The "reasonable conversation about guns" that anti-gun Internet people want

[Zakalwe]

@BrainGlutton

Actually, I believe Australia did.

Wait, really? The Daily Show is your cite? Look, I love Jon Stewart too (and I’m far from a gun nut), but seriously dude. Australia had (has) a per capita gun ownership rate about a quarter of the US and a history of gun control (handguns have been regulated since the 20’s) .

Face it, the US is a unique case. Our gun ownership rates, guns per capita DWARF the rest of the world, and resistance to gun control are not replicated anywhere. It doesn’t mean there aren’t answers (I think there are) and it doesn’t mean that we can’t have reasonable discussions about those answers, but don’t pretend that you can just grab some other country’s answer (and in Australia’s case the “answer” is still under debate) and apply it here and have it work.

[billfish678]

Just a random thought. Seems to me guns per capita might be a bit misleading. One “nut” with a gazillion weapons really doesn’t say much for the society as a whole and certainly skews the statistics.

IMO comparing what percentage of a given countries population or households that HAVE a gun is a better comparision. And perhaps what types of guns those are.

[Zakalwe]

@billfish678

Just a random thought. Seems to me guns per capita might be a bit misleading. One “nut” with a gazillion weapons really doesn’t say much for the society as a whole and certainly skews the statistics.

IMO comparing what percentage of a given countries population or households that HAVE a gun is a better comparision. And perhaps what types of guns those are.

You’re right. I just couldn’t quickly find those stats. However, given the difference in population*, it seems unlikely that the “lots of guns” guys in the US are the sole reason for the massive difference in guns per capita.

• A 100-gun nut in the US will have a lesser effect than a 100-gun nut in Australia.

[billfish678]

Oh, not blaming, just saying. Most of my posts are fact free for that matter

Butt, as for your second point, that assumed US and Australia have the same number of fixed “gun nuts”. If their percentage occurance is the same, then it should even out. And some other stuff I am too lazy to mention right now.

[Der_Trihs]

@Zakalwe

Face it, the US is a unique case.

It’s funny how often America turns out to be uniquely incompetent.

[billfish678]

Yeah, America. The Bill Gates of planet Earth.

[Bricker]

@Enkel

I disagree about constructive confiscation (and please provide a link to a bill that has been proposed that would tax any weapon at $3000 each, then we can talk about excessive taxation).

In the argument against registration, pro-gun people claim that it will create a database to be used to “confiscate weapons” from law abiding owners. So, I am talking about actual, literal confiscation. NOW, if those against registration start using the term ‘constructive taking’ (? was that the term ? ) then ‘constructive taking’ applies.

But the people that use the term “confiscation” are likely talking about constructive taking, and using the term “confiscation” to describe the effect of such constructive taking.

If the government were to tax individual firearms at $100,000 each, and forbid ownership if that tax is not paid, doesn’t that amount to confiscation?

[Enkel]

@Bricker

But the people that use the term “confiscation” are likely talking about constructive taking, and using the term “confiscation” to describe the effect of such constructive taking.

I’m not getting your logic here. What I have read is that (paraphrase) “registration will allow the government to come take my guns away.” I have never heard them talk about a tax or the government going door to door to collect a tax.

(Again, provide a link to any bill that even comes close to proposing a $3000 tax on each weapon. Other wise, would this be the equivalent of a straw man argument? )

If the government were to tax individual firearms at $100,000 each, and forbid ownership if that tax is not paid, doesn’t that amount to confiscation?

If you want a $100k tax, then what about if it is a $1 tax. Is that still ‘constructive taking’? Maybe the poor can afford the $1 tax.

I’ve never seen the government deal with taxes by prohibiting the item they seek to tax. That would pretty much ruin their tax base. So, I’m going to guess that the government, no matter how heavily they tax an item, are not going to prohibit the ownership as a result of failure to pay taxes*. So, unless you can show an example of something similar, this again sounds a bit like a straw man argument.

How do people have a “reasonable conversation” when the conversation is side tracked by straw man arguments?

