Yet another school shooting.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'd ask you same question as I've ask Flere. Why not start with criminal elements (and mental health) first before eliminating all/most guns from law abiding citizens?

We've been pouring money into trying to stop criminal elements since the 80s and it hasnt made a dent. On the other than, mass shootings dropped 43% after the assault weapon ban in the 90s and has risen over 240% since Bush allowed it to expire.

More than 99.99 percent of flyers were and are law abiding citizens yet in the aftermath of 9/11 it was decided that we could lose some clear rights (as opposed to the murkiness of 2a) in order to make flying safer and those additional airport security measures have close to a 70% approval the last I saw.

[molson]

There's been a modest uptick the last few years, but before that, violent crime pretty much fell off a cliff in the U.S. The peak was the early 90s, and murder/violent crimes dropped by half by around 2010, and then stayed steady until the last couple of years (but still way below where we were most of the last century).

We haven't done well on mass shootings, obviously, but I think we've done really well with violent crime generally. Lots of different possible reasons for that, which one someone wants to give the most credit to probably depends on their political leanings.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by molson

Lots of different possible reasons for that, which one someone wants to give the most credit to probably depends on their political leanings.

My personal view is non-political. Lead is a potent neurotoxin. We used to pump it into the air. Then we decided to stop. And then crime went down.

So chalk one up for don't deliberately give your citizens brain damage.

[molson]

Yup, the timing on the lead paint thing is very compelling. We did something smart!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

We've been pouring money into trying to stop criminal elements since the 80s and it hasnt made a dent. On the other than, mass shootings dropped 43% after the assault weapon ban in the 90s and has risen over 240% since Bush allowed it to expire.

The murder rate has dropped in half since 1980.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The murder rate has dropped in half since 1980.

Gun related deaths, both by suicide and murder haven't changed all that much since the 70s. We did have a bit of a drop from 2000 through about 2015 and it's steadily risen since then. But in the early 70s we were at about 5.2 deaths by gun murder per 100k and we're at 6.2 per 100k now.

Gun deaths in the U.S.: 10 key questions answered | Pew Research Center

It took 1 girl dying while playing lawn darts to get them banned in the US. 9/11 completely changed airport security permanently. It took 1 guy failing to blow up a plane with his shoes to get security again changed at airports.

The last major gun control legislation passed by congress was in '94.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I will still contend the "argument" still holds. What is the % of gun deaths (excluding mental health which I include suicides) is done by law abiding citizens up to that point of senseless killing? Dunno but I'm sure it's a small compared to criminal elements.

I do not know either. I would love to know. Where do you draw the line between from law abiding citizens who causes a gun death which ends up being a crime and a criminal element who causes a gun death which ends up being a crime? Why are we not excluding mental health issues on whatever the criminal element side? Those have to count for something as well right? To be fair, I don't know where those lines are drawn either.

Should that small fraction of law abiding citizens actors (up to that point of senseless killing) result in the elimination of all guns as Brian proposed? And why not start with the bad actors (which there are many) first.

The "elimination of all guns" is way too much of a dog whistle for me to even discuss. Should the actions of a few cost the rest of us? Well as others have already said, that is what we do in this country. Be thankful if you have not been caught up in one of those situation. Your suggestions are great. Unfortunately, all of those are accompanied by that dog whistle I mentioned before.

[Ksyrup]

I've seen pretty clear data that in the time after the assault weapon ban was lifted in 2004, mass killings have skyrocketed. It seems like we have a couple of different problems - what I'll call "run of the mill" incidents (mainly, crimes or limited escalated confrontations) where a gun is used and results in injuries and possibly a couple of deaths, and then mass casualty events where it appears the shooting is the main purpose and are either planned or result from an escalated confrontation where both the main subject and others (collateral damage) are intended to be killed (Tulsa shooting would be a good example of the latter - killed the targeted doctor and anyone in his way).

We have to tackle each problem, but they are different. Here's one of the data sets on mass killings related to the assault weapon ban:

The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives - Legal Aggregate - Stanford Law School

Edited to note that the data points for actual deaths end in 2019 and estimate another 5 years of deaths for the current decade they are measuring. It seems as if the 2014-2024 estimate is likely going to be low if we continue on our current trajectory.

[QuikSand]

Right, the hidden part of this story is that LOTS of gun deaths are of a couple variants that we either can't or won't really resolve to care about:

-inner city, mostly drug-related, mostly black-on-black gun violence that is mostly perceived as contained to certain areas where we just don't go

-suicides, seemingly disproportionately among veterans, where the presence of a gun just magnifies the likelihood that a bout of depression or grief becomes fatal

Both sad, both also related to the ubiquitous guns-everywhere culture.

But the only button that you can press to get anywhere on this is dead kids. So, press the F out of that button, and don't let up after it's been out of the headlines for a week or so.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You are focused on these mass shootings. I am focused on gun deaths. The majority of gun deaths are suicides and hence the mental health aspect.

I am not an expert on this subject but there are plenty of other countries (that don't have easy access to guns) leading the US on suicides per capita. In other words, they find other ways. This indicates to me that our suicide challenge is not guns but mental health.

OK, but that is a different topic. The thread subject and topic is school shootings, and mass shootings, not suicide by guns. Totally different topic.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So give me a # of bullets you believe is reasonable to keep at home?

One clip. If you can't defend yourself with that you need more training.

Regarding ammo for hunting 20-30 rounds. If you can't kill something with that try bow hunting.

People want to shoot for sport at ranges, etc...keep the ammo there under very strict regulations ala certain prescription meds.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

In my option high volume ammo purchases should absolutely be one of the red flags and by that I mean anything over 500 rounds in a specified period.

It's quite the commentary on this country that you can be red flagged for buying too much of a particular type of common nasal decongestant, but not ammunition.

Originally Posted by Lathum

One clip. If you can't defend yourself with that you need more training.

Regarding ammo for hunting 20-30 rounds. If you can't kill something with that try bow hunting.

I grew up in a hunting community, including people who did it on a semi-subsistence basis (like they didn't have to supplement with game, but it made their budget go a lot further). Everyone hunted with bolt action rifles. It was considered a mark of pride to take down your quarry in one shot. Not to mention that if you had to pump multiple rounds into the animal, it becomes harder to turn it into food.

The hunting argument is, and has always been, a red herring.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Based on your line of questioning, I'm thinking you believe if we started with criminal elements first, they would steal the guns they want from law abiding citizens?

The point of my rhetorical questions was that the guns are the problem, not the criminal elements. You literally do any of the things my questions suggest (and indeed other countries have done so) and the potentcy of the actions completed by the criminal elements (including mass shooters) is reduced. It's literally that simple.

[cuervo72]

Florida girl, 10, fatally shoots woman who got in fight with her mother

Guns don't kill people, 10-year-olds kill people!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Gun related deaths, both by suicide and murder haven't changed all that much since the 70s. We did have a bit of a drop from 2000 through about 2015 and it's steadily risen since then. But in the early 70s we were at about 5.2 deaths by gun murder per 100k and we're at 6.2 per 100k now.

According to that article (which I had posted earlier myself) it indicates the peak for both murders and suicides (per capita) were in the 70s. I'm not sure if I'm missing something?

While 2020 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population. On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.

The gun murder and gun suicide rates in the U.S. both remain below their peak levels. There were 6.2 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2020, below the rate of 7.2 recorded in 1974. And there were 7.0 gun suicides per 100,000 people in 2020, below the rate of 7.7 measured in 1977.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My personal view is non-political. Lead is a potent neurotoxin. We used to pump it into the air. Then we decided to stop. And then crime went down.

So chalk one up for don't deliberately give your citizens brain damage.

The Freakanomics book economist said it was because of legalization of abortion in 1973.

They did a followup and still came to same conclusions. Interestingly, they also mentioned lead and concluded it also contributed.

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

OK, but that is a different topic. The thread subject and topic is school shootings, and mass shootings, not suicide by guns. Totally different topic.

Oh com'on. Like we all keep to the thread topic without any tangents?

When I responded to Brian, I stated below in response to his "banning all guns". You can see my reference to mental health and broader gun debate. So I believe that I set the stage for my part of the discussion.

