A Patrick Henry High School alum addresses Congress!
Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association tangles with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
January 30, 2013 - 1:48 PM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Don't Miss
Enter your photo in the Ultimate Fan contest by midnight to win a suite night at a Salem Red Sox game and a chance at a trip to Fenway Park.
January 30, 2013 - 1:48 PM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
57 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Friday, May 24, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
The problem is he has nothing of value or intelligence to say.
Here is hoping there are not many more that think like this guy around here. But at times I sure do run into some and at times it can be downright funny.
PH has a number of distinguished graduates. Lapierre, unfortunately, is not one of them.
“PH has a number of distinguished graduates.”
There’s “pammala”!!!
Straw purchasers will command more $$$; that’s all. Durbin is a fool to believe otherwise. Obviously nothing was learned from prohibition.
http://news.yahoo.com/biden-wrong-police-deaths-210804472–politics.html
Seems Biden and Feinstein have been making up some of their statistics. A canard, as Dan likes to say.
The Federal Govt is not enforcing the current law requiring the States to submit mental health information (adjusdicated mental defective)to NICS. If they aren’t enforcing that basic element of current law, how is more law going to change that?
Sounds like a little dose of common sense. Of course background checks won’t stop bad guys from getting guns. They don’t shop at Dick’s Sporting Goods or gun shows. I don’t understand why though the NRA and conservatives are fighting this. Rather they should say “all right you liberal geniuses, let’s give it a try”. And then later, oh yeah that’s what it thought, didn’t work. Kind of like the last “assault weapons” ban.
“Why do Conservatives Seem to Believe that Outlawing Guns Won’t Prevent Gun Violence, but Outlawing Abortion Will Prevent Abortion?“
Right… Because requiring registration of handguns has worked so flawlessly. Unregistered handguns never end up in criminal’s hands, do they? Durbin thinking that regulations will sap the will of criminals to purchase weapons is naivety of a most heinous sort. LaPierre thinking that we can continue with no further regulations at all is stubborn, short-sighted self-delusion. The above video is precisely why I’ve withdrawn from trying to make reasonable arguments about gun control; you’ve got two clueless idiots on opposite ends of the spectrum trying to out idiot one another. In this case, I’ll make an exception to my abstinence.
What is the point in requiring registration of all guns when I can make a couple of phone calls and have virtually any weapon I want delivered to my door – no registration, no background checks? It’s not a matter of legalities or availability; it’s only a matter of cash. Illegally purchased weapons are one hundred times the scourge to society as legally purchased weapons are. Where are the ideas for getting those off of the streets? Anyone claiming that mandated registration will measurably affect that completely independent market is either being foolish or has been fooled. All you’ll succeed in doing is making more money for the illegal dealers.
As I’ve said a dozen times or more on this blog alone: the gun problem is small; the people problem is huge. The above Durbin-LaPierre “debate” is proof of that. We need to find a way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable and we need to find a way to place as little extra burden as possible on law-abiding, stable gun owners while doing so.
There is still the matter of paying for all of this, too. Washington can’t sign an autograph without charging an exorbitant amount of money for it. When you elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, you get precisely that for which you voted. To expect law-abiding gun-owners to solely foot the bill for new regulation/enforcement is ludicrous. It amounts to the proposed hybrid car annual fee; it’s designed as a punishment to those who were doing the right thing from the beginning. After all, aren’t the pro-gun-control crowds directly benefiting from increased regulation and decreased access to guns? Do they expect to get what they want and make someone else pay for it, too? Everyone must pay, and not until real ideas are put forth and real solutions are calculated.
The only gun regulations that can be considered meaningful and realistic are ones that view the proposals not as a means to an end, but a means to a beginning. I don’t think that anyone can logically argue any longer that nothing need be done to fix the problem or that there is no problem. The problem is the bodies of our children – our future – being put in the ground before their time. Violence does that, not guns.
