Bullet tax to solve Chicago gun violence and crime problem

[Charles Kozierok]

175 posts in and I still don't know what emperus thinks we should do.

 

[piasabird]

This is a joke. Maybe they would be better off if they just recorded who they sell all the bullets to. In some locations they do this for the drugs they use for making meth and it helps to find the bad guys. Every time a gun is recovered by the police they should investigate where the gun came from and if the perf's dont come clean charge them with gun running. Tracking the sell and distribution of guns should be an important job of the police for every gun crime. I think they should do the same thing for people who purchase large numbers of guns. One tactic these gang bangers and other criminals use is they purchse guns from some person that buys them legally. So for every person that purchses more than 5 guns in any 12 month period they should investigate why they need all the guns.

I know a little about ammunition and you can purchase the shell casings, the powder and the bullets seperately and load your own. I went to a gun show one time and they were selling a whole crate of 5,000 steel Ak57 rounds or some rediculous amount. Solid steel rounds are very dangerous.

What happens is to buy most the guns in police states like in Chicago, just go accross the border (State Line) and buy their guns and ammo there. I have read some stories how some states with more lax gun laws sell a lot of guns to people that are from out of state. For instance you can drive out of chicago to some place like wisconson or whatever and buy their guns there.

 

[irishScott]

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.

There are always logical problems with analogies, it's whether the intended point gets across that matters.

Your post seems to boil down to "you don't need guns, therefore you can't compare them to things you do need." The issue there is gun ownership is the keystone of the natural right to self defense, which we do need, even if it is rarely used by the population as a whole.

 

[Dannar26]

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.

Well said Scott. This is worth quoting.

Gun control is an emotional response to gun violence similar to blaming God for getting a terminal illness. It's every bit as logical and effective.

 

[Zargon]

This is a joke. Maybe they would be better off if they just recorded who they sell all the bullets to. In some locations they do this for the drugs they use for making meth and it helps to find the bad guys. Every time a gun is recovered by the police they should investigate where the gun came from and if the perf's dont come clean charge them with gun running. Tracking the sell and distribution of guns should be an important job of the police for every gun crime. I think they should do the same thing for people who purchase large numbers of guns. One tactic these gang bangers and other criminals use is they purchse guns from some person that buys them legally. So for every person that purchses more than 5 guns in any 12 month period they should investigate why they need all the guns.

I know a little about ammunition and you can purchase the shell casings, the powder and the bullets seperately and load your own. I went to a gun show one time and they were selling a whole crate of 5,000 steel Ak57 rounds or some rediculous amount. Solid steel rounds are very dangerous.

What happens is to buy most the guns in police states like in Chicago, just go accross the border (State Line) and buy their guns and ammo there. I have read some stories how some states with more lax gun laws sell a lot of guns to people that are from out of state. For instance you can drive out of chicago to some place like wisconson or whatever and buy their guns there.

its indiana, and I think they have a small waiting period now

the big issue is people buying them then reselling them(illegal)

bolded: 🙄

 

[emperus]

175 posts in and I still don't know what emperus thinks we should do.

Yes, because we've spent the majority of them arguing whether guns primary purpose was to kill or maim or to use for competition. How can you further any debate when people aren't constrained by reality.

 

[emperus]

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.

Here we go with another reconstruction of your arguemnt. This one makes less sense than the previous ones.

This is what you initially try to pawn off.

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.

Granted, I'm still not clear on what argument you were trying to make but I think it goes like this. If you haven't fired a gun, you can't speak about the nature of gun laws? I'm sorry, I'm still confused how that makes any sense. Tell me in a simple sentence what you intended to say.

 

[irishScott]

Yes, because we've spent the majority of them arguing whether guns primary purpose was to kill or maim or to use for competition. How can you further any debate when people aren't constrained by reality.

We've also questioned the relevance of that point even if we agreed that their universal primary purpose was to kill or maim. A question you've conveniently avoided answering. I guess the obvious answer must shake you to the core. 😛

 

[bfdd]

You guys arguing about "well wouldn't it be a better world if the gun disappeared?" no it fucking wouldn't. the gun is the great equalizer, it's what allows the 130lb 5'4" tiny guy to take out effectively and safely his 220lb 6'4" aggressor. not to mention they simply won't disappear, they are to easy to make and the information is NEVER GOING AWAY. So it's an all or nothing scenario at this point and I'm on the "all" side because I see "nothing" as a pipe dream of backwardness.

