[Vision2020] "Just tax the bullets" Re: Isn't it about time . . .

Thu Dec 20 11:06:55 PST 2012

Chris Rock may be a comedian, but I think he is correct in the way to solve mass shootings is to tax bullets used with assault rifles unless they are bought and used on a shooting range. A $300 a bullet federal tax would economically exclude most people from going on a shooting spree. It would have cost this shooter $7800 to shoot 26 people and that is assuming he didn't waste one bullet. It is doubtful a single mom with two kids on a teachers salary would have had this available for her son. The tax when paid at point of sale would also notify local and federal authorities as to who purchased enough bullets for a mass killing where local authorities could keep a closer eye on such a person or persons. 

A a few gun owners might be stupid and careless enough to leave their gun laying around for anyone to steal, or sell it on the black market and claim it was stolen. However, they are not going to leave around $5000 in bullets that can be traced back to them through federal taxes. Further, most businesses will not sell assault weapons because of the extreme overhead cost of buying them and the potential to get robbed for such a narrow market and virtually no profit. This would mean most bullets would be sold and used at a shooting range. 

This solution would allow for people to keep their assault weapons and allow them to practice, limits government regulation and oversight, alerts authorities as to who has the means to go on a shooting spree, and economically excludes most unstable individuals from going on a mass shooting spree. 

Donovan J. Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> 
Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis.  Is it your opinion that nobody in Moscow should need to defend themselves in their own home at any time?  Do you recommend keeping your doors and windows unlocked at night?Crime is real.  Even in innocent little Moscow.  I don't find it paranoid to want to be able to defend myself if the need should arise.  Feel free to think of my calm, rational decision to be prepared for an unlikely but plausible scenario as a  mental health problem, though, if it makes you feel superior.I see this current round of trying to ban the low hanging fruit to be an overreaction.  It's an excuse that people who don't think the Second Amendment is worth anything can use to do what they have always wanted to do anyway.  While I also realize that no one is trying to ban weapons used for personal defense inside their homes, provided they are not assault weapons or have too many rounds in the clip, I have no doubt that there are people
 out there that would if they thought they had a chance in hell of getting away with it.Banning assault weapons will have as little effect on the overall situation as taking off our shoes in airports has had fighting terrorism.Paul 

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .

You sound paranoid, Paul. There is little evidence that a gun is needed for protection in this town. Could happen. Could happen that a brick falls out of a window and strikes you on the head, too. But if you walked around town with a helmet, you would LOOK paranoid. You would look paranoid precisely because you are preparing for something that has a VERY low probability of occurring.What exactly am I missing in this analogy? And like Carl said, neither I nor anyone else is going to take away your handgun. But I'll try my best not to let paranoia dictate public policy. 
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote: 
That's your recommended defense against someone who, for whatever reason, has broken into my house with me inside of it?  Expect the best of them?  Should I trust in fate and never wear seat belts?Oh, and pardon me for relating a story relevant to the topic at hand.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; philosopher.joe at gmail.com Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:32 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .
>As long as we're substituting anecdotes for data, I can say that I do get on airplanes frequently. In 71 years of life, my home has never been burglarized or invaded. I have never been mugged or even threatened on the street. I have traveled to fifty states, seven continents and thirty countries and found only friendly and cooperative people. I observe common-sense precautions to avoid situations where I could be put in danger, like patronizing sleazy bars while flashing a big roll of bills (I know, no fun).The only time I found it necessary to be armed was during a year in Vietnam and even there, the great majority of the people I met were non-belligerent. I sold my personal guns when I returned, and don't miss them. Life is a happier place if you expect the best of people and don't look for dangers lurking around every corner. 
>From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; 
>To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; 
>Cc: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; 
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . . 
>Sent: Wed, Dec 19, 2012 10:02:26 PM 
>
>I get on an airplane very infrequently, even less so now that the TSA is out of control.  I go to bed every night.  My friend's dad stopped someone from climbing through his bedroom window a number of years ago by the simple expedient of pointing a large revolver in his face.  This had a deterrent effect; the suspected burglar backed out the window quickly and ran off, probably to go get a change of underwear.  You live long enough, something strange will happen.  Better to be prepared.Gun safety is an issue.  Many newer guns have extra safety features.  I hope they continue to innovate in this area.  Certainly there is much more that can be done to reduce firearm-related accidents.Paul 
>
>
>From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:55 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .
>
>Paul,Again you are mistaken about the facts. Do some research. If you live in a high crime district, having a gun might provide more safety than potential for harm. If not, the potential for harm is greater. Those are the facts. No matter how much confidence you have in yourself, living in Moscow, ID your gun is much more likely to do you harm than good. I promise you that (unfortunately) we are much more likely to read about someone committing suicide with a firearm, or harming another, than protecting him- or herself in this particular town.Think of this analogy. Would you ever think of bringing a parachute aboard an airplane? Well, there was a time when it was much more probable that you would die in a plane crash than via a home invasion. (I'm not sure of the statistics now; not many people die on commercial airlines.) If you were to bring a parachute aboard a plane, you would be perceived as suffering from wild paranoia. Of course there is a chance
 the plane will go down but (a) it is very unlikely and (b) very unlikely to help were a situation to arise (remember the point I made yesterday that in order for a gun to be useful it has to be loaded and available for use, yet that increases the likelihood of accident).I'm sorry but you and others who are unyielding about gun control seem as paranoid as a guy with a parachute boarding an airplane. The analogy is very close. But the difference is that the proliferation of guns increases risks of gun violence for all of us, as the Sandy Hook episode shows. It isn't just a personal liberty debate; it is a public harm debate, as well. We have a history of sacrificing liberties in order to prevent harms. Again, I don't always agree with these choices and we need to be very cautious about how to proceed. But to dismiss gun control as an option based on some flawed view of liberty is unwise.Joe 
>On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote: 
>What was I thinking?  Home invasions never happen.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> Cc: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>; vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:44 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't it about time . . .
>>Paul Rumelhart tells us:"Yet I'd still prefer having one available if I ever needed one."Paranoia . . . Self-Destroya!Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . ."Moscow Cares"http://www.moscowcares.com/  Tom HansenMoscow, IdahoOn Dec 19, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:> Yet I'd still prefer having one available if I ever needed one. =======================================================List services made available by First Step Internet,serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.              http://www.fsr.net/          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121220/b679fc33/attachment-0001.html>