The $25 tax on every gun purchased in the county -- city law prohibits gun sales in Chicago -- is meant to offset health care and other costs of gun violence, Board President Toni Preckwinkle said.
So that answers the 'Isn't it illegal?' question.
I must say I agree with the NRA's stance on this...
The National Rifle Association ahead of the vote said the "misguided and burdensome" gun tax "continues to penalize law-abiding gun owners for exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms."
Well, not the burdensome part, I don't think $25 is so high it would cause someone that was planning on buying a gun to no longer be able to. But misguided? Yes.
This tax won't STOP gun crime, and that is what lawmakers should be focusing on.
Gianantonio
Posts: 7,615
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
JessieLeigh wrote: The article states:
The $25 tax on every gun purchased in the county -- city law prohibits gun sales in Chicago -- is meant to offset health care and other costs of gun violence, Board President Toni Preckwinkle said.
So that answers the 'Isn't it illegal?' question.
I must say I agree with the NRA's stance on this...
Well, not the burdensome part, I don't think $25 is so high it would cause someone that was planning on buying a gun to no longer be able to. But misguided? Yes.
This tax won't STOP gun crime, and that is what lawmakers should be focusing on.
JessieLeigh wrote: This tax won't STOP gun crime, and that is what lawmakers should be focusing on.
Conservatives fight against all measures that limit gun crime, so that's kind of a moot point. Plus, more gun crime leads to more gun sales, which is good for the small arms manufacturers and good for the NRA.
If they want to do something to cover the costs of gun crime, why not pass a law that confiscates and sells the property of those convicted of gun crimes?
ernst tischler wrote: If they want to do something to cover the costs of gun crime, why not pass a law that confiscates and sells the property of those convicted of gun crimes?
Great idea, then they qualify for welfare and food stamps and we know that helps the economy.
Great idea, then they qualify for welfare and food stamps and we know that helps the economy.
Housing them for 10+ years at 40.000 dollars a year behind bars (where they even get free medical care, unlike many law-abiding Americans) seems like a much better option, I agree.
Conservatives fight against all measures that limit gun crime, so that's kind of a moot point. Plus, more gun crime leads to more gun sales, which is good for the small arms manufacturers and good for the NRA.
That is not true at all. If anything, they fight measures that impact legal ownership.
Around here, you can't buy pistol bullets without a pistol permit. It is designed to keep bullets out of the hands of people illegally using hand guns. However, some bullets like 9mm and .22 are commonly used for both pistols and rifles. So, when they ask for a permit all you have to do is say, "They are for a rifle" and they ring it up. The law is designed to only stop stupid criminals.
By the same token, I was at Dicks and I said that the law was somewhat arbitrary because every caliber they sold could be used in a pistol. There are a lot of Thompson Contenders and other such guns around. Even a .308 can be used in a pistol.
ernst tischler wrote: If they want to do something to cover the costs of gun crime, why not pass a law that confiscates and sells the property of those convicted of gun crimes?
Robert Helm wrote: Great idea, then they qualify for welfare and food stamps and we know that helps the economy.
Katarina N. wrote: Housing them for 10+ years at 40.000 dollars a year behind bars (where they even get free medical care, unlike many law-abiding Americans) seems like a much better option, I agree.
ernst tischler wrote: What's the alternative?...shoot em???
Providing a socio-economic climate that prevents people from becoming killers.
Like the rest of the first world has, all of whom enjoy a tiny fraction of the violent crime rate and prison population of America. Just to give you an example, the murder rate per 100.000 citizens is 4.2 in the US, but only 1.1 in France, 1.2 in Britain and 0.8 in Germany. These countries aren't wealthier than America, but they do things differently.
It's in fact highly unusual for such a rich country to know so much violence and it's due to bad social engineering. This...
...is the direct result of a wrong approach to justice (law and order, zero tolerance) and socioeconomics (letting people fend for themselves instead of helping them to get back on their feet).
