• 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!

I have a plan for a new tax!

From your narrowed and quite skewed perception it might be invalid. However majority of the world and parts of the US believe it is validated.

1. You seem to lack the ability to draw a distinction between the damage an individual with a firearm can cause and an individual without one can cause. Additionally to further prove my point....a person who is killed by someone using a firearm...what would the cause of death be on their death certificate?

2. There is no doubt a level of responsibility. However if you actually want to put trust in individuals to be responsible you have a very skewed view on the true nature of the world. You place trust in people and you end up 123,000 casualties in a given year. You legislate and restrict gun usage to employment, shooting ranges and sports and implement more stringent policies relating to licensing, possession, carry and you have 1 mass shooting in 22 years as demonstrated by Australia. No mass shootings as demonstrated by Japan. THAT IS FACT. DENY IT AND IT UNDERPINS YOUR IGNORANCE.

To answer number 2 first. I dont care about other countries and what they do. That does not mean I am ignorant, it means my values and what I value and how I prioritize them are different from the rest of the world, as is most of the rest of the US. I value my right and ability to use whatever I choose, including firearms to defend myself. I am NOT interested in negotiating this right. No one will begrudge this right to me without severe consequence. I dont care if there are mass shooting everyday, my right to use the arms of my choosing is sacrosanct. There is NO negotiation on this point.

Now one to number 1. The answer would be gunshot wound. If I used a baseball bat or rock it would be blunt force trauma by baseball bat or rock. I dont need a gun to kill you. I can use my bare hands and do that just as quickly and efficiently. Then again I am a full grown male hominid and relatively fit. I can use a truck, or car. I can build an untraceable drone to do the deed. Point being is your point is illogical and baseless. The firearms are convenient for my personal defense, but absolutely necessary for a woman or the younger or the elderly. Firearms give those people the ability to defend themselves rather than be dependent on someone else who may not be there when they need them. In the US self sufficiency is valued attribute, people here tend to dislike being dependent on others for their needs. Thats why cars are popular here.
 
Cars kill more people, should they get taxed too?

A cars is not built to kill as is a gun or a cigarrette. They are made as transportation and thus we tax them to pay for the roads they drive on. In essence, you are making my point. we tax cars for the reason they are made as each time they drive on a road they destroy it a little. With guns, every time they shoot a person they destroy a little or a lot of what they shoot at. Thus like the car, we should tax those who make them for the damage they do.
 
A cars is not built to kill as is a gun or a cigarrette. They are made as transportation and thus we tax them to pay for the roads they drive on. In essence, you are making my point. we tax cars for the reason they are made as each time they drive on a road they destroy it a little. With guns, every time they shoot a person they destroy a little or a lot of what they shoot at. Thus like the car, we should tax those who make them for the damage they do.

Your point is stupid. Most guns in the United States never shoot a single person.
 
(Here we go again.....)

A FIREARM never killed anyone in this case.

A PERSON loaded it,
A PERSON chambered a round,
A PERSON aimed it,
A PERSON pulled the trigger,

therefore....(stay with me here)...therefore

A PERSON did the killing.

You have no logic if you think anything else.

Ah, but without the gun, and this particular gun, how could one person kill 11 people and wound 4 policemen? Right, because he is easily able to get a gun he could do what he did. There is no other weapon so easy to get that could do this except with a gun. IN fact, the gun he used is "MADE" to do this and thus the people who made such a weapon, knowing its use, should pay for the damage done by the product they made.
 
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.

Should automakers be held accountable for the actions of drivers, nope, same holds true for firearms.
 
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.

Could your tax apply to vehicle manufactures? .
 
Ah, but without the gun, and this particular gun, how could one person kill 11 people and wound 4 policemen? Right, because he is easily able to get a gun he could do what he did. There is no other weapon so easy to get that could do this except with a gun. IN fact, the gun he used is "MADE" to do this and thus the people who made such a weapon, knowing its use, should pay for the damage done by the product they made.

Can do just as much damage with a semiautomatic handgun, buy then again I am sure they would also be on the chopping block.
 
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.

You can't punish a company when someone misuses their product.
If we did that, every single company from every single industry would be punished like this as a result.

Stupid idea. Only a Democrat would come up with it.
 
I have a plan for a new tax!

i have a plan for a new tax. legalize pot, and make use of it mandatory. this will result in more revenue, less violence, and McDonalds stock going through the roof. also, there will be more two hour documentaries about tugboats and the return of laser Pink Floyd at planetariums.
 
Should automakers be held accountable for the actions of drivers, nope, same holds true for firearms.

I don't want to say that is a stupid comparison, but it is. An automobile is made for transportation. A gun is made to kill. Comparing the two is apple and oranges, but you already knew that. You have probably been told that a hundred times, but you continue to use it because, first it is a GOP talking point, though a really stupid one and second, it is all you have.
 
Could your tax apply to vehicle manufactures? .

I don't know if this is all you have, but it is comparing apples and oranges, ut you already know that. A car is made for transportation and a gun is made to kill. The comparison is bogus.
 
Cars kill more people, should they get taxed too?

Cars are taxed and regulated for safety and you need a license to drive one. Gun deaths are fast approaching the number of auto deaths and soon will surpass them.

graph-for-press-release.jpg
 
I don't want to say that is a stupid comparison, but it is. An automobile is made for transportation. A gun is made to kill. Comparing the two is apple and oranges, but you already knew that. You have probably been told that a hundred times, but you continue to use it because, first it is a GOP talking point, though a really stupid one and second, it is all you have.

Guns are made to kill, mainly for animals, but it is the person using the tool that is responsible, not the maker of the tool. The argument is ridiculous in thr extreme unless you are a banner and then nothing will satisfy you until all firearms are banned. Not gonna happen.
 
To wit people on this thread have already told you the responsibility for those deaths which you write of, belong wholly and exclusively to the individuals that pulled the trigger. Arms are inanimate objects. They must be used by a human being in order to work. As the people are the ones responsible for using their arms inappropriately, as they are any other inanimate object there is no need to ban them especially considering the fact they specifically protected under a constitutional amendment. The primary point being PEOPLE INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE, inanimate objects cannot, hence your logic and argument are invalid.

When someone makes an inanimate object whose only purpose is to kill other human beings and then says it is not our fault that it is used for the purpose we made it for, I think your argument and logic becomes invalid.
 
When someone makes an inanimate object whose only purpose is to kill other human beings and then says it is not our fault that it is used for the purpose we made it for, I think your argument and logic becomes invalid.

Spears are used for killing people. Bows and arrows are for killing people. Shall I continue. The logic is sound and stands.
 
Spears are used for killing people. Bows and arrows are for killing people. Shall I continue. The logic is sound and stands.

What about axes and spit balls. You are really stretching when you go to bows and arrows. I know my arguments are very strong and winning when someone goes to the spears, bows and knives to try and argue the point. Others have tried the car issue and now this. What a laugh. The gun has been the main weapon used by almost every mass killer. Don't know how many people have been killed lately with a spear, bow and arrow, or a knife or any other item that is made to kill other than a gun.
 
What about axes and spit balls. You are really stretching when you go to bows and arrows. I know my arguments are very strong and winning when someone goes to the spears, bows and knives to try and argue the point. Others have tried the car issue and now this. What a laugh. The gun has been the main weapon used by almost every mass killer. Don't know how many people have been killed lately with a spear, bow and arrow, or a knife or any other item that is made to kill other than a gun.

Winning argument? In your mind maybe.
 
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.

What you propose is illegal. Why are you condoning crime?
 
To answer number 2 first. I dont care about other countries and what they do. That does not mean I am ignorant, it means my values and what I value and how I prioritize them are different from the rest of the world, as is most of the rest of the US. I value my right and ability to use whatever I choose, including firearms to defend myself. I am NOT interested in negotiating this right. No one will begrudge this right to me without severe consequence. I dont care if there are mass shooting everyday, my right to use the arms of my choosing is sacrosanct. There is NO negotiation on this point.

Now one to number 1. The answer would be gunshot wound. If I used a baseball bat or rock it would be blunt force trauma by baseball bat or rock. I dont need a gun to kill you. I can use my bare hands and do that just as quickly and efficiently. Then again I am a full grown male hominid and relatively fit. I can use a truck, or car. I can build an untraceable drone to do the deed. Point being is your point is illogical and baseless. The firearms are convenient for my personal defense, but absolutely necessary for a woman or the younger or the elderly. Firearms give those people the ability to defend themselves rather than be dependent on someone else who may not be there when they need them. In the US self sufficiency is valued attribute, people here tend to dislike being dependent on others for their needs. Thats why cars are popular here.

In relation to your first paragraph

1. That is the premise of the very problem. The lack of care of the success of not 1 country not 2 countries but more than a dozen countries have seen through stricter and more cohesive firearm legislation is ignorant. If you were not ignorant you would accept the success of firearm legislation and the implementation of it in other countries (BECAUSE IT IS FACT) and simply argue for more substantial claims like the Second Amendment. The debate becomes misrepresented when you negate FACTS.

