Bullet tax to solve Chicago gun violence and crime problem

[child of wonder]

It seems to me enacting a tax on bullets just makes it harder for regular citizens to purchase ammo to protect themselves. Again, politicians fail to see the big picture which is the criminalization of adults injecting, snorting, and smoking chemicals or trading money for sex and the black market that results from it is the source of a significant portion of our gang and violence problems.

The real solution is to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, etc., tax them, and regulate them. The black market for these would dry up almost overnight and would cut off the massive amount of funding that these criminal organizations need to flourish.

I'm all for modest and sensible gun control laws such as people with violent criminal records being unable to purchase them or basic gun safety training requirements to get a permit, but having a part of the population trained in the use of firearms and with reasonable access to them only enhances the security of the general population, despite the few nut jobs that don't treat guns with the proper respect required.

 

[nehalem256]

It seems to me enacting a tax on bullets just makes it harder for regular citizens to purchase ammo to protect themselves. Again, politicians fail to see the big picture which is the criminalization of adults injecting, snorting, and smoking chemicals or trading money for sex and the black market that results from it is the source of a significant portion of our gang and violence problems.

The real solution is to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, etc., tax them, and regulate them. The black market for these would dry up almost overnight and would cut off the massive amount of funding that these criminal organizations need to flourish.

I'm all for modest and sensible gun control laws such as people with violent criminal records being unable to purchase them or basic gun safety training requirements to get a permit, but having a part of the population trained in the use of firearms and with reasonable access to them only enhances the security of the general population, despite the few nut jobs that don't treat guns with the proper respect required.

The problem comes from being half-assed about making those things illegal.

Singapore does not have a drug problem. If we start executing dealers and caning people for possession want to bet the problem would decrease?

Either be serious about making those things illegal, or make it legal.

 

[rudder]

A gun was made to kill things. People, animals, things. Maybe find another example of a product who's primary design is to injure or kill and maybe you may have a point. Else, I am not sure if your argument has any point.

For the sake of argument, let's say the government found a way to confiscate all guns. Do you honestly believe violence would stop just like that? Or would these gangbangers find some other device or tool to protect their drug trade?

Gangbangers get their ammo from the same place they get guns and it is probably safe to say those transactions are not taxed by any government entity.

 

[irishScott]

For the sake of argument, let's say the government found a way to confiscate all guns. Do you honestly believe violence would stop just like that? Or would these gangbangers find some other device or tool to protect their drug trade?

Gangbangers get their ammo from the same place they get guns and it is probably safe to say those transactions are not taxed by any government entity.

Even if they did buy their ammo in a gun store, how many gangbangers do you see at the shooting range? They might stockpile some ammo, but they only really shoot at each other or innocent victims, which are hardly prolonged firefights. The only ones who actually practice are part of the mob, and they have more than enough money to just pay the tax.

So the tax doesn't even accomplish its intended purpose in any significant way.

 

[momeNt]

Can any gun nut have a cogent discussion. Are there throwing bullets and kitchen bullets? The primary point of a bullet is to kill and maim, until you can find me another object that it's primary purpose is to maime or kill, I think I've made my point.

What other purpose is there for a throwing knife? Or any other lethal weapon like swords, spears, chakrams.

 

[child of wonder]

The problem comes from being half-assed about making those things illegal.

Singapore does not have a drug problem. If we start executing dealers and caning people for possession want to bet the problem would decrease?

Either be serious about making those things illegal, or make it legal.

George HW Bush advocated (and enacted, IIRC) the death penalty for large scale drug dealers. That didn't do any good.

We simply need to look at why certain things are illegal and others are not. People can smoke, ingest huge amounts of caffeine, and drink alcohol which are all dangerous and addictive yet they're not illegal. Why is marijuana? LSD? Cocaine? If an adult chooses to take those drugs, let them. Rather than wasting billions trying to tell people what to do with their own bodies we should be taxing and legislating it which will create a new revenue stream, eliminate the black market for these products, reduce crime, and make them safer. With the savings the government could also offer treatment options for people using the drugs that is paid for with the taxes generated from them.

I would, however, be in favor of requiring a person to be 18 or older to use them and making it a felony if someone provides drugs to someone underage.

 

[emperus]

Have you ever fired a gun? I have a feeling the answer is no, and if so I'd ask you if you'd take advice on driving and the nature of cars from someone without so much as a learner's permit.

And you're scared because we disagree on the modern purpose of firearms? I don't own my guns to kill people, I own them because shooting is fun. I'm prepared to kill in self defense and derive a sense of confidence from my ability to do so, but that's hardly the primarly objective. Guns are a tool of which I own several varieties. I decide their fundamental purposes, not you or anyone else.

I carry, as per my license from the state. You know that, and you say it scares you. I can guarrantee for the rest of the day you'll be thinking about that gun in my pocket more than I will. It disturbs you that I have capabilies you don't while simultaneously holding positions you don't understand. And that is why gun control is so dangerous and why we fight it so ravenously. Because people with no knowledge of guns largely determine gun laws, and this tax, the assault weapons ban, and many other laws are as dumb to gun enthusiasts as SOPA and PIPA were to computer enthusiasts.

So, I would have to have tried cocaine to chime in on it's effects. Or have had an overdose to tell how overdosing is dangerous. Or kill someone to speak on murder? Or, I would have to had had an abortion to speak on it, or pregnant to be an obgyn? Do you understand the ridiculous argument you are making?

 

[Lithium381]

So, I would have to have tried cocaine to chime in on it's effects. Or have had an overdose to tell how overdosing is dangerous. Or kill someone to speak on murder? Or, I would have to had had an abortion to speak on it, or pregnant to be an obgyn? Do you understand the ridiculous argument you are making?

bring some facts to the table then . . .? you're far more likely to die of a car crash than a gun. . . do you get sweaty palms and become short of breath everytime you get into a car? your fear is irrational. Honestly, if someone presented TRUE "sensible" legislation I'd be for it. As it is we need the NRA to stop this slow erosion of our 2a rights.
The 2A is *NOT* for hunting. It is so we can protect ourselves both personally and from the government. The government doesn't like that.

 

[DrPizza]

I have a solution (jokingly) for the gang violence problem. If I recall correctly, during the Vietnam War, we captured several ammo dumps. Rather than destroy the ammo, randomly, some of the ammo was replaced with ammo that would result in the destruction of the gun (and perhaps the life of the person shooting the gun.) They didn't do it with every round - that would be too obvious; but they did it with enough that it could do a reasonable amount of damage to the enemy.

I propose (again, jokingly, in case you didn't read the first paragraph) that we hand out free ammo*, but to qualify, you have to prove you're affiliated with a gang!

*wink wink nudge nudge

 

[Zargon]

LOL

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So, I would have to have tried cocaine to chime in on it's effects. Or have had an overdose to tell how overdosing is dangerous. Or kill someone to speak on murder? Or, I would have to had had an abortion to speak on it, or pregnant to be an obgyn? Do you understand the ridiculous argument you are making?

Clearly those are ridiculous examples. But if I hear opposing arguments from two sides of a debate, I'm going to consider the relative expertise of both based on their experience. If I have someone who has never used cocaine telling me how evil it is and a qualified neurosurgeon who has used cocaine and encourages others to try it if they feel inclined, I'm going with the person who has actually tried the drug and proven OK after indulging. The idea that you have to do something in order to speak on it is ridiculous, but the idea that experience should play absolutely no role in the discussion is equally ridiculous.

You've made the claim that bullets only exist to kill; you have had multiple people respond to you who have used bullets but failed to kill anyone. Whose experience is more valid in this discussion?

 

[irishScott]

So, I would have to have tried cocaine to chime in on it's effects. Or have had an overdose to tell how overdosing is dangerous. Or kill someone to speak on murder? Or, I would have to had had an abortion to speak on it, or pregnant to be an obgyn? Do you understand the ridiculous argument you are making?

Subtle differences.

You could speak on the scientific effects of cocaine, but could not comment on how it feels to use it. You could speak on the scientific effects of murder, but could not comment on the experience itself. You could comment on the science of abortions, but not the emotional turmoil that a woman goes through when having one. Likewise someone who's never driven a car could say "you turn left by turning the wheel counter-clockwise." but they have no idea how it feels to do that. They haven't felt it. They wouldn't know the difference between good steering and bad steering, between a stiff wheel and a loose one, among many other details critical to driving well.

The nature of firearm ownership and the nature of firearms is completely subjective. No one is arguing that the original intent (roughly 700 years ago) was to kill, but in a modern context the purpose of a gun can and does differ from person to person. This is not a complicated concept, and is one well understood by all gun owners. The most common purposes by far are sport-shooting, hunting, and self defense. You can lump the last two under some supposedly evil label of "killing", but the fact is all 3 are harmless at worst and in many cases helpful to society.

