Ephry73 Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 I really don't think the majority of those taxes go to funding schools. In most States the tax on your residence as a homeowner is where schools taxes come from. The taxes you mention go to solving issues created by the users. A lot of cigarette taxes go to health care cost and almost all of gas taxes go to maintenance of our road system. They are considered user fees, just like a tax on guns and ammo would be. Those that want a culture of having guns readily available to any nut job should be willing to pony up and help pay for a system that would protect the rest of us from them. At least that is what is said the source is. The system is not working. There's a slew of taxes voluntary and involuntary that we pay that go entirely to something else. Enough of my non-sense. E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Who do you think is going to pay for all these armed officers at every school that the NRA is recommending. Obviously, our taxes are. Now the discussion is who should pay. Should we all collectively pay or should the people that are creating and benefitting from the problem pay the cost. While I don't know where the figure "half a billion dollars" comes from or it's accuracy, and the issue of 'less government' is not being debated here, it would be nice if those who benefit from the problem pay the cost. The manufacturers and dealers will simply pass that 'cost/tax' on to those who buy from them. Those who want to own firearms would pay for the background check and registration/license fees. That sounds fair and reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Still don't get it I see... Correction 'You have addressed the rest a few times now' ........'You see yourself as the informed voice' I disagree. Ken If you don't "get it", you don't get it. Not much else will help you "get it" until you grasp the concept of all Americans being able to voice an opinion, including groups like the NRA, but it is still nothing more than an opinion. No "correction" needed. It had been addressed a few times. By me. Correction: I am an informed voice. Not the informed voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I fully get your side of the argument Joey, your problem is that you are totally dismissive of the other side. Everyone who has posted in this thread has the right to be called an informed voice, if you 'Don't get' the other side then you are a terrible debater. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I "get" the other side, does that make me a Master Debater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 you can drop the 'De' Nanuq Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I fully get your side of the argument Joey, your problem is that you are totally dismissive of the other side. Everyone who has posted in this thread has the right to be called an informed voice, if you 'Don't get' the other side then you are a terrible debater. Ken Really? What is my side of the argument? What did I dismiss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Ban bows and arrows. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/killer-bow-arrow-kill-father-article-1.1211499 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txcollector Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Ban bows and arrows. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/killer-bow-arrow-kill-father-article-1.1211499 I tried searching google for "bow and arrow mass murder" and this case with 2 victims plus the killer is the only one I could find. For firearms it's very easy to find them in the hundreds. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Not sure if saying anyone with any kind of weapon could kill a lot of people is an argument that's holds a lot of water. I'm sure if the guy in Sandy Hook had a bow and arrow the school principal and the counselor would be able to stop him instead of getting killed. PS: It would be perfectly fine if people wanted to go around carrying concealed bows and arrows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted January 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I would bet good money If those teachers had a gun the outcome would most likely be much different. Same could be said for many of the mass shootings In resent memory. If the bad guys have guns then the good guys should have them also. We live In a very [censored] up world with a lot of crazy mother [censored]. If you live In the land of milk and honey where such things don't happen.....good on you. Not the case here. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Well, opinions are plentiful. Here are a few of a bunch on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbh Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 We live In a very [censored] up world with a lot of crazy mother [censored]. If you live In the land of milk and honey where such things don't happen.....good on you. Not the case here. Mike I wonder why is it that most of the true believers in unrestricted gun ownersip live in rural areas where crime is much less prevalent and yet they all have an absolute craving for keeping firearms handy, yet most a the large cities that have much more crime also have a much larger percentage of people who favor gun control? Seems rather confusing, and no, I don't believe the amount of crime is relative to the number of gun owners. I understand that rural areas breed self sufficiency and most rural citizens are hunters, but we're really only discussing assault rifles which were almost unheard of in the hands of most gun owners until 15 or 20 years ago when they became the gun of choice for the drug cartels and inner city gangs. Now, it seems like for everyone who is into guns, these have become a "must have" item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 but we're really only discussing assault rifles which were almost unheard of in the hands of most gun owners until 15 or 20 years ago when they became the gun of choice for the drug cartels and inner city gangs. Now, it seems like for everyone who is into guns, these have become a "must have" item. I understand how it might feel like 15 or 20 years, but it is much longer. They didn't call the AK47 or the M16 "assault weapons" in the media back in the 1960s. The National Firearms Act enacted in 1934 outlawed the use of machine guns and other firearms. The Thompson Submachine