So when Australia, UK, Japan, India, Italy, Argentina, South Korea, Vietnam, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands and New Zealand implemented similar gun legislation how did majority of people in those countries ensure differing values didn't get in the away of implementing stricter firearm legislation??? To further my claim in relation to value...you value the right to bear arms over the right to life and protection/safety in a county??

2. Self-Defence is not a valid excuse for having a firearm. For every 1 justified homicide (self defence) there are 36 unjustified homicides. In the case of the justified homicide death or injury of the person defending wasn't necessarily present. Additionally why is it every other country can some how defend themselves (in the limited circumstances and cases that it is actually required) without firearms and some in the US cannot seem to grasp that idea? What may you be defending yourself against??

So your not willing to negoicate a right which is killing innocent people, which is preventable. What about the families of those killed, does that really show respect to their right to have a family and live a life in safety and harmony?? I would find that quite insulting...

Fantastic to see you don't care about anything other than your right to wield a weapon. Quite morally tainted of you. How many people would have to be killed for you to budge on that right??

In relation to your second paragraph
So you claimed the principle of the act was not the gun it was the person, yet the cause of death holds focus to the weapon....
You may not need a firearm but the fact is killing someone with a firearm and without one are two different things. The difference is the action, the infliction of harm, quickness of the action and the ease of the action. If you were standing 10m away from someone you wanted to kill...can you kill someone from 10 metres away without a firearm. NO.

Illogical and baseless??? My point is the firearms are killing people...innocent people.. if you removed it from the situation the chances of death and injury are eradicated or at least reduced. Do you deny that?

First and foremost to protect yourself you use common sense...like every other country does. Don't walk out late at night, stay well lit areas, stay in safe neighbourhoods, attempt to not walk alone at night, lock your house, lock your car, don't leave valuables out. It seems to work in every other nation.. Also what world do you live in where you are always ready, ready to shoot someone (that is Utopian and instilling falsity in your claim) You basing your claim off a slim chance you may be able to defend yourself off a definite claim that over 30,000 people will die in 2018 at the hands of firearms.
 
It is simple. Every time we have one of these killings we tax the gun manufacturers who made the guns used in the shootings for all the costs of the investigations, the court costs and the cost of the funerals. It would not take a gun away from anyone, nor would it stop anyone from buying or making a weapon. I don't see it as being in any way violating the second Amendment. It is just like we did with the people who make cigarettes. We made them pay for the damage they caused by fining them, which in essence was a tax. If you create a dangerous product, you should pay for any damage it causes.

Should we tax electrical companies every time someone gets electrocuted?
 
Cars are taxed. It's sometimes called a "titling tax" or "registration fee" and in other cases its called a sales tax. Unless you happen to maintain a car in a state that doesn't require one to have a license plate on car you use on public roads, you pay a tax on your car. And think of the ways in which car taxes are used to provide information that abets a variety of ends:
  • Car sellers use the tracking to identify the accident history of used cars.
  • Insurance companies use the registration information as a factor in determining one's auto insurance premium.
  • Law enforcement organizations and officers use it in the process of identifying and tracking down specific vehicles.
  • Some car owners use it to express their affinity for "this or that." (vanity plates)
  • As for more specific ways in which state governments use car tax revenues, you'll have to review the budget of whatever state interests you. I suspect that for some states car taxes/fees are classed as general fund revenue and as such fund all sorts of things, and in others the monies are classed as special fund revenues and are allocated to fairly specific programs.
Some states have additional taxes, beyond sales and/or registration and titling tax, associated with cars. For instance, VA counties and cities levy a personal property tax and for many residents, their car is the one thing they pay it on.
Insofar as taxes on cars are extant, the answer to your question necessarily must, insofar as insurance companies, most (if not all) state governments, many individuals and businesses are abetted in some way by the fact of cars being taxed, be resoundingly "yes."

By that logic, firearms and ammunition are already taxed.
 
In relation to your first paragraph

1. That is the premise of the very problem. The lack of care of the success of not 1 country not 2 countries but more than a dozen countries have seen through stricter and more cohesive firearm legislation is ignorant. If you were not ignorant you would accept the success of firearm legislation and the implementation of it in other countries (BECAUSE IT IS FACT) and simply argue for more substantial claims like the Second Amendment. The debate becomes misrepresented when you negate FACTS.

So when Australia, UK, Japan, India, Italy, Argentina, South Korea, Vietnam, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands and New Zealand implemented similar gun legislation how did majority of people in those countries ensure differing values didn't get in the away of implementing stricter firearm legislation??? To further my claim in relation to value...you value the right to bear arms over the right to life and protection/safety in a county??