We need to do something. This will be a difficult to traverse path, no doubt. We will stumble. We will make mistakes. We’re human, after all. But we’re also Americans. When we pull together and work toward a common goal, we have been some of the greatest innovators and problem-solvers in history. Together, we harnessed the power of the atom. Together, we put men on the moon. We must squash the bitter division, for it leads to absolutely nothing but stagnation and corrosion. We can’t move forward until we’re pointed in a common direction, people.
If you don’t want to work with the team, sit down, strap in and shut up. We are going to go forward, with or without you. You can still come along for the ride, though; it’s going to be interesting, to say the least.
aren’t the pro-gun-control crowds directly benefiting from increased regulation and decreased access to guns? Do they expect to get what they want and make someone else pay for it, too?
comment by J.M.W.
J.M., I don’t how much experience you’ve had as a provider of emergency response, trauma medicine, or a provider of healthcare generally, but just in those areas alone, the firearm industry is currently “getting what they want and making someone else pay for it” as you put it. If we can simply lessen the cost shifting that occurs with firearms, we’ll have made a great improvement in American life, as is also true of the cost shifting onto the public of tobacco use, alcohol use, sprawl development, and financial speculation.
I think the point in requiring registration of all guns is precisely to begin the process of line of responsibility and stop the casual, easy flow of those guns you “can make a couple of phone calls and have virtually any weapon I want delivered to my door – no registration, no background checks”. At present there is little to no repercussion for straw buyers, or the “disappearing” of legally purchased guns.
This nation, us, will never stand for massive gun banning or confiscation from anyone not a danger or criminal, BTW, did you hear the neighbors describing the Lanzas and this nut in Alabama?
Registration and making these AR-15 type guns Class III weapons is a start, and IMO a good one to having a “well regulated militia” and ONLY law abiding gun owners in the long run.
Making the guns harder to get DOES help with crime and mass shootings. It simply does.
Sandi wrote: Registration and making these AR-15 type guns Class III weapons is a start, and IMO a good one to having a “well regulated militia” and ONLY law abiding gun owners in the long run.
The “AR-15 type” guns were banned from 1994 to 2004. This ban had zero affect on gun crime. This imperical data was proven over a 10-year period. I suppose you and Obama just don’t like big, scary looking guns…but your wishes should not limit the freedoms of law abiding citizens. By the way, I don’t own an assualt weapon, but I’m considering buying one due to the threat of future government control. Check out the soaring sales of these weapons, and you will see I’m not alone.
Warren: Correct me if I’m wrong, but most gun owners have insurance, too, which is where the true cost of gun violence to the public at large is amortized. When it comes to trauma care and health care, we all pay for it in the end in the form the rising health care costs. What I’m specifically standing against is making the one part of the gun demographic that is obeying the laws and is not a threat to the public having to pay an annual fee (tax) for their firearms. I really have no problem with a one time, point-of-sale tax, so long as it’s not exorbitant.
My idea, which has been hissed every time I’ve brought it up, is a $0.02 tax per round of ammunition sold, with the money being put in an independent trust fund (sorry, pols, you don’t get to raid this from the general fund). It is to be used specifically for victims of gun violence and education. With over a billion rounds sold in the U.S. each year, that money adds up pretty quickly. I choose to tax ammo because guns don’t kill anyone; it’s the projectiles they launch that kill and maim. The only other thing that money from the fund can be used for is to directly pay down the national debt and only once per fiscal year. Guns aren’t going anywhere, so we might as well properly educate our children in how violent and beneficial guns really are. Would the above not appropriately shift costs? I’m certainly willing to pay an additional 25 cents to a dollar per box of ammo if it keeps us from creating a new giant inefficient bureaucracy that will ultimately become more of a monster than the problem that it was created to fix.
This 2nd Amendment rights are considered “sacred” – even when guns can be killing machines. A woman’s right to choose is unworthy of real consideration; is characterized as not a “real” constitutional right; can be obstructed by religious zealots; and treated as a person destroying a “sacred” life. Somehow the slaughtering and murder by guns of innocents won’t require restrictions – “destroying life” by a semi-automatic weapon is protected. A woman saving her own life or sanity with a medical procedure must be demonized,restricted or outlawed. Why are gun rights more important than a woman’s right to control her own reproduction? When did this happen?
Planned Parenthood clinics are being eliminated, while gun shops sprout up all over cities and states. Women are viewed as too ill-informed to make a decision about their own lives and bodies, and therefore forced to view a video or undergo invasive procedures to exercise this right; however, a killing machine may be possessed by females as young as ten, and even younger in some states. No one dare challenge the right to own a gun, but a woman is challenged by pharmacists, priests, and those without a uterus on a daily basis. The gun advocates claim the government has no business regulating their “rights” – but many of this same group advocate for the government to get in the “business” of regulating women.
The message is clear: do not regulate, control or challenge the gun owners’ 2nd Amendment right to “bear arms” – but take every opportunity to impugn a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body.
The hypocrisy never ends.
Thankfully we require ID to purchase alcohol, which is why teens don’t drink.
I don’t understand why though the NRA and conservatives are fighting this. Rather they should say “all right you liberal geniuses, let’s give it a try”. And then later, oh yeah that’s what it thought, didn’t work. Kind of like the last “assault weapons” ban.
Comment by Eddie — January 30, 2013 @ 9:23 pm
Because it isn’t about keeping criminals from getting guns. We know they will get guns. It is about registering the guns that law-abiding citizens purchase, and for that purpose it would be quite the success story.
Registration and making these AR-15 type guns Class III weapons is a start…
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 31, 2013 @ 9:40 am
Playing expert again? There is no such thing as a Class III weapon. There is a Class III license that someone can get to sell Title 2 firearms, but there is no such thing as a Class III weapon.
If you want someone to take you seriously on a topic, you should come across as if to know something about the topic, even if you don’t really.
If there was a 2 cents per-bullet tax of the kind J.M. White has suggested, would criminals be able to thwart that?
If there was a 2 cents per-bullet tax of the kind J.M. White has suggested, would criminals be able to thwart that?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 31, 2013 @ 1:12 pm
Many people would, not just criminals. It is perfectly legal to make ammunition at home, and many people do.
Dan, they could if they stole the ammo, or bought stolen ammo from the black market…sort of how a lot of black market goods get sold, because they were stolen at some point.
Jack, following your logic, ALL laws only penalize law-abiding citizens. So why bother having any? Why should we all have to take off our shoes at the airport because one terrorist hid a bomb in his shoes? Why should we ALL be stripped of our bottled water, because someday maybe 1 terrorist will hid C4 in a liquid bottle? Why do we have any of these laws?
January 31, 2013 @ 1:12 pm
That tax would primarily penalize sports shooters because they shoot a lot of ammo. Do you honestly think a criminal is going to say “2 cents?? No way. I’ll use this free rock instead.” or “I had to raise the price of this 8-ball to $9 to pay for all the ammo I’m shooting at the range”?
I don’t think the sports shooters have been the problem.
Thankfully we require ID to purchase alcohol, which is why teens don’t drink.
Comment by Jack — January 31, 2013 @ 12:34 pm
Nice to know that Jack believes no teens drink alcohol. Wonder what alternative universe he’s living in?
Ron, I’m pretty sure that was sarcasm from Jack…
Hey Jack, you are being a poor ambassador for gun rights and civility…again. Owning a class 3 weapon is a perfectly good phrase when they use it apparently. As is claiming to be “specialists in Class 3 weapons and military weapons”
Why don’t you get over your, Class 3 puritanical self and leave people alone?
There is no need to have to say the whole Title II weapons from a Class III dealer for anyone who “knows guns” to know what I am speaking of. And anyone who does not can Google “Class III weapons” and find out in an instant.
Whiner.
I’m living in the alternative universe with the people who think that criminals won’t have guns if we require a background check for each purpose, much like teens won’t have alcohol if we require ID.
Ron, I do believe that was sarcasm from Jack. Of course if Jack WAS being sarcastic, then I guess he’s saying we should just give up trying if something doesn’t work 100 percent.
*purchase (not “purpose”, sorry, typo)
Rhetorical question, Jack: Why should drunk driving be illegal? Most drunk drivers don’t kill anyone.
