• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook: Beyond gun control, disease control

Neither were the Columbine shooters. Someone bought their guns for them illegally. But in both cases it's possible - not inevitable, but inevitability isn't necessary in either case - that more expensive ammunition would have prevented both actions.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of a gunpowder tax. But if we're to pay for gun violence prevention and mental health coverage with an eye towards preventing gun violence, then the idea I've proposed is, by far, the fairest: let those who are most likely to engage in violent behavior pay for preventing that behavior.

gun owners are less than one in 100 to engage in crime

black males-far higher

so why not tax black males
 
Tax gunpowder all you like. Modern ammunition does not use gunpowder. :mrgreen:


(It uses various formulations of smokeless powder, which isn't the same thing.)
 
You ignore one major factor, the lastest infamous mass murderer was not a gun owner at all, he stole those guns from a person that he killed (his own mother). Is it the fault of his mother that she was chosen as his first victim? Perhaps we should tax mothers, since all that commit crimes with guns have had mothers, but may not have ever bought guns.

I tend to agree with your OP's argument. Just like other things, you pay for what you get via taxes. Sorry pals but guns do kill people and us non-gun owners shouldn't have to be reprimanded. If you want to buy a gun, you should have to pay for the POTENTIAL blowback.

EDIT: and I'm sure there is a figure that could be added to gun tax for violence like this.
 
gun owners are less than one in 100 to engage in crime

And yet guns are more likely to be used in the commission of violent crime than any other weapon (this is not the case in other nations).

black males-far higher

so why not tax black males

What do black males buy that's associated exclusively with black males that could be taxed? Or are you doing that whole 'moral grunting' thing again, where you verbalize the equivalent of a howl of rage?
 
And yet guns are more likely to be used in the commission of violent crime than any other weapon (this is not the case in other nations).



What do black males buy that's associated exclusively with black males that could be taxed? Or are you doing that whole 'moral grunting' thing again, where you verbalize the equivalent of a howl of rage?

your logic is silly If your goal is to tax people most likely to be involved in crime, its not legal gun owners, its black males who were raised in single parent households who dropped out of HS. those three factors are the most reliable predictors of being convicted of a felony

those who buy a gun lawfully? many times less chance
 
your logic is silly If your goal is to tax people most likely to be involved in crime, its not legal gun owners, its black males who were raised in single parent households who dropped out of HS. those three factors are the most reliable predictors of being convicted of a felony

Okay. So what do black males buy that's essential to being a black male, in the way that buying ammunition is essential to being a gun owner, that could be taxed?

Do you propose a do-rag tax, TurtleDude?
 
Neither were the Columbine shooters. Someone bought their guns for them illegally. But in both cases it's possible - not inevitable, but inevitability isn't necessary in either case - that more expensive ammunition would have prevented both actions.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of a gunpowder tax. But if we're to pay for gun violence prevention and mental health coverage with an eye towards preventing gun violence, then the idea I've proposed is, by far, the fairest: let those who are most likely to engage in violent behavior pay for preventing that behavior.

Gun owners, their bloviating to the contrary, have gotten off very well in this nation. I'm not interested in changing that. I do think that they have a responsibility to themselves, however, to ensure that their own community no longer suffers scapegoating. They can do this by paying a little more for their ammunition, and by doing so without pretending that they're being martyred.

Buying "favor", to avoid scapegoating, should not be necessary at all. Thank you for your concern, for the gun owners, all the same. :)
 
I tend to agree with your OP's argument. Just like other things, you pay for what you get via taxes. Sorry pals but guns do kill people and us non-gun owners shouldn't have to be reprimanded. If you want to buy a gun, you should have to pay for the POTENTIAL blowback.

EDIT: and I'm sure there is a figure that could be added to gun tax for violence like this.

I would much prefer a gun crime tax, since that is what we really seek to prevent. Perhaps using a $10,000 per gun crime figure as a good start.
 
I think you ascribe humans with grater capacity than they really have. I can see the huge bureaucracy that would grow up around this. The appeals. The "favors for friends". The "ones who got away". The unfairly accused. All in the name of a safe society. We can't even get these stupid humans to use their turn signals, let alone judge the mental projection of others.

I'm not arguing with you. I understand that you visualize something good. I'm just being my typical, pessimistic self.

Respect.



They don't make the determination. The school does. Teachers and faculty should be personally liable for not reporting someone with mental illness and violent tendencies if the come back and shoot up the place to the database. We could have a process where the mentally ill get their gun rights back when they are older if they can show themselves better similar to felons in those states that take gun rights away and federally. Every time one of these shootings happens just about, we learn after the fact that there were plenty of warning signs and that the person did not just snap. If you have a better way to address the preventative identification and alienation of the dangerous people before the bodies pile up independent of guns, I am all ears. I mean I read story once where a nut in Canada killed and practically decapitated a guy with a knife on a bus for no apparent reason. Systemic change requires we do more than put a band-aid on the issue and pat ourselves on the back.
 
I was listening to a radio pundit and his caller describing how violent video games are to blame for the recent shootings. Most of their argument was based on the idea that shootings like the one at Newtown are something new.

Are they?

It seems to me that massacres have been a part of human history for a very long time now.


What do you think? Is this sort of thing a new phenomenon? Could violent video games be partially to blame?
 
I would much prefer a gun crime tax, since that is what we really seek to prevent. Perhaps using a $10,000 per gun crime figure as a good start.

Gun crime tax? Care to explain? I don't want to strawman your argument.
 