gun was the primary target of the act. Gangs used the Thompson, an assault weapon before they were called assault weapons, in their illegal enterprises. The The National Firearms Act of 1968 further defined the weapons banned, including bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 If you live In the land of milk and honey where such things don't happen.....good on you. Not the case here. There is no such place on this planet. It is better here than most places, but make no mistake,.the world is not safe, and never was safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txcollector Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I would bet good money If those teachers had a gun the outcome would most likely be much different. Same could be said for many of the mass shootings In resent memory. If the bad guys have guns then the good guys should have them also. Sorry but that's the kind of poorly constructed thought that makes reasonable discussions pointless. Teachers with guns is a very bad idea. I'm not sure about you but the same way I want drivers on the road to be responsible and proficient with their machines I hope people that decide to get a gun to be VERY proficient with their guns. Teachers dont' have the time or money to get get proper tactical training. Arguments like putting guns inside schools is just clinging to straws when you're in the wrong side of a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbh Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 As previously mentioned, there were two armed officers at Columbine and it didn't stop them for a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 ...why is it that most of the true believers in unrestricted gun ownersip live in rural areas where crime is much less prevalent ... yet most a the large cities that have much more crime also have a much larger percentage of people who favor gun control? This seems fairly obvious. Let's say you're looking to rob someone. Where do you want to go? The country, where almost every house has at least one gun, and the owner probably knows how to use it, -or- The city, where few of your targets will have a gun, and of those, maybe 5% have been to the range for practice in the last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txcollector Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 ... and of those, maybe 5% have been to the range for practice in the last year? that's my point about irresponsible gun ownership. Honestly I rather live where I am that the police (people that are trained and know how to react) will show up in 5-10 min when my house alarm goes off (which is a huge deterrent of crimes here) than to have to rely on spending time with tactical training in the off chance I can stop an armed person from harming anyone in my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Good point. There seems to be a fundamental divide between those that know the police can well protect them, and those that know the police cannot. For whatever reason. In the city, where both criminals and police are closer, perhaps that's true. Nasty situation. Outside the city, people are far apart and police can't get to you quickly. I'm 30 minutes up a mountain for instance. I used to own handguns for home defense, until last summer when I was UNABLE to chase off three brown bears, no matter how big the gun I used. Knowing the effect adrenaline has on aim, I switched to a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense. Regular practice is still important, but I have mitigated the effect of adrenaline on accuracy a little. Plus there's far less penetrative power through my walls for any pellets that miss. Home alarms are pretty useless here, and we've come to realize we have to protect ourselves. We all know each other on the mountain, we wave and stop to chat, and we notice new vehicles. We call each other to check up on our wellbeing. It's the responsible side of gun ownership. I guess it's the "community" aspect of the mountain where we notice each other and help each other that works for us. I'm sure it's much less so in the city. My "neighbor" has a boy that's a senior in high school. One evening when his parents were out of state a whole bunch of trucks showed up at his house, so I went over there. A strange boy answered the door and I got right in his face. A bunch more showed up and I was pleased that they were polite, but I was a little nervous. The owner's son came down the stairs and saw what was happening, and we had a little chat. All his buddies were rolling their eyes like "this guy is gonna make us stop our party". Instead I had a long talk with them about getting drunk and trying to get down off the mountain without killing themselves. They hadn't thought of that. I encouraged them to spend the night and sleep it off instead of going in a ditch or off a cliff, and we all left shaking hands. Was that my responsibility too? Yeah, I think so. It's home defense and sometimes words work just fine. But sometimes they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Whats the next thing after giving guns to the teachers (a very very bad ide btw) so whats the next thing? Adding a bullet proof west to the school uniforms? I would never send my kids to a school that hade guards or guns! I would rather move to a new country, if its this bad in all of usa!!! WTF, this is getting more and more crazy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 You're right, ZK. So how do we get the bad guys to turn in all their guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 You're right, ZK. So how do we get the bad guys to turn in all their guns? Dont sell them in the first place, a very strikt gun control would be a great start!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Too late, the guns are out there by the millions. How do we get them to turn in ALL their guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Too late, the guns are out there by the millions. How do we get them to turn in ALL their guns? Thats impossible we know that (how about parents turn in there mental kids?)! But having strikter rulles and changing the law is a good start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I agree, mental health MUST be addressed. But stricter rules? We already have 22,000 rules. That approach doesn't seem to be working either. See why this is such a debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts