Bullet tax to solve Chicago gun violence and crime problem

[desy]

A firearms purpose is to use gas pressure to move a projectile along and through a barrel at velocity.
You can do many things with this shoot paper shoot birds or wage war, I must be a terrible shot cause through the 10's of thousands of rounds I've fired I've never hit anybody yet!
Its ages old technology you can't put back in a bottle and trying to tax one of the most simply made components won't stop it, create a black market and the problem will still persist but give organized crime another revenu stream

 

[sigurros81]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49458564/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

The stupidity would be hilarious if we didn't have a bunch of these idiots in government positions all over the country.

As usual, the leftists have decided that there isn't anything a well crafted tax can't solve. Bunch of gangbangers in Chicago shooting up the place? No problem, just impose a tax on legal purchases of bullets in that county, that will fix it. Don't worry about fixing the actual underlying problems, taxing bullets or creating ever more restrictive gun laws will fix it. 😵

They also know that even should a law like this go into effect, it will immediately be bogged down in lawsuits costing millions. A county with a $100 million deficits should not be wasting millions on inevitable lawsuits that will follow implementation of idiotic laws. Morons.

Was it Bill Burr or Louis CK that said to do this in one of their skits?

 

[D-Man]

If you take a walk I'll Tax your feet
If you get to cold I'll Tax the Heat
If you drive a truck I'll tax the street
My advise for those who die declare the pennies on your eyes
I'm the Taxman

The Beatles

 

[irishScott]

What an incredibly weak position to argue from.

1. I don't need personal experience with rape to understand that we need laws punishing rapists

2. Your primary point is laughable. A gun is not a tool, its a weapon created with one purpose in mind. I can carve a turkey with a 4 foot sword every Thanksgiving, or roast marshmellows with a flamethrower, but no one is going to mistake those things for culinary tools.

1. Never said that you did. But experience does impart knowledge that typically cannot be obtained from any other source. You're given two people: One person who's driven for 10 years, and one 14 year old who's never sat behind the wheel or even touched a car and who's only real reference has been movies. Who knows more about cars?

2. Please don't act so dense. The fact that a weapon is a type of tool notwithstanding, what if I buy a gun purely for recreation and only ever use it as such? Is it still a weapon? Not in my mind, it's simply a toy that could be dangerous if used improperly. There are plenty of guns out there that are never used as weapons.

To use your analogy, if all you ever use that flamethrower for is roasting marshmallows, then all it is in my mind is a grossly inefficient marshmallow roaster.

Likewise if a murderer uses an otherwise innocuous steak knife, that knife is considered the "murder weapon" even though its original intent was culinary.

I already posted about both of your points (RTFThread), but you seem to be following emperus's "logic", where you believe that items should be regulated based on some perceived category as opposed to their actual effects.

 

[irishScott]

A firearms purpose is to use gas pressure to move a projectile along and through a barrel at velocity.
You can do many things with this shoot paper shoot birds or wage war, I must be a terrible shot cause through the 10's of thousands of rounds I've fired I've never hit anybody yet!
Its ages old technology you can't put back in a bottle and trying to tax one of the most simply made components won't stop it, create a black market and the problem will still persist but give organized crime another revenu stream

I wonder if the tax, should it pass, will apply to reloading. Hell I wonder if the politicians planning this even know what reloading is.

 

[momeNt]

What about for those that make their own bullets? Bullet press, some brass (or whatever metal they are...), whatever else. All obtainable legally and would circumvent the bullet tax. Is Cook County determining that this would be tax evasion punishable by a hefty fine and imprisonment?

 

[emperus]

1. Never said that you did. But experience does impart knowledge that typically cannot be obtained from any other source. You're given two people: One person who's driven for 10 years, and one 14 year old who's never sat behind the wheel or even touched a car and who's only real reference has been movies. Who knows more about cars?

2. Please don't act so dense. The fact that a weapon is a type of tool notwithstanding, what if I buy a gun purely for recreation and only ever use it as such? Is it still a weapon? Not in my mind, it's simply a toy that could be dangerous if used improperly. There are plenty of guns out there that are never used as weapons.

To use your analogy, if all you ever use that flamethrower for is roasting marshmallows, then all it is in my mind is a grossly inefficient marshmallow roaster.

Likewise if a murderer uses an otherwise innocuous steak knife, that knife is considered the "murder weapon" even though its original intent was culinary.

I already posted about both of your points (RTFThread), but you seem to be following emperus's "logic", where you believe that items should be regulated based on some perceived category as opposed to their actual effects.

You are right. Noone will argue that experience does impart some knowledge on the topic of that experience. But, like I said you keep reincarnating your argument. Noone is arguing that and that's not what you have been arguing up until now. Even your example doesn't make sense. Just because I have driven for 10 years does not mean I know anything about cars. Maybe about driving.. but why would you assume it means I know anything about cars?

Furthermore, you're basically arguing that products should be regulated on what a person personally wants to use it for rather than the intent the product was created to be used for. If I buy a tank from the army, you want to be able to somehow promise the government you won't use it to blow up or destroy buildings but use it only as a car and so they should allow you to drive it down the streets without any modifications. Is that the gist of your argument?

btw reading your posts hurt my head. It's hard to follow your strains of logic.

 

[bfdd]

Products shouldn't be regulated, actions should be punished and severely for grand offenses. It's called fucking freedom.

 

[emperus]

Products shouldn't be regulated, actions should be punished and severely for grand offenses. It's called fucking freedom.

So, if I decide to build a nuclear bomb in my home. Noone should stop me? Only if it blows up and kills millions then my actions should be punished severely? Gotcha. So what do you tell the millions who died. Where was their freedom?

 

[bfdd]

So, if I decide to build a nuclear bomb in my home. Noone should stop me? Only if it blows up and kills millions then my actions should be punished severely? Gotcha. So what do you tell the millions who died. Where was their freedom?

You could do it now and if you were proper smart about it no one would find out. People have already built other own reactors, there are guides on the internet. People could stop you, but they'll probably be the ones who have nukes so is that fair? I'm going to go with no.

 

[emperus]

You could do it now and if you were proper smart about it no one would find out. People have already built other own reactors, there are guides on the internet. People could stop you, but they'll probably be the ones who have nukes so is that fair? I'm going to go with no.

Ok, I think we've seen how thought out your position is.

 

[xj0hnx]

So, if I decide to build a nuclear bomb in my home. Noone should stop me? Only if it blows up and kills millions then my actions should be punished severely? Gotcha. So what do you tell the millions who died. Where was their freedom?

Only the most ignorant try to use the "ZOMG gonna built tha NUKEZ!!" in an antigun argument.

 

[spidey07]

Only the most ignorant try to use the "ZOMG gonna built tha NUKEZ!!" in an antigun argument.

Well at least he hasn't pulled the libtard "well that's not what the constitution means by right to bear arms" yet.

But so far he's following the gun grabber "logic" to a tee. That is completely and totally illogical and false with nothing to back it up.

 

[bfdd]

Ok, I think we've seen how thought out your position is.

I'm sorry you and so many others are ignorant to how much information exists that is easily accessible with the internet. Why do you think Government's across the world fight so hard to maintain control over their citizenry's access to it? Why do you think TOR exists? So people can sell drugs and spread anarchy? No it's because the very powerful view information as a tool that will be used to dismantle them. You're complaining about things of such little consequence, you should be overjoyed that most people reach for a gun instead of researching more deeply the means to cause real terror and havoK, or do you not remember two planes, not guns, were used to kill thousands. Or car bombs in Ireland or Israel.

 

[emperus]

Only the most ignorant try to use the "ZOMG gonna built tha NUKEZ!!" in an antigun argument.

my argument was to this argument.

Products shouldn't be regulated, actions should be punished and severely for grand offenses. It's called fucking freedom.

In that argument, there was no reference to guns was there?

 

[emperus]

I'm sorry you and so many others are ignorant to how much information exists that is easily accessible with the internet. Why do you think Government's across the world fight so hard to maintain control over their citizenry's access to it? Why do you think TOR exists? So people can sell drugs and spread anarchy? No it's because the very powerful view information as a tool that will be used to dismantle them. You're complaining about things of such little consequence, you should be overjoyed that most people reach for a gun instead of researching more deeply the means to cause real terror and havoK, or do you not remember two planes, not guns, were used to kill thousands. Or car bombs in Ireland or Israel.

My argument is simply to this argument ur making.

Products shouldn't be regulated, actions should be punished and severely for grand offenses. It's called fucking freedom.

Instead of flourishes of words, why don't you defend that statement.

 

[momeNt]

my argument was to this argument.



In that argument, there was no reference to guns was there?

Why are we only stopping at a tax then? You can still kill someone with a bullet if it is taxed. So what are you accomplishing?

I think the 2nd amendment was ill-conceived or ill-interpreted. The state now is the guarantor of safety. Personal weapons are purely to kill now. Ban them.

Who is with me and emperus!

 

[emperus]

Why are we only stopping at a tax then? You can still kill someone with a bullet if it is taxed. So what are you accomplishing?

I think the 2nd amendment was ill-conceived or ill-interpreted. The state now is the guarantor of safety. Personal weapons are purely to kill now. Ban them.

Who is with me and emperus!

I do believe the 2nd amendment is ill-interpreted. I don't believe guns should be banned. But very regulated,

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

How do you think your ancestors ate? As I said, killing is not always bad.

Okay, and in today's society it isn't necessary to kill with guns. Things change. Back in the day we used to go to war every other day. For the most part the majority of the world isn't clashing anymore. There aren't many large scaled conflicts.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Likewise if a murderer uses an otherwise innocuous steak knife, that knife is considered the "murder weapon" even though its original intent was culinary.

And you can use pencils, scissors, staplers, etc. Comparing guns and knives isn't really fair. It's a standard to use knives to eat. So unless you change western culture to use chopsticks, knives play a large part in eating. That doesn't even cover the cooking portion where you HAVE to use knives.

