What's your opinion of gun control?

[blablahblah]

Maybe they could afford it, in theory. And? Could you spell out what you were trying to suggest from pointing out the existence of alternative manufacturing options?

If my guess is correct and what you're trying to say is "regulation won't work because people will just make their own guns", then I have several arguments to bust that criticism.

• The pricing and availability of weapons is connected between ALL of the different manufacturing methods. The existence of alternatives doesn't matter. If for example, a hefty sales tax is slapped on mass-produced guns coming out of factories, people still won't bother with the high cost and inconvenience and skill required to make their own weapons, unless it becomes economically viable for them to do so.

Bullshit. It IS already economically viable to make your own guns. If you taxed all of the machinery to make guns, you would be making EVERYTHING more expensive because these basic tools are used to make all kinds of legal parts we need to keep society running, and you STILL wouldn't stop it from happening.

I was talking about individual items on sale being subjected to sales tax. VAT and GST and has been tried and tested, and it works extremely well all around the world. You're just playing dumb because you're ideologically opposed to the idea. Tax-free utopia and all that shit. Welcome to the real world.

Bullshit. There is fundamentally no difference between a receiver milled at home and a professionally produced one.

I never said there was.

Additionally by ridding the markets of the cheapest weapons, you deny the segment of the population at most risk the ability to defend themselves, the poor.

Gimme a fucking break. You're so blinded by your utopian Libertarian ideals, that you've constructed an entire fantasy world in your head where everything works differently and black is white.

Why not start giving prisoners their own guns to defend themselves against their fellow inmates? If that sounds ridiculous, then why the hell should an "open air prison" be any different?

The poor are the ones that live in high crime areas, and that are most likely to need a firearm to protect themselves.

Want versus need. Learn the difference.

Of course you don't give a shit about any of that as long as your utopian ideologies are satiated.

hypocrite^^[/list]

[1715266258]

1715266258

[1715266258]

1715266258

[1715266258]

1715266258

[blablahblah]

Keep the rationalisations coming, guys! Give us more reasons why your country can't/shouldn't be made safer!

[Spendulus]

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.
.....

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.

Now I'm just repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if it can be done, the market price will be dictated by the main suppliers, who will comply with tax regulations in order to stay legal.
Therefore your price would either be undercutting the market, which would be stupid, or it would get bumped up, giving you extra profit per unit. However, extra profit per unit means extra risk....

What the hell are you talking about?  There is nothing illegal about manufacturing firearms for your own use in the USA.

You appear to be creating some sort of black market manufacturer of firearms to serve as a straw man argument - in a hypothetical scenario where tax regulations have some "good effect."

It's common knowledge that 3d printers subvert the legal principles on which gun ownership, registration and tracking are based.  Only you seems to not understand or accept that.

[blablahblah]

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.
.....

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.

Now I'm just repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if it can be done, the market price will be dictated by the main suppliers, who will comply with tax regulations in order to stay legal.
Therefore your price would either be undercutting the market, which would be stupid, or it would get bumped up, giving you extra profit per unit. However, extra profit per unit means extra risk....

What the hell are you talking about?  There is nothing illegal about manufacturing firearms for your own use in the USA.

Where did I say "for your own use"? You just made that up on the spot, totally ignoring the above discussion that clearly talks about manufacturing and selling.

You appear to be creating some sort of black market manufacturer of firearms to serve as a straw man argument - in a hypothetical scenario where tax regulations have some "good effect."

Yeah because everyone is going to spend THOUSANDS in order save HUNDREDS, and each wannabe gun owner is going to mess around with their own individual DIY manufacturing. Guns in shops could be micro-chipped. Can't take that risk! I doubt that even most gun owners in the US are as fanatical and paranoid as you obviously are.

And that's ignoring the obvious problem that most 3d printers are designed for prototyping with shitty THERMOPLASTICS. Great! You're gonna make an ergonomic handle for your non-existent gun. And then you'll spend the next couple of years paying it off by selling 3d-printed crafts on Etsy.

Just because 3d metal printers EXIST, it does not mean they'll be affordable any time soon, or that the metal parts are by any means suitable for real-world usage. What part of "prototyping" do you not understand? You've latched onto this 3d printing fantasy, but it's just bullshit.

Next stop: an epidemic of Libertarians in hospitals with missing limbs due to faulty weapons.

[blablahblah]

Challenge accepted. Regardless of intellect, reasoning, or political/religious beliefs, their life experience will provide them with one simple fact that Pavlov could have tested on his dogs:

Where there are guns, there is more potential for pain.

Anyone with an IQ of 70 can make that epiphany. Or even if they don't 'think' it, they still have the correct biological reaction with a bit of adrenaline or fear to help them prepare for violence upon having a weapon come into view. Neighbours are far more likely to be foolish, naive, or stupid and irresponsible, compared to any professional who has actually seen or experienced suffering in conjunction with guns.

Don't tell me you're another paranoid type who has fallen for that partisan nonsense about the population versus the government? Blue team versus Red team? Freedom lovers versus bureaucrats? Come on, I thought you were smarter than that. Wait for the late harvest, more CBD, less paranoia, or so they say.

