• 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

ttwtt78640 said:
That and the link between mental illness and gunpowder is obviously strong. Can't tax anything else for that purpose or the lefties may have to pay a bit too. :)
Click to expand...

The link between gunpowder and gun violence is quite strong. You're absolutely right. :)
 
Einzige said:
Those who commit gun violence are gun owners. The gun owners who commit gun violence are responsible for gun violence.

Do you see how this works?
Click to expand...

so you want to punish responsible and legal gun owners for the actions of illegal gun owners

less than 1% of gun owners misuse their guns. a far higher percentage of black males have felony records by the time they are 40 years old. Why not tax black males for crime using your idiotic logic.
 
TurtleDude said:
so you want to punish responsible and legal gun owners for the actions of illegal gun owners

less than 1% of gun owners misuse their guns. a far higher percentage of black males have felony records by the time they are 40 years old. Why not tax black males for crime using your idiotic logic.
Click to expand...

We punish responsible and legal doctors for the actions of irresponsible doctors. It's called "malpractice insurance".

There's nothing inherently wrong with a punitive tax that prevents the misuse of the object it's applied towards. Historically, in fact, until the mid-20th century, punitive taxes were the preferred form of taxation. It created a concrete, objective link between an action and the responsibility for the results of that action. I'm a Liberal (capital-l, Gladstonian liberal), but not so liberal as to think that there ought not be some way to leverage a community into not abusing its rights. That includes the gun owners' community.

Take your rage, my good man, and disappear.
 
...and you trust what government (Federal) agency to determine if your starting that fight in 6th grade is mental illness or a bad day?

Fisher said:
Well, would you rather we have more piles of dead people? My answer is yes--if you have threatened or carried out physical violence on another person or yourself and have a known diagnosis if mental handicap then you should be in the database. It isn't like autistic kids and kids with cerebral palsy really need guns to hunt with or anything.
Click to expand...
 
Einzige said:
The link between gunpowder and gun violence is quite strong. You're absolutely right. :)
Click to expand...

Clever, but you used "metal health" as the issue. How does one predict, with any certainty, which of the "mentally ill" may resort to gun violence? Just as with alcoholism, the vast majority start by drinking milk, long before they switch to booze. Should we then tax milk to cover the treatment of that "illness"? Crazy folks use lots of things to cause mayhem, death and destruction; kerosene and fertilizer, matches and accelerants, knives, cars and sometimes, yes, even guns that they stole from their own mothers (perhaps after killing them). Do those that shoot more often contribute to this mental illness problem more than those that do not shoot as often?
 
Einzige said:
We punish responsible and legal doctors for the actions of irresponsible doctors. It's called "malpractice insurance".

There's nothing inherently wrong with a punitive tax that prevents the misuse of the object it's applied towards. Historically, in fact, until the mid-20th century, punitive taxes were the preferred form of taxation. It created a concrete, objective link between an action and the responsibility for the results of that action. I'm a Liberal (capital-l, Gladstonian liberal), but not so liberal as to think that there ought not be some way to leverage a community into not abusing its rights. That includes the gun owners' community.

Take your rage, my good man, and disappear.
Click to expand...

you are the one enraged against gun owners, You want people who use a product legally to be forced to pay for actions that are illegal. Malpractice insurance is voluntary. and the more you screw up the more you pay.

but deep down you are nothing more than a lefty who figures harassing gun owners mainly harasses conservatives. it would be like demanding all homosexuals-including lesbians, be taxed for the cost of STDs and AIDS
 
TurtleDude said:
so you want to punish responsible and legal gun owners for the actions of illegal gun owners

less than 1% of gun owners misuse their guns. a far higher percentage of black males have felony records by the time they are 40 years old. Why not tax black males for crime using your idiotic logic.
Click to expand...

I think all of you gun folks just need to relax. Everybody knows there will never, ever be any successful effort to limit the availabilty of guns. In fact, it will go the other way and soon any controls at all will be gone and if you want to go in and buy a fully automatic assault rifle at your local hardware store, you'll be able to do it.

It doesn't matter how many 6 year olds get murdered by a guy with a semi-automatic rifle. The only change that will ever take place will go in your direction, not ours.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Clever, but you used "metal health" as the issue. How does one predict, with any certainty, which of the "mentally ill" may resort to gun violence? Just as with alcoholism, the vast majority start by drinking milk, long before they switch to booze. Should we then tax milk to cover the treatment of that "illness"? Crazy folks use lots of things to cause mayhem, death and destruction; kerosene and fertilizer, matches and accelerants, knives, cars and sometimes, yes, even guns that they stole from their own mothers (perhaps after killing them). Do those that shoot more often contribute to this mental illness problem more than those that do not shoot as often?
Click to expand...

the real mental health problems I am seeing over this shooting is the insanity we are getting from the left over legal gun ownership
 
There have been reports that suggest half the people shot by the police in the US annually are mentally ill and a significant number of prison and jail inmates are mentally ill. It clearly makes more sense to go after the mentally ill who show signs of predisposition for violence proactively. A database to keep them away from guns is just a start. Their healthcare is already covered so it really is a matter of room and board. Their SSI checks can go for that and it is better they be in a therapeutic community than eventually in prison or the ground. I am somewhat surprised the leftists are not jumping on board with this idea.
 
Wiggen said:
I think all of you gun folks just need to relax. Everybody knows there will never, ever be any successful effort to limit the availabilty of guns. In fact, it will go the other way and soon any controls at all will be gone and if you want to go in and buy a fully automatic assault rifle at your local hardware store, you'll be able to do it.

It doesn't matter how many 6 year olds get murdered by a guy with a semi-automatic rifle. The only change that will ever take place will go in your direction, not ours.
Click to expand...

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
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Clever, but you used "metal health" as the issue. How does one predict, with any certainty, which of the "mentally ill" may resort to gun violence?
Click to expand...

Punitive taxes, applied as a preventative measure, are nondiscriminatory: you will pay them if you intend to abuse the object to which they're applied just as assuredly as you will if you intend to use it for its legitimate purposes. There is nothing wrong or unfair about this.

Just as with alcoholism, the vast majority start by drinking milk, long before they switch to booze. Should we then tax milk to cover the treatment of that "illness"?
Click to expand...

The difference is that a gun will shoot no matter who fires it. Milk will never get you drunk.

Crazy folks use lots of things to cause mayhem, death and destruction; kerosene and fertilizer, matches and accelerants, knives, cars and sometimes, yes, even guns that they stole from their own mothers (perhaps after killing them). Do those that shoot more often contribute to this mental illness problem more than those that do not shoot as often?
Click to expand...

You may, if you like, expand the tax to pocket knives, ceremonial weapons, and the like. A fine idea, in fact.
 
Einzige said:
Punitive taxes, applied as a preventative measure, are nondiscriminatory: you will pay them if you intend to abuse the object to which they're applied just as assuredly as you will if you intend to use it for its legitimate purposes. There is nothing wrong or unfair about this.



The difference is that a gun will shoot no matter who fires it. Milk will never get you drunk.



You may, if you like, expand the tax to pocket knives, ceremonial weapons, and the like. A fine idea, in fact.
Click to expand...

so you admit your goal is to punish recreational and competitive shooters because of the actions of criminals.

that sort of makes you an enemy doesn't it?
 
Einzige said:
We punish responsible and legal doctors for the actions of irresponsible doctors. It's called "malpractice insurance".

There's nothing inherently wrong with a punitive tax that prevents the misuse of the object it's applied towards. Historically, in fact, until the mid-20th century, punitive taxes were the preferred form of taxation. It created a concrete, objective link between an action and the responsibility for the results of that action. I'm a Liberal (capital-l, Gladstonian liberal), but not so liberal as to think that there ought not be some way to leverage a community into not abusing its rights. That includes the gun owners' community.

Take your rage, my good man, and disappear.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be more closely related to make parents, teachers, doctors, and anybody else with knowledge that someone had a violent tendency liable for their violent acts? We'd never have a 4th of July show ever again if we hold gunpowder makers liable for wrong acts with their product and fireworks are kind of cool.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are the one enraged against gun owners, You want people who use a product legally to be forced to pay for actions that are illegal. Malpractice insurance is voluntary. and the more you screw up the more you pay.

but deep down you are nothing more than a lefty who figures harassing gun owners mainly harasses conservatives.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm a libertarian who thinks a gunpowder tax is a fine political compromise that would vouchsafe the rights of gun owners from any real threat of Federal gun control legislation.

it would be like demanding all homosexuals-including lesbians, be taxed for the cost of STDs and AIDS
Click to expand...