The (realistic) goal is to reduce the senseless violence (and suicides) as banning all guns is unrealistic (civil war indeed).

Mass shootings are a small fraction of gun deaths.

Before taking all guns away from law abiding citizens, let's see if we can stop all/most gun violence from non-law abiding people first. Then propose taking away all guns. My question is why take away the right/privilege from law abiding citizens first?

Definitely okay with more controls, do think it will make a difference (unsure the definition of "major impact" though). Not okay with "making it illegal to own guns period". But if that is what you want to propose, then start with non-law abiding people first, see where we are in 3-5 years, and if that is a resounding success, then let's talk about the Canada option.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The point of my rhetorical questions was that the guns are the problem, not the criminal elements. You literally do any of the things my questions suggest (and indeed other countries have done so) and the potentcy of the actions completed by the criminal elements (including mass shooters) is reduced. It's literally that simple.

I respectfully disagree.

But getting back to Lathum's post and my response (immediately above) we may be talking about related but 2 different things. I am talking about overall gun deaths and not just specific mass shootings.

If talking about overall gun deaths, its pretty clear to me its both criminal elements and availability of guns (and for suicides, mental health).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

One clip. If you can't defend yourself with that you need more training.

Regarding ammo for hunting 20-30 rounds. If you can't kill something with that try bow hunting.

People want to shoot for sport at ranges, etc...keep the ammo there under very strict regulations ala certain prescription meds.

We'll agree to disagree here.

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I will answer your ammo question as well Edward.

I never have more than 200-300 at a time. When I go to the gun range, I typically shoot 200 rounds, and don't feel the need to overstock. On my way home from the range, I stop at my local gun store and replace the rounds I just expended.

I don't feel the need for more than this because that is the amount I go through and if, god forbid, I ever had to fire on a home intruder, if the 15 round mag in my 9mm isn't enough to neutralize the threat, I need more training.

In my option high volume ammo purchases should absolutely be one of the red flags and by that I mean anything over 500 rounds in a specified period.

I dunno about you but I couldn't easily find 5.56 or 9mm last year (and other years also), even online unless you want the cheap eastern bloc ones. With that said, no problem with flagging me for more attention/checks if I buy lots of ammo. Most law abiding citizens don't have anything to hide except for those militia affiliated.

The catalyst for me buying my first weapon was the mess that was Katrina. It took way too long for that situation to get stabilized. Low odds, but I can easily see other Katrina like incidents happening in my lifetime. So yeah, I would like more than 200-300 rounds at any given time.

I'll admit that I do stock up ammo also for the zombie apocalypse but that's because I'm a big zombie fan

[thesloppy]

I am the opposite of a prepper. If our society ever devolves to the point that I need to regularly consider shooting my neighbors I would rather take the bullet.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I am the opposite of a prepper. If our society ever devolves to the point that I need to regularly consider shooting my neighbors I would rather take the bullet.

They might take a leg first and save the rest for freshness (that was a great and intense TWD episode). Not a given that you or your family will die easy if the SHTF.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I am the opposite of a prepper. If our society ever devolves to the point that I need to regularly consider shooting my neighbors I would rather take the bullet.

I think I shall be locking my doors if you're around.

[thesloppy]

I'm right behind you!!

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I dunno about you but I couldn't easily find 5.56 or 9mm last year (and other years also), even online unless you want the cheap eastern bloc ones. With that said, no problem with flagging me for more attention/checks if I buy lots of ammo. Most law abiding citizens don't have anything to hide except for those militia affiliated.

And that is a reasonable response/expectation, because being a responsible gun owner, you should have nothing to worry about. But it poses another question. If you buy 1000 rounds and Johnny Crazy Guy buys 100 with the intent to go shoot up a church, how do you investigate and monitor both of you? Scour social media for signs of derangement? There is no way to tie into a mental health database now, and since there are no gun licenses it is not flagged that way/ Do you provide a drivers license so the sale can be reported and enable a criminal background check? (Since you could have a record and an illegal gun)

It's a slippery slope and under the current laws next to impossible to flag effectively.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'm right behind you!!

