I would like to thank E Schwartz for this idea, in his/her response to my pervious entry 30,000 Gun Deaths per year. The idea in the comment is that with 10,000 gun homicides/year at cost of $1,000,000 per death, it makes sense to impose an excise tax of $10B/year on guy owners.
Well. I LIKE THE IDEA. I like it so much that I think its application should be significantly expanded.
Expansion#1: A 1993 nationwide concluded that 162,000 incidents in which a person would have been killed if not used a gun for self defense occured per year.” This figure excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”.” Now, I will ignore the US population growth since 1993. I will also take a more conservative figure since these are reports of “would be” situations that are not 100% factual. Let’s assume “only” 100,000 situation in which a homicide was avoided by a gun owner. By the same logic presented by the commenter E Schwartz, Gun owners should get tax credit at the rate of $1,000,000 for every death avoided. Deduct the 10,000 deaths from the 100,000 deaths avoided and we are left with 90,000 deaths avoided. Tax credit of $90B for gun owners! Now, how are we going to spread this tax credit around? The more guns the person owns the higher the tax credit? Or the highest the caliber of gun the person owns the highest the credit? Maybe this discussion is a little bit premature? However what’s clear is that properly applying the idea from E Schwartz could make gun ownership an unexpected tax shelter for the non-rich!
Expansion#2: I will give E Schwartz the benefit of the doubt. I will assume he/she is an individual who is not gun control biased. Rather an individual who is honestly worried about the well being of Americans. The question now is why focus on deaths that are a fraction of the overall deaths from all reasons? Car accidents deaths greatly surpass those from guns. Should we apply the same excise tax on car owners? Well, with cars also saving lives (ambulances and such) this may be a wash. (I don’t know) But how about imposing such tax on alcohol sales that will cover cost of deaths from DUI accidents “only”?
Reminder: The constitution says “Government shall not infringe” about guns. It does not say that about cars ownership. Nor about alcohol drinking…
Todd Wright from MIAMI MSNBC , is (based on his article) an anti-gun reporter. His article is about new rules that “will allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring their guns to parks, ball fields, beaches, camping grounds and a host of other publicly-owned areas where children frolic” in Palm Beach County. Interestingly enough – this is how he opens his article: “residents might want to think twice about starting an argument with another parent”. Mr. Right ignores the fact that holders of Concealed Weapon Permits are hardly ever involved in gun crimes, but he does acknowledge that an armed society is a polite society and for that he is praised! To read the article follow this link:http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/politics/Palm-Beach-County-Parks-Kids-Fun-and-Guns-Welcome-112333749.html
“As soon as next month, gun sellers with a federal firearms license in Texas could be required to furnish letters to ATF chronicling the sale of two or more semi-automatic rifles to one person within a five-day period. The policy covers guns with a caliber greater than .22 and a detachable magazine clip, including the AR-15 and AK-47s, which ATF says are increasingly being used in border crimes.Gun rights advocates, including Gov. Rick Perry, say the policy is misguided and would unfairly target legitimate businessmen — the gun sellers — under the guise of securing the border.”
I think Mr. Perri is missing the point. It is not about being fair to Texas gun sellers. It is about using the violence in Mexico as an excuse to encroach on the 2nd amendment. The violence in Mexico is not to be solved by taking away freedoms from U.S citizens. If the Mexican government has a problem with guns being smuggled into Mexico – it is more than welcome to put its forces along the border and seal it, from the Mexican side. And to both directions please.
Other questions that come to mind: If the ATF has the power to impose such requirements, where does it end? And how far will it expand after people get used to abide by such a requirement?
The the Article in the “Texas Tribune” can be found at: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/guns-texas/atf-aims-for-increase-requirements-for-gun-sellers/
by bigblock57, blogalwarning blog.
This number touted by gun-controllers seems to be about right. However, a deeper look reveals the following:
1).Suicides account for about 48% of deaths by guns. They need to be taken off the figures, as suicide will take place with or without a gun. (Sweden has higher suicide rate than US, but guns hardly used there for that…) So now we are down to 16,300 deaths per year to deal with.
2.)Homicides account for about 16,000 gun deaths in the US annually. Half of the homicides are blacks on blacks while blacks are just 13% of the population. If we figured out the social issues among blacks in the US, homicide rate would have dropped by about 40% with no change in guns ownership.(Data for 1995-2005.) Most of these homicides are with guns, but how many of them would be avoided if guns weren’t around? (See suicides above…) So now we are down to about 9300 gun homicides. (8000 among whites, and 1300 among blacks which will bring the rate to same as whites poroportional to population.
3.)As far as accidental deaths in 2007 , 39% cars, 18% poisoning, 16% falls,….only 0.6% guns! Even deaths from medical mistakes are three times higher than from gun accidents.
4.) Gun homicides decreased during the mid 90’s and remained stable todate, in-spite of population growth, and dramatic increase in gun ownership. Accidental guns deaths have decreased over 90% during the last 100 years! (Again, in the face of population growth and increase in gun ownership).
5.)there are about 9300 gun homicides (not counting the unproportional high rate within the black community) and about 700 accidental gun deaths in the US every year. 10,000 too many deaths, but nothing like the 30,000 number that is used to call for a “gun ownership crisis” in the US. The only crisis at hand is that some people, while calling themselves “Americans” are trying to take away from me my constitutional gun rights.
(Sources; FBI, CDC, US Census Beureau, allcountries.org)
This is a short and sharp response, written by “Happy Indep” to a gun control article by one fool Michael Stone who is the “Portland Progressive Exminer” in http://www.progressive.com:
“There should be strict and stringent requirements for those who own and possess fire arms.”
Have you ever read the US Constitution? There is a little pain in the butt set of rules called the bill of rights.
It is the gun that allows and secures your sorry asses right to write the vile hate filled crap you write. That just goes completely over your head though don’t it?
Care to enlighten us all as to just WHICH gun law has stopped people from using guns?
By Bigblock57, Blogarwarning blog.
The question if identities of Conceal Carry Permit holders should be a public record or kept from public eyes’ is now being dealt with by the Oregon legislature. Here is my response to an article on the subject in the Portland edition of Examiner.com. (Edited since initial posting).
To begin with, all licensing of firearms or the permission to carry them in a certain way, and the background check now required to purchase them are infringements on the basic constitutional right to bear arms. It is all part of the grand plan of left-leaning organizations and politicians to take guns away from citizens. First, a gun owner shows up on a state list of people who purchased a gun. Then the fact that a person has a permit to carry concealed weapon is a public record which gives anti-gun activists access to his/her name and address. At the right time, these activists will begin to personally harass permit holders (which is exactly why their identity needs to be kept from the public). In the end owning a gun will involve so much hassle and controversy that many people will want to have nothing to do with that. In case of a decision to completely ban guns, the list compiled by the state from background checks will automatically become a confiscation list. Look at this childish excuse why identity of permit holders needs to be public: “people deserve the right to know who is packing a gun”; Really? what makes them deserve that? Is there a hint here that if someone “packs” a gun he/she is someone bad? dangerous? The funny thing is that the guns in the hands of really dangerous people (i.e criminals) are not on any state list, and are being carried concealed with no permit. How come anti-gunners are never concerned about the inability of law enforcement to deal with those? Instead they are obsessed with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who (unnecessarily and against their constitutional rights) went through a background check before they could purchase their weapon, or granted concealed carry permit. Rights aside, society should have the proper ratio bewteen guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and guns in the hands of criminals. This necessity is confirmed when comparing crime trends and rates in states and cities that make it easy to own and carry guns vs. states and cities that make it hard. Anything that makes it harder or less convenient to own and carry a weapon, is unconstitutional and bad for public safety. Privacy of Conceal Carry Permit holders is important for both.
Need to copy and paste to your browser. Link does not work directly.
From the Daily Times Herald of Caroll Iowa. Is this what James Madison’s friend Tench Coxe meant when he wrote “As civil rulers… may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces… might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens” as a reason for the people to bear arms?
Why exactly does the National Guard of Iowa need to train in searching for firearms in homes of American citizens on U.S soil?
|Saturday, February 28, 2009|
…But the most important reason American civilians should have access to these guns has nothing to do with recreation or even with defense against criminals. It has to do with the main purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, an aspect of the “assault weapon” story that the national press has almost completely ignored. The Second Amendment states: “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.”
…the meaning of the Second Amendment is very clear to the vast majority of scholars who have examined the paper trail left by the Founders. James Madison’s friend Tench Coxe expressed their concerns succinctly in 1789: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
The Founders also made it clear that the “militia” consisted of the whole armed people. The Federalist Papers and other writings indicate that they feared large professional military forces and select militias (like the National Guard). Citizens and their privately owned guns were part of the system of checks and balances that the Founders felt was necessary to keep government from drift ing into tyranny. Authors of the 50 law review articles that support this interpretation include such prominent, liberal, non gun-owning scholars as Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, Akhil R. Amar of Yale, and William Van Alstyne of Duke.
According to Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code, the National Guard is still only the orga nized part of a militia that consists of practically all able-bodied males and some females between the ages of 17 and 45 who are citizens of the United States or have declared an intention to become citizens. The only 20th-century Supreme Court ruling touching on the Second Amendment ( U.S. v. Miller, 1939) acknowledged that militiamen called to service “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time “ [emphasis added].
…American citizens have traditionally had access to rifles and pistols with more power and magazine capacity than those issued to common soldiers. In keeping with the traditional American view of the militia, the Army’s Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship has long sold sur plus pistols, rifles, and carbines, including semi-automatics, to the public at bargain-basement prices. No one claims that Americans have caused problems with these surplus military small arms. Yet since common soldiers started carrying automatic or burst-fire rifles, American citizens have no longer had access to up-to-date military small arms, and federal law now even restricts their access to semi-automatic variations of these guns. So not only do we have the large professional military and select militia that the Founders feared, but there is a movement afoot to get militarily effective small arms out of civilian hands.
- Excise Tax On Gun Owners?
- Obama’s Health Care – End of Life Rationing Is Here.
- Government Health Care System 1
- Global Warming…
- Armed Society Is Polite Society
- ATF Attack On 2nd Amendment And Gun Rights
- NY 20th Congressional District Projection on Obama
- On Obama, taxes, deficit and freedom
- How Did Obama Get Voted In?
- 30,000 Gun Deaths per year!
- Creationism vs. Evolution
- Great response to a Gun Control article