They're already taxed for the cost of STDs and AIDS when they pay their insurance premiums.
 
TurtleDude said:
so you want to punish responsible and legal gun owners for the actions of illegal gun owners

less than 1% of gun owners misuse their guns. a far higher percentage of black males have felony records by the time they are 40 years old. Why not tax black males for crime using your idiotic logic.
Click to expand...

Gun owners tend to vote incorrectly, while black males tend to vote correctly. You must understand leftist logic to fully "get it". The idea is now trying to punish, by taxation, "others" because a crazy person comitted a crime using a gun. Why tax everyone when you can target additional taxation only to "them"? Yes they can!
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

I think you are going to get your wish. The death tolls from the most recent shootings have seemed to me to be way smaller than they should have been. Assault rifles on full automatic should be able to take care of that failing. Especially with those little kids. They don't run very fast.
 
TurtleDude said:
so you admit your goal is to punish recreational and competitive shooters because of the actions of criminals.
Click to expand...

My intent is to find a way to pay for a nationwide health care and gun violence prevention scheme that doesn't disproportionally fall on those whose behavior is not relevant to the issue. If the subject were diabetes, and I were tasked with finding a way to establish a specialized, nation-wide system of treatment for diabetes, I would want to tax sugar, not raise income taxes on everyone.

that sort of makes you an enemy doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Thing is that I don't particularly want you as an ally.
 
TurtleDude said:
the real mental health problems I am seeing over this shooting is the insanity we are getting from the left over legal gun ownership
Click to expand...

Never let a "crisis" go to waste! Not only can the left get more gov't, they make "them" pay for it too!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Gun owners tend to vote incorrectly, while black males tend to vote correctly. You must understand leftist logic to fully "get it". The idea is now trying to punish, by taxation, "others" because a crazy person comitted a crime using a gun. Why tax everyone when you can target additional taxation only to "them"? Yes they can!
Click to expand...

Funny. The day before he committed the crime he had every right to own those firearms and a lot more besides. He apparently wasn't crazy then.
 
Einzige said:
Actually, I'm a libertarian who thinks a gunpowder tax is a fine political compromise that would vouchsafe the rights of gun owners from any real threat of Federal gun control legislation.



They're already taxed for the cost of STDs and AIDS when they pay their insurance premiums.
Click to expand...

you are no libertarian.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Never let a "crisis" go to waste! Not only can the left get more gov't, they make "them" pay for it too!
Click to expand...

Once more, with feeling: do you want to prevent there from being a massive public backlash against gun ownership? Then you must be prepared to give a little. This principle of 'noncompromise' on the Right has done it more harm than anything else I can think of.

Better a gunpowder tax than an assault weapons ban.
 
Wiggen said:
I think you are going to get your wish. The death tolls from the most recent shootings have seemed to me to be way smaller than they should have been. Assault rifles on full automatic should be able to take care of that failing. Especially with those little kids. They don't run very fast.
Click to expand...

the idiotic posts from the left are getting beyond pathetic.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are no libertarian.
Click to expand...

I am. What I am is a libertarian in the complete, European sense - friendly to non-government labor unions and workers' co-operatives, sympathetic to the rural poor, in favor of political equanimity. What I am not is an Austrian clone who reads Rand or Mises and goes off thinking I'm some rugged individual, like the millions of other rugged individuals out there.
 
specklebang said:
...and you trust what government (Federal) agency to determine if your starting that fight in 6th grade is mental illness or a bad day?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Einzige said:
Once more, with feeling: do you want to prevent there from being a massive public backlash against gun ownership? Then you must be prepared to give a little. This principle of 'noncompromise' on the Right has done it more harm than anything else I can think of.

Better a gunpowder tax than an assault weapons ban.
Click to expand...

what do the gun haters like you give in return? given we have the constitution on our side TWICE

1) there is no proper power delegated to the federal government to regulate small arms-your side ignored the tenth amendment under FDR and grabbed that power

2) the second amendment.

each year gun haters like you want to take more from us and give us nothing in return
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom