• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bullet tax to solve Chicago gun violence and crime problem

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
halik said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, bullets were created (original purpose) in order to be used in biathlons? Is that what you want me to believe that you believe?

Yes on arrows/swords and no on throwing knifes as throwing knives are just knives. A knives original purpose was to cut and a modified knife gets you a throwing knife.
 
emperus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Obviously you have trouble reading. So let me highlight the portion of what I wrote that you completely ignored to continue ranting like a toddler.

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 are characterizing guns in only the way you want them to be seen and ignoring all other uses that guns may have, and then turning around and telling other people to stop trying to reframe the debate because it doesn't meet your narrow, and frankly incorrect, view of what guns are. If anyone is being "anti-science" in this debate, it's you, refusing to provide any substantive statistics to bolster any claim that this law would have any noticeable effect on gun violence. You just continue a narrow-minded view that guns are automatically evil, therefore anyone who would dare defend them must also be evil. It's the exact same tactic used by people who are against any number of pet causes, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, etc. Your passion for the issue blinds you to your bias and makes rational discussion impossible.
 
Who cares really? Doesn't anyone find it fascinating that the top leader of Cook (aka Crook) County has a brain defect capable of producing insanity like this? This would be like the top board member of the largest Texas county, who is a Repubilcan, proposing that every person in that Texas county swearing allegience to the one true Christian God.

Seriously, no one, not even the most insanely Right and/or religious person on P&N, would think that person was in their right mind.

I can understand those of us that are living, or have lived, in and around Crook Co. knowing this is the mentality of those who run things here, but for you others posting, I'd have thought there'd be more stunned disbelief at this person than anything that's been posted here so far...

Chuck
 
Atomic Playboy said:
Obviously you have trouble reading. So let me highlight the portion of what I wrote that you completely ignored to continue ranting like a toddler.

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 are characterizing guns in only the way you want them to be seen and ignoring all other uses that guns may have, and then turning around and telling other people to stop trying to reframe the debate because it doesn't meet your narrow, and frankly incorrect, view of what guns are. If anyone is being "anti-science" in this debate, it's you, refusing to provide any substantive statistics to bolster any claim that this law would have any noticeable effect on gun violence. You just continue a narrow-minded view that guns are automatically evil, therefore anyone who would dare defend them must also be evil. It's the exact same tactic used by people who are against any number of pet causes, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, etc. Your passion for the issue blinds you to your bias and makes rational discussion impossible.
Click to expand...

I never said what you have in bold. If you can find where I said that please quote it. Isn't that an interesting straw man. Make a ridiculous statement then attribute the opposite to the person arguing, to tear it down.

Again, quote where I said guns were evil. If you believe that saying that they were meant to kill or maim means they are evil; that is you interpretation. I just stated the facts (their original intent). All your hyperventilating won't change anything I have said in this thread.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Still not understanding why it matters what they were "originally intended for" or "designed to do".
Click to expand...

It matters to say since they were made to maim and kill they are in a different and special category compared to other products that don't have maiming and killing as their PRIMARY fucntion. I don't understand what is debatable about it's primary function. It's like 1+1 =2. Guns primary is to maim and kill.
 
emperus said:
It matters to say since they were made to maim and kill they are in a different and special category compared to other products that don't have maiming and killing as their PRIMARY fucntion. I don't understand what is debatable about it's primary function. It's like 1+1 =2. Guns primary is to maim and kill.
Click to expand...

That's why they were invented yes, I fail to see why that means they should be illegal. Do I have the right to defend myself? Yes and I have the right to do in the the safest most effective way possible. That is currently the gun. Why do you hate the right of people to defend themselves in the safest most efficient way possible? Is it because occasionally people use guns to further their poor decisions? If so then why aren't you clamoring to disarm the Government which has used guns to cause far more harm and has shown on numerous occasions the willingness to use them not for protection or defense, but for aggression?
 
emperus said:
It matters to say since they were made to maim and kill they are in a different and special category compared to other products that don't have maiming and killing as their PRIMARY fucntion. I don't understand what is debatable about it's primary function. It's like 1+1 =2. Guns primary is to maim and kill.
Click to expand...
Fine, lets assume we're operating on your premise. what are your "sensible" gun laws that you would lay down on this "special category"????
 
You want to put them in a "special category"? Alright, let's do that.

Now what?

Let's bear in mind a few things:

1. The government already regulates the crap out of guns.

2. The criticism of this measure isn't based on trying to pretend guns are like other items, but rather that it harms the law-abiding and does nothing to stop crime.

3. Guns are also in another "special category" called "things the US Constitution specifically grants citizens the right to own".
 
In the mind of the liberal, the constitution mentions nothing about bullets or cartridges therefore they are able to tax or ban them into oblivion.

That's fine, I'll just make my own.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
You want to put them in a "special category"? Alright, let's do that.

Now what?

Let's bear in mind a few things:

1. The government already regulates the crap out of guns.

2. The criticism of this measure isn't based on trying to pretend guns are like other items, but rather that it harms the law-abiding and does nothing to stop crime.

3. Guns are also in another "special category" called "things the US Constitution specifically grants citizens the right to own".
Click to expand...
that's wrong, they are things the US Constitution PROTECTS specifically for its citizens from their Government representatives.
 
emperus said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do realize you just called a post that contained cited sources (including FBI statistics, Gallup, and MSNBC) BS while providing zero facts of your own right? Screw missing the point (which was at the bottom), you missed the bus by several hours.