*Now, when you fail to pay taxes, the government CAN take property to satisfy the tax debt. But that could be ANY property, not just weapons. So, the extreme taxation argument causes just as much risk of confiscation of jewelry, vehicles, and property as weapons. So, if you fail to pay the now $100k tax on your $200 rifle, I’m sure they will be taking your home and any weapon will be a side issue from their perspective.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Enkel

(Again, provide a link to any bill that even comes close to proposing a $3000 tax on each weapon. Other wise, would this be the equivalent of a straw man argument? )

It’s not exactly a strawman argument. A prohibitive tax related to firearms (specifically, ammunition) has long been suggested, sometimes in jest and sometimes seriously. Note that Daniel Patrick Moynihan actually introduced some bills (note: links to the actual text of the referred-to bills) with that in mind. That they had no chance of passing doesn’t change the fact that the idea has been contemplated, proposed, and has a certain following of people to this day that would love to see it happen. It may have happened again since, I’m not going to scour Thomas for examples, the point has already been made.

It doesn’t take any leap of imagination to see how easily the argument transfers to firearms themselves.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That’s not the claim being made, though.

[Ludovic]

@Enkel

If you want a $100k tax, then what about if it is a $1 tax. Is that still ‘constructive taking’? Maybe the poor can afford the $1 tax.

You must have mistook this for a thread on voting rights.

[BrainGlutton]

@billfish678

Yeah, America. The Bill Gates of planet Earth.

. . . Sometimes uniquely incompetent, yet always amazingly rich?

[Little_Nemo]

@BrainGlutton

. . . Sometimes uniquely incompetent, yet always amazingly rich?

And quite insistent that, whether it works or not, everyone should be doing things his way.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That’s not the claim being made, though.

The assertion being made is that someone has proposed a tax on firearms that would be seen as punitive/confiscatory. I’ve cited a tax on ammunition that would be seen as punitive. The parallels are such that there is little difference between the two, glaringly so when you recognize that firearms are useless without ammunition.

I don’t see the problem.

[Enkel]

I think you noted that these were only related to ammunition, not weapons themselves.

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Moynihan actually introduced some

This is a 1993 bill, I don’t have the exact Title 18, Ch 44 from that period.. but based on today’s version, it looks like this was adding three types of ammunition (.25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter) to those types of importers and manufacturers who had to pay the (already existing) annual $1000 license fee.

Then it seems to add those caliber weapons to the weapons to this statement? (Again, without more research this paragraph may have read very differently 20 years ago)

Sec 929 (a)(1) Whoever, during and in relation to the commission of a
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of
violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced
punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon
or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United
States, uses or carries a firearm and is in possession of armor
piercing ammunition capable of being fired in that firearm, shall,
in addition to the punishment provided for the commission of such
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime be sentenced to a term
of imprisonment for not less than five years.

bills (note: links to the actual text of the referred-to bills)

Another 1993 bill, but this imposes 1000% (percent!, not dollar!*) tax on

The sale or use of firearms and ammunition by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the article.

So, it attempted to substantially increased the existing tax rate on ammunition that may have been around 12%?

And, as you stated, neither bill passed. But, a 1000% tax rate on ammunition in 1995 wouldn’t have been the same as $3000k (or even $1000k) per weapon. Weapons were at that time taxed between 10% and 12% from what I can find in a quick Google search.

That they had no chance of passing doesn’t change the fact that the idea has been contemplated, proposed, and has a certain following of people to this day that would love to see it happen. […]

It doesn’t take any leap of imagination to see how easily the argument transfers to firearms themselves.

To me it takes a large leap of imagination. These bills did not pass and they were targeted at manufacturers and importers. The first bill was about an annual fee. Many businesses have to pay annual fees, so I don’t have any problem with that. They were just saying that if all you do is import ammunition (and not weapons), well you have to pay the annual fee like the weapons dealers pay.

The tax on manufacturers and importers didn’t pass. There would have to be a massive change in the political climate for a tax like that on citizens to have any chance of being introduced. Just look at when they pass new cigarette taxes (and people love to hate smokers). Imagine if they wanted to pass a 1000% tax on cigarettes? Even the people who hate smokers would come out of the wood work because the next thing will be a 1000% tax on sugary sodas.

People can propose anything (and these are examples from 20 years ago, so they’re not real active in this area?)… Newt wanted to put a base on the moon outfitted with a laser system… he had a following. Do we have a base on the moon? No. What is the probability that NASA will landing building materials on the moon in the next decade? Probably pretty darn close to zero. So my realistic expectation of moon lasers is also very close to zero.

*any tax that nears 100% is excessive… not to mention 1000%. There is no way that could ever pass, so this was probably one of those “make a good show of it” bills.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

The assertion being made is that someone has proposed a tax on firearms that would be seen as punitive/confiscatory. I’ve cited a tax on ammunition that would be seen as punitive. The parallels are such that there is little difference between the two, glaringly so when you recognize that firearms are useless without ammunition.

I don’t see the problem.

No, the claim being made is that someone proposed actual confiscation. Bricker then decided we needed a tangent about constructive confiscation, even though there is no indication that the original mention was a reference to that.

[Enkel]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

The assertion being made is that someone has proposed a tax on firearms that would be seen as punitive/confiscatory. I’ve cited a tax on ammunition that would be seen as punitive. The parallels are such that there is little difference between the two, glaringly so when you recognize that firearms are useless without ammunition.

I don’t see the problem.

Actually, my original request was for examples of legislation that would allow the government to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens. The argument against registration is that it will provide the government with a database that could be used to confiscate weapons.

Bricker proposed that an excessive tax was equivalent to confiscation (constructive taking). I disagree. I don’t see taxation as confiscation. So, when looking at your cites (and THANK YOU, you are the only one who has even tried to provide an example), they are not (in my mind) related to the confiscation question that I posed. A sales tax has no impact on what I already own. So, prevention of new purchases (a valid issue) is not the same as taking what I already have (aka IMHO confiscation).
Ninja’d by Really Not All That Bright Doh!

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Enkel

Actually, my original request was for examples of legislation that would allow the government to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens. The argument against registration is that it will provide the government with a database that could be used to confiscate weapons.

Well, let’s be fair. Of COURSE it could be used for that purpose. With quotes like this:

[QUOTE=Dianne Feinstein, 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995]
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.
[/QUOTE]

it is always a concern. I don’t hold that concern myself, but it’s not unreasonable for others to.

Bricker proposed that an excessive tax was equivalent to confiscation (constructive taking). I disagree. I don’t see taxation as confiscation. So, when looking at your cites (and THANK YOU, you are the only one who has even tried to provide an example), they are not (in my mind) related to the confiscation question that I posed. A sales tax has no impact on what I already own. So, prevention of new purchases (a valid issue) is not the same as taking what I already have (aka IMHO confiscation).

No, it’s not the same thing, but it’s in the ballpark. I strongly suspect that legislation with specific language vis a vis confiscation has not been introduced. Then again, how could it be introduced without the means of enforcement? It’s a chicken/egg thing.

As for me providing examples (or, as you say, trying to), gun-related arguments in particular seem to require it, even though a discussion in the abstract has a certain value if we can keep insults out of it (which doesn’t really seem possible).

[elucidator]

There is a dark undercurrent of fear in our country, and I’m sick of it. We’re all somewhat sick from it, but some of us realise it and some don’t. Strangely, those of us who don’t suffer much from it tend to underestimate its importance, and the people who suffer most from it see it as hard headed realism, the way things are, that’s just how it is…

Civilization is based on trust, we take the chance to trust, we risk to be civilized. And it ain’t easy. The fear that fosters a malignant sense of need for “self-defense” is poisonous, corrupt. It erodes trust, and without trust, the center cannot hold.

The change we need is too big for a program of laws, it probably can’t be done by legalistic and authority-based means. While I appreciate and support the motives, I can’t be optimistic about the tactics.

Because there are the men who make quite a good living from our fear. And use that money to buy political power to promote that fear, to protect that fear. Even the most insipid and obvious set of regulations such as offered, supported by huge majorities, cannot pass.

(I wonder if someone offered a resolution in Congress, to the effect that it would be nice if people didn’t shoot each other quite so often, I wonder if that would fail in the Senate 59-41…)

So, I feel compelled to support a plan I don’t think will work. Because at least it gets us talking, and hopefully, thinking. And maybe I’m wrong, maybe it can be accomplished by grinding out laws. Fine with me, love to think so, but I don’t. If you gotta change people, the long hard slog of hearts and minds is the only reliable road. Its just so goddam! slow.

I’m willing to try laws, I’m willing to try reason, I’ll even try a joke here and there. Only thing I’m not willing to do is just shut up and let it happen.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

You’re right. Civilization is based on trust. The remainder of your post is devoted to mistrust and its attempted eradication through legislation, which is nothing short of ironic.

As for the undercurrent of fear, you’re right. It does exist. In truth, it always has, in many different forms ranging from xenophobia to multiple “Red Scares” to drastic social changes. We have 200-plus years of legislation to document our never-ending culture of fear. It’s not new, and it’s not going away.