Time for yet another "Mass Shooting" thread

@Timon19 , please take a moment and read up on all of the safety procedures automobile users must "suffer," all of the training time required to be registered, all of the resources devoted to reducing automobile fatalities, and the general trend of car fatalities in the past fifty years. I think you would do well to avoid your particular line of argument until you have done so. The results may surprise you.

 

The f*** just happened. Apparently editing is out of whack today...

 

Oh, I know fatalities have decreased (of course there were bumps with seat belts and other safety innovations, as drivers in the aggregate drove more aggressively than they might have otherwise initially). Fatalities are still a pretty large number.

Stop the slaughter. Tax automobiles into oblivion. They're clearly a dangerous product. Well, OK, we can have Prii, Foci, Yarises, and Leaves and Volts and SmartCars. But only those. The other ones are too dangerous.

 

SQWIRELZ!

 

I would appreciate it if you debated me on the merits of my argument and not those of the elaborate straw man you have concocted inside your head. If you find yourself unable to do so, nothing is obligating you to continue posting in response to my comments.

 

You want to tax a tool that can be used to kill into oblivion. You want to pretend that setting arbitrarily high taxes is a market mechanism that will solve all the problems of getting a tool that can be used to kill out of the hands of people who might want to use it.

 

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that given what happened in Europe during the 20th century, certain ideas shouldn't be allowed to take root again.

But, I still come out in favor of the American approach to free speech.

 

I have fixed your post to reflect what my actual argument is.

Still a prude. I'd argue that reducing drug use is socially desirable because of the negative externalities involved. I'm not saying eliminate drug use. Just reduce it. Eliminating gun deaths is also socially desirable, bringing this back to the actual topic.

 

My father-in-law owns a gun that has never been used to kill, and its main purpose is competition, though it has that handy use as a self-defense tool, should he choose to use it as such.

 

If he likes it so much, he should be Ok with a small annual tax on it. And insurance.

 

Good for him. If our society decides that guns used for competition are socially desirable, than there won't be a tax on that weapon. See? Right now, things that have 80% support in terms of gun control have 0% legislative activity because a bunch of people shout "FREEDUMZ" whenever there's any discussion about changing incentives. Your father-in-law's benefit of owning his gun for competition should be weighed against the societal costs of 30,000 gun deaths per year. And there should be some acknowledgement from the anti-gun control side that the scientific method has been used to come to a consensus that more guns kill more people than fewer guns.

 

Why? In a democracy, a scientist's opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

 

Republics don't work via mob rule, Mr. Poli Sci.

 

If you like books so much, you should be OK with a small annual tribute and insurance against carrying out the subversive ideas contained within.

 

There's nothing preventing books or guns from being subject to taxes like any other product. However, I can't see any tax designed to make the production of books or guns unprofitable surviving Constitutional review. The government can't tax a legal right away.

It would be like imposing an annual tax on mosques, but not any other type of property.

 

Actually I hit the "post reply" button, nothing happened, I hit it again, nothing had still happened after a minute or so, and I hit it a third time-- you call it squirrels, 'round here we know it for the work of duendes...

 

Thanks for the advice. I'll take it under consideration.

 

You're intelligent enough to understand the difference between the empirical analysis of science and an "opinion," right? Right? Because that study is not an "opinion."

Please tell me you knew they were different.

Apparently they do - a mob of well-armed idiots is keeping us from having a reasonable discussion on the role of firearms in our society. See above for evidence.

 

the scientific method does not rely on or take into account the scientists' opinions about anything.

 

You know what is meant by mob rule.

Glad to know you are the arbiter of "reasonable".

 

I really like the guns/cars analogy. I'm all for it.

I think no-one under 16 should be allowed to operate a firearm. I think only a person with a license should be legally allowed to operate one, and to obtain that license they should have to undergo a certain number of training hours, a written test, a practical test and an eye exam.

I think that every gun should have to be registered, and that the owner should have to pay a registration fee comparable to that of an auto registration.

I think the manufacture of guns should be regulated by the state, which should require safety measures (limits on magazine sizes, etc.). Owners should periodically have to submit their weapons for inspection, to make sure they still meet safety standards.

And every gun owner should be required by law to carry insurance.

 

Not as a POS tax.

We already pay those on specific types of purchases all over the place-- booze, cigarettes, gasoline, etc. All we'd need to do is decide that guns actually needed extra regulation-- in fact I don't know that they aren't subject to extra taxes already-- how is ATF funded?

 

The opinion I'm referencing is what should be done when it comes to gun control. When it comes to deciding what policies to enact, voters and their representatives are free to ignore scientific studies to their heart's consent.

There's a pretty vigorous debate going on in our sociery vis a vis gun control. It's just that your side is losing.