1a)  I agree, where there are guns, there is more potential for pain regardless of who has them.

1b)  Where there are restrictions on freedom, there is more potential for rebellion.

But maybe "some" restrictions on guns help to maximise overall freedom?

2)  Believing that a professional will necessarily act professionally is just as absurd as thinking that a non-professional will necessarily act unprofessionally.

Simple risk analysis:
the competence of a neighbour is unknown, whereas the "professional" label gives us information, making us more confident about they can and can't do. They might be trained in various ways, like knowing how to properly handle guns, or avoiding escalation of conflicts. By default we know a lot less about the neighbour, unless of of course they're someone you spend time getting to know personally. So the neighbour is a higher risk for accidents or other dangerous situations.

3a)  Why do soldiers take 2nd and 3rd tours when their experience includes the suffering of war?  Why do police use guns to combat not only gun violence, but violence from knives, bats, cars, fists, etc.?  Why do professionals in governments around the world continue to commence wars despite the countless millions who have died in past ones?

I don't have all the answers. Obviously when the game is sudden death, you're going to use whatever ace you have up your sleeve. A cop's not going to take chances when so many people are lethally armed. This goes back to my point about reducing the over-availability of weapons in society.

No-one ever expects policemen to be smaller, less physically fit , and to drive around in slower cars than the average person in society. They'd never get their job done. So to be fair, why should they be less armed? Or barely breaking even? They have to stay ahead, so they're kind-of a litmus test for how bad things are in society.

[TECSHARE]

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.
.....

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.

Now I'm just repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if it can be done, the market price will be dictated by the main suppliers, who will comply with tax regulations in order to stay legal.
Therefore your price would either be undercutting the market, which would be stupid, or it would get bumped up, giving you extra profit per unit. However, extra profit per unit means extra risk, as I already mentioned.

Yes, you are just repeating yourself. We keep giving you direct evidence why your premise is flawed but you just keep going like some kind of true believer parrot that thinks they can talk over reality and make it change. The extra risk itself provides extra profit. This is the same reason a gram of cocaine is practically worthless in Colombia, but by the time it gets to the US it is worth about $150. More risk = more cost = more profit, which more than makes up for any undercutting. Do you even have any basic concept of how supply and demand works? Supply goes down, price goes up, profit goes up, supply goes up, repeat.

For example:
a black market producer makes $50k worth guns or gun parts per month, for their ring or their paying customers or whatever. Meanwhile, a new tax is applied on the legal market, significantly affecting the price. The black market producer now has a serious problem:
The same quantity is now worth $1M.
It's a completely different "tax bracket", making them a much more appealing target in the eyes of both law enforcement who would do more chasing, and the courts, which would now impose bigger penalties.
Therefore, to reduce their risk exposure, the obvious thing to do would be either produce less to get back to the original $50k plan, or invest in more expensive security/tactics/bookkeeping, and hope that they don't get caught while they're out of their league.

The problem applies whether it's one guy in his garage doing cash jobs on the side, or an extensive crime syndicate

You are just pulling those numbers out of your ass. You have zero concept of how supply and demand works. Take an economics class. What you said is completely moronic and contrived to fit your viewpoint. Cartels don't have that much risk, because they can afford to pay mules to do that for them.

   Therefore you have a sort of "retro" gun control argument, not one that is oriented toward the world we are moving into.

Why retro? You provided zero evidence that it was practical or competitive. It's like you're telling me that I can make colour printouts from my B&W laser printer, just by purchasing 3 different toner cartridges, swapping them out and manually turning the paper upside down and placing it on the in-tray. "It can be done!"

Actually we did provide evidence, which you promptly ignored in order to move on with your mindless bias ranting.
Here it is again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiHdV5slQps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8FL_vgb01M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEJt_ujJWVA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElgTP3c-XcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPWU3TcJ7zU

Making guns at home is quite practical, economical, and a lot easier than you think.

Maybe they could afford it, in theory. And? Could you spell out what you were trying to suggest from pointing out the existence of alternative manufacturing options?

If my guess is correct and what you're trying to say is "regulation won't work because people will just make their own guns", then I have several arguments to bust that criticism.

The point is criminals don't pay taxes. If they don't pay taxes, and they make their own weapons, then your entire strategy of using taxation as a method of restriction is completely useless, because they can make as many weapons as they want, and there will be ZERO paperwork tracking them as opposed to some. It is a pretty simple concept that seems lost on you.

The pricing and availability of weapons is connected between ALL of the different manufacturing methods. The existence of alternatives doesn't matter. If for example, a hefty sales tax is slapped on mass-produced guns coming out of factories, people still won't bother with the high cost and inconvenience and skill required to make their own weapons, unless it becomes economically viable for them to do so.

Bullshit. It IS already economically viable to make your own guns. If you taxed all of the machinery to make guns, you would be making EVERYTHING more expensive because these basic tools are used to make all kinds of legal parts we need to keep society running, and you STILL wouldn't stop it from happening.

I was talking about individual items on sale being subjected to sales tax. VAT and GST and has been tried and tested, and it works extremely well all around the world. You're just playing dumb because you're ideologically opposed to the idea. Tax-free utopia and all that shit. Welcome to the real world.

Yeah, we get it, you said it already like 3 times, and we have replied that your plan is worse than useless and why.
How the fuck do you enforce taxes on something someone can make in their home out of a block of metal on a $1000 machine? You aren't just playing dumb...

Tax free? Utopia? What? Now you are just being like a refractory 5 year old and repeating my own words back to me. You are also projecting. Your confirmation bias is dribbling all over the page attacking my "ideology" because I point out how your premises are logically flawed. Do you even know what the word utopian means? I will give you a hint, it is not a world with so much crime that you need a firearm to protect yourself and your family.

How do you force criminals that make their own weapons to pay taxes? Also even assuming no one can make their own weapons, how do you stop them from smuggling weapons from other countries? The existence of alternatives DOES matter, because they will simply choose the path of least resistance. THEY ARE FUCKING CRIMINALS. CRIMINALS DO NOT PAY TAXES. Are you really that dense?

The only people that taxes will restrict are LAW ABIDING gun owners. The real world... that's funny considering you are trying to make the real world fit your ideology in contradiction of logic, economics, or any form of common sense. Speaking of which, WHICH SOCIALIST HELLHOLE DO YOU RESIDE IN?

Bullshit. There is fundamentally no difference between a receiver milled at home and a professionally produced one.

I never said there was.

Yes, you did.

One-off proof-of-concept devices, costing $1000s in tooling-up + time and skill, are no match for commercial guns that are properly made and cost a small fraction of that.

Having trouble keeping up with your own bullshit are you? BTW, it doesn't costs thousands, and they are exactly the same durability and general quality as commercially produced firearms, and can be produced with little skill, currently even cheaper than commercially produced units.

Additionally by ridding the markets of the cheapest weapons, you deny the segment of the population at most risk the ability to defend themselves, the poor.

Gimme a fucking break. You're so blinded by your utopian Libertarian ideals, that you've constructed an entire fantasy world in your head where everything works differently and black is white.

Why not start giving prisoners their own guns to defend themselves against their fellow inmates? If that sounds ridiculous, then why the hell should an "open air prison" be any different?

There you go again using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Either that or you are so pissed off about the ideas of libertarianism that you can't see past your own bias and realize the fact that even IF we did support your idiotic taxing scheme, it still would be no more effective in reality, because criminals just don't pay taxes. It is a pretty simple concept. Unless you can control the actual manufacture of the weapons (you can't) your scheme is completely worthless.

Prisoners are convicted criminals. Are you equating the poor with convicted criminals? Speaking of worlds we live in... WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE?

The poor are the ones that live in high crime areas, and that are most likely to need a firearm to protect themselves.

Want versus need. Learn the difference.

Yeah, you are right... people certainly don't have a need to not be raped, beaten, and killed, it is just something they want and could go without.

Of course you don't give a shit about any of that as long as your utopian ideologies are satiated.

hypocrite^^

Me pointing out poor people being defenseless in high crime areas is pretty much the opposite of utopian, but don't bother using words according to their definition, you can just pretend they mean whatever you want. Speaking of hypocrites, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE YOU FUCKING COWARD? Afraid we might find flaws in your own homeland? No, of course not, because you don't even have the balls to tell us what country you live in. Of course the whole world should fit under the rubric of your most likely tiny, socialist, homogenous western European nation. Its easy to talk like there is no crime when your country isn't accepting millions of illegal immigrants raising the crime rates.

P.S. Learn to use the quoting system properly you lazy fuck. I don't think I could live with myself if some one mistook your words for mine.

[the joint]

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.
.....

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.

Now I'm just repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if it can be done, the market price will be dictated by the main suppliers, who will comply with tax regulations in order to stay legal.
Therefore your price would either be undercutting the market, which would be stupid, or it would get bumped up, giving you extra profit per unit. However, extra profit per unit means extra risk, as I already mentioned.

For example:
a black market producer makes $50k worth guns or gun parts per month, for their ring or their paying customers or whatever. Meanwhile, a new tax is applied on the legal market, significantly affecting the price. The black market producer now has a serious problem:
The same quantity is now worth $1M.
It's a completely different "tax bracket", making them a much more appealing target in the eyes of both law enforcement who would do more chasing, and the courts, which would now impose bigger penalties.
Therefore, to reduce their risk exposure, the obvious thing to do would be either produce less to get back to the original $50k plan, or invest in more expensive security/tactics/bookkeeping, and hope that they don't get caught while they're out of their league.

The problem applies whether it's one guy in his garage doing cash jobs on the side, or an extensive crime syndicate.

   Therefore you have a sort of "retro" gun control argument, not one that is oriented toward the world we are moving into.

Why retro? You provided zero evidence that it was practical or competitive. It's like you're telling me that I can make colour printouts from my B&W laser printer, just by purchasing 3 different toner cartridges, swapping them out and manually turning the paper upside down and placing it on the in-tray. "It can be done!"

