduce ownership, and thus death by guns.

I also agreed that things are getting better.

 

[Phoenix86]

You asked "Has this ever worked"

And I answered No.

Why the hell would I provide an 'example' of the straw man that I wasn't arguing in the first place?

I said taxing guns would reduce ownership, and thus death by guns.

I also agreed that things are getting better.

OK maybe I'm taking it out of context. Sorry if that's the case, but here's how I got there.

You said if you could tax something to non-existence you would. Then said taxes reduce guns, stating taxes can reduce use. So you think taxes reduce use yet the largest examples I listed you said a simple "no" to. edit: you said if you could tax something to nothing you would, then advocate tax reduces use, it's not illogical to extend that to taxing it enough would reduce it to nothing. If you don't think that's the case, address how taxing reduces use in the first place instead of saying "no", then continuing to advocate taxes.

Wait, what?

No. That's not the point of taxes, even sin taxes. Taxes are for revenue. Period. Sometimes that revenue is used to actually try and reduce use, sometimes not. Of those, most are woefully ineffective in reducing use.

Excess taxation absolutely drives the underground market. Ever heard of a loosie? Your basic understanding of taxes are extremely flawed and well outside reality.

If things are getting better why change anything with regard to gun control? Yet you also call it a crisis. How can it be a crisis if we're at a 20 year low?

Let's start with a need for change, then it's healthy to discuss how to change it. Pulling individual slices of facts like school shootings up (are they? I think they are, but then again I also didn't know we're at a 20 year low) or veteran suicide is up while ignoring total gun violence is WAY down is not seeing the forest for the trees.

See the conflict in your statements?

Is there a need for increased gun control, or are we over-reacting?

 

[DrPizza]

Should tall bridges be taxed out of existence?

In sticking with the theme of my argument that it's constant media portrayal, I'm going to suggest that most people would be too stupid to think of jumping off a bridge, had they not heard dozens of times about suicides from jumping off bridges. To clarify my point, many of those people wouldn't contemplate it because "water is soft." They want to die quickly, not have to flail around for 15 minutes in the water, too far from shore to reach shore. Somehow, a seed has to be planted in their mind to carry out such an act. E.g., here's another case: until a suicide was published at the location, it was unheard of. Following the glamorization or sensationalism, or whatever you want to call jumping into a live volcano, hundreds of people ended themselves via the same route during the following year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiyoko_Matsumoto

 

[Linux23]

Like Ben Carson said just rush the shooter (s)

 

[Phoenix86]

In sticking with the theme of my argument that it's constant media portrayal, I'm going to suggest that most people would be too stupid to think of jumping off a bridge, had they not heard dozens of times about suicides from jumping off bridges. To clarify my point, many of those people wouldn't contemplate it because "water is soft." They want to die quickly, not have to flail around for 15 minutes in the water, too far from shore to reach shore. Somehow, a seed has to be planted in their mind to carry out such an act. E.g., here's another case: until a suicide was published at the location, it was unheard of. Following the glamorization or sensationalism, or whatever you want to call jumping into a live volcano, hundreds of people ended themselves via the same route during the following year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiyoko_Matsumoto

To add to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aokigahara

The forest is a popular place for suicides, reportedly the most popular in Japan. Statistics vary, but what is documented is that during the period leading up to 1988, about 100 suicides occurred there every year.

In 2003, 105 bodies were found in the forest, exceeding the previous record of 78 in 2002. In recent years, the local government has stopped publicizing the numbers in an attempt to downplay Aokigahara's association with suicide.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

See the conflict in your statements?

Is there a need for increased gun control, or are we over-reacting?

I see the apparent problem, yes.

Really yes, things are getting better on almost all fronts.

However; social standards are rising faster than things are getting better.

Relative to social standards a few decades ago, my stance is an over reaction.

Relative to social standards today, taxing guns is a very moderate stance.


" Taxes are for revenue. Period. "

This is not what position politicians argue pass regressive taxes.

Tax incentives exists as a means to encourage desired behaviors.

Your careless use of cigarettes and DDT and such DO infringe on the Constitutional rights of others (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) which is precisely why they are controlled.

Doesn't the careless use of guns infringe on the constitutional rights of others?

Let me try this rhetorical device:

Explain to me why you agree with reduced automatic weapon ownership among civilians; and I'll explain to you why I believe in reduced gun ownership among civilians.

If you would like to see gun ownership increased then you should know this is an extreme minority position.

 

[Phoenix86]

I see the apparent problem, yes.

Really yes, things are getting better on almost all fronts.

However; social standards are rising faster than things are getting better.

Relative to social standards a few decades ago, my stance is an over reaction.

Relative to social standards today, taxing guns is a very moderate stance.

Interesting point, why do you feel gun violence in the past was at acceptable levels? It was pretty bad back then and much lower today. I'm not sure murder was acceptable, at any level "back then" any more than it is today.

This only furthers my suspicion that the 24 hour news cycle is driving this "new standard".

" Taxes are for revenue. Period. "

This is not what position politicians argue pass regressive taxes.

Tax incentives exists as a means to encourage desired behaviors.

Welp, you just solidified my belief that you have 0 clue what taxes are for. Try any definition of taxes, pretty much ever. Start with a dictionary.

Further, take a cursory look at the effects of taxation. Open an economic book, again, pretty much any of them. It's for redistribution of wealth/income, resource allocation and economic stability.

Basically, the effect of taxes is never to reduce use. In fact, if it actually did that as a goal, it would be self-defeating. Tax something to low usage=reduction in tax base. That is NEVER the goal, even if stated by a politician.

Take cigarettes as an example. We can at least all agree they are "bad" and provide little benefit to society (unlike guns, at least the need for reduction is clear).

http://taxfoundation.org/article/cigarette-taxes-and-cigarette-smuggling-state

It's extremely similar to prohibition, but on a sliding scale. The higher the taxes, the more you drive the taxed thing underground.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Interesting point, why do you feel gun violence in the past was at acceptable levels? It was pretty bad back then and much lower today. I'm not sure murder was acceptable, at any level "back then" any more than it is today.

This only furthers my suspicion that the 24 hour news cycle is driving this "new standard".

I think that society is coming to care more about black lives. For a long time the 'self cleaning oven' mentality vis a vis the inner city was the prevailing mentality: no longer.

Basically, the effect of taxes is never to reduce use. In fact, if it actually did that as a goal, it would be self-defeating. Tax something to low usage=reduction in tax base. That is NEVER the goal, even if stated by a politician.

These are papers papers showing that taxes do decrease consumption: however one meta-analysis I read showed it took a 100% price increase to get a 5% reduction in smoking:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615589/pdf/amjph00447-0036.pdf

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i62.full.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380885/pdf/amjph00506-0048.pdf

There are many another article in the same direction.

Take cigarettes as an example. We can at least all agree they are "bad" and provide little benefit to society (unlike guns, at least the need for reduction is clear).

http://taxfoundation.org/article/cigarette-taxes-and-cigarette-smuggling-state

It's extremely similar to prohibition, but on a sliding scale. The higher the taxes, the more you drive the taxed thing underground.

This is very good evidence: you've convinced me that taxation create black markets.

But do you think the same outcome will be seen with Guns?

It seems making automatic weapons hard to get has drastically reduced demand for automatic weapons.