Gun Control 2023 (V) - ATF Shenanigans, States Fight Back!

[Ostroeuropa]

Mandatory minimum third party only gun insurance.

Those are the only words I have to say today. (Well alright. Legalize flash hiders too.)

Hating the poor ain't cool, yo.

Out of interest WRA, if it could be means tested, what are your thoughts?

[American Legionaries]

How is a tax on being something different than a tax on being something, again?

And that punishment would be cruel and punitive.

Being taxed for owning property is not the same as being taxed for an intrinsic quality about yourself, because you can decide to ditch the gun or surrender it if you can't pay, and it can be seized for failure to pay.

That can't be done with internal qualities. But that's a quibble. You could compare it to "A tax on having a brony profile picture" and that would be better.

I mean, given the relatively low cost that actual liability for firearms would run, and the totally sensible penalties that anti-gun states would put on failing to provide proof of insurance, it's less about hating the poor and more about hating anyone who forgets to pay the bill.

If your concern is the extent of punitive measure for failure to pay, what do you think would be an acceptable cap on the punishment? I'm personally fine with seizure and then you've got a few months to backpay the amount owed or you lose your claim to the gun as the cap. I don't think people should go to jail over it.

If instead you're opposed outright, then could you stop pretending its because you're scared of overreach?

Being a grown ass adult who's a fan of a children's cartoon is not an immutable characteristic.

The correct cap on the punishment is fucking nothing, because the while thing is an absurd angle that exists only to serve as a punitive scheme.

[Juansonia]

What would be the point of mandating liability insurance against an intentional criminal act? It would serve no purpose other than as an act of collective punishment, which is a violation of human rights.

It serves the purpose of compensating victims of gun violence and their families, such that the harm caused by gun rights is offset in society.

If you want to compensate the victims, get the money from the dipshit that shot them.

And, as we've already covered, I find it amusing that somebody can propose it's a punishment and simultaneously say it's a completely negligible figure.

I never said that it was negligible. When AL said that, they were probably assuming that it excluded intentional criminal acts from what would be insured, as is standard procedure

Gun tax is 10-11%. Would that tax suddenly be rendered a collective punishment of gun users if we spent it on victim compensation?

Not if it went through the general fund and back.

If the government charged you a tax of a single cent every year for being a brony, this would be negligible, yes?

If the government punished failure to pay that tax on time with twenty years in prison, this would be punitive, yes?

A tax on "Being" something is a little different, but we'll go with it. Typically yes, failure to pay taxes results in punishment.

A tax meant to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights is an infringement. It doesn't matter if said right is "being", "doing", or "having".

[Ostroeuropa]

Being taxed for owning property is not the same as being taxed for an intrinsic quality about yourself, because you can decide to ditch the gun or surrender it if you can't pay, and it can be seized for failure to pay.

That can't be done with internal qualities. But that's a quibble. You could compare it to "A tax on having a brony profile picture" and that would be better.



If your concern is the extent of punitive measure for failure to pay, what do you think would be an acceptable cap on the punishment? I'm personally fine with seizure and then you've got a few months to backpay the amount owed or you lose your claim to the gun as the cap. I don't think people should go to jail over it.

If instead you're opposed outright, then could you stop pretending its because you're scared of overreach?

Being a grown ass adult who's a fan of a children's cartoon is not an immutable characteristic.

The correct cap on the punishment is fucking nothing, because the while thing is an absurd angle that exists only to serve as a punitive scheme.

I had no idea I could surrender my personal tastes to the government mate.

And I see. So we can in fact stop pretending you're concerned about overreach. In which case, we're back to the question of how are you being punished by paying a nickel, but only if it's spent on other people?

[Grinning Dragon]

Being taxed for owning property is not the same as being taxed for an intrinsic quality about yourself, because you can decide to ditch the gun or surrender it if you can't pay, and it can be seized for failure to pay.

That can't be done with internal qualities. But that's a quibble. You could compare it to "A tax on having a brony profile picture" and that would be better.



If your concern is the extent of punitive measure for failure to pay, what do you think would be an acceptable cap on the punishment? I'm personally fine with seizure and then you've got a few months to backpay the amount owed or you lose your claim to the gun as the cap. I don't think people should go to jail over it.

If instead you're opposed outright, then could you stop pretending its because you're scared of overreach?