Furthermore, what happens if YOU yourself stopped using your gun. Does your house fall apart because the zombies invade? Are you screwed for life? What about the millions who live just fine without touching a firewarm?

Now take away a knife. Have fun eating steak or anything that needs to be cut. You have to change your life dramatically. Do you cook? Maybe you can rely on someone else to cut everything for you, but how do you cook without a knife?

You can use the same argument with cars because people LOVE comparing cars with guns as killing machines. Take away cars. For hundreds of millions of Americans that would really screw things up wouldn't that? Heck the nation's productivity would slow to a halt.

Would this same issue happen if you took away guns? No. Not that I'm saying we should ban guns, but what I'm saying is when you make these comparisons, there's a logical problem. This is because the primary purpose of a gun is to maim or kill. You can talk about competition guns all you want, but it's like a small subset of guns.[/quote]

 

[momeNt]

We have to stop murder and violence. People are capable of this on their own without any tools. So eliminating the tools changes nothing. Knives will become the most popular tool in murders. If knives were eliminated it would be vicious beatings.

The only way to eliminate murder is to eliminate people.

I have successfully slippery sloped this bitch better than the nuclear argument of emperus.

 

[spidey07]

And you can use pencils, scissors, staplers, etc. Comparing guns and knives isn't really fair. It's a standard to use knives to eat. So unless you change western culture to use chopsticks, knives play a large part in eating. That doesn't even cover the cooking portion where you HAVE to use knives.

Furthermore, what happens if YOU yourself stopped using your gun. Does your house fall apart because the zombies invade? Are you screwed for life? What about the millions who live just fine without touching a firewarm?

Now take away a knife. Have fun eating steak or anything that needs to be cut. You have to change your life dramatically. Do you cook? Maybe you can rely on someone else to cut everything for you, but how do you cook without a knife?

You can use the same argument with cars because people LOVE comparing cars with guns as killing machines. Take away cars. For hundreds of millions of Americans that would really screw things up wouldn't that? Heck the nation's productivity would slow to a halt.

Would this same issue happen if you took away guns? No. Not that I'm saying we should ban guns, but what I'm saying is when you make these comparisons, there's a logical problem. This is because the primary purpose of a gun is to maim or kill. You can talk about competition guns all you want, but it's like a small subset of guns.

If you took away guns America would turn into chaos and crime in very short order.

 

[Zargon]

I do believe the 2nd amendment is ill-interpreted. I don't believe guns should be banned. But very regulated,

they are regulated in IL

the guns being used in chicago are all stolen/illegally purchased ETC.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

If you took away guns America would turn into chaos and crime in very short order.

If you took away guns from ordinary citizens. Obviously not cops and the military.

I don't think you'd see a fundamental change in everyday life. Just be honest and ask yourself if your gun disappeared. What would fundamentally change in your life? The ability to go to a gun range? Okay, but does that mean tomorrow you're gonna get mugged and get stabbed now?

I realize it's your choice to have a firearm and I respect that, but at the same time it's one of those things you could live without. That's by no mean a reason to ban them, but I'm just purely addressing the comparisons of guns with other "dangerous devices."

I think the thing is even if you had ordinary citizens who don't own guns go out and buy a gun, how would their life change? I think in a modern day society, you don't really gain anything. Forget the fact that cities like SF, NYC, Chicago are liberal. In a modern city lifestyle, there's just no need.

 

[irishScott]

You are right. Noone will argue that experience does impart some knowledge on the topic of that experience. But, like I said you keep reincarnating your argument. Noone is arguing that and that's not what you have been arguing up until now. Even your example doesn't make sense. Just because I have driven for 10 years does not mean I know anything about cars. Maybe about driving.. but why would you assume it means I know anything about cars?

Furthermore, you're basically arguing that products should be regulated on what a person personally wants to use it for rather than the intent the product was created to be used for. If I buy a tank from the army, you want to be able to somehow promise the government you won't use it to blow up or destroy buildings but use it only as a car and so they should allow you to drive it down the streets without any modifications. Is that the gist of your argument?

btw reading your posts hurt my head. It's hard to follow your strains of logic.

You've argued that you're qualified to speak on gun laws despite the fact that you haven't stated one piece of evidence in your favor. No studies, no first-hand experience, nothing. My original point was that someone who has so much as bought a gun has a greater knowledge of gun laws and their effects than you, unless there's some background you've neglected to reveal up until this point.

I'm not arguing any such thing. We need a balanced approach that takes into account both intended use and potential use. You stated earlier that this tax should be instituted at the federal level. When asked why, you stated "because a gun's sole purpose is to kill and it must be treated differently". Therefore you present an unbalanced proposal based solely on potential use. My points were many other things kill far more than guns, yet are regulated more loosely, guns have purposes beyond killing, and killing is not always bad, even in modern society.

Maybe your head hurts because I'm getting more specific and making it harder for you to secrete BS.