Americans are no more inherently violent than a Canadian or Brit. People aren't born this way, they become this way. A poor person in the US grows up like a poor person in Russia, not like a poor person in Sweden, that's why violent crime in America is as high as in a poor country like Russia. Add hundreds of millions of firearms in free circulation and you got yourself one deadly cocktail.
Americans haven't yet realized that not taking care of their fellow citizens at the fringes of society causes long-term societal costs (such as costs for prisons and the subsequent inability to find decent employment) that are much higher than the pre-emptive approach of a decent welfare net.
I am 100% in favor of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms... that being said.. it is only $25... any one that hard up to come up with such a small amount won't be buying any guns any time soon.
You can still buy your guns.. it will just cost you $25 more than originally planned.
Providing a socio-economic climate that prevents people from becoming killers.
Like the rest of the first world has, all of whom enjoy a tiny fraction of the violent crime rate and prison population of America. Just to give you an example, the murder rate per 100.000 citizens is 4.2 in the US, but only 1.1 in France, 1.2 in Britain and 0.8 in Germany. These countries aren't wealthier than America, but they do things differently.
It's in fact highly unusual for such a rich country to know so much violence and it's due to bad social engineering. This...
...is the direct result of a wrong approach to justice (law and order, zero tolerance) and socioeconomics (letting people fend for themselves instead of helping them to get back on their feet).
Americans are no more inherently violent than a Canadian or Brit. People aren't born this way, they become this way. A poor person in the US grows up like a poor person in Russia, not like a poor person in Sweden, that's why violent crime in America is as high as in a poor country like Russia. Add hundreds of millions of firearms in free circulation and you got yourself one deadly cocktail.
Americans haven't yet realized that not taking care of their fellow citizens at the fringes of society causes long-term societal costs (such as costs for prisons and the subsequent inability to find decent employment) that are much higher than the pre-emptive approach of a decent welfare net.
excellent graph... now with that same line of thinking.. what is the crime rate and such in the middle east?
Why should the money to address problems related to guns come out of pockets of those who don't own guns?
I don't expect all people to pay out of their pockets for alcohol-related problems that state government has to deal with so I don't mind paying 10% at the till and whatever other taxes are included in the price.
Damon Banner
Posts: 83,588
Hayward, California, US
For once, I agree with the OP.
Those who seek to legally own guns, are unlikely to be a part of gun crime. So it seems, they are taxing law abiding citizens for something they aren't really a part of.
That said, we are paying for the results of crime anyway with our tax dollars, so maybe it really doesn't matter.
Patchouli Nyx wrote: $25 tax can be offset by lowering the profit margin of the gun makers with rebates, president's day gun sales, whatever.
There are President day's gun sales?
President Obama's re-election has certainly stimulated the gun sales (the NRA should consider that as they oppose him - Obama is good for guns!):
US guns sales soar after Barack Obama's re-election Gun sales in America are soaring in the wake of President Barack Obama's re-election with weapons retailers reporting AK-47s flying off shelves "like hotcakes."
Wysiwyg Photography wrote: I am 100% in favor of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms... that being said.. it is only $25... any one that hard up to come up with such a small amount won't be buying any guns any time soon.
You can still buy your guns.. it will just cost you $25 more than originally planned.
Maybe it is a good start. I believe in the right of everyone (legally eligable) to vote. Lets bring back the poll tax, make it $25 also. If your not smart enough to come up with the $25 to vote you aren't smart enough to know what is best for the country and shouldn't be voting.
Maybe it is a good start. I believe in the right of everyone (legally eligable) to vote. Lets bring back the poll tax, make it $25 also. If your not smart enough to come up with the $25 to vote you aren't smart enough to know what is best for the country and shouldn't be voting.
After all it's only 25 bucks.
Are you saying that purchasing a weapon (a gun in this case) is equal to voting... where the poorest of the poor have the legal right to go vote.... the poorest of the poor are welcomed to own a gun if it is given to them... but it is highly unlikely that they will be going to purchase one anytime soon.