Another Chuck, I do not believe the actual research backs you up on that whole “ban had zero affect on gun crime” thing.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
“Criminal use of the banned guns
declined, at least temporarily
Evidence suggests that the ban
may have contributed to a reduction
in the gun murder rate and
murders of police officers by criminals
armed with assault weapons”
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf
“National-level data suggest that the use of assault weapons, as measured by trace requests to BATF, declined in 1995 in the wake of the Crime Act. The 20 percent decrease in assault weapon trace requests from 1994 to 1995 was greater than occurred overall, and it was greater than the 6 to 12 percent national drop in violent
gun crime.”
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf
“…available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms.”
http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Banning_Assault_Weapons_A_Legal_Primer_8.05_entire.pdf
It is fair to say that banning weapons not used in most shootings is not going to have substantial effect on murders or gun crime, but removing these machismo laden mass shooting choice of weapons is just not something that is going to negatively affect law abiding gun owners and their ability for self-defense either. This is now seen as a weapon of terror and that alone matters to many of us.
I think we can live with simply making them available only with Class III gun dealers and the more stringent controls as opposed to an actual ban (I also doubt either happens).
It is not fair to say the “ban had zero affect on gun crime”, but it also did not hurt self defense.
Hey Jack, guess what! You can make beer in your house and avoid state and federal beer taxes!
Who does this? Hardly anyone. What’s your point?
Jack,
The universe in which you’re living is even more “alternate” that probably even YOU imagine. Here’s why: 74 percent of current and former NRA members support universal background checks. 85 percent of gun owners support universal background checks.
Why should we all have to take off our shoes at the airport because one terrorist hid a bomb in his shoes? Why should we ALL be stripped of our bottled water, because someday maybe 1 terrorist will hid C4 in a liquid bottle? Why do we have any of these laws?
Comment by Kristen — January 31, 2013 @ 1:29 pm
Neither of these things are laws and neither of them make any of us any safer.
The universe in which you’re living is even more “alternate” that probably even YOU imagine. Here’s why: 74 percent of current and former NRA members support universal background checks. 85 percent of gun owners support universal background checks.
Comment by Dan Casey — January 31, 2013 @ 2:50 pm
Good for them… then you shouldn’t have a problem getting it passed.
“Dan, they could if they stole the ammo, or bought stolen ammo from the black market…sort of how a lot of black market goods get sold, because they were stolen at some point.”
–Comment by OJ
OJ, have you bought any tax-free, stolen, black-market beer lately? Or any black-market bullets? Is there even a substantial consumer market for black market ammo?
The fact is, a 2-cents per bullet tax is hardly onerous enough to encourage major black market activity.
Debating with gun advocates is like debating with people who say our climate crisis isn’t caused by “people”, because hey, there have been hot summers before and there were people!
Or that tobacco doesn’t cause death to hundreds of thousands of people each year, because gee, there are non-smokers who get cancer too.
Gun advocates just keep repeating the same old mantra…. “none of these restrictions will work – they were tried before and they didn’t work” – “guns don’t kill people…blah blah blah.”
It is the guns. Gun violence is about GUNS.
Guns like the AR-15 make it easy to kill many in minutes – no knife attack, no baseball bat attack, or other weapons cause the slaughter of so many like the weapons developed for the military. Weapons converted into killing machines with high capacity magazines have no place in a civil society – not for hunting and not for “protection”. When a fight breaks out between individuals – no longer is it a fistfight, instead it becomes a gunfight – the readily available tool of revenge can be bought and sold everyday.
Children slaughtered; futures eradicated; families shattered – why should the NRA and its members get to choose whether life in the US is the American dream, or the American nightmare?
Nope, I buy my stuff retail…and I honestly have no idea about how large a black market there might be.
I was thinking more along the lines of how many years ago there was a big black market for cigarettes due to the high taxes on them, and that thefts of trucks hauling them was a somewhat common occurance, with the contents being sold far below normal retail/taxed prices.