Being a grown ass adult who's a fan of a children's cartoon is not an immutable characteristic.

The correct cap on the punishment is fucking nothing, because the while thing is an absurd angle that exists only to serve as a punitive scheme.

It's also basing the assumption that every firearm owner is somehow culpable for the action(s) of another all under the political propaganda term of "gun violence", considering there is no such thing as "gun violence" as firearms are not the cause of violence.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Hating the poor ain't cool, yo.

Out of interest WRA, if it could be means tested, what are your thoughts?

I don't see much of a reason for it, personally. Especially because it would absolutely be abused in blue states.

[American Legionaries]

Being a grown ass adult who's a fan of a children's cartoon is not an immutable characteristic.

The correct cap on the punishment is fucking nothing, because the while thing is an absurd angle that exists only to serve as a punitive scheme.

I had no idea I could surrender my personal tastes to the government mate.

And I see. So we can in fact stop pretending you're concerned about overreach. In which case, we're back to the question of how are you being punished by paying a nickel, but only if it's spent on other people?

You are proposing that people surrender their personal tastes to the government as we speak.

We're not back to that, as it's a fabrication of yours and not relevant to any actual position or statement held or expressed by anyone here.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Being a grown ass adult who's a fan of a children's cartoon is not an immutable characteristic.

The correct cap on the punishment is fucking nothing, because the while thing is an absurd angle that exists only to serve as a punitive scheme.

It's also basing the assumption that every firearm owner is somehow culpable for the action(s) of another all under the political propaganda term of "gun violence", considering there is no such thing as "gun violence" as firearms are not the cause of violence.

It’s also a lazy approach to an actually big problem. The weapon is merely a tool. The issues that drive violence are what need fixing.

Also, your point about blaming every person who owns a firearm for the actions of others is something that needs to change. Personal responsibility applies. If I decide to go shoot skaters in downtown Orlando, you aren’t to blame.

I do often consider, however, if rising the age of consent for owning or operating a gun/rifle from 16/18 years old to 21 years old should be considered. I do understand that that requires certain changes to when the military can conscript or whatever, but it’s something I do think about.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's also basing the assumption that every firearm owner is somehow culpable for the action(s) of another all under the political propaganda term of "gun violence", considering there is no such thing as "gun violence" as firearms are not the cause of violence.

It’s also a lazy approach to an actually big problem. The weapon is merely a tool. The issues that drive violence are what need fixing.

Also, your point about blaming every person who owns a firearm for the actions of others is something that needs to change. Personal responsibility applies. If I decide to go shoot skaters in downtown Orlando, you aren’t to blame.

I do often consider, however, if rising the age of consent for owning or operating a gun/rifle from 16/18 years old to 21 years old should be considered. I do understand that that requires certain changes to when the military can conscript or whatever, but it’s something I do think about.

I don't see externality taxes as punishment and would submit this is probably a uniquely American mindset. It's simply an expansion of the principle like a tax on smoking to cover undue costs to the NHS caused by the legality of cigarettes.

"Don't charge me, charge the guy who got cancer" is fairly obviously silly there and we can understand why fairly intuitively. It's not a punishment to expect people who want society to indulge a behavior to ensure society isn't left subsidizing their hobby. At least, not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of a lot of others who support these kind of taxes ad mechanisms.

I'm a smoker. I don't feel punished by cigarette taxes. I'm also, comparatively speaking, quite unlikely to get cancer due to my families genes and their habitual smoking never having done them in. But even if I were to assume "I will never get cancer", I don't view it as society punishing me to do it, because I accept that if they didn't, the behavior they allow me to engage in would cost all of them a lot of money.

The alternative would be them coming up with something like you suggest. Finding some way to screen everybody and be like "Well you can smoke because you're incredibly low risk, but he can't.". That seems unworkable to me in comparison. I am not convinced you can adequately screen gun ownership, and attempting to will still having society left holding the bag. It becomes a question of gun owners responsibilities to others.

[Juansonia]

Being a grown ass adult who's a fan of a children's cartoon is not an immutable characteristic.

The correct cap on the punishment is fucking nothing, because the while thing is an absurd angle that exists only to serve as a punitive scheme.

I had no idea I could surrender my personal tastes to the government mate.

And I see. So we can in fact stop pretending you're concerned about overreach. In which case, we're back to the question of how are you being punished by paying a nickel, but only if it's spent on other people?

The thing is, we would owe a nickel because we happen to exercise the constitutional right that happens to be colloquially associated with dipshits shooting up victims.

Any compensation to the victims should come from the offender's punishment, voluntary contributions, or the general fund. Then, it's either because you're the dipshit who owes them, you're giving it to them, or the government's giving the money to them.

[Ostroeuropa]

I had no idea I could surrender my personal tastes to the government mate.

And I see. So we can in fact stop pretending you're concerned about overreach. In which case, we're back to the question of how are you being punished by paying a nickel, but only if it's spent on other people?

The thing is, we would owe a nickel because we happen to exercise the constitutional right that happens to be colloquially associated with dipshits shooting up victims.

Any compensation to the victims should come from the offender's punishment, voluntary contributions, or the general fund. Then, it's either because you're the dipshit who owes them, you're giving it to them, or the government's giving the money to them.

Alright. So if it were from the general fund, and somebody noted "The amount of payouts to victims families exceeds the amount garnered from the already existing gun tax", just hypothetically, and they proposed raising it, would that be punishment in your opinion?

That's genuinely a fairly surprising revelation if so. that is not, as far as i'm aware, how most countries view taxes.

Or does the mere act of mixing it in the general fund make it different? Even if close attention is paid to how much the cost is and the tax is pretty directly related to it?

(I'm not dismissing that possibility. I could be sold on it largely on ritualistic terms. To single out a direct mechanism for gun owners to compensate others rather than have them first place money into a "Public pool" could be seen as a kind of messing with the due process. Even if it's largely a matter of ceremony and so on, that isn't unimportant. There may well be a substantive difference between "There was 10 million paid out in gun deaths this year, so we're taking 10 million of gun owners to give to victims" and "There was 10 million paid out in gun deaths this year. The tax on gun owners yielded 7 million. We're raising it by 3 million. We're taking the 10 million of gun owners, putting it in a pile with everybody elses money, mixing it around a bit, and then paying out 10 million.".)

It's not *nothing*, i'll give you that.

[American Legionaries]

The thing is, we would owe a nickel because we happen to exercise the constitutional right that happens to be colloquially associated with dipshits shooting up victims.

Any compensation to the victims should come from the offender's punishment, voluntary contributions, or the general fund. Then, it's either because you're the dipshit who owes them, you're giving it to them, or the government's giving the money to them.

Alright. So if it were from the general fund, and somebody noted "The amount of payouts to victims families exceeds the amount garnered from the already existing gun tax", just hypothetically, and they proposed raising it, would that be punishment in your opinion?

That's genuinely a fairly surprising revelation if so. that is not, as far as i'm aware, how most countries view taxes.

Or does the mere act of mixing it in the general fund make it different? Even if close attention is paid to how much the cost is and the tax is pretty directly related to it?

The presence of a specific gun tax is penal in nature already.

And that ought to be how everyone views taxes. When I bought deep fried chicken this morning, I was assessed a tax. That tax doesn't go to the fried chicken fund, it just goes to the general government coffer, to be used to fund everything from medical care, to road paving, to the maintenance of parks and so on and so forth. If at any point the current available funding is not meeting expenses, the government should adjust the tax rate to compensate, not apply specific taxes on specific products in an attempt to control the populace.

[Ostroeuropa]

Alright. So if it were from the general fund, and somebody noted "The amount of payouts to victims families exceeds the amount garnered from the already existing gun tax", just hypothetically, and they proposed raising it, would that be punishment in your opinion?

That's genuinely a fairly surprising revelation if so. that is not, as far as i'm aware, how most countries view taxes.

Or does the mere act of mixing it in the general fund make it different? Even if close attention is paid to how much the cost is and the tax is pretty directly related to it?

The presence of a specific gun tax is penal in nature already.

And that ought to be how everyone views taxes. When I bought deep fried chicken this morning, I was assessed a tax. That tax doesn't go to the fried chicken fund, it just goes to the general government coffer, to be used to fund everything from medical care, to road paving, to the maintenance of parks and so on and so forth. If at any point the current available funding is not meeting expenses, the government should adjust the tax rate to compensate, not apply specific taxes on specific products in an attempt to control the populace.

The issue with your last point is that, for example, if you're dealing with a shortfall in government finances as a result of gun violence, you could raise general taxation by 1%.