It costs people money to make fire arms... so thus there is a market and anything that is sold can be taxed.
no one is selling ballots (at least they shouldn't be)... so what are we taxing again?
25 dollars isn't preventing people from buying a gun.
25 dollars COULD prevent people from voting that otherwise would vote.
It is just a hunch... as I didn't really look it up, but every time a Democrat is elected president, gun sales increase...
It's because the Republican fear mongering saying "X Democrat is going to take your guns away, better buy them now"... and people are stupid so they do it... then the the presidential term ends and the president didn't even do what the fear mongering Republicans said they would do.
BeautybyGod
Posts: 2,778
Los Angeles, California, US
Katarina N. wrote:
Providing a socio-economic climate that prevents people from becoming killers.
It's in fact highly unusual for such a rich country to know so much violence and it's due to bad social engineering. This...
Americans are no more inherently violent than a Canadian or Brit. People aren't born this way, they become this way. A poor person in the US grows up like a poor person in Russia, not like a poor person in Sweden, that's why violent crime in America is as high as in a poor country like Russia. Add hundreds of millions of firearms in free circulation and you got yourself one deadly cocktail.
Maybe it is a good start. I believe in the right of everyone (legally eligable) to vote. Lets bring back the poll tax, make it $25 also. If your not smart enough to come up with the $25 to vote you aren't smart enough to know what is best for the country and shouldn't be voting.
But why is that relevant. The post is comparing the US to other developed nations such as Western Europe. The crime rate in a very unsettled part of the world is not relevant to the discussion.
But why is that relevant. The post is comparing the US to other developed nations such as Western Europe. The crime rate in a very unsettled part of the world is not relevant to the discussion.
this link is VERY relevent...it shows compared to the rest of the world, the US has a VERY low rate of intentional murder....just another example of the idiocracy of believing that gun control will stop gun violence. By the way...pencils don't missspell words...people do.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: this link is VERY relevent...it shows compared to the rest of the world, the US has a VERY low rate of intentional murder....just another example of the idiocracy of believing that gun control will stop gun violence. By the way...pencils don't missspell words...people do.
So how do you explain that the murder rate in America per person is four to five times higher than in countries of comparable wealth and demographics?
Are Americans just born to be so violent? Is it a cultural trait? Is society to blame?
Are you saying that purchasing a weapon (a gun in this case) is equal to voting... where the poorest of the poor have the legal right to go vote.... the poorest of the poor are welcomed to own a gun if it is given to them... but it is highly unlikely that they will be going to purchase one anytime soon.
It costs people money to make fire arms... so thus there is a market and anything that is sold can be taxed.
no one is selling ballots (at least they shouldn't be)... so what are we taxing again?
25 dollars isn't preventing people from buying a gun.
25 dollars COULD prevent people from voting that otherwise would vote.
The vote is far more dangerous than a gun, more money is stolen by the vote than a gun could ever steal. This has been known forever, for example:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy"
Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee (15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813)
The "tax" on purchasing a gun has the same intent as the poll tax did. Prevent a certian class of people from excersizing thier Constitutiuonal rights.
$25 sounds like a small amount, how about we raise it to $100 or $1000 or $10000??
Perhaps we should put a tax on newspapers or books! After all they can spread dangerous ideas!! Add a tax to attend religious services also. after all, religion has killed more people in history than any other cause $25 to be paid at the door of any place of worship would be a great way to pay off the national debt!!
Not to worry, some rich guy might pass down the newspaper to the "poor folk" after there done with it! Possibly if they get real lucky, some rich guy might even pass on an old gun they don't need anymore
Sounds like what your saying is that the Poor aren't worth worring about, they really don't have the need to protect themselves. After all they are just , well poor. nobody will notice if they are a victim of a crime and if they are, well they weren't worth anything anyway, right?
BTW: You do realize until passing of the 24th Amendment in 1966 the "poor always had the right to vote, AS LONG AS they paid the poll tax.
| 
| 
| edu