Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm putting this into Great Debates because I haven't seen the topic addressed independently.
As it stands now, gun violence is costing us all a bundle - we'd have to calculate a LOT of things, including loss of sons, daughters, husbands, wives, LE officer and dozens of other criteria.
BUT, there is now MUCH more coming up the pike.
Tax Question - Constitutionality?
FL. Gov. Rick Scott just proposed spending 450 Million dollars...as a start...in efforts that will unlikely do much to stop the carnage. It makes sense that states, localities and the Fed Government will also spend vast sums in such efforts. The total is likely to be in the 10's of Billion of dollars yearly. There is absolutely no proof that most of these efforts will accomplish anything, but that is perhaps another question.
This particular question is whether or not all taxpayers should be "docked" because Pols want to dance around this question. Or, even if the efforts work to a small degree - this doesn't change. Should we all be charged this "gun tax" or should gun owners, makers, etc. pay it?
Ethical/Moral Question - Choice?
Many of these funds will be going to programs which expose every one of our children to guns and gun violence. I raised three children without them being exposed to guns or "gun avoidance techniques" in school. Now, we are - in a sense - militarizing our entire country for the good of "loose gun regulations".
This question is similar to those of religion in the schools. Does the majority of parents in this country have the right to have their children brought up innocently and safely in our public schools? Mental health pros will tell you that exposing children to even these thoughts and scenarios may harm some...let alone give some (crazies) ideas that they may not have had. The next school shooter will know EXACTLY what the "avoidance" techniques are since he learned through his schooling...making it easier to get around them.
---------
Of course, very little of this addresses the fact that "soft targets" are numerous. What is Rick Scott going to say or do or spend when 20 kids (2-5 years old) and couple adults get shot down at the local day care or park playground? Will we harden every target in the USA where more than 3 people gather?
However, the point of my post is really the first part. Do folks think that the constitutionality of spending almost unlimited funds and "educating" every single citizen...is fair use of tax money. Will it be challenged in state courts and in the SCOTUS. Rick Scott already said he'd have to forego some tax cuts and maybe raise some other taxes just to fund the beginning of such efforts.
Please - none of the usual arguments! We know it is impossible to assure the mental health of 310+ Million Americans. There is no end to the current situation as-is - so the money is going to start flowing. My tax money and yours...whether it will work is somewhat irrelevant.
Another "ask" would be if anyone knows of similar situations where BIG money is spent but not collected. For example, lots of people die on highways but:
1. They are individually licensed and insured.
2. The cars they drive are subject to strict testing
AND
3. A gas tax on people who drive...plus reg. and use fees...pays to make the highways safer.
I won't use a poll question because this is a debate - not a poll.
Another "ask" would be if anyone knows of similar situations where BIG money is spent but not collected.
That one is easy, and it's probably the best comparison since we're talking constitutional rights. It costs local counties and municipalities over $1 billion to hold elections every four years, plus some lesser amount every other election cycle. Security, poll workers, voter registration, voting machines etc. aren't cheap. That's not accounting for the hundreds of millions of dollars of lost productivity from workers standing in lines and getting legally mandated time off to vote, or things like transportation costs to get to the polling places.
That one is easy, and it's probably the best comparison since we're talking constitutional rights. It costs local counties and municipalities over $1 billion to hold elections every four years, plus some lesser amount every other election cycle. Security, poll workers, voter registration, voting machines etc. aren't cheap. That's not accounting for the hundreds of millions of dollars of lost productivity from workers standing in lines and getting legally mandated time off to vote, or things like transportation costs to get to the polling places.
So we should spend 10's of billions deeply educating all of our school age persons about voting? I don't think we are doing that....it's surely mentioned, but there are no "active voter" drills.
And people don't get PTSD from voting...nor do they have nightmares from the idea of becoming a voter.
I don't think the comparison is apt. To me it is closer to a car (gas taxes, driver licenses, car registration, etc.) - in that those who participate in the action pay the vast majority of the costs involved.
I'm a bit confused here because Libertarians - who often profess about gun and other rights - specifically say that EVERYONE should pay their way.
Note - I think my tax return contains a checkbox where I can donate toward elections - and I always give because I tend to vote sometimes.
As far as a "right" - a "right" is not free. Newspapers cost money. This web site costs money. A Post Office is in the constitution also. Stamps cost money.
Navigation is in the Constitution - boats cost money, insurance for them also as well as other fees apply. Airline tickets are not free either.
Patents and Trademarks are established in the Constitution. I have paid over $10,000 for two of them. Can I send the bill to you or the General Public?
My short answer, I support increasing taxes on guns and ammunition. I'd also be in favor of an annual fee on every gun (such as with cars) but we'd have to know who owns them, so that's trickier.
CARNAGE?
Predators are the real beneficiaries of disarming their victims.
They don't like it when their victims shoot back.
Guns aren't the problem. Predators are.
How will you stop the stronger, malevolent folks from preying on the weak and meek?
STERN looks?
CARNAGE?
Predators are the real beneficiaries of disarming their victims.
They don't like it when their victims shoot back.
Guns aren't the problem. Predators are.
How will you stop the stronger, malevolent folks from preying on the weak and meek?
STERN looks?
You keep posting things like this, same verbiage, when it's not even an answer to the question in the thread.
I'm starting to believe a significant number of posters here are bots. It's the only explanation that makes sense.
I don't agree with the OP. Great heaps of tax payer dollars are spent on keeping us safe whether in our towns or across the world. It is part of life.
What really gets me is how the NRA is being blamed for this shooting while the tax funded FBI that dropped the ball on the killer is not being blamed? The NRA actually has/had a gun safety program called Eddie Eagle that they would bring to schools and teach kids about what to do if they find a gun. It was similar to the stop drop and roll fire drills. Kids if you find a gun in your house, at a friends house or on the street, you don't touch it, you go find and adult and tell them.
The NRA and its millions of members do not want to see kids being murdered just like 99.9% of all legal law abiding gun owners would never think to use their firearms on innocent people.
I remember a tax on guns and ammo was suggested before to help pay for the hospital service when someone is shot. It didn't go over very well because the law abiding gun owner did not like the idea of paying for a gang bangers wounds from a weekend shoot out.
The same can and will be said if a tax or even a ban on certain guns. Why should someone be penalized for something that some deranged murderer did?
I do not think this is a Constitutional issue, I believe it is a fiscal issue. My opinion is to not muddy the waters but stick with the issue, and fiscal spending is something you can question.
Schools themselves are not addressed in the Constitution.
If the government spending our money did anything, it would have been done already. They take us for enough as it is.
It’s kinda hard for the government to fix anything when they are the problem. They WAITED A WHILE before letting paramedics into that school. The security officer did NOTHING. They had warning the shooter was going to kill people.
Yet, it’s an inanimate object that is made the issue. It’s an excuse to take our rights and the money we earned.
I'm putting this into Great Debates because I haven't seen the topic addressed independently.
As it stands now, gun violence is costing us all a bundle - we'd have to calculate a LOT of things, including loss of sons, daughters, husbands, wives, LE officer and dozens of other criteria.
BUT, there is now MUCH more coming up the pike.
Tax Question - Constitutionality?
FL. Gov. Rick Scott just proposed spending 450 Million dollars...as a start...in efforts that will unlikely do much to stop the carnage. It makes sense that states, localities and the Fed Government will also spend vast sums in such efforts. The total is likely to be in the 10's of Billion of dollars yearly. There is absolutely no proof that most of these efforts will accomplish anything, but that is perhaps another question.
This particular question is whether or not all taxpayers should be "docked" because Pols want to dance around this question. Or, even if the efforts work to a small degree - this doesn't change. Should we all be charged this "gun tax" or should gun owners, makers, etc. pay it?
Ethical/Moral Question - Choice?
Many of these funds will be going to programs which expose every one of our children to guns and gun violence. I raised three children without them being exposed to guns or "gun avoidance techniques" in school. Now, we are - in a sense - militarizing our entire country for the good of "loose gun regulations".
This question is similar to those of religion in the schools. Does the majority of parents in this country have the right to have their children brought up innocently and safely in our public schools? Mental health pros will tell you that exposing children to even these thoughts and scenarios may harm some...let alone give some (crazies) ideas that they may not have had. The next school shooter will know EXACTLY what the "avoidance" techniques are since he learned through his schooling...making it easier to get around them.
---------
Of course, very little of this addresses the fact that "soft targets" are numerous. What is Rick Scott going to say or do or spend when 20 kids (2-5 years old) and couple adults get shot down at the local day care or park playground? Will we harden every target in the USA where more than 3 people gather?
However, the point of my post is really the first part. Do folks think that the constitutionality of spending almost unlimited funds and "educating" every single citizen...is fair use of tax money. Will it be challenged in state courts and in the SCOTUS. Rick Scott already said he'd have to forego some tax cuts and maybe raise some other taxes just to fund the beginning of such efforts.
Please - none of the usual arguments! We know it is impossible to assure the mental health of 310+ Million Americans. There is no end to the current situation as-is - so the money is going to start flowing. My tax money and yours...whether it will work is somewhat irrelevant.
Another "ask" would be if anyone knows of similar situations where BIG money is spent but not collected. For example, lots of people die on highways but:
1. They are individually licensed and insured.
2. The cars they drive are subject to strict testing
AND
3. A gas tax on people who drive...plus reg. and use fees...pays to make the highways safer.
I won't use a poll question because this is a debate - not a poll.
It is constitutional, because the legislature has the constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes. The remedy is to petition them and to vote against the ones doing things you don't like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
