We shall agree to disagree. You may think that I am treating your interests frivolously, and I shall continue to think that you need to accept that you like playing with potentially lethal toys.
Besides, none of my guns are toys. They’ve all got reasonable uses…
When the zombiepocolypse comes, they’ll serve a good use. 
Yes. Making you overconfident cowboy zombie fodder, thoughtfully drawing the attention of the encroaching horde long enough for me to slip out the back. 
I think having fewer guns around overall would be better than having more guns around.
**Zeriel, **sheesh - are you this stupid naturally or do you have to work at it? Go play in traffic or something. It’s called disincentives. If we raise the tax on cigarettes, do you complain that people are saying only rich people should smoke? Every adult should be legally allowed to smoke if that’s what rocks their boat. But higher cigarette taxes have been shown to be effective in reducing smoking. Either by encouraging people to stop, or discouraging them from starting in the first place. The higher cost doesn’t stop everyone - we know family friends that are deep in debt and are always broke - and both of them still smoke upwards of two packs a day. If you want to smoke, you’ll smoke.
Ditto guns. If you really want a gun, you’ll buy one. But higher prices, coupled with a general PITA factor to keep a gun, should discourage people from buying guns in the first place, unless you were a recreational shooter. You could use differentiated price bands to encourage recreational shooters towards specific types of guns. And it’s not like people buying $6,000 bicycles can complain.
This doesn’t even touch on the issue of what to do with the millions of guns already in circulation, but it would be a start.
Why?
Actually, I think that the taxes levied on cigarettes shouldn’t be to discourage people from smoking, but to mitigate the impact of their smoking.
In other words, the taxes on cigarettes shouldn’t be to punish smokers, but to ensure that when something bad happens from their smoking – namely cancer, emphasema or other disease – they’re provided for without draining on society.
Why would you want to push people towards buying certain types of guns?
I really don’t understand your logic. I mean, understand what you’re saying, but the logic behind it is non-existent.
Why, because I’m telling you the practical impact of your policies?
You want a steep “sin tax” on weapons. So that guns are in the multi-thousand dollar range. That means you want the poor to have fewer of them than the rich, inherently. That means you want the poor to be less able to exercise their Constitutional rights than the rich.
Your proposal is exactly the same, on the face of it, as the poll tax in Jim Crow era–you want to use taxes to implicitly outlaw something the Constitution says is legal. That makes you an asshole.
The right to cigarettes isn’t in my copy of the Constitution. Care to cite it for me?
And also, cigs are still a few bucks a pack. You’re orders of magnitude beyond that.
Leave them alone until they’re proven to have been misused or used in a crime? That’d be a start.
I’ve already translated–he wants people to have less guns, and he wants them all in the hands of the rich.
Wow, you really are an ass. You still have no clue what this is about.
We can afford it since my Wife has an expensive bike, so I shouldn’t care. Damn.
Actually, I can complain, and will.
I oppose people that refuse education about something but continue to try to legislate against it.
I think having a lot of educated, responsible gun owners would be best, personally.
Nitpick: They’re really not. I picked up a pack for a friend the other day, and it was something like $8. In Milwaukee. Obviously orders of magnitude different from the stupid gun tax proposal, but still, that’s not “a few bucks.”
Why? How does that lessen the amount of dangerous assholes who have them? And what is to stop these dangerous assholes stealing yours, unless you are on constant alert?
“Dangerous assholes” don’t seem to be a problem in the USA.
The only problem in the USA is really criminals, and negligence. Negligence is a small factor, considering there aren’t a huge number of deaths from negligence, and it’s already illegal for criminals to own/posses guns, so banning law abiding citizens from owning them isn’t going to change that.
Pardon me. Apparently I need to spell everything out for your tiny brain.
The idea is that only educated, responsible people would have access to guns, but that it would be very easy to become an educated, responsible gun owner if you so choose.
Ohhhhhhh, I see. But unless you can eradicate criminals, or at least stop them getting weapons, this is just wishful thinking, isn’t it?
State by state thing, then. They’re still in the $5 range here.
I’d like to reiterate that of the 13k+ firearms deaths in 2007, less than 1% (600ish total) were accidental. The rest were homicides.
I am in total agreement with you that some measures are likely necessary to keep guns further out of the hands of the criminally-inclined element. I favor licensing (with required basic training, like driver licenses), registration of firearms, and severe penalties for stolen arms found to have been improperly secured or unreported as stolen.
As for dangerous assholes stealing my personal guns, they’d need a blowtorch or a few hours to crack my safe. This is not a standard that is out of reach for the average gun owner, in my opinion, given that a typical firearm costs a few hundred bucks and a good gun safe costs a few hundred bucks.
That’s kinda the problem–if the goal is to stop murders and criminal shootings, well, one-shot zip guns are pretty trivially easy to manufacture. And as we’re seeing with the crap on the Mexican border, gun smuggling doesn’t appear to be any harder than drug smuggling for the criminal element. So therefore, shutting down sources of legal guns to law-abiding citizens is probably not going to have a severe effect on total firearm deaths without some cultural shifts or something to reduce criminality in general.
So you think if we make guns illegal, that will just magically prevent criminals from getting a hold of them?
Because, yeah, we have such a great history with prohibition in this country. Making all sorts of drugs, from alcohol to marijuana to heroin, illegal has certainly in no way contributed to explosions in crime, especially organized crime. And it’s absolutely impossible to get your hands on illegal drugs anytime you want!
Not to mention the fact that companies like Norinco (the Chinese state gun manufacturer) has no problem selling firearms, fully automatic AKs, to anyone with money… Including drug dealers and criminal organizations.
Also, good gun safes are 1k and up, usually. Im not suggesting that they’re out of range for gun owners (I own multiple guns in that price range, and one significantly above), just that hundred dollar safes are more like lockers.
I wouldn’t disagree with you, I was just thinking more in terms of the personal protection gun and a handgun safe.
Also, good safes are pretty easy to get ahold of used–I only paid $250 for my combolock forged steel safe, but it’s only big enough for about five guns (which means I’m using less than half of it, granted)
My guess is: NO!
Once the criminals have them, your basically have to have them yourself.
And the criminals have them, because the victims might have them, so it becomes a necessity for them as such, and because the criminals have them, the general public has them.
Vicious circle, once than can is popped, it is popped and very hard to put the rabbit back into the hat.
Perhaps we need to get David Copperfield on the case?
Especially since, as has been repeatedly said, you’d somehow have to disappear the very knowledge of guns–a zip gun is NOT hard to make with even rudimentary skills, turning out cartridge cases is only slightly harder, and mixing gunpowder from common basic ingredients is not any higher on the “difficult chemistry” scale than meth.