I was listening to a radio pundit and his caller describing how violent video games are to blame for the recent shootings. Most of their argument was based on the idea that shootings like the one at Newtown are something new.

Are they?

It seems to me that massacres have been a part of human history for a very long time now.


What do you think? Is this sort of thing a new phenomenon? Could violent video games be partially to blame?

I suspect that there is a component of video game effects which could influence certain people to react in a violent way. It really depends on the individual's ability to separate fantasy from reality.
 
Gun crime tax? Care to explain? I don't want to strawman your argument.

Simply a federal tax (fee/fine) imposed on anyone convicted of using a gun during the commision of a crime; as part of a "mandatory minimum" sentence for that crime.
 
the citizens of California, NYC and NJ are calling you a liar..

and yes we should be able to buy full automatic rifles easily. They are clearly protected by the second amendment

How are fully automatic rifles protected by the second amendment? I see no such language in the second amendment granting the right to own fully automatic rifles.
 
I suspect that there is a component of video game effects which could influence certain people to react in a violent way. It really depends on the individual's ability to separate fantasy from reality.

As I recall, it has been shown that those video games desensitize people to killing. Military trainers have seen recruits unable to shoot targets even when people around them are being maimed or killed by opposition fire. so some of the training is designed to eliminate the inhibitions of firing on other people. those video games are similar to that training
 
How are fully automatic rifles protected by the second amendment? I see no such language in the second amendment granting the right to own fully automatic rifles.

what idiocy in that post. arms include such weapons. where in the first amendment does it say Lutheran churches are protected or internet communications
 
12555_305059602943916_576284169_n.png
 
Although I myself still question this interpretation of the 2nd amendment to me it's becoming more and more appealing

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is important to focus on all of the text in the 2nd amenment not just the latter part of it. This amendment was put into place for the sake of our national security specifically on a domestic front. I believe that the National Guard which was originally founded as several different state "militas" and whose responsibility today is our national security fullfills the first part of the text making the latter half nill.

I believe that no ordinary citizen should be able to own a gun whose intended practical use is to kill another human being. No one needs one and I believe it is something our country can learn to live without.

To go back to the actual topic of the thread however I believe that we should first find an understanding of people who have mental health Issues.T get some grasp of it I'll identify the main two groups of most homicidal persons with mental diseases. First we see psychopaths which depending on the kind of psychosis and the severity of it could have little or no grasp of reality or control over their actions. Then also we have sociopaths who are in complete control of their actions, but are incapable of feeling emotions.

People with mental illness are for the most part often diagnosed and use government programs for assistance. In this respect its not nearly as diffucult as some might believe and/or say to keep track of those with mental illness.

Before you purchase any kind of firearm I believe that you should have to prove that you are a citizen capable and responsible enough to use and maintain this weapon. In many cases they do preform a thorough job of this, but due to events both recent and old, I believe it is clear that we need to take a few more steps in makng this nation safer.
 
why do so many progressives hate their fellow citizens and want them defenseless in the event criminals want to attack them
 

Although I agree with the concept of personal responsibility, from what you are saying I can presume that in order for us to secure funds to prevent a crime, the crime in question has to occur so we can penalize the perpatrators. I don't believe thats really the best option.

I also have a problem with you refering to taxes as a punishment. Taxes are a responsibility to help insure the welfare of our nation. You should be proud of the fact that for the most part you are a part of helping your country.
 
why do so many progressives hate their fellow citizens and want them defenseless in the event criminals want to attack them

Because more guns isn't the answer. If everyone was wielding a weapon because of the constant danger of another with a firearm we would have a society similar to the old west and assuming you've ether read accounts, seen documenteries, or even seen a western film you understand my statement. We need restraint when it comes to guns, we shouldnt be making them more readily available to eveyone.
 
Last edited:
Although I agree with the concept of personal responsibility, from what you are saying I can presume that in order for us to secure funds to prevent a crime, the crime in question has to occur so we can penalize the perpatrators. I don't believe thats really the best option.

I also have a problem with you refering to taxes as a punishment. Taxes are a responsibility to help insure the welfare of our nation. You should be proud of the fact that for the most part you are a part of helping your country.

Does that mean that those who don't pay taxes i.e. the poor are not helping this country?

Maybe the poor could help pay some taxes so we can address the mental health issues that are leading to kids being slaughtered or even the mentally ill being killed so much by police. Was funding a now bankrupt solar energy company with a billion dollars wasted worth a billion dollars less for mental health spending?
 
Because more guns isn't the answer. If everyone was wielding a weapon because of the constant danger of another with a firearm we would have a society similar to the old west and assuming you've ether read accounts, seen documenteries, or even seen a western film you understand my statement. We need restraint when it comes to guns, we shouldnt be making them more readily available to eveyone.

YOur posts demonstrate a rather frightening level of ignorance on the issue. why is it that progressives are so clueless about gun issues so often?
 
As I recall, it has been shown that those video games desensitize people to killing. Military trainers have seen recruits unable to shoot targets even when people around them are being maimed or killed by opposition fire. so some of the training is designed to eliminate the inhibitions of firing on other people. those video games are similar to that training

These desensitizing video games are available to the world. So explain to me why they only mostly affect Americans, if that is the reson behind the violence. (yes I realize that mass shooting occur in other countries... but not in the same scale as in the US)
 
YOur posts demonstrate a rather frightening level of ignorance on the issue. why is it that progressives are so clueless about gun issues so often?

I think his post makes a ton of sense. I guess that makes me ignorant too. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom