Originally Posted By Donny I would like to see alcohol heavily taxed. Kinda like when I go to Epcot and I see someone drunk I think "wow he spent ton of money to get that way."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I would like to see alcohol heavily taxed.>> It already is. $2.14 per 750ml bottle of distilled spirits by the Feds, plus the relevant state taxes, which range up to over 12% in Alaska.
Originally Posted By Donny then raise it to $4.50 with money going towards enforcement and treatment.
Originally Posted By mawnck Raise the gun tax. Have the proceeds go to taking all guns away from people with mental issues.
Originally Posted By Donny "Raise the gun tax" I would say enforcement and education. I would have no problem with that
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Okay. Alcohol is already pretty heavily taxed, but if you think it should be more heavily taxed, that's a valid position. You could make the same argument for raising gun sale taxes, and it's good to see you're consistent with being okay with that. Of course, with guns, there are also matters like not requiring background checks at gun shows - loopholes like that that don't really apply to alcohol that need to be closed.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Deaths and criminal activity stemming from alcohol use are on the decline thanks to the recognition that alcohol abuse is a public health issue. Let's stay the course on what we are doing with alcohol and sustain the successful decrease we've seen over the past few decades. Now let's realize that gun deaths are a public health issue and let's start to address those. Let's tax ammunition and gun sales - including private sales at gun shows - and use that money to research ways to reduce the number of accidental and intentional gun deaths and the institute programs to implement them. Let's make buying guns and ammunition as straightforward and as regulated as buying alcohol. You can only buy from licensed vendors. Vendors are liable for selling to people who clearly represent a risk to themselves or others.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost The only thing that this whole discussion proves is you can write all the laws that you want, it obviously doesn't stop people from doing it. Fewer deaths then with guns. OK, how about the fact that guns are NOT illegal to own where as driving while intoxicated is? The ratio should be like 20 to 1. 20 being gun related deaths and 1 being alcohol related deaths. That is not the case. I believe in careful and strong enforcement of who gets a gun legally, but, it must be obvious by now that when dealing with humans, all the laws in the world are not going to change anything significantly. Those that follow laws will continue to do so, and the likelihood of those people killing anyone with guns or auto's is pretty slim anyway. Those that don't respect the laws will continue to not respect them and just about nothing will change. You can ban gun ownership til the cows come home, there will still be people that will have them, legally or not. You can pass all the laws in the world to have it illegal to drive while drinking, it will continue. Prohibition proved that laws do not stop anything. Why does anyone think that laws are going to stop killing with guns? I believe that there is already a huge law on the books that prohibits people from killing each other. Been pretty effective hasn't it?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Why does anyone think that laws are going to stop killing with guns?<< It's funny, on this subject, a solution must be 100% effective or else it is a fail. "People will still kill with guns, so why try anything?" Right now, there is a crazy quilt of gun laws in this country. Don't like the laws in your state? Get your guns in a different one. If we had gun laws that were consistent nationwide, we'd have a fair way to measure the effects. It's easy to see that the US far outpaces other countries in gun deaths -- it's really not even close. To me, that suggests easy access does affect the number of gun deaths. Do people in country's with stricter gun laws still get shot? Yes. But look at the numbers. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/">http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he...y-finds/</a> When will we get sick of it and do something? Probably never. Guns are basically a religious icon to millions of Americans. Talk of doing anything about reducing the numbers of them is blasphemy. The gun industry's lobbying group, the NRA, has won. We lose.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You can pass all the laws in the world to have it illegal to drive while drinking, it will continue. << Yes, but with harsher penalties, the numbers have been reduced. According to MADD, about one-third of drunk drivers arrested are repeat offenders. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf">http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/P...0942.pdf</a> The overview: >>Overall, the percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes who had consumed alcohol and had blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or above prior to the crash steadily decreased from 1982 to 1997 and then leveled off (more or less). In an attempt to explain the 1982-1997 reduction and the 1997-2005 level trend, this report presents a statistical analysis of factors that influenced the historical alcohol-related driving trends from 1982 to 2005. The study is based on disaggregate logistic regression of imputed Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) cases from all 50 States and the District of Columbia – to predict the probability of an alcohol-related involvement given a set of independent variables. The independent variables include alcohol-related legislation (i.e., .10 BAC, .08 BAC, Administrative License Revocation, minimum-legal-drinking-age laws), demographic factors (i.e., driver’s age and gender), per capita alcohol consumption, and external factors (i.e., day of the week, time of day, roadway function class, and posted speed limit). The independent variables explain both the decrease in alcohol-related fatal crashes (where drivers involved in fatal crashes had BAC of .08 or above) from 1982 to 1997 and its leveling off after 1997. Large portions of the reduction are explained by the effect of alcohol-laws and by the demographic trends – the aging of the population and the increased proportion of female drivers. The leveling off after 1997 does not imply that the laws are becoming less effective. On the contrary, they effectively maintain the proportion of drivers in fatal crashes who had BAC of .08 or above at the time of the crash – at the lowest level since 1982.<<
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Goofy, it isn't about eliminating every possible problem but about making changes that bring about incremental decreases in deaths. We haven't eliminated deaths from motor vehicle accidents, but we have greatly reduced the number due to incremental changes like mandated seatbelt use, child safety seats, airbags, and third brake lights. Don't forget that about half of all the deaths caused by guns are due to accidents, but because of the NRA we can't even pass laws that would reduce that number. Because of the NRA we can't even fund research into the causes of accidental gun deaths. This isn't about banning guns, but about making gun ownership safer.
Originally Posted By ecdc We should just have a bot that posts to these threads, "You can ban guns all ya want, but it won't stop people from gettin' guns and killin' people!" just so we know it's coming and we can be spared the mindless stupidity of having to wonder when it's going to pop up again.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost First of all, I'm not defending the NRA in making sure that gun owners are trained in how not to shot themselves and others in the foot accidentally. It's the idea of lets make NRA train everyone. If you want that then the only change that has to take place is to have a law that requires proof of training before a gun is sold to anyone. Do it on a national or a state level. How can there be opposition to gun safety, if that is what people want, and why would we think that it is NRA responsibility to train them all. I am a believer that perhaps the majority of NRA leadership have at one point or the other shot themselves in the head and their ability to think has been completely obliterated. It is an exercise in total frustration to even begin to think that we can make them have any sense in this matter. So, try a different tack. The public or, better yet, the gun owner has to absorb the cost of training and it that doesn't work then the public takes on that task. We have to have training to get a license to drive a car and no one complains about that at all. If you were to zero in on, for example, General Motors, Ford, Toyota to train people, at their expense, to teach them to drive safely then you would run into a wall of resistance. The reason that I reacted the way I did a few posts ago was because it was, once again, sounding like a stop arms sales and all dying will stop. If I were a gambling man, I would say that you would barely find a difference in deaths, just those by gunshot, the totals would be the same. Then it would be by baseball bat, strangulation, barn shovel, knife, hanging, candlestick in the library and so on. Someone once stated that the failure is in the mental health care system more then in the weapon industry. As long as we continue to turn a blind eye to and allow so much "freedom" to define mental illness and treat it instead of waiting until something happens... this will continue.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>sounding like a stop arms sales and all dying will stop.<< Only in your head. No one has ever said that anywhere.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck The real issue is in bringing change. Sadly, I have a feeling that it's going to take more Sandy Hook scenarios before the outrage comes to a climax. While the NRA continues with it's stalling tactics, there are hundreds, if not thousands of future victims who are destined to die. Many might be spared if they were to compromise just a little. I honestly believe a strong case could be presented showing the NRA as being at least partially responsible for some of these deaths. Beside public outrage, it will take strong legal action, and brave politicians who put the country's best interests above their own. I would not count on the latter.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <How can there be opposition to gun safety, if that is what people want, and why would we think that it is NRA responsibility to train them all. > No one I know has said the NRA would have to do all the training. They offer optional training now, so it would make sense that they could be contracted to do so if gun safety became a requirement for gun ownership. But they'd be PAID to do so, (along with other groups and probably the government). Rather like your car example. You can go to any number of private "learn to drive" courses, or in some places through the government (at least via the schools). It's at the drivers' expense. <If I were a gambling man, I would say that you would barely find a difference in deaths, just those by gunshot, the totals would be the same. Then it would be by baseball bat, strangulation, barn shovel, knife, hanging, candlestick in the library and so on. > The number of premeditated murders might - MIGHT - stay the same. Then gain, maybe not, looking at the murder rates of other countries. But certainly, a guy can't kill another guy who annoys him in a movie theatre by hanging him. A kid can't discover an unlocked candlestick and kill himself. Remember, I'm not saying "take the guns away." I'm saying there are things we can do to reduce the deaths, as we've done with alcohol, and cars.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Many might be spared if they were to compromise just a little.<< This, a thousand times, this. However, the NRA impedes any compromise at all, because they are an industry lobbying group designed to sell ever more guns pretending to be a constitutional watchdog. I don't know that any legislation would stop Sandy Hook or ex-cops shooting fellow patrons in a movie theater. However, stricter gun laws and enforced gun handling education could prevent thousands of "accidental" deaths, and that seems a pretty good place to start. The crazy thing is, the NRA could benefit financially from laws that require certification and training, so if they were truly interested in helping the situation, they'd make it happen, considering they have so many puppets in congress. That they do not tells it all.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>We should just have a bot that posts to these threads<< We already do. It's called a Donny.
Originally Posted By mawnck Is it OK with you, Donny, if we take this guy's guns away? <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/article/113859/wardrobe-malfunction-stoney-creek-man-shoots-himself-in-chin-while-taking-off-pants">http://www.johnsoncitypress.co...ff-pants</a> (Note: Not Florida)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer 2oony brings up a good point. On the one side, gun control advocates see things like Sandy Hook and think that we should do what we can to avoid as many of those kinds of situations as possible. On the other, we have a gun industry lobby that points to Sandy Hook as proof of why we need more guns to be sold, and that points to conversations about gun control measures as reasons for people to go out and buy all the guns they can right now before the gummint says you can't. One might be a bit cynical about the NRA's motives in doing what they are doing...