Or you could put a specific tax on guns that when accounted for, would raise general taxation by 0.9% on average.

Because the act of concentrating the tax on an area that is related to the shortfall will reduce overall tax burden by disincentivizing the behavior. The economic reasoning is sound even before you enter "Control the populace" as a reason.

There's another example that makes this much clearer. C02 taxes and environmental cleanup expenditure.

[American Legionaries]

The presence of a specific gun tax is penal in nature already.

And that ought to be how everyone views taxes. When I bought deep fried chicken this morning, I was assessed a tax. That tax doesn't go to the fried chicken fund, it just goes to the general government coffer, to be used to fund everything from medical care, to road paving, to the maintenance of parks and so on and so forth. If at any point the current available funding is not meeting expenses, the government should adjust the tax rate to compensate, not apply specific taxes on specific products in an attempt to control the populace.

The issue with your last point is that, for example, if you're dealing with a shortfall in government finances as a result of gun violence, you could raise general taxation by 1%.

Or you could put a specific tax on guns that when accounted for, would raise general taxation by 0.9% on average.

Because the act of concentrating the tax on an area that is related to the shortfall will reduce overall tax burden by disincentivizing the behavior. The economic reasoning is sound even before you enter "Control the populace" as a reason.

The capacity to do bad things is irrelevant and hardly a counterpoint to the assertion that one ought not do bad things.

[Grinning Dragon]

It’s also a lazy approach to an actually big problem. The weapon is merely a tool. The issues that drive violence are what need fixing.

Also, your point about blaming every person who owns a firearm for the actions of others is something that needs to change. Personal responsibility applies. If I decide to go shoot skaters in downtown Orlando, you aren’t to blame.

I do often consider, however, if rising the age of consent for owning or operating a gun/rifle from 16/18 years old to 21 years old should be considered. I do understand that that requires certain changes to when the military can conscript or whatever, but it’s something I do think about.

I don't see externality taxes as punishment and would submit this is probably a uniquely American mindset. It's simply an expansion of the principle like a tax on smoking to cover undue costs to the NHS caused by the legality of cigarettes.

"Don't charge me, charge the guy who got cancer" is fairly obviously silly there and we can understand why fairly intuitively. It's not a punishment to expect people who want society to indulge a behavior to ensure society isn't left subsidizing their hobby. At least, not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of a lot of others who support these kind of taxes ad mechanisms.

I'm a smoker. I don't feel punished by cigarette taxes. I'm also, comparatively speaking, quite unlikely to get cancer due to my families genes and their habitual smoking never having done them in. But even if I were to assume "I will never get cancer", I don't view it as society punishing me to do it, because I accept that if they didn't, the behavior they allow me to engage in would cost all of them a lot of money.

The alternative would be them coming up with something like you suggest. Finding some way to screen everybody and be like "Well you can smoke because you're incredibly low risk, but he can't.". That seems unworkable to me in comparison. I am not convinced you can adequately screen gun ownership, and attempting to will still having society left holding the bag. It becomes a question of gun owners responsibilities to others.

The reason you think it is as you say an "American mindset" is due to the fact our constitutional republic is framed in part; individual rights and the right to self govern.
At the end of the day firearm owners bear NO responsibility nor culpability for the criminal actions of a third party.

[Ostroeuropa]

The issue with your last point is that, for example, if you're dealing with a shortfall in government finances as a result of gun violence, you could raise general taxation by 1%.

Or you could put a specific tax on guns that when accounted for, would raise general taxation by 0.9% on average.

Because the act of concentrating the tax on an area that is related to the shortfall will reduce overall tax burden by disincentivizing the behavior. The economic reasoning is sound even before you enter "Control the populace" as a reason.

The capacity to do bad things is irrelevant and hardly a counterpoint to the assertion that one ought not do bad things.

I have to assume you're deontologically opposed to it then, since it can't possibly be a utilitarian argument. In which case i'll ask, what do you think of taxes on pollution?

Should it instead be some vague general tax we all pay? Or specifically targeted in ways to reduce the overall expenditure environmental restoration and protection causes to the budget, on producers and consumers of products that pollute, even.

Because if you bite the bullet and say "Yes it should be generalized" I have to tell you I don't think you can call any system of thought "Moral" when it leads to the demonstrably worsening of humanities standard of living, more deaths, and so on. Targetted taxation on such matters is a demonstrable success. If instead you want to say "That example is different to this one", I'll need you to clarify what you mean by your position on taxation being punitive when it is targeted.

[American Legionaries]

The capacity to do bad things is irrelevant and hardly a counterpoint to the assertion that one ought not do bad things.

I have to assume you're deontologically opposed to it then, since it can't possibly be a utilitarian argument. In which case i'll ask, what do you think of taxes on pollution?

Should it instead be some vague general tax we all pay? Or specifically targeted in ways to reduce the overall expenditure environmental restoration and protection causes to the budget?

Because if you bite the bullet and say "Yes it should be generalized" I have to tell you I don't think you can call any system of thought "Moral" when it leads to the demonstrably worsening of humanities standard of living, more deaths, and so on. If instead you want to say "That example is different to this one", I'll need you to clarify what you mean by your position on taxation being punitive when it is targeted.

Yes, I am ideologically opposed to punitive taxes on the exercise of a citizens' rights.

[Ostroeuropa]

I have to assume you're deontologically opposed to it then, since it can't possibly be a utilitarian argument. In which case i'll ask, what do you think of taxes on pollution?

Should it instead be some vague general tax we all pay? Or specifically targeted in ways to reduce the overall expenditure environmental restoration and protection causes to the budget?

Because if you bite the bullet and say "Yes it should be generalized" I have to tell you I don't think you can call any system of thought "Moral" when it leads to the demonstrably worsening of humanities standard of living, more deaths, and so on. If instead you want to say "That example is different to this one", I'll need you to clarify what you mean by your position on taxation being punitive when it is targeted.

Yes, I am ideologically opposed to punitive taxes on the exercise of a citizens' rights.

Well so long as we know that taking you seriously will lead to climate disaster, I think we can leave it there. Either most people will agree that they'd rather go through all that environmental collapse malary than do something "immoral", or they'll agree with me that people have duties to other people and shouldn't cause such outcomes by their behaviour, and others have a right to prevent them defaulting on those obligations.

I don't see externality taxes as punishment and would submit this is probably a uniquely American mindset. It's simply an expansion of the principle like a tax on smoking to cover undue costs to the NHS caused by the legality of cigarettes.

"Don't charge me, charge the guy who got cancer" is fairly obviously silly there and we can understand why fairly intuitively. It's not a punishment to expect people who want society to indulge a behavior to ensure society isn't left subsidizing their hobby. At least, not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of a lot of others who support these kind of taxes ad mechanisms.

I'm a smoker. I don't feel punished by cigarette taxes. I'm also, comparatively speaking, quite unlikely to get cancer due to my families genes and their habitual smoking never having done them in. But even if I were to assume "I will never get cancer", I don't view it as society punishing me to do it, because I accept that if they didn't, the behavior they allow me to engage in would cost all of them a lot of money.

The alternative would be them coming up with something like you suggest. Finding some way to screen everybody and be like "Well you can smoke because you're incredibly low risk, but he can't.". That seems unworkable to me in comparison. I am not convinced you can adequately screen gun ownership, and attempting to will still having society left holding the bag. It becomes a question of gun owners responsibilities to others.

The reason you think it is as you say an "American mindset" is due to the fact our constitutional republic is framed in part; individual rights and the right to self govern.
At the end of the day firearm owners bear NO responsibility nor culpability for the criminal actions of a third party.

Plenty of countries are similar to that, but nonetheless don't have the same degree of hostility to the notion of having obligations to other people.

I suspect it started when the first president to explain to you you should be asking what you could do for others got his brains shot out. America died with him and such, and now it's just a post-apocalyptic mad max hellscape, a series of individuals, no nation to be spoken of really. Just vague memories of one.

I'm being facetious obviously. But it's definitely a troubling insight into America and I can't explain it.

[American Legionaries]

Yes, I am ideologically opposed to punitive taxes on the exercise of a citizens' rights.

Well so long as we know that taking you seriously will lead to climate disaster, I think we can leave it there. Either most people will agree that they'd rather go through all that environmental collapse malary than do something "immoral", or they'll agree with me that people have duties to other people and shouldn't cause such outcomes by their behaviour, and others have a right to prevent them defaulting on those obligations.

The reason you think it is as you say an "American mindset" is due to the fact our constitutional republic is framed in part; individual rights and the right to self govern.
At the end of the day firearm owners bear NO responsibility nor culpability for the criminal actions of a third party.

Plenty of countries are similar to that, but nonetheless don't have the same degree of hostility to the notion of having obligations to other people.

I suspect it started when the first president to explain to you you should be asking what you could do for others got his brains shot out. America died with him and such, and now it's just a post-apocalyptic mad max hellscape, a series of individuals, no nation to be spoken of really. Just vague memories of one.

I'm being facetious obviously. But it's definitely a troubling insight into America and I can't explain it.

I fail to see how what I said relates to climate change whatsoever.

[Kernen]

Yes, I am ideologically opposed to punitive taxes on the exercise of a citizens' rights.

Well so long as we know that taking you seriously will lead to climate disaster, I think we can leave it there. Either most people will agree that they'd rather go through all that environmental collapse malary than do something "immoral", or they'll agree with me that people have duties to other people and shouldn't cause such outcomes by their behaviour, and others have a right to prevent them defaulting on those obligations.

The reason you think it is as you say an "American mindset" is due to the fact our constitutional republic is framed in part; individual rights and the right to self govern.
At the end of the day firearm owners bear NO responsibility nor culpability for the criminal actions of a third party.

Plenty of countries are similar to that, but nonetheless don't have the same degree of hostility to the notion of having obligations to other people.

I suspect it started when the first president to explain to you you should be asking what you could do for others got his brains shot out. America died with him and such, and now it's just a post-apocalyptic mad max hellscape, a series of individuals, no nation to be spoken of really. Just vague memories of one.

I'm being facetious obviously. But it's definitely a troubling insight into America and I can't explain it.

We have the general duty to avoid causing foreseeable, direct harm to specific victims from our own acts. Not to prevent harm generally to uncertain persons or to otherwise restrain intervening parties. No more.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well so long as we know that taking you seriously will lead to climate disaster, I think we can leave it there. Either most people will agree that they'd rather go through all that environmental collapse malary than do something "immoral", or they'll agree with me that people have duties to other people and shouldn't cause such outcomes by their behaviour, and others have a right to prevent them defaulting on those obligations.



Plenty of countries are similar to that, but nonetheless don't have the same degree of hostility to the notion of having obligations to other people.

I suspect it started when the first president to explain to you you should be asking what you could do for others got his brains shot out. America died with him and such, and now it's just a post-apocalyptic mad max hellscape, a series of individuals, no nation to be spoken of really. Just vague memories of one.

I'm being facetious obviously. But it's definitely a troubling insight into America and I can't explain it.

We have the general duty to avoid causing foreseeable, direct harm to specific victims from our own acts. Not to prevent harm generally to uncertain persons or to otherwise restrain intervening parties. No more.

This seems to me to be an outgrowth of libertarian and conservative thought, and i'd challenge left wing gun advocates to consider the implication of that and what "Responsible gun owner" means in the context of a left wing value system. You've articulated a negative sense of responsibility rather than a positive sense, and this has implications beyond merely gun ownership, but extends into things like taxation and welfare in general.

(Negative and positive used because of the comparison to negative and positive rights).

I'd suggest this is probably necessary if gun rights are something you care about, as articulating a left wing framework of "Responsible gun owner" that doesn't rely on the language of negative rights, but instead acknowledges positive rights and obligations to society and others, is I suspect going to be a better sell to the anti-gun crowd in America who wish to abolish them outright or severely limit their usage for its own sake as a form of harm prevention, rather than social responsibility.

[Techocracy101010]

It’s also a lazy approach to an actually big problem. The weapon is merely a tool. The issues that drive violence are what need fixing.

Also, your point about blaming every person who owns a firearm for the actions of others is something that needs to change. Personal responsibility applies. If I decide to go shoot skaters in downtown Orlando, you aren’t to blame.

I do often consider, however, if rising the age of consent for owning or operating a gun/rifle from 16/18 years old to 21 years old should be considered. I do understand that that requires certain changes to when the military can conscript or whatever, but it’s something I do think about.

I don't see externality taxes as punishment and would submit this is probably a uniquely American mindset. It's simply an expansion of the principle like a tax on smoking to cover undue costs to the NHS caused by the legality of cigarettes.