And you’re right, 2 center per round would not deter anyone or really cause a major black market to develop.
Hell, in shopping around online last night for 9mm Luger ammo, the prices ranged from about 25 cents a round to 40 cents per round as the sites i was checking. Unless a tax was added that increased the ammo sale price by more than say 50%, I doubt much would really change.
And, honestly, there’s probably a larger price increase right now due to hoarding of supplies by the paranoid than anything else…the massive, largely irrational, buying has caused a shortage (Wal-Mart announced they are rationing sales to 3 boxes per person, per day until supplies improve) and as a result, many retailers are charging far more to either profit on the paranoia or to help control inventory by discouraging large orders (when this happens with gas or hotels during a hurricane, that’s commonly called price gouging).
Jack, please address my point that all laws only effect those who follow them. And why gun laws are any different.
The only gun regulations that can be considered meaningful and realistic are ones that view the proposals not as a means to an end, but a means to a beginning.
Comment by J.M. White — January 30, 2013 @ 11:43 pm
JM, your entire comment was eloquent as always, but I thought this line was quite good. In response, Sandi said, in part:
I think the point in requiring registration of all guns is precisely to begin the process of line of responsibility and stop the casual, easy flow of those guns you “can make a couple of phone calls and have virtually any weapon I want delivered to my door – no registration, no background checks”. At present there is little to no repercussion for straw buyers, or the “disappearing” of legally purchased.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 31, 2013 @ 9:40 am
I agree with Sandi. We must begin the process of tracking those guns that fall into the black hole that feeds criminals. Registration at every purchase is a beginning, a small piece of a multi-layered approach that includes a critical look at mental health services and at criminal prosecution of weapons violations. A good, long look at our safety protocols is in there, too.
Though I agree with Sandi, I am mindful of the points you make. Balancing the need to address mass killings with possible infringement of the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess guns should remain front and center. It will be a long and arduous task.
Well said JM and Sandi!
Comment by Hillary — January 31, 2013 @ 10:23 am
+ 1 Hillary.
Kristen,
Laws do not prevent anyone from doing anything at all. Now, the threat of a particular consequence for breaking that law (and getting caught) does.
What the government is trying to do with the “AW”B, for example, is punish people simply for possession of an item.
I do not believe that it should be illegal to possess an item. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think it should be illegal to do certain things with said item, but simply possessing it in a responsible way should not be a crime.
Laws effect both law-abiding citizens and criminals. Existing laws, when enforced, punish a criminal for shooting someone in the chest (providing he gets caught).
The proposed laws would punish me for shooting nobody.
Sorry, I’m a bit out of it today. It’s been a rough day.
Dan,
Although we regularly disagree, I assume you have some sense of logical reality.
Even VA’s current legislature has bills to curb the cigarette black market (a catalyst from high taxes in other states).
These taxes didn’t begin as “onerous”, they became onerous as a tax raising vehicle. I believe NYC’s tax on cigarettes is now pushing $7/pk or $140/carton. In VA you can buy at less than $50/carton take them to NYC (sell below cost) and make tens of thousands of dollars.
Does it stop smokers? NO, does it create a black market? Obviously YES.
That said, regarding “bullet tax”. I will grant you that 2 cents/ bullet may not immediately create a black market. However, 20 bucks extra for bullets does not solve the problem of a “mental case” shooting people.
The problem is the “mental case”; how did he get there? Should we have a “tax” on violent video games? A tax on violent movies?
Or maybe a tax on “government determined violent” posts on web blogs? Surely you would pay a “small” fee for each post here (maybe 2 cents) to insure the safety of children?
This does not even address the issue of state exemptions, self loaders, etc…
Feel good legislation is most often that it just makes folks “feel good” but does not solve the problem.
mikeO
Only a fool would believe that high cigarettes taxes have not played a significant role in curbing smoking in this country. I repeat, only a fool would believe that.
There are other factors, and those taxes haven’t prevented ALL smoking. But the success or failure of a tax doesn’t rely on whether or not it eliminates every last bit of behavior that it seeks to discourage.