In Colorado, legal marijuana has significantly increased the volume of black market marijuana transactions within the state, and people still buy from Steve down the street because he's far cheaper and more convenient than buying it at a shop.  Why do you suppose it would be any different with firearms if, for example, Steve owns a sintered metal 3d printer?

[Spendulus]

....

And that's ignoring the obvious problem that most 3d printers are designed for prototyping with shitty THERMOPLASTICS. Great! You're gonna make an ergonomic handle for your non-existent gun. And then you'll spend the next couple of years paying it off by selling 3d-printed crafts on Etsy.

Just because 3d metal printers EXIST, it does not mean they'll be affordable any time soon, or that the metal parts are by any means suitable for real-world usage. What part of "prototyping" do you not understand? You've latched onto this 3d printing fantasy, but it's just bullshit.

Next stop: an epidemic of Libertarians in hospitals with missing limbs due to faulty weapons.

Now you don't know what you are talking about, again.

There is no fantasy, your idea of "affordable" does not apply to others, and your idea of "suitable" isn't exact that of an engineer.

I would suggest you separate the issue of 3d printers from your personal desires to see guns lowered in quantity.  Because the arguments you use show little knowledge of these technologies.  Here is an example.

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314-3-d-printed-guns-bullets/

What is done is to take the limitations of a material in tension-compression, heat resistance, etc, then design a solution.    I've made things with CNC subtractive mills and lathes, and with 3d additive equipment, and have little desire to discuss these matters with close minded tards.  Have a nice day.

[blablahblah]

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.
.....

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.

Now I'm just repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if it can be done, the market price will be dictated by the main suppliers, who will comply with tax regulations in order to stay legal.
Therefore your price would either be undercutting the market, which would be stupid, or it would get bumped up, giving you extra profit per unit. However, extra profit per unit means extra risk, as I already mentioned.

Yes, you are just repeating yourself. We keep giving you direct evidence why your premise is flawed but you just keep going like some kind of true believer parrot that thinks they can talk over reality and make it change. The extra risk itself provides extra profit. This is the same reason a gram of cocaine is practically worthless in Colombia, but by the time it gets to the US it is worth about $150. More risk = more cost = more profit, which more than makes up for any undercutting. Do you even have any basic concept of how supply and demand works? Supply goes down, price goes up, profit goes up, supply goes up, repeat.

Dunning Kruger effect in full force. Go back to school buddy.

For example:
a black market producer makes $50k worth guns or gun parts per month, for their ring or their paying customers or whatever. Meanwhile, a new tax is applied on the legal market, significantly affecting the price. The black market producer now has a serious problem:
The same quantity is now worth $1M.
It's a completely different "tax bracket", making them a much more appealing target in the eyes of both law enforcement who would do more chasing, and the courts, which would now impose bigger penalties.
Therefore, to reduce their risk exposure, the obvious thing to do would be either produce less to get back to the original $50k plan, or invest in more expensive security/tactics/bookkeeping, and hope that they don't get caught while they're out of their league.

The problem applies whether it's one guy in his garage doing cash jobs on the side, or an extensive crime syndicate

You are just pulling those numbers out of your ass. You have zero concept of how supply and demand works. Take an economics class. What you said is completely moronic and contrived to fit your viewpoint. Cartels don't have that much risk, because they can afford to pay mules to do that for them.

Yeah, and nobody knows anybody, nobody recognises any faces, and petty mules never bow to any pressure from cops to reveal their contacts.

The point is criminals don't pay taxes. If they don't pay taxes, and they make their own weapons, then your entire strategy of using taxation as a method of restriction is completely useless, because they can make as many weapons as they want, and there will be ZERO paperwork tracking them as opposed to some. It is a pretty simple concept that seems lost on you.

And it's still a red herring that distracts attention from the real issues:
deaths, injuries, and other social costs.

Yeah, we get it, you said it already like 3 times, and we have replied that your plan is worse than useless and why.
How the fuck do you enforce taxes on something someone can make in their home out of a block of metal on a $1000 machine? You aren't just playing dumb...

You start by HAVING those taxes in the first place. Ultimately, it's just a policy statement to educate the ignorant masses that there exists such a thing as "social cost" associated with guns, and that YOU (if you're buying a gun) are obliged to pay for those costs. But if you're determined to be a parasite...

Enforcement comes after having the policy in place.

Obviously no singular tax is ever 100% effective in the real world, and I'm not denying that. But you seem to be focusing on the sub-100% effectiveness as an excuse for not having one at all. I already explained that even if a tax would only cover part of the market, it would still put a dent in prices across the board. But it might be more effective to just tax bullets instead. Because, you know X % of bullets can be expected to kill or injure people, which I'm sure you agree is a bad thing. They can put widows on food-stamps, people in hospitals requiring expensive surgery and rehab and that sort of thing, not to mention polluting the environment. And since you're obviously not a parasite, you'll be happy to cover the cost, amirite?

Tax free? Utopia? What? Now you are just being like a refractory 5 year old and repeating my own words back to me. You are also projecting. Your confirmation bias is dribbling all over the page attacking my "ideology" because I point out how your premises are logically flawed. Do you even know what the word utopian means? I will give you a hint, it is not a world with so much crime that you need a firearm to protect yourself and your family.

Well, how about you shuddup and learn from the rest of the world, huh?
When US gun-related deaths (not only crime, but deaths in general) go down, then you can talk.
And, no, I see no reason to tell you where I live, especially when you sound like someone who's a highly-strung tyrannical fuck. "Freedom this... freedom that... FUCKING TELL ME WHERE YOU LIVE!" LMAO I think I'll pass.

[Wilikon]

Seattle To Pass ‘Gun Violence’ Tax on Guns And Ammo…



There isn’t a far-left issue that the Seattle City Council hasn’t passed or considered passing. So you just knew that they would get around to screwing gun owners in some novel and inventive way.

How about a $25 tax on every firearm sold? Add to that a 5 cent tax on every cartridge and you have the typical liberal assault on law-abiding gun owners.

But that’s only part of the package. There’s also a provision to require  gun owners to report the theft or loss of any firearm within 24 hours.


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/08/09/seattle-gun-violence-tax-set-to-pass/?utm_term=%23tcot

[Spendulus]

Yeah, we get it, you said it already like 3 times, and we have replied that your plan is worse than useless and why.
How the fuck do you enforce taxes on something someone can make in their home out of a block of metal on a $1000 machine? You aren't just playing dumb...

You start by HAVING those taxes in the first place. ...

300 million guns currently in the USA....

...in accordance with the 2nd amendment.

"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."

Off hand I would say any outright scheme such as increasing taxes to make it more difficult for the people to keep and bear arms would be, duh, unconstitutional.  It would be a sort of mean, regressive tax on the poor.  It would differentially affect the ability of blacks and other poorer ethnic groups to have protection.  This is NOT "a good thing" but is "a very bad thing."

http://www.rulen.com/gunban/

And just for fun...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150981679934534&set=a.66031429533.93081.591279533&type=3&theater

[TECSHARE]

I am not quoting you directly any more because you are too fucking lazy to format your posts properly.  Additionally since you refuse to disclose the bias of your resident nation, I decided to just review your post history. After examination of your post history I have concluded you are most likely from Australia. It makes sense after all, your snotty attitude, your assumption that you are familiar with our culture, your self proclaimed superiority, as well as your cult like following of gun control regardless of the lack of logic behind it. These are all traits I have regularly seen exhibited in Australian citizens.

Additionally now that I know your country of residence, I can point out some key differences between where you live, and where I live. None of these things are independent of the crime rate or violence in general.

-You live on an island, the US borders with Mexico meaning a regular supply of illegal immigrants flooding in from Mexico, South America, as well as other countries where illegal weapons are in large supply, and violence is high.

-Australia has about 10% of the population of the USA.

-You live under a Monarchy as a royal subject, we have constitutional rights

-You live in a more culturally homogenized nation, the USA is made up of a tremendous amount of cultures and peoples increasing the incidence of conflict.

-There are enough guns within US borders currently to have 10 for every Australian citizen, or one for every singe American. No amount of good will or taxation will make that not a fact.

-Freedom, independence, the right to self defense, and the right to have a representative government is something that the people of the US in the past have paid enormous costs for. As a subject this is not part of your culture. As it is part of our culture here, many people here do not feel the loss of those cherished concepts is worth abandoning for any price. The fact of the matter is no one knows how high of a cost abandoning those concepts could be. Dictatorships are not a thing of the past no matter how much you want to believe society is some how more civilized that it has been in the past.

I am sure there are many more differences, but I don't want to waste too much time with your idiocy. The fact of the matter is Australia and The United States are not directly comparable, no matter how much you pretend they are. Of course you know this, which is why you so cowardly refused to identify your own nation of residence.

Dunning Kruger effect in full force. Go back to school buddy.

Can you tell me exactly what expertise you have that I don't that some how makes this theory not apply to you?  Additionally this is one of those things that people with no logical argument cling to and use like a cudgel to try to make themselves sound more logical and scientific like Occam's Razor, or Godwin's law. You just hear other people use it and think it makes you sound smart so you throw it around as if it is an insult never truly understanding its real application or point.

Yeah, and nobody knows anybody, nobody recognises any faces, and petty mules never bow to any pressure from cops to reveal their contacts.

And it's still a red herring that distracts attention from the real issues:
deaths, injuries, and other social costs.

So the fact that your plan is fundamentally flawed on basic economic levels is a red herring? I don't see how that is possible. At this point I am fairly certain you don't even know the real definitions of half of these fallacies you are accusing me of. You ASSUME your logic is flawless, but you have no proof it would be effective here or anywhere. If people can make their own weapons cheaply at home, your whole taxation scheme is completely flawed. Your argument is that even though your logic is flawed, we should push ahead with your unproven social experiment, no matter what the cost, because it is "the right thing to do". You are ignoring lots of real world costs that would be incurred as a result of implementing your flawed system, which could arguably make things worse than they already are. Those are real issues you are ignoring. That isn't science or logic, that is called dogma.

Do you know anything at all about the cartel problem in Mexico? Of course not. No one is above being touched by them. Roll a few heads into a night club, abduct a few police and other civil servants, and trust me people get quiet pretty fucking quick. Additionally you make the assumption that they know anything to begin with. Its called compartmentalization.