Your refusal to admit it shows an extreme ignorance of guns and gun ownership. As does your admitted fear of concealed carry permit holders. Point-of-fact, you would not know nor even suspect I was a concealed carry permit holder if I did not tell you. I'm a 5'11" white clean-cut college student, with no accent, who wears khakis, polos, and Vibram five fingers. I've sung in choirs since 5th grade. I talk at length on how we need a limited public option for healthcare. I can't remember the last time I made an enemy. We could have a conversation in a restaurant, and from your own posts the second I told you I carried you would be scared, even if there was no other change in my behavior. Do you not see the irrationality of that?

I'll end with some numbers. According to Gallup, 47% of households have a gun.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

According to the FBI Uniform crime reports, 8,775 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 (2011 not available). To account for suicides and add a little slack in your favor, let's just say 9,000 deaths due to guns each year. This is in fact overkill as all crime, gun crime included, is going down regardless.

The US population in 2011 was ~ 310,000,000.

So approximately 0.0029% of the nation is killed by firearms every year, Many in urban ghettos with the strictest gun laws. Where's the sense in punishing 47% for the largely insular actions of 0.0029%? There's also the fact that many of these legislators don't even know their own legislation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo



I hope you actually learn something from this thread. You preach to us about laws and their effects. We'll we're the ones who have actually gone out and been affected by those laws (through buying and using guns). We're the ones who know people who have been affected by said laws in other ways. You present no facts, and decry our experience and first-hand knowledge of these laws you promote as laughable. And you wonder why you're being laughed at in return?

 

[OutHouse]

So, federally, that is what should happen. Really, how many bullets do you use in a lifetime?

i shoot about 700 rounds of 9mm a month.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Clearly those are ridiculous examples. But if I hear opposing arguments from two sides of a debate, I'm going to consider the relative expertise of both based on their experience. If I have someone who has never used cocaine telling me how evil it is and a qualified neurosurgeon who has used cocaine and encourages others to try it if they feel inclined, I'm going with the person who has actually tried the drug and proven OK after indulging. The idea that you have to do something in order to speak on it is ridiculous, but the idea that experience should play absolutely no role in the discussion is equally ridiculous.

You've made the claim that bullets only exist to kill; you have had multiple people respond to you who have used bullets but failed to kill anyone. Whose experience is more valid in this discussion?

This is a general statement and so not directed entirely at you, but why are people justifying their rights? We have them, end of story. If someone demonstrates that they have scientifically derived evidence that this plan will prevent what it purports to do then the burden of justification is on them
Otherwise they have no argument whatsoever.

 

[halik]

People will just buy outside the county/state. I'm skeptical this will even pass the board.

Actually probably not, if you're fighting over a drug corner turf that generates $1K a week, extra $25 for a gun will make no difference.

 

[halik]

Not true. Knives primary objective is to cut things. Do bullets have any objective besides maiming or killing?

I would think a goal of a bullets or any other projectile is to travel and impact things. I have yet to see anything get maimed and/or killed during a biathlon.

What you put forth can also be applied to arrows (archery), swords, throwing knives etc etc.

 

[shortylickens]

So, federally, that is what should happen. Really, how many bullets do you use in a lifetime?

I need a thousand before I feel comfortable carrying any model of gun.
I need a couple hundred with a particular gun before I feel confident carrying it.

 

[irishScott]

This is a general statement and so not directed entirely at you, but why are people justifying their rights? We have then, end of story. If someone demonstrates that they have scientifically derived evidence that this plan will prevent what it purports to.
Otherwise they have no argument whatsoever.

Because a lot of people think some of those rights are outdated and should be taken away, all because they don't use them and don't see the point.

The 2nd amendment in particular is under attack due to naivete brought on by peace and an overall good citizenry. Many law-abiding people have a hard time understanding how laws can be ineffective, which is why we have so many stupid ones.

 

[woolfe9999]

This will solve exactly nothing. Contrary to the statement of its proponent, it's probably more about generating revenue to pay for shortfalls than it really is about curbing gun violence.

 

[waggy]

idiotic idea. this won't stop a damn person. All it is going to do is tax (wich is the point) lawful gun shooting.

No gang banger is going to buy ammo in the area. they aren't buying legal guns.


stupid idea is stupid.

 

[spidey07]

idiotic idea. this won't stop a damn person. All it is going to do is tax (wich is the point) lawful gun shooting.

No gang banger is going to buy ammo in the area. they aren't buying legal guns.


stupid idea is stupid.