When I covered the Maryland legislature, they raised the tax Y cents, believing it would raise X revenue. Instead it raised 1/2X revenue. That single increase, in the early 1990s, did more in one fell swoop to curb cigarette smoking in the state than anything else it had tried in its history.
I agree that you are “living in the alternative universe” Jack and I have no idea why.
What people in this world think is that requiring a background check for each purchase will stop some more of the straw purchases and gun traffickers just as the original background checks stopped felons and those not allowed guns not to buy them legally. When we stop the pipeline into the black market, criminals will start having a shortage and a harder time getting guns. Why does ANY embargo happen? Because it can be effective. You know this you just pretend we don’t.
Just like teen drinking, drug use and many other laws that get broken, it will not “fix” everything, but it is a lie to think it cannot fix anything.
Maybe folks will have to get their “man-card” some other way.
What law does this nation have that is 100% unbroken? That is not even the point. No one expects perfection, guarantees or solutions. What we are doing is working on the issue.
We start at step one and go on until we get a system that balances the right to own and bear guns with the right to have the society we want. And yes, the Constitution guarantees both.
If there was a 2 cents per-bullet tax of the kind J.M. White has suggested, would criminals be able to thwart that?
Comment by Dan Casey — January 31, 2013 @ 1:12 pm
Many people would, not just criminals. It is perfectly legal to make ammunition at home, and many people do.
Comment by Jack — January 31, 2013 @ 1:14 pm
Jack, I reload all the time, but I still buy my projectiles from Nosler, Hornady and Speer. I’ve cast the lead and steel-cores myself before, but it’s way more time-consuming than I think any criminal is willing to go through. I know I specifically said “round” and I do mean that for point-of-sale cartridge retail but I also meant the bullets bought by reloaders be taxed, as well. The point is to make the tax as minimally invasive as possible.
To cast fifty projectiles, unless you have a big operation, would take a couple of hours worth of work. Do you think that that path is easier than paying an extra buck for the box of rounds/bullets? I certainly don’t think so. Criminals aren’t really known for their work ethic. We can spiral into conjecture and say that I can pick up properly-shaped rocks and make bullets out of them, but I’m trying to keep this realistic and rational. So yes, criminals could find a way to thwart the tax, but it’s highly unlikely.
I’m a sport shooter who sends in excess of 10,000 rounds downrange every year. Yes, this will increase the burden on me, but if it means I can keep my HK91 in its current condition and help the victims of gun crimes and increase gun knowledge through education, it’s the tiniest price I could pay and am more than willing to do so.
I think some are refusing any idea or point on the most specious of reasoning and calling it “logic”. There is no law that completely solves whatever problem it is aimed at. If you think there is, name it? That is just hooey.
I think J.M. White is on the right track, the ideas need to be do the best we can do to remove guns and ammo from criminals instead of law abiding gun owners.
Dan, re: 5:56
Do you actually think about this stuff before you type? Assuming you are correct on your MD tax numbers, did you consider that folks might be going to surrounding states to get their smokes? Or did you miss the entire premise of my post on VA attempting to regulate this type of activity?
You and your minions suggest measures that may not “eliminate every last bit of behavior that it seeks to discourage” given your suggestions and looking at facts the real question is what are you trying to discourage? if it is to “discourage” legal gun use you might be on the right track. (Like JM said he shoots 10k rounds and it would cost him an extra 200 bucks/yr; to some that might make the sport less affordable.)
If it is to “discourage” mental cases from killing people you are far afield. Do you really think the mental case cares if it costs him another 2 bucks for his hundred rounds to shoot people? Maybe you believe he might think twice because he won’t be able to afford his starbucks coffee after his “spree”…
If you really wanted to curb the problem of “mental cases” commiting crimes, I would suggest looking at how to reduce the “mental cases”. Have these people become desensitized from the violence in video games/movies? (it seems the newtown nut spent most of his time playing violent video). I know this is not near as sexy or popular to the left as gun issues, but are you looking for an issue or a solution?