That's quite unnerving.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

And that is a reasonable response/expectation, because being a responsible gun owner, you should have nothing to worry about. But it poses another question. If you buy 1000 rounds and Johnny Crazy Guy buys 100 with the intent to go shoot up a church, how do you investigate and monitor both of you? Scour social media for signs of derangement? There is no way to tie into a mental health database now, and since there are no gun licenses it is not flagged that way/ Do you provide a drivers license so the sale can be reported and enable a criminal background check? (Since you could have a record and an illegal gun)

It's a slippery slope and under the current laws next to impossible to flag effectively.

I actually thought mental health was reported in the background check database. Not specifics with details but more of a general 'decline'. If it's not tied, why can't it be. Seems like a logical thing to do.

I actually believe there is technology to scour the internet and probably some AI to flag whatever needs to be flagged for everyone. But I doubt either a Rep/Dem owned congress (or President) would pass that. I would not support this either unless there was already cause for concern. Do we really want big brother looking over our shoulders without valid concern? Nope.

Specifically for ammo and quantity bought. I think there are ways to capture that info. The bigger issue I see is even with "limits to buying ammo and checks" ... Let's say I start off with your proposed 300 round limit per 3 or 6 months (?), there's nothing to stop me from storing up and eventually hit my 2000 ammo goal anyway. I don't see a practical way to monitor ammo usage.

Honestly, don't think restricting ammo purchases will help that much. I think even though that frakkin kid had like 1,600+ rounds total, he had 315 in the actual school.

The suspect had purchased 1,657 total rounds of ammunition – 315 rounds were found inside the school, said Steven McCraw, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

But yeah, definitely other things that others have said - longer wait periods, closing gun show loop holes, limiting magazine capacity, banning products like the bump stock, mandatory training, mandatory gun safes etc. Not very hot on banning all semi-automatic weapons and reverting to bolt action though!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That's quite unnerving.

In more than one way!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In more than one way!

STOP SELLING YOUR PROSTITUION RING!!!


I really can't afford it

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

We've been pouring money into trying to stop criminal elements since the 80s and it hasnt made a dent. On the other than, mass shootings dropped 43% after the assault weapon ban in the 90s and has risen over 240% since Bush allowed it to expire.

More than 99.99 percent of flyers were and are law abiding citizens yet in the aftermath of 9/11 it was decided that we could lose some clear rights (as opposed to the murkiness of 2a) in order to make flying safer and those additional airport security measures have close to a 70% approval the last I saw.

FWIW, from a Snopes article. This is specific to mass shootings and not overall gun deaths in general. I do not know how to reconcile your stats with Snopes but likely some different definitions, assumptions etc.

In Gun Debate, Both Sides Have Evidence to Back Them Up | Snopes.com

Specifically, we examined the effects of four different types of gun control legislation: background checks; assault weapons bans; high-capacity magazine bans; and “extreme risk protection order” or “red flag laws” that let a court determine whether to confiscate the guns of someone deemed a threat to themselves or others.

We found that background check requirements, assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans each reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States – but only by a small amount. For instance, enacting a statewide assault weapons ban decreases the number of mass shootings in the state by one shooting every six years. And none of the four types of gun control legislation correlate with fewer total mass shooting deaths.

And laws that remove an individual’s right to own firearms if that individual poses a risk to the community do not affect the number of mass shooting events.

From Politifact. From what I gather correlation is not same as causation.

PolitiFact | Joe Biden said mass shootings tripled when the assault weapon ban ended. They did

Several studies find that mass shooting deaths fell slightly in the decade of the federal assault weapon ban, and then rose dramatically in the decade that followed.

New research suggests that limits on large-capacity magazines play a key role.

No strong evidence shows that the ban’s presence or its end caused the change in mass shooting deaths, but many studies find a correlation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The point of my rhetorical questions was that the guns are the problem, not the criminal elements. You literally do any of the things my questions suggest (and indeed other countries have done so) and the potentcy of the actions completed by the criminal elements (including mass shooters) is reduced. It's literally that simple.

We all know its guns. We know what the data says. It is like you said, literally that simple.