But I'll sum it up in short, quick sentences you can understand:

1. Owning and using a gun for any purposes incurs knowledge of gun laws you've probably never heard of or had to deal with. I believe those who have been affected by the laws have more authority to speak on said effects than one who has not.

2. You are ignorant of what you speak, are reveling in your ignorance, have presented your opinions as facts, and laughed at people with many times your knowledge.
 
Last edited:
I think a 'Stupidity Tax' is clearly more appropriate, and more necessary, for Chicagoans.

(Once again, my sig proves true.)

Fern
 
emperus said:
It matters to say since they were made to maim and kill they are in a different and special category compared to other products that don't have maiming and killing as their PRIMARY fucntion. I don't understand what is debatable about it's primary function. It's like 1+1 =2. Guns primary is to maim and kill.
Click to expand...

So for the sake of argument let's say this stands. This matters how? Cars may not have the primary purpose of maiming and killing, but they still kill more than guns.

So by your "logic" items should be regulated based on some perceived "category" as opposed to their actual effects.
 
Howard said:
No, guns were made to injure and kill. Recreation is a secondary aspect.
Click to expand...

This is simply false. My father's 30BR was made with the specific purpose of bench rest, target shooting. There are in fact MANY firearms that were never made with the idea of causing harm to even animals in mind.

You really think the first guns were so that people could shoot targets for fun? Not that I care either way.
Click to expand...

Who cares what the first guns were made for?
 
irishScott said:
So for the sake of argument let's say this stands. This matters how? Cars may not have the primary purpose of maiming and killing, but they still kill more than guns.

So by your "logic" items should be regulated based on some perceived "category" as opposed to their actual effects.
Click to expand...

This. I bet someone can kill MORE people driving like a maniac than they can with a 1911 in a short period of time: drive on the sidewalk down any major street.
 
emperus said:
It matters to say since they were made to maim and kill they are in a different and special category compared to other products that don't have maiming and killing as their PRIMARY fucntion. I don't understand what is debatable about it's primary function. It's like 1+1 =2. Guns primary is to maim and kill.
Click to expand...

If you REALLY want to be specific:

The primary function of a gun is to fire and direct a projectile to it's target.

Maiming or killing is the INTENT behind the holder of some guns. At other times their INTENT is to strike an inanimate target.

Does the object assume the INTENT of the user as a FUNCTION? If you're thinking about saying yes, think about the tens of millions of ways I can turn that against you with other items.
 
There are two related problems with the proposed tax.

1. The debated inference that any of the problems are caused by firearms/ammunition.

2. The fact that the government is going to spend more on legal challenges and enforcement than they have any chance of obtaining in revenue...especially since the buyers can merely get their stuff someplace else. So it's going to drain money in court, and cost the county the taxes it was already collecting on firearm and weapon sales, for a net loss of revenue while solving none of the problems they think they need the money for.
 
irishScott said:
You do realize you just called a post that contained cited sources (including FBI statistics, Gallup, and MSNBC) BS while providing zero facts of your own right? Screw missing the point (which was at the bottom), you missed the bus by several hours.

But I'll sum it up in short, quick sentences you can understand:

1. Owning and using a gun for any purposes incurs knowledge of gun laws you've probably never heard of or had to deal with. I believe those who have been affected by the laws have more authority to speak on said effects than one who has not.

2. You are ignorant of what you speak, are reveling in your ignorance, have presented your opinions as facts, and laughed at people with many times your knowledge. At this point you are obviously here to toot your own horn, no matter how idiotic it may sound.
Click to expand...

I laughed because you made an idiotic post with very ridiculous logic and continued to and continue to defend it by reincarnating your argument in various forms. This thread was on Bullet taxs to solve Chicogo gun violence and crime problems. Again explain to me how owning a gun makes you an authority on laws intended to reduce violence and gun problems.

Just because you own a gun does not make you an authority on gun laws. And just because you don't own a gun does not make you any less of an authority on gun laws.

I own a car, I guess I'm an authority on laws om how to stop car related deaths. I eat chicken, so it makes me an authority on salmonella poisoning. I see Russia from my house. It makes me a diplomat. Do you see how ridiculous your claim is.
 
emperus said:
I laughed because you made an idiotic post with very ridiculous logic and continued to and continue to defend it by reincarnating your argument in various forms. This thread was on Bullet taxs to solve Chicogo gun violence and crime problems. Again explain to me how owning a gun makes you an authority on laws intended to reduce violence and gun problems.

Just because you own a gun does not make you an authority on gun laws. And just because you don't own a gun does not make you any less of an authority on gun laws.

I own a car, I guess I'm an authority on laws om how to stop car related deaths. I eat chicken, so it makes me an authority on salmonella poisoning. I see Russia from my house. It makes me a diplomat. Do you see how ridiculous your claim is.
Click to expand...

So you deflect, confuse and make no point whatsoever.

Why do you believe having a tax on bullets is a good idea and what would happen if there was?

Think clearly and logically before you spew your bullshit.
 
Last edited:
PrinceofWands said:
If you REALLY want to be specific:

The primary function of a gun is to fire and direct a projectile to it's target.

Maiming or killing is the INTENT behind the holder of some guns. At other times their INTENT is to strike an inanimate target.

Does the object assume the INTENT of the user as a FUNCTION? If you're thinking about saying yes, think about the tens of millions of ways I can turn that against you with other items.
Click to expand...

I'm not having this argument with you. The gun was created as a weapon of warfare. Go read the history of the gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top