You start by HAVING those taxes in the first place. Ultimately, it's just a policy statement to educate the ignorant masses that there exists such a thing as "social cost" associated with guns, and that YOU (if you're buying a gun) are obliged to pay for those costs. But if you're determined to be a parasite...

Enforcement comes after having the policy in place.

A policy statement. That's nice, lets make millions of people unable to defend themselves so you can make a policy statement. Brilliant. We already pay these costs every day, but what are the social costs of your plan? I guess that doesn't matter as long as you get to have your social experiment become reality. In this country we have rights. I know living in a monarchy as a royal subject that must be hard to understand, but don't be jealous. Again, your logic is to just push forward and hope that some time in the future your plan MIGHT make some kind of positive effect, with absolutely no assurances.

Obviously no singular tax is ever 100% effective in the real world, and I'm not denying that. But you seem to be focusing on the sub-100% effectiveness as an excuse for not having one at all. I already explained that even if a tax would only cover part of the market, it would still put a dent in prices across the board. But it might be more effective to just tax bullets instead. Because, you know X % of bullets can be expected to kill or injure people, which I'm sure you agree is a bad thing. They can put widows on food-stamps, people in hospitals requiring expensive surgery and rehab and that sort of thing, not to mention polluting the environment. And since you're obviously not a parasite, you'll be happy to cover the cost, amirite?

I seem to be focusing on the 0% effectiveness of your tax scheme, because not only will it cause more harm than good, it is also in violation of several rights that were paid for with blood by our people. There is no way in hell the people of the USA will ever abandon these concepts for some lofty ethereal promise of peace, which would then easily be violated by those willing to use force resulting in far more death and destruction. Gun control cultists like you believe society has reached some kind of pinnacle of humanity which now puts us above such antiquated concepts of war, violence, and crime. Sorry to burst your bubble, but humanity is just as fucked up as ever, even if your favorite bubble of society is isolated from this on your little island. BTW, we all pay taxes here just being consumers, so we all pay the costs associated with gun ownership. I don't have children, but I still pay to send other people's children to school. That's how taxation works.

Well, how about you shuddup and learn from the rest of the world, huh?
When US gun-related deaths (not only crime, but deaths in general) go down, then you can talk.
And, no, I see no reason to tell you where I live, especially when you sound like someone who's a highly-strung tyrannical fuck. "Freedom this... freedom that... FUCKING TELL ME WHERE YOU LIVE!" LMAO I think I'll pass.

What right does anyone living anywhere but here have a right to dictate what we do in our own internal domestic policies? Where the fuck do you get off thinking you have a right to dictate to other people living in a place much different than where you live, how to live. Crime in the US over the last 30 years HAS been going down, but don't let that mess up your confirmation bias. Lets talk about "gun deaths".  Did you know if we banned cars we could save thousands of lives every year? If we reduced the availability of cars and taxed the producers more heavily, there would be less cars and therefore less "car deaths". Lets put the enormous costs and hardships of such an idea aside, because it is "the right" thing to do.

As a royal subject, of course you can dismiss the concept of rights so easily, because you have no rights, so it costs you nothing to decry it.  I don't need you to tell me, I already know where you live and that you are a subject. I would expect nothing more from chattel.

[Possum577]

IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.

Yeah man, I'm with you but it's a "double edge sword"...

On one hand, legal gun owners don't want their rights infringed - and honestly the government in the US will never succeed in taking personal gun ownership away. It just won't happen without a militia fight form legal gun owners.

On the other hand, you have a lot of crime from illegal gun owners and the mentally unstable. And they'll always find guns, regardless of the laws. Yet the legal gun owners aren't willing to support laws that help the government fight illegal gun ownership. It baffles me.

Legal gun owners in the US want their guns but aren't willing to be stewards or ambassadors of responsible gun ownership.

[TECSHARE]

IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.

Yeah man, I'm with you but it's a "double edge sword"...

On one hand, legal gun owners don't want their rights infringed - and honestly the government in the US will never succeed in taking personal gun ownership away. It just won't happen without a militia fight form legal gun owners.

On the other hand, you have a lot of crime from illegal gun owners and the mentally unstable. And they'll always find guns, regardless of the laws. Yet the legal gun owners aren't willing to support laws that help the government fight illegal gun ownership. It baffles me.

Legal gun owners in the US want their guns but aren't willing to be stewards or ambassadors of responsible gun ownership.

The problem with gun laws is they don't prevent anything, they simply punish violators after the fact. Also no one ever accounts for the amount of crimes STOPPED by guns. Since there are no official avenues for reporting these incidents, and people are afraid of having laws enforced against them for what would normally be considered legal firearms use, the defensive use of firearms are hardly ever kept track of. The majority of the time simply brandishing the weapon is enough to stop the criminal activity, with zero actual use of force.

"Yet the legal gun owners aren't willing to support laws that help the government fight illegal gun ownership."

What laws do you think would do this effectively without providing the government with an avenue with which to strip yet another right from the US population? Its easy to point out problems, finding effective solutions is much harder. Unfortunately most people are either very anti-gun or very pro-gun ownership, so there is usually not much middle ground found.

[tvbcof]

Seattle To Pass ‘Gun Violence’ Tax on Guns And Ammo…

There isn’t a far-left issue that the Seattle City Council hasn’t passed or considered passing. So you just knew that they would get around to screwing gun owners in some novel and inventive way.

How about a $25 tax on every firearm sold? Add to that a 5 cent tax on every cartridge and you have the typical liberal assault on law-abiding gun owners.

But that’s only part of the package. There’s also a provision to require  gun owners to report the theft or loss of any firearm within 24 hours.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/08/09/seattle-gun-violence-tax-set-to-pass/?utm_term=%23tcot

Tax skiiing, bicycling, kayaking, etc.  Same rationals apply insofar as rescues and injuries from such optional endeavors cost money and it does not always fall to the injured to pick up the tab.

[blablahblah]

LOL, I wasn't going bother responding to your drivel any more but,

You start by HAVING those taxes in the first place. Ultimately, it's just a policy statement to educate the ignorant masses that there exists such a thing as "social cost" associated with guns, and that YOU (if you're buying a gun) are obliged to pay for those costs. But if you're determined to be a parasite...

Enforcement comes after having the policy in place.

A policy statement. That's nice, lets make millions of people unable to defend themselves so you can make a policy statement. Brilliant. We already pay these costs every day, but what are the social costs of your plan?

No, you fucking don't pay the costs. That's a fucking lie and you know it. In fact, I'm almost certain you're one of those people who fight tooth and nail against all types of "tax coercion", whether or not you use the infrastructure and other tax-funded things. You then justify it to yourself with a utopian Anarcho-Capitalist ideology or some Libertarian variation thereof. In other words, your factual stealing is acceptable in your mind because you really really don't like taxes, a lot more deeply and emotionally than the superficial way that most other people don't like tax. And you rationalise the greed by imagining an elaborate utopia where everything is private and tax-free.

It wouldn't be so bad if your preferred alternative was actually a good idea, but it's not. It never stands up to scrutiny. Guns are a glaring case where tax-free utopias fail: you guys want to have tax-free fun, even though you know that the social costs are NOT ZERO, and you know that you're NOT PAYING those costs. Other taxes don't count because everyone else has to pay that shit too!

And in some cases you have no means of privately paying reparations to someone's family if you accidentally injure or kill someone. Are all gun owners millionaires? Unlikely! Are they all comprehensively insured for that sort of thing? Un-fucking-likely. Would they all voluntarily pay insurance if there weren't any state or federal governments "coercing" them? Un-fucking-likely.

You're like one of those geriatric 90 year old smokers, who spend hours bitching about why do THEY have to pay exorbitant taxes on cigarettes, when it's all the OTHER old smokers who are a drain on the health system, and they're still healthy. Their BS argument conveniently ignores the fact that the government had their sorry ass covered during all those decades they spent smoking and risking their health despite being broke. In the US' case, admittedly the coverage might have been a bit weak due to your obsession with "private insurance or die on the streets" mentality, but it was definitely NOT ZERO.

[TECSHARE]

No, you fucking don't pay the costs. That's a fucking lie and you know it. In fact, I'm almost certain you're one of those people who fight tooth and nail against all types of "tax coercion", whether or not you use the infrastructure and other tax-funded things. You then justify it to yourself with a utopian Anarcho-Capitalist ideology or some Libertarian variation thereof. In other words, your factual stealing is acceptable in your mind because you really really don't like taxes, a lot more deeply and emotionally than the superficial way that most other people don't like tax. And you rationalise the greed by imagining an elaborate utopia where everything is private and tax-free.

It wouldn't be so bad if your preferred alternative was actually a good idea, but it's not. It never stands up to scrutiny. Guns are a glaring case where tax-free utopias fail: you guys want to have tax-free fun, even though you know that the social costs are NOT ZERO, and you know that you're NOT PAYING those costs. Other taxes don't count because everyone else has to pay that shit too!

And in some cases you have no means of privately paying reparations to someone's family if you accidentally injure or kill someone. Are all gun owners millionaires? Unlikely! Are they all comprehensively insured for that sort of thing? Un-fucking-likely. Would they all voluntarily pay insurance if there weren't any state or federal governments "coercing" them? Un-fucking-likely.

You're like one of those geriatric 90 year old smokers, who spend hours bitching about why do THEY have to pay exorbitant taxes on cigarettes, when it's all the OTHER old smokers who are a drain on the health system, and they're still healthy. Their BS argument conveniently ignores the fact that the government had their sorry ass covered during all those decades they spent smoking and risking their health despite being broke. In the US' case, admittedly the coverage might have been a bit weak due to your obsession with "private insurance or die on the streets" mentality, but it was definitely NOT ZERO.

Suddenly all of your points rely on your supposed observations of me as a person. That is called an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacy and not considered an actual form of debate. Also I don't know where you get off labeling me an anarcho-capitalist libertarian just because I disagree with you. What the fuck makes you think you know me? Oh thats right, your deeply engrained confirmation bias does, because anyone who disagrees with your totally righteous plans must be anarcho-capitalist. Additionally labeling me as such is a straw man attack. I never espoused those ideas, you are again inventing a narrative, attributing it to me, then expecting me to defend myself from it. Its amazing how you could glean all these concepts about what I believe without me saying these things, I guess you just know so much you even know things you don't know. Like I said tho, that is besides the point.

You keep saying there is a cost to gun ownership, but you are never willing to address the costs of your own plan which with then be an additional burden on top of existing burdens. Just because your plan is completely logically flawed doesn't mean you can just point back at me and keep crying about the costs (which you don't pay BTW). Everyone who lives within the US or even visits pays taxes, so WE ALL PAY THE COST. You can jump up and down and cry that it is not true, but if the burden is put upon the tax payer (which it is), then we all pay for it, just like I pay to fund schools even though I have no children. We all enjoy certain liberties here which we all collectively pay for.

Speaking of red herrings, your entire rant about smoking qualifies. Your spite for people who disagree with you bleeds though every word you write. You really do believe yourself smarter and more superior, and no one else can tell you any different, because you KNOW the truth (even if you don't have the facts or even a logical plan to back it up).

You think you know me well enough to talk about me like this? Tell ya wot cunt, go get a black dog up ya!

[blablahblah]

Suddenly all of your points rely on your supposed observations of me as a person. That is called an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacy and not considered an actual form of debate. Also I don't know where you get off labeling me an anarcho-capitalist libertarian just because I disagree with you. What the fuck makes you think you know me? Oh thats right, your deeply engrained confirmation bias does, because anyone who disagrees with your totally righteous plans must be anarcho-capitalist.

LOL
Questioning your character is completely relevant in a discussion about social concerns. Like you're so righteous to disguise your selfish aims (untouchable gun rights so you can defend yourself against the evil government) as caring about the poor and wanting everyone armed so that they can supposedly defend themselves against each other. You're SO gun crazy that you even managed to fake some social empathy.

[blablahblah]

You keep saying there is a cost to gun ownership, but you are never willing to address the costs of your own plan which with then be an additional burden on top of existing burdens. Just because your plan is completely logically flawed doesn't mean you can just point back at me and keep crying about the costs (which you don't pay BTW). Everyone who lives within the US or even visits pays taxes, so WE ALL PAY THE COST. You can jump up and down and cry that it is not true, but if the burden is put upon the tax payer (which it is), then we all pay for it, just like I pay to fund schools even though I have no children. We all enjoy certain liberties here which we all collectively pay for.

You're twisting so many things around, it's hard to know to where to start.

You falsely believe that "less guns" in society would somehow be socially costly. I showed that to be incorrect a couple of pages back, linking information that gun suicides far outnumber gun murders in the US. The article explains how there could be a lot less deaths in society if "law abiding citizens" didn't have so many guns lying around and within easy reach. They linked it to research proving that a lot of suicides are opportunistic, not premeditated, and that simple measures in other areas in society successfully reduced the amount of deaths. As examples, they talked about suicide-prevention fences on a bridge, which lo-and-behold, reduced the total suicide rate in the entire town despite there being other bridges. And when coal ovens were upgraded, the same thing happened: less opportunity = less death.

Because there are so many MORE gun suicides than gun murders to start with, there would have to be a large spike in the murders to compensate for a slight decrease in the suicide rate. And that won't happen either because most gun murders ALSO occur at home, and most likely by a family member or spouse. Not home invasions.

A spike in home invasions wouldn't make sense either. If it's not a relative or friend, then it's a stranger, and they most likely won't know if there's a gun in the house or not, or whether it's safely locked up or not. If there's a gun at home, it's useless all safely locked up. And if it's not locked up, then your family is a bigger risk to you in the first place.

There's no need to bring Mexican cartels into it, or arming the poor. The simple fact is that after adding up the biggest factors, having guns at home puts you at more risk of dying than not having guns at home.

[Spendulus]

You keep saying there is a cost to gun ownership, but you are never willing to address the costs of your own plan which with then be an additional burden on top of existing burdens. Just because your plan is completely logically flawed doesn't mean you can just point back at me and keep crying about the costs (which you don't pay BTW). Everyone who lives within the US or even visits pays taxes, so WE ALL PAY THE COST. You can jump up and down and cry that it is not true, but if the burden is put upon the tax payer (which it is), then we all pay for it, just like I pay to fund schools even though I have no children. We all enjoy certain liberties here which we all collectively pay for.

....
A spike in home invasions wouldn't make sense either. If it's not a relative or friend, then it's a stranger, and they most likely won't know if there's a gun in the house or not, or whether it's safely locked up or not. If there's a gun at home, it's useless all safely locked up. And if it's not locked up, then your family is a bigger risk to you in the first place.

There's no need to bring Mexican cartels into it....

I would beg to differ.  El Paso, Texas is one of the safest places to live in the USA, but it is a hundred yards from Juarez, one of the most violent of Mexican cities.  And the bad guys cross back and forth across the border all the time.

Why is it so safe?  Because they know there is likely a gun in every house.  And no, they are not useless and all safely locked up.