2. Self-Defence is not a valid excuse for having a firearm. For every 1 justified homicide (self defence) there are 36 unjustified homicides. In the case of the justified homicide death or injury of the person defending wasn't necessarily present. Additionally why is it every other country can some how defend themselves (in the limited circumstances and cases that it is actually required) without firearms and some in the US cannot seem to grasp that idea? What may you be defending yourself against??

So your not willing to negoicate a right which is killing innocent people, which is preventable. What about the families of those killed, does that really show respect to their right to have a family and live a life in safety and harmony?? I would find that quite insulting...

Fantastic to see you don't care about anything other than your right to wield a weapon. Quite morally tainted of you. How many people would have to be killed for you to budge on that right??

In relation to your second paragraph
So you claimed the principle of the act was not the gun it was the person, yet the cause of death holds focus to the weapon....
You may not need a firearm but the fact is killing someone with a firearm and without one are two different things. The difference is the action, the infliction of harm, quickness of the action and the ease of the action. If you were standing 10m away from someone you wanted to kill...can you kill someone from 10 metres away without a firearm. NO.

Illogical and baseless??? My point is the firearms are killing people...innocent people.. if you removed it from the situation the chances of death and injury are eradicated or at least reduced. Do you deny that?

First and foremost to protect yourself you use common sense...like every other country does. Don't walk out late at night, stay well lit areas, stay in safe neighbourhoods, attempt to not walk alone at night, lock your house, lock your car, don't leave valuables out. It seems to work in every other nation.. Also what world do you live in where you are always ready, ready to shoot someone (that is Utopian and instilling falsity in your claim) You basing your claim off a slim chance you may be able to defend yourself off a definite claim that over 30,000 people will die in 2018 at the hands of firearms.

We can sit here and terry all night long the fact is you have your OPINION and I have mine. In the United States mine prevails. We are not like the rest of the world, nor do we wish to be. I dont care if you are insulted or anybody else for that matter by my stance on this issue. Too bad. I have made my arguments and have rejected yours out of hand as they are the same inane arguments made by every gun banner before you, and they will be made after you. You claim my moral paucity when in reality, I have the moral high ground because I believe ALL people should have the ability to successfully defend themselves without relying on others. Thats how the cow ate the cabbage. You dont like it too bad.
 
That is your view. I don't agree with your beliefs.

I find it quite dumb that nothing gets done about firearms. I find it dumb that the US is one of the only countries that has a constitutional right to bear arms. I find it dumb that the US has more guns than people. I find a lot of things quite dumb.

I can ask questions which require a quantitive figures. How many firearm homicides are there every year? How many suicides with a firearm are there each year?

So Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Italy, Britain aren't in the real world??? A rational conversation is not had if you keep your thoughts, ideas and perceptions exclusively to the USA.

The highlighted and bolded comment you made is why we will NEVER...and i mean NEVER have a rational conversation.
You just said you find one of our fundamental rights set forth in our constitution to the "dumb".

I am sure the British who surrendered at Yorktown also thought it was just as "dumb" we colonists dared oppose and defeat them with our firearms as well. Your attitude goes back to the 1780's

NO...I will not compromise with you or anyone else on one of our fundamental rights.

It may piss a lot of "civilized" countries off that we have these rights, but too bad. They are ours and we are keeping them.

I just obtained a night vision device with two rifle mounts for my rifle at a gun show today.
Soon I will be cleared to pick up my silencer for it.
Then i will have a suppressed rifle with night vision.

Let that keep you up at night.
A non-violent American plinking tin cans in the darkness on his own property with his legal and lawfully owned rifle with silencer and night vision attached. breaking out in a cold sweat yet?
and....I am not alone....there are THOUSANDS of us.
...and all perfectly legal and within my God given rights.

THIS is freedom.

NO, we do not want to be like other countries, but other countries sure would like to be like us.
It all starts with the right to firearms ownership.
With that one right, you can keep the others.
 
Last edited:
Ah, but without the gun, and this particular gun, how could one person kill 11 people and wound 4 policemen? Right, because he is easily able to get a gun he could do what he did. There is no other weapon so easy to get that could do this except with a gun. IN fact, the gun he used is "MADE" to do this and thus the people who made such a weapon, knowing its use, should pay for the damage done by the product they made.

Good point about a firearm making it easier. I understand that...

but...

he did not say that.
He said a FIREARM did the killing.
Hence my reply.
 
i have a plan for a new tax. legalize pot, and make use of it mandatory. this will result in more revenue, less violence, and McDonalds stock going through the roof. also, there will be more two hour documentaries about tugboats and the return of laser Pink Floyd at planetariums.

Good idea.
Can you also imaging how the conversations would change drastically here?
 
Back
Top Bottom