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.
Tax voting also....... $1,000 a year. Show up to vote without a current tax I.D. card, denied.
No no no, that s the kind of thing that happens in your kleptocracy where money matters, not lives. We re trying to preserve as much of our democracy as possible . And our children most especially.
Many people, especially in rural areas, need guns for hunting, shooting varmints. protections, etc.
As an aside, their homicide rate is smaller, but their suicide rate is much higher.
I understand that point, but let's say we went full-Japan. I think those people would still be able to obtain guns, it would just be a stricter process to acquire them. They'd need to present their reasons, undergo testing, etc. (My rudimentary understanding of Japanese gun laws anyway). Does it matter whether it takes 4 months for rural people to acquire a gun vs. immediately?
Let me know if I'm incorrect re: my understanding of Japan
Firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Forcing insurance would be financially prohibitive for low income citizens............. you know, like forcing people to get voter I.D.
So it is. Doesn't change my argument. The right to own guns was always a stupid amendment and the rest of the world recognizes it's stupid, which is why the US and Mexico are the only countries that enshrined it in their constitutions. Everyone recognizes the right to vote as fundamental to a representative gov't. No one, but Americans, thinks guns are fundamental to anything. And seeing how much your ilk loves to support trampling over the rights of others, you're not swaying anyone with your plea for Constitutionality...
So why is this such an impossible topic to talk about or come to a consensus on, let me give my POV:
These events are driven by several factors, so lets use some math:
Say out of every 100,000 people one person will be homicidally insane. As the population goes up the quantity of these people will also go up. Since this is most likely usually linked to some genetic component, there is not really much we can do about this factor. More people, more crazies: fact.
If say 50% of that 100,000 sample have access or own firearms, then you will see a proportion of these shootings that correspond with that. A gun as a tool, undeniably makes it easier to kill people (If you deny this you are operating outside reality) all the other examples people throw up have caveats, bombs are not as easy for the unskilled to use they have a higher skill floor to be utilized. Vehicles, while having roughly the same skill floor to utilize as weapons of murder, and while also pretty effective at it, have specific terrain and location requirements to be used in that manner thus are less flexible. IE: You wouldn't see this kid driving a truck down the hallways of his school etc. Pretty much any alternative to a gun has caveats that make it less effective, or less usable in general.
So that all said it would seem on the surface the logical answer would be to reduce the quantity and ease of access to firearms but NOT SO FAST, because there is another factor to consider which is the existing saturation of firearms. This is the key difference between say, gun control in America vs say, Japan.
Because they are so concentrated, there is not really a way to meaningfully reduce the quantity in any sort of short term time frame(which is what people are looking for) that does not involve draconian use of force that I do not believe would be acceptable to a majority of people. Not only that, in order to have any meaningful impact the laws would have to be global, because localized laws just send people on a couple hour drive to get the same thing (IE localized gun laws are pretty much completely useless, they only effective way would be a drastic reduction in saturation over an extremely wide geographic area).
This leads me to my conclusion: Gun control, specifically gun control relative to the US, even more specifically gun control that would have an actual impact on these events, is at this point an all or nothing proposition with the 2 options being:
A) Complete ban on all firearms and ammunition, aggressive buyback window coupled with forceful confiscation of said guns and ammo after the window is up. I do not think we are ready for the consequences of the Pandora's box this particular action would open.
or
B) Status quo, everyone has pretty much equal access so that they have the capacity to be on even footing should that 1 in 100,000 crazy person mentioned earlier end up with them in their cross hairs.
You can do things like try to put laws in place stopping mentally ill from buying guns and ammo, but without reducing the concentration of guns it is pretty much irrelevant.
So back to the original question of why consensus cannot be reached, why a compromise will not be had: These 2 choices A & B are philosophically irreconcilable with each other. Any compromise between the 2 ends of these choices will simply be ineffective, so compromise cannot be made.
So it is. Doesn't change my argument. The right to own guns was always a stupid amendment and the rest of the world recognizes it's stupid, which is why the US and Mexico are the only countries that enshrined it in their constitutions. Everyone recognizes the right to vote as fundamental to a representative gov't. No one, but Americans, thinks guns are fundamental to anything. And seeing how much your ilk loves to support trampling over the rights of others, you're not swaying anyone with your plea for Constitutionality...
If you don't like the constitution there is a process in place to change it. And please show me where I have ever trampled over the rights of others or advocated for it.
Already decided in the Supreme Court. It is unconstitutional to tax your rights. Even sales tax.
Do they do it and get away with it... Yes. Can you fight it, yes, if you have the money for the attorneys.
Thats right. So you'd be exempt from paying the tax if you can prove that you belong to a legally authorized militia.
I understand that point, but let's say we went full-Japan. I think those people would still be able to obtain guns, it would just be a stricter process to acquire them. They'd need to present their reasons, undergo testing, etc. (My rudimentary understanding of Japanese gun laws anyway). Does it matter whether it takes 4 months for rural people to acquire a gun vs. immediately?
Let me know if I'm incorrect re: my understanding of Japan
Ask the family of the woman in New York who was murdered by her boyfriend a few years ago. It was going to take her 30 days to get a gun for protection, but she did not live that long.
Looks like its time for a weapons tax. The US is very good at taxation.
So, if you want to own weapons, pay the tax. Say $1000. A year.
Already been tried.
In 1934 the Fed govt enacted the National Firearms Act, putting a huge tax (equivalent to two months' average wages at a time when huge numbers had no job at all) on any sale or transfer of various shotguns, silencers etc.
It was taken to a Federal District Court, which took about 20 minutes to rule it was an unconstitutional attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The "tax" was obviously intended to prevent people from getting guns, not just to raise revenue. Just like the "tax" you are proposing here.
It only survived later when it went to the Supreme Court... because nobody from the defense even showed up to argue their case. (The defendant was found two weeks later in a stream bed with four pistol bullets in his chest.) His lawyer, unable to find his client before the trial date, didn't want to go to the huge effort of preparing a Supreme Court case when he likely to not get paid or even reimbursed for large office and filing expenses.
So one side of the courtroom remained empty as the govt prosecution read several lies into the record about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Nobody was there to refute the falsehoods, which the Justices rubber-stamped into an "opinion". The Fed govt has been very careful to never revisit the case again, knowing it would likely be overturned as quickly as the original District Court's opinion was reached.
So why is this such an impossible topic to talk about or come to a consensus on, let me give my POV:
These events are driven by several factors, so lets use some math:
Say out of every 100,000 people one person will be homicidally insane. As the population goes up the quantity of these people will also go up. Since this is most likely usually linked to some genetic component, there is not really much we can do about this factor. More people, more crazies: fact.
If say 50% of that 100,000 sample have access or own firearms, then you will see a proportion of these shootings that correspond with that. A gun as a tool, undeniably makes it easier to kill people (If you deny this you are operating outside reality) all the other examples people throw up have caveats, bombs are not as easy for the unskilled to use they have a higher skill floor to be utilized. Vehicles, while having roughly the same skill floor to utilize as weapons of murder, and while also pretty effective at it, have specific terrain and location requirements to be used in that manner thus are less flexible. IE: You wouldn't see this kid driving a truck down the hallways of his school etc. Pretty much any alternative to a gun has caveats that make it less effective, or less usable in general.
So that all said it would seem on the surface the logical answer would be to reduce the quantity and ease of access to firearms but NOT SO FAST, because there is another factor to consider which is the existing saturation of firearms. This is the key difference between say, gun control in America vs say, Japan.
Because they are so concentrated, there is not really a way to meaningfully reduce the quantity in any sort of short term time frame(which is what people are looking for) that does not involve draconian use of force that I do not believe would be acceptable to a majority of people. Not only that, in order to have any meaningful impact the laws would have to be global, because localized laws just send people on a couple hour drive to get the same thing (IE localized gun laws are pretty much completely useless, the only effective way would be to achieve a drastic reduction in saturation over an extremely wide geographic area). This boils down to crazy person decides to shoot up school: No gun sales in his county/city state? No problem just drive to the next county/city/state... but if there are no sales, and also barely any guns at all in his entire country? Well, he could leave the country and try to smuggle firearms back in but... that is far more likely to fail, far more expensive, and far more difficult for your run of the mill crazy to execute. Ditto for building his own guns and ammo from scratch, far far less crazies have the skill set to achieve that.
This leads me to my conclusion: Gun control, specifically gun control relative to the US, even more specifically gun control that would have an actual impact on these events, is at this point an all or nothing proposition with the 2 options being:
A) Complete ban on all firearms and ammunition, aggressive buyback window coupled with forceful confiscation of said guns and ammo after the window is up. I do not think we are ready for the consequences of the Pandora's box this particular action would open.
or
B) Status quo, everyone has pretty much equal access so that they have the capacity to be on even footing should that 1 in 100,000 crazy person mentioned earlier end up with them in their cross hairs.
You can do things like try to put laws in place stopping mentally ill from buying guns and ammo, but without reducing the concentration of guns it is pretty much irrelevant.
So back to the original question of why consensus cannot be reached, why a compromise will not be had: These 2 choices A & B are philosophically irreconcilable with each other. Any compromise between the 2 ends of these choices will simply be ineffective, so compromise cannot be made.
I 100% agree. Very well presented but unfortunately not allowed to rep you again.
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.