 

[emperus]

We've also questioned the relevance of that point even if we agreed that their universal primary purpose was to kill or maim. A question you've conveniently avoided answering. I guess the obvious answer must shake you to the core. 😛

I reject your premise. I do not believe you have to have a point in defining the intended function of a device. You would have to have a reason to deny it. But why would you need a point in defining it?

 

[irishScott]

Here we go with another reconstruction of your arguemnt. This one makes less sense than the previous ones.

This is what you initially try to pawn off.




Granted, I'm still not clear on what argument you were trying to make but I think it goes like this. If you haven't fired a gun, you can't speak about the nature of gun laws? I'm sorry, I'm still confused how that makes any sense. Tell me in a simple sentence what you intended to say.

It's called casual english smartass. It wasn't a logical thesis. Everyone else in the thread understands that, even MooseNSquirrel got the general idea of what I was saying even if he got the specifics wrong. I'm starting to think you're autistic or dyslexic.

I'll rephrase the line you quoted: "Do you have even a minimal knowledge of firearms? I'm assuming no, in which case you are not qualified to authoritatively speak on gun laws."

This is certifiably true, as you have posted no credentials, no citations, no supports to your arguments whatsoever, yet apparently expect your opinion to be taken as fact. I once got a C on a paper for that, in 4th grade.

This is analogous to someone who has no real or cited knowledge of cars speaking on car laws. Which can be approximated by a naive 14 year old talking about car laws.

 

[shortylickens]

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

You keep on use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[emperus]

It's called casual english smartass. It wasn't a logical thesis. Everyone else in the thread understands that, even MooseNSquirrel got the general idea of what I was saying even if he got the specifics wrong. I'm starting to think you're autistic or dyslexic.

I'll rephrase the line you quoted: "Do you have even a minimal knowledge of firearms? I'm assuming no, in which case you are not qualified to authoritatively speak on gun laws."

This is certifiably true, as you have posted no credentials, no citations, no supports to your arguments whatsoever, yet apparently expect your opinion to be taken as fact. I once got a C on a paper for that, in 4th grade.

This is analogous to someone who has no real or cited knowledge of cars speaking on car laws. Which can be approximated by a naive 14 year old talking about car laws.

How many reincarnations of your argument is this.
You believe that

Do you have even a minimal knowledge of firearms? I'm assuming no, in which case you are not qualified to authoritatively speak on gun laws.

is equal to

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.

But, you've worn me down. I give up. Good luck with whatever argument you were trying to make. Pax.

 

[irishScott]

I reject your premise. I do not believe you have to have a point in defining the intended function of a device. You would have to have a reason to deny it. But why would you need a point in defining it?

Unless you're offering a technical definition or a scientific proof, it is an opinion. Once again, welcome to basic English.

A gun, on a technical level, does little more than propel a projectile at high speed. This ability can be put to any number of uses, including killing, maiming, construction work, entertainment, competition, etc.

Stating the "primary purpose" of a gun is an argument and an opinion, that requires supports to be accepted. It may appear obvious to you that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and maim, but to those of us who own guns explicitly for entertainment and competition, it is not so obvious.

I have a home defense pistol who's primary purposes are both entertainment and defense of my home/family should such a scenario arise. Given that such a scenario is highly unlikely, its "primary purpose" under my ownership is recreation.

Likewise the primary purpose of a piece of wood may in one person's hands be to build a house, and in another person's hands to bludgeon someone to death.

You are fallaciously generalizing that all guns have the primary purpose of killing or maiming, regardless of how they are actually used over the course of their existence. I suppose you could argue that we're all just "doing it wrong" and using our guns for purposes other than what they were built for, but that is entirely your opinion.

 

[irishScott]

How many reincarnations of your argument is this.
You believe that



is equal to


But, you've worn me down. I give up. Good luck with whatever argument you were trying to make. Pax.

If it makes things easier for you, just go with the literal argument and stop focusing on the "reincarnations".

Everyone else in this thread understood what I was trying to say. I don't believe the two are equal, I know they are as substantiated by the universal comprehension displayed in this thread. You are the one who apparently lacks the capability to comprehend the very obvious argument I was making. Hence my wondering if that lack of capability is due to some medical disability.

 

[monovillage]

You guys arguing about "well wouldn't it be a better world if the gun disappeared?" no it fucking wouldn't. the gun is the great equalizer, it's what allows the 130lb 5'4" tiny guy to take out effectively and safely his 220lb 6'4" aggressor. not to mention they simply won't disappear, they are to easy to make and the information is NEVER GOING AWAY. So it's an all or nothing scenario at this point and I'm on the "all" side because I see "nothing" as a pipe dream of backwardness.

Guys that like to rape women and commit other violent crimes really hate the idea that their potential victim may carry a firearm and be ready, willing and able to fucking shoot their asses if they try.

 

[Howard]

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.



Who cares what the first guns were made for?

I am talking about what the first guns were made for. Wasn't that what we were talking about?

I could believe that more guns now are sold for recreation rather than for self-defense, though.

 

[irishScott]

I am talking about what the first guns were made for. Wasn't that what we were talking about?

I could believe that more guns now are sold for recreation rather than for self-defense, though.

Emperus stated that the primary purpose of the a gun was to maim and kill regardless of time period or user. That's largely what started this.

As for nowadays, I'd say its about 50/50. Like any segment, you have your enthusiasts and your users. 50/50 because most users I've met do actually enjoy shooting, even if the sporting aspect wasn't what got them into it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes, because we've spent the majority of them arguing whether guns primary purpose was to kill or maim or to use for competition. How can you further any debate when people aren't constrained by reality.

Several people granted you that point for the sake of argument dozens of posts ago -- including myself.

You keep beating the dead horse anyway, because it's a lot easier than presenting a rational justification for the actual subject here, which is this law.

 

[Agent11]

Personally I think taxes should be for revenue. Not to attempt social change.

 

[Phanuel]

I am talking about what the first guns were made for. Wasn't that what we were talking about?

I could believe that more guns now are sold for recreation rather than for self-defense, though.

What was the first knife made for? Cutting people/animals or cutting veggies? I'm placing my bets on cutting other people/animals. Yet knives are a vital and indispensable tool these days for many things.

I'm not saying guns are really like that anymore, few of us need to hunt for our food now. But there was a time, during this nation's founding, that guns were a livelihood for families.

I enjoy the sporting/competition aspects of firearms more than I want to ever actually shoot someone with one. I find it incredibly relaxing to hone precision on paper targets at different distances.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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.

How would my life change if you took away all guns?

Well first of all I'd engage in full out revolution against whoever was taking the guns. No questions.

Ignoring that little glitch, if all guns just suddenly disappeared as if by magic then I guess I'd have to go with something else...possibly a taser or two and probably a sword or staff. I'd also likely start wearing stab armor. I'd be VERY uncomfortable (mentally as well as physically) most of the time, which would lead to irritability and other issues. In short, it would suck.

Think I'm overstating? When I went to England for 10 days I was HYPER aware, fidgety, and nervous for most of the trip. When the coach would send others out with me and make me responsible for them it was AGONIZING feeling like I couldn't protect them. After carrying 16/7/365 for 16 years my firearm is a part of me, and being without it puts me on edge.

It's likely that after a few years I'd adapt, but I'd always be resentful that someone took away my ability to effectively and efficiently respond to threats.

 

[bfdd]

PoW, all of the "current" guns would cease to exist, but the information on how to create them would still exist. Meaning it would be EXTREMELY lucrative to invest in square and round tubing of various sizes as these will probably go up in price as a blackmarket of gun manufacturers sprung up.

So what we would have then is a period with little to no gun activity, then we'd have some group pop up with a ton of guns and try to cease control.

Unless that is you can also make everything like this http://www.slideshare.net/edgarinventor/expedient-homemade-firearms-1-the-9mm-submachine-gun-2726187 not exist either and also wipe peoples memories so they can't just build one from scratch. You'd also probably want to get rid of any similar technologies which could be repurposed or eventually lead one to coming up with the design for a gun.

Basically like I said eliminating guns or even having "strict control" is IMPOSSIBLE and will do NOTHING to stop gun violence or gun crime. The cat is out of the bag and we can actually "attack" the real problem, violence as a concept, with education.

 

[Smoblikat]

It would save this guy from getting cancer.......................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYUCGlc3mF4

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Yes, because we've spent the majority of them arguing whether guns primary purpose was to kill or maim or to use for competition. How can you further any debate when people aren't constrained by reality.

Even if you accept that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill or maim, the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners never use their gun to kill or maim anyone. There are over 300 million guns in this country. Here's Wikipedia's statistics on gun violence in the US:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]

300 million guns and less than 100,000 instances of someone using their gun to kill or maim if you ignore the suicides (since suicidal people will just use some other method if a gun isn't available). That represents less than 0.03 % of all guns in the US. So even if a gun's true purpose is to kill or maim, the vast majority of gun owners are not using them for that. And that's important to note. You can't just bring up the "primary purpose" without considering how people are actually using them.

But none of that matters because you steadfastly refuse to answer how this measure will impact gun violence and crime (which are really what people object to when they object to guns). Do you believe that a tax on bullets will reduce crime, and why?