I might agree with your “tax” on ammo if it were coupled with a tax on violent movies and video games and mandated that all monies go directly to state mental health programs. (which, btw… aint gonna happen since obama just gave tens of millions in tax breaks to the movie industry)
Now if you really want to curb the death toll in America, you should “outlaw” cars. Do you know how many tens of thousands die each year from those vehicles of destruction???
Simplistic liberal thinking never ceases to amaze me.
“Dan, re: 5:56
Do you actually think about this stuff before you type? Assuming you are correct on your MD tax numbers, did you consider that folks might be going to surrounding states to get their smokes? Or did you miss the entire premise of my post on VA attempting to regulate this type of activity?
You and your minions suggest measures that may not “eliminate every last bit of behavior that it seeks to discourage” given your suggestions and looking at facts the real question is what are you trying to discourage? if it is to “discourage” legal gun use you might be on the right track. (Like JM said he shoots 10k rounds and it would cost him an extra 200 bucks/yr; to some that might make the sport less affordable.)”
–Comment by mikeO
mikeO, at the time the increase was added, it didn’t take the increase too much higher than Delaware or Pa (which were already higher than Md before the increase). I realize Virginia also is a border state with MD, but there’s only two bridges across the Potomac (and 1 ferry) and all three are a huge pain in the ass to cross just for a pack of cigs. DC already was higher, too.
With regard to a national 2-cents per bullet tax, tell us what country you believe bullet buyers will flock to to avoid the tax.
Canada? Ho ho.
Mexico? Ha ha.
Comment by mike o — February 1, 2013 @ 5:26 pm
“Now if you really want to curb the death toll in America, you should “outlaw” cars. Do you know how many tens of thousands die each year from those vehicles of destruction???
Simplistic liberal thinking never ceases to amaze me.”
Ummmm – mike o -according to the national Center for Disease Control,
GUNS actually kill more people than motor vehicle accidents.
The 2010 statistics are as follows -
TOTAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT DEATHS = 35,332 deaths
There were 606 gun accidental deaths,
19,392 gun suicides, and,
16,259 homicides,
TOTAL DEATHS CAUSED BY GUNS = of 36,257
and regarding watching violent videos/games – All over Europe the same “violent” videos are watched and played and the level of gun violence doesn’t come close to the US. Could it be better gun regulations?
BTW I grew up watching anvils being dropped on Road Runner [beep beep] by Wile E Coyote…and I swear I have never attempted to drop an anvil on anyone – ever!
Don’t look now but I think mikeO’s arrogant, know-it-all attitude just got himself owned again.
The purpose of a car is to transport a person from point A to point B and back. The purpose of a gun is to deliver a deadly bullet to the target. No comparison.
Dan, re: 5:44
Wow, I gave you much more credit on understanding issues than your response implies. If you are so naïve to believe that someone would “cross just for a (pack) of cigs.” Nothing more need to be said of your understanding of the issue.
Apparently you failed/choose to understand the “true” message of my post (even where I might agree with you).
I am not surprised nor disappointed by your actions. It is to be expected from one who takes his direction from “above” without personal thought or consideration.
I thought we didn’t concern ourselves with accidents. So what relevance do car accidents have anyway?
Hilary,
The FBI stats don’t meld with the CDC stats, but let’s use your numbers.
The CDC says 19k suicides are by guns the #1 way people off themselves. Second is “suffocation” hanging being most popular. Followed by poisoning.
Are you suggesting that if someone wants to commit suicide, and there is not a firearm around they will just change their mind?
Let’s assume that all guns disappeared then the number one cause would be hanging, do we then get rid of rope???
Regarding “all over Europe”, you might want to narrow your geography before you suggest low incidence of violence on that continent. Many of those folks would rather hack one to death with a machete than use a firearm, and hundreds of thousands are not around to verify that fact.
I too watched “cartoons” during my childhood, and still get a bit of a laugh when Wile’s latest ACME device proves unsuccessful. For you to compare that with some of the video games out today, suggests you might be out of touch with what is going on.
Dan, re: 6:50
I see you still prefer pointless personal pithy retorts as opposed to true debate