"Don't charge me, charge the guy who got cancer" is fairly obviously silly there and we can understand why fairly intuitively. It's not a punishment to expect people who want society to indulge a behavior to ensure society isn't left subsidizing their hobby. At least, not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of a lot of others who support these kind of taxes ad mechanisms.

I'm a smoker. I don't feel punished by cigarette taxes. I'm also, comparatively speaking, quite unlikely to get cancer due to my families genes and their habitual smoking never having done them in. But even if I were to assume "I will never get cancer", I don't view it as society punishing me to do it, because I accept that if they didn't, the behavior they allow me to engage in would cost all of them a lot of money.

The alternative would be them coming up with something like you suggest. Finding some way to screen everybody and be like "Well you can smoke because you're incredibly low risk, but he can't.". That seems unworkable to me in comparison. I am not convinced you can adequately screen gun ownership, and attempting to will still having society left holding the bag. It becomes a question of gun owners responsibilities to others.

Guns already have a special tax aka wild life restoration trust fund guns ammo and accessories fund a bunch of wildlife preservation . Last i checked it raised 15 billion so if ya like birds open clean land etc us gun nuts keep it afloat . https://thereload.com/gun-tax-revenue-f ... 5-billion/

[Galloism]

It’s also a lazy approach to an actually big problem. The weapon is merely a tool. The issues that drive violence are what need fixing.

Also, your point about blaming every person who owns a firearm for the actions of others is something that needs to change. Personal responsibility applies. If I decide to go shoot skaters in downtown Orlando, you aren’t to blame.

I do often consider, however, if rising the age of consent for owning or operating a gun/rifle from 16/18 years old to 21 years old should be considered. I do understand that that requires certain changes to when the military can conscript or whatever, but it’s something I do think about.

I don't see externality taxes as punishment and would submit this is probably a uniquely American mindset. It's simply an expansion of the principle like a tax on smoking to cover undue costs to the NHS caused by the legality of cigarettes.

"Don't charge me, charge the guy who got cancer" is fairly obviously silly there and we can understand why fairly intuitively. It's not a punishment to expect people who want society to indulge a behavior to ensure society isn't left subsidizing their hobby. At least, not in my opinion, and not in the opinion of a lot of others who support these kind of taxes ad mechanisms.

I'm a smoker. I don't feel punished by cigarette taxes. I'm also, comparatively speaking, quite unlikely to get cancer due to my families genes and their habitual smoking never having done them in. But even if I were to assume "I will never get cancer", I don't view it as society punishing me to do it, because I accept that if they didn't, the behavior they allow me to engage in would cost all of them a lot of money.

The alternative would be them coming up with something like you suggest. Finding some way to screen everybody and be like "Well you can smoke because you're incredibly low risk, but he can't.". That seems unworkable to me in comparison. I am not convinced you can adequately screen gun ownership, and attempting to will still having society left holding the bag. It becomes a question of gun owners responsibilities to others.

Random factoid - if we used externality taxes, we would actually tax *not* smoking instead of smoking.

Smokers cost the healthcare system less than nonsmokers because they tend to die before the medical costs skyrocket to insane levels.

[Grinning Dragon]

We have the general duty to avoid causing foreseeable, direct harm to specific victims from our own acts. Not to prevent harm generally to uncertain persons or to otherwise restrain intervening parties. No more.

This seems to me to be an outgrowth of libertarian and conservative thought, and i'd challenge left wing gun advocates to consider the implication of that and what "Responsible gun owner" means in the context of a left wing value system. You've articulated a negative sense of responsibility rather than a positive sense, and this has implications beyond merely gun ownership, but extends into things like taxation and welfare in general.

(Negative and positive used because of the comparison to negative and positive rights).

I'd suggest this is probably necessary if gun rights are something you care about, as articulating a left wing framework of "Responsible gun owner" that doesn't rely on the language of negative rights, but instead acknowledges positive rights and obligations to society and others, is I suspect going to be a better sell to the anti-gun crowd in America who wish to abolish them outright or severely limit their usage for its own sake as a form of harm prevention, rather than social responsibility.

The Bill of Rights is a mix of negative and positive rights, with the 2nd being recognized as a negative (natural) right and was thusly enumerated.

[Grinning Dragon]

Add Florida as another state that bans the use of firearms-specific MCC