The Gun Control Debate Thread

[CousinsCowgirl84]

On 6/2/2022 at 9:09 PM, tshile said:

Part of the problem too is this topic induced strong opinions in knee jerk reaction, and we’re really good at that as a society, but we’re not really good at nuance and digging into statistics 

 

that pew link @Renegade7posted (only tagging you to be per of discussing if you cared) says this at the opening

 

But then later it says this:

 

now look. The people here are capable of seeing the difference. And can probably have a good debate about whether the rate or the annual # is what matters. And I don’t even know if that debate would even matter, but we could have it if we wanted to. 
 

but the bulk of people probably don’t know that second quote. Many won’t really be sure what it means to put them together. Etc. 

 

i mean for the last week the thread has been posted with tweets about how it’s the worst ever. Clearly that’s not the only way of looking at it, and usually we use rates for a reason…. Kind of like “receiving the most votes ever” doesn’t matter either unless you want to pretend population growth isn’t a thing. 
 

(It also caveats the 70’s numbers because they included explosives and 80’s forward numbers are just firearms)

It really only matters if you want to attempt to diminish the importance of curbing gun violence. I also think we can live with a mobster killing another more than an insane person mowing down kids.

Edited June 5, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[ixcuincle]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

Quote

CBS asked: "Why do you think the U.S. has more mass shootings than many other countries?"

 

24% say it's because we're a more free country? 🤦‍♀️

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

Well...there is "tax the **** out of them and treat it like a budget issue so only need 51 votes"...

 

"Hard to commit mass murder with and AR-15 style weapon if you can't afford it..."

 

 

And technically it's not a ban...

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

It really only matters if you want to attempt to diminish the importance of curbing gun violence

No, respecting the importance of gun violence means actually understanding the (little bit of) data we actually have on it and trying to draw informed conclusions about it

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

And technically it's not a ban...

I think that’s not gonna hold up at all. 
 

like not even close 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think that’s not gonna hold up at all. 
 

like not even close 

 

SCOTUS or Manchin/Semina?

 

It's really hard to get an automatic weapon, ha that been challenged in court?

 

Like article says, it doesn't have to stay at 1000% tax.  If goal is to price out non gun enthusiasts to slow down people jus coming of age or off the street to get them, I can see it being worth a shot if framed that way.

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

No, respecting the importance of gun violence means actually understanding the (little bit of) data we actually have on it and trying to draw informed conclusions about it

I think that’s not gonna hold up at all. 
 

like not even close 

It sounds similar to the debate if only old people die from COVID to me…

[Redskins Diehard]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

SCOTUS or Manchin/Semina?

 

It's really hard to get an automatic weapon, ha that been challenged in court?

 

Like article says, it doesn't have to stay at 1000% tax.  If goal is to price out non gun enthusiasts to slow down people jus coming of age or off the street to get them, I can see it being worth a shot if framed that way.

 

It is fundamentally what the NFA of 1934 did.  And you can get a tax stamp for 200 bucks even today. But it takes like 9 months to get it back.  And you get extra background checks. And it's been the law of the land for almost 100 years. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

SCOTUS or Manchin/Semina?

 

It's really hard to get an automatic weapon, ha that been challenged in court?

It’s not because they levied a tax against it. Not like what was suggested. 
 

i mean I believe techixalkt it’s called a stamp tax. But its more a license. And you sign over certain rights depending on which license you have, I believe they can inventory you at certain levels (I don’t believe it requires being a gun broker either)

 

I don’t think they’ll get the votes and if they do i think scotus will throw it out. 
 

and I don’t think saying “but it’s not a ban, it’s just a tax” is going to mean anything. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

22 minutes ago, tshile said:

It’s not because they levied a tax against it. Not like what was suggested. 
 

i mean I believe techixalkt it’s called a stamp tax. But its more a license. And you sign over certain rights depending on which license you have, I believe they can inventory you at certain levels (I don’t believe it requires being a gun broker either)

 

I don’t think they’ll get the votes and if they do i think scotus will throw it out. 
 

and I don’t think saying “but it’s not a ban, it’s just a tax” is going to mean anything. 

I think by making it a tax can’t they pass it with 50 votes? (Vice President breaking the tie)?

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think by making it a tax can’t they pass it with 50 votes? (Vice President breaking the tie)?

 

That's not what @tshile is saying, entirely possible Manchin kills it with a No vote.

 

im not buying SCOTUS throws it out or they shouldnt try because of it.  In the article they make clear the goal isn't to stop sales, and that's why the 1000% number is going to get throttled down to get the votes it needs (if it passes at all).

 

Tell you what, Manchin or Semina say there's no Tax number they will support, DNC should go out of their way to primary them or jus outright kick them out the party. Don't let them run as a Dem ever again, run as an Independent for all I care.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

That's not what @tshile is saying, entirely possible Manchin kills it with a No vote.

 

I’m just saying that’s why they chose to do it with a tax instead of a ban.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I’m just saying that’s why they chose to do it with a tax instead of a ban.

 

Yea, it's literally the only way 95% of anything passes the senate right now is having some impact on the budget only needs a single majority. Smart, sad, but true.

[TheGreatBuzz]

22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Tell you what, Manchin or Semina say there's no Tax number they will support, DNC should go out of their way to primary them or jus outright kick them out the party. Don't let them run as a Dem ever again, run as an Independent for all I care

 

I really don't get this thought process.  You want to give the GOP the majority?  WV would replace him with some Qanon nut job.  I get Manchin is a pain but the devil you know......etc.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

I really don't get this thought process.  You want to give the GOP the majority?  WV would replace him with some Qanon nut job.  I get Manchin is a pain but the devil you know......etc.

 

Tim Ryan might win, lt gov in Pennsylvania as well.  As would anyone running against Semina right now, republican or democrat.

[philibusters]

7 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's not what @tshile is saying, entirely possible Manchin kills it with a No vote.

 

im not buying SCOTUS throws it out or they shouldnt try because of it.  In the article they make clear the goal isn't to stop sales, and that's why the 1000% number is going to get throttled down to get the votes it needs (if it passes at all).

 

Tell you what, Manchin or Semina say there's no Tax number they will support, DNC should go out of their way to primary them or jus outright kick them out the party. Don't let them run as a Dem ever again, run as an Independent for all I care.

 

What makes that strategy difficult is a lot of the corporate donors for the Democrats like them just fine.

[tshile]

10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

In the article they make clear the goal isn't to stop sales

🙄

not stop sales just - make it so people can’t afford it. 
 

i agree, just because it seems likely (at least to me) that scotus will throw it out because it’s heavily stacked to one side, doesn’t mean you don’t try. 

[ixcuincle]

 

[Renegade7]

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

🙄

not stop sales just - make it so people can’t afford it. 
 

 

Not everyone, obviously, and that's the argument I'm sure they will make while negotiating how large the actual tax will be, lowering it to increase support.

 

I mean, cigarettes aren't constutionally protected, but they are getting taxed to death as part of encouraging people to quit. But they aren't banning cigarettes nor has it ended cigarette smoking in the US yet.

 

You are bringing a fair concern, we jus already accept limitations on the right to bear arms.  If our country for the most part, even pro-gun folks, don't support unlimited access to every firearm in existence (see limitations on automatic weapons), then we are already making it extremely difficult if not impossible for the average American to get certain guns without outright banning them, and calling it constitutional.

 

It just feels like the logic for overturning it could directly impact access to even more dangerous weapons, which I'm not buying even NRA or SCOTUS wants.  I'm not buying they want unlimited access to automatic weapons in the US, God help us if they do.

 

 

[tshile]

I think poll taxes are more equivalent than sin taxes, given the constitutionality element. 
 

and plenty of people have problems with sin taxes, and we know how poll taxes worked out. 
 

I also, personally, despise the idea from a logical stand point. So - these guns are so dangerous we need to limit who can buy them, by how much disposable income they have? 😂 give me a break. If the guns are too dangerous - then limit them based on how dangerous they are (whatever that means to you.) making it a disposable income issue is hilarious in many senses; I’m not sure it actually does anything for mass shootings (since that’s where they’re used most it seems), and I’m not sure that’ll fly in court at all. 

which is the same way I feel about the “grandfather” bull****. If the problem is that the gun is too dangerous to own, then regulate it as such. Don’t come up with bull**** arbitrary date, before which you can keep your guns, or some magical $ amount above which you’re allowed to own it. 
 

That said - I understand trying to be creative in how you would want to work around the system to ban a weapon you want banned but can’t actually get banned. 
 

which is why the *wink* “but it’s not a ban…“ 

 

Is never going to work. Every single person sees through that and what it is and what it’s about. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[Renegade7]

@tshile I hear what you saying, man, but look at the average person who's done these mass murder rampages (with maybe the exception of Vegas shooter). 

 

How many of them do people think can afford 10k to 25k for the primary weapon they used?

 

Its reasonable to expect someone spending that much money for a gun is not gonna be some jus turned 18 year old working at Wendy's if this went into affect, and that's how I hope it's framed despite "people seeing through it".  

 

Poll Tax was directly tied to racism, this is tied to slowing down the usage of these high capability weapons being used to kill as many people as possible in schools, church's, hospitals, etc.  That's different (at least it should be).

Edited June 6, 2022 by Renegade7

[SkinsFTW]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Poll Tax was directly tied to racism, this is tied to slowing down the usage of these high capacity weapons being used to kill as many people as possible in schools, church's, hospitals, etc.  That's different (at least it should be).

 

The weapon isn't high capacity. Tax the magazines if that is your goal. 

 

This is probably why nothing ever gets done. Instead of just making it a lot more difficult to get a semi-automatic rifle or high capacity magazines, people come up with 50 different ridiculous ideas that nobody can agree on. 

 

This one is like taxing the hell out of otc medicines for all of us because dope heads are turning them into meth. OK buddy!

[tshile]

I understand what you’re saying. I do. 
 

It’ll never fly

 

Im dubious it will have any impact. 
 

Except when the shootings are done with a different type of gun because it can be purchased for 500$ and the ar15’s cost 10k, maybe finally the rest of you will come around to the idea that the ar15 isn’t the problem here, and that it’s not even the best gun to do what these people are doing with it. 
 

it sure as hell won’t put a dent in the overall gun violence numbers. Making the gun involved in 3% if the problem too expensive isn’t going to do much, if anything. 
 

I don’t think we’ll ever know because you’re never going to get away with restricting a right based on how much money one has, but maybe we will get to see. 

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Poll Tax was directly tied to racism

It was used to be racist, but I believe the underlying problem was the government can’t require people to pay a certain amount of money to exercise their rights. 
 

and I don’t think it’s going to be hard to extend that argument to this. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

The other think a huge tax will do is affect the demand for AR-15 rifles which will affect the ability of manufacturers to produce them at sufficient profit margins to continue produce them vs other alternatives.

 

@tshile comparing this tax to a poll tax may have merit. We’ll see.

Edited June 6, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84