I know! Let's put a tax on illegal gun sales or maybe make it illegal for a felon to be around a firearm or possess one! Maybe make it illegal to straw purchase a weapon, make it like really illegal.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I know! Let's put a tax on illegal gun sales or maybe make it illegal for a felon to be around a firearm or possess one! Maybe make it illegal to straw purchase a weapon, make it like really illegal.

We could even get radical and try making murder illegal. That will solve this problem!

 

[waggy]

We could even get radical and try making murder illegal. That will solve this problem!

fuck! why didn't someone think of that before!

 

[emperus]

Clearly those are ridiculous examples. But if I hear opposing arguments from two sides of a debate, I'm going to consider the relative expertise of both based on their experience. If I have someone who has never used cocaine telling me how evil it is and a qualified neurosurgeon who has used cocaine and encourages others to try it if they feel inclined, I'm going with the person who has actually tried the drug and proven OK after indulging. The idea that you have to do something in order to speak on it is ridiculous, but the idea that experience should play absolutely no role in the discussion is equally ridiculous.

You've made the claim that bullets only exist to kill; you have had multiple people respond to you who have used bullets but failed to kill anyone. Whose experience is more valid in this discussion?

Again. This is the Republican fear of science talking. I would trust a top neurosurgeon who hasn't taken cocaine over some idiot who overdosed on cocaine to tell me about it's effects on the brain. Why the hell would he need to have used cocaine? My gosh, really? Is that the extend of your argument? In order to talk about the danger of guns I have to own a gun? Wow.

 

[emperus]

Subtle differences.

You could speak on the scientific effects of cocaine, but could not comment on how it feels to use it. You could speak on the scientific effects of murder, but could not comment on the experience itself. You could comment on the science of abortions, but not the emotional turmoil that a woman goes through when having one. Likewise someone who's never driven a car could say "you turn left by turning the wheel counter-clockwise." but they have no idea how it feels to do that. They haven't felt it. They wouldn't know the difference between good steering and bad steering, between a stiff wheel and a loose one, among many other details critical to driving well.

The nature of firearm ownership and the nature of firearms is completely subjective. No one is arguing that the original intent (roughly 700 years ago) was to kill, but in a modern context the purpose of a gun can and does differ from person to person. This is not a complicated concept, and is one well understood by all gun owners. The most common purposes by far are sport-shooting, hunting, and self defense. You can lump the last two under some supposedly evil label of "killing", but the fact is all 3 are harmless at worst and in many cases helpful to society.

Your refusal to admit it shows an extreme ignorance of guns and gun ownership. As does your admitted fear of concealed carry permit holders. Point-of-fact, you would not know nor even suspect I was a concealed carry permit holder if I did not tell you. I'm a 5'11" white clean-cut college student, with no accent, who wears khakis, polos, and Vibram five fingers. I've sung in choirs since 5th grade. I talk at length on how we need a limited public option for healthcare. I can't remember the last time I made an enemy. We could have a conversation in a restaurant, and from your own posts the second I told you I carried you would be scared, even if there was no other change in my behavior. Do you not see the irrationality of that?

I'll end with some numbers. According to Gallup, 47% of households have a gun.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

According to the FBI Uniform crime reports, 8,775 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 (2011 not available). To account for suicides and add a little slack in your favor, let's just say 9,000 deaths due to guns each year. This is in fact overkill as all crime, gun crime included, is going down regardless.

The US population in 2011 was ~ 310,000,000.

So approximately 0.0029% of the nation is killed by firearms every year, Many in urban ghettos with the strictest gun laws. Where's the sense in punishing 47% for the largely insular actions of 0.0029%? There's also the fact that many of these legislators don't even know their own legislation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo



I hope you actually learn something from this thread. You preach to us about laws and their effects. We'll we're the ones who have actually gone out and been affected by those laws (through buying and using guns). We're the ones who know people who have been affected by said laws in other ways. You present no facts, and decry our experience and first-hand knowledge of these laws you promote as laughable. And you wonder why you're being laughed at in return?

Not reading all that. Stopped after your justification of your original post that owning a gun somehow gives you more authority to speak on regulations for it. Increasing the number of words in your post doesn't change the fact that it is still BS constructed on BS, defending BS.

Btw, yes people have argued in this thread that it is debatable that it's original purpose was to kill.

I genuinely do not know what point you are trying to make. Am an flummoxed that you somehow believe you have made some logical point.