People like to have guns. Whether it's a hobby or compensating for something, they want them. And a classroom of 8 year olds being murdered every so often is a perfectly acceptable trade-off for them to fill that need. It's just that most are too cowardly to say that last part.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The "elimination of all guns" is way too much of a dog whistle for me to even discuss. Should the actions of a few cost the rest of us? Well as others have already said, that is what we do in this country. Be thankful if you have not been caught up in one of those situation. Your suggestions are great. Unfortunately, all of those are accompanied by that dog whistle I mentioned before.

FWIW, I'm the one who brought up gun elimination, and I didn't do so as a dog whistle. It's a serious proposal. Not one that I personally advocate, but it is what I think is required to get to a level of violence that many would consider acceptable.

I think this is just another example of why it's hard to have substantive discussions on a lot of issues. We just assume people can't be serious about what they're saying or that if they are, it's not worth discussing. But I wasn't being the least bit disingenous. I think that's what it takes if you want to get US violent attacks to a level near what they are in other major industrialized nations. Or we can leave some level of guns out there and accept a higher level for the reasonably foreseeable fuure.

[Edward64]

TBF I wasn’t sure if you were serious or just a rhetorical exercise. This is not something that will pass realistically so thought it was the latter.

[Brian Swartz]

Point taken, but I think a lot of the other proposals brought up won't pass either. I just brought it up in response to a discussion about what would actually be effective.

[bhlloy]

Ok, I’ll bite. Why is that narrow definition the thing we need to aim for? Who is asking for that? And assuming that is what many/most people are asking for (which I’ll disagree with) aren’t there other steps that can at least be a step in the right direction and can help limit the chances where somebody can kills tens of people in a couple of minutes?

For the record I think you are right, if the only goal is “reduce US violent attacks to a level near what they are in other major industrialized nation” then yeah, considering almost every nation that would fall into that category only allows private gun ownership for a very limited and tightly controlled section of the population that kinda goes without saying.

But again who is saying that, and why is that the thing we have to do today or not at all? It just feels like you are trying to paint a massively nuanced issue with a wide brush and then saying “well if we can’t do this obviously massively unrealistic thing, guess we are stuck where we are”

[Brian Swartz]

Multiple people on this forum have said that should be our goal over time. Statistics are often cited not just here but other places in public debate comparing our level of violence to that of other countries. It seems self-evident that the point of those comparisons is to say it's wrong for the US not to be at that level.

Originally Posted by bhlloy

aren’t there other steps that can at least be a step in the right direction and can help limit the chances where somebody can kills tens of people in a couple of minutes?

Absolutely. There are definitely voices in the public realm that are saying basically do nothing but I don't agree with them and I don't think any of them are represented on this forum.

What I do say, is that ideas like background checks, limiting mass ammo purchases, all the others that have come up will still end up with us much closer to where we are now than to that kind of goal. That doesn't mean do nothing. It does mean that if that's what we do we're also choosing to have a very elevated level of gun violence by comparison to other nations, just perhaps a somewhat less elevated level than we currently have. That's particularly true since the gun culture in America has always been an outlier, so even with identical laws we'd still end up with more people choosing to arm themselves by comparison.

'We shouldn't do anything' and 'these steps are good, but won't get anywhere near the goal' are much different statements. My perception is they are being badly conflated.

[Fidatelo]

Earlier in this thread:

miami_fan: "As far as I know, he did not have a criminal history and bought the guns legally. This is where I agree with Brian. I don't know what gun control proposals solve that."

me: points directly to a previous post of my own with reasonable idea that could potentially do just that.

miami_fan (and all other advocates here): crickets

[flere-imsaho]

We control access to other things as a matter of course in this country. Due to the fact that people used to buy cases of Sudafed in order to make meth, everyone is now restricted in how much pseudophedrine they can purchase at one time, and purchases are tracked. (e.g. you can only have XX rounds of ammunition in your possession at any given time - sorry the mass shooters ruined it for you)

Texas itself has some significant controls.

To get an abortion in Texas you must observe a 24-hour waiting period, undergo a medical imaging procedure, and if you are under 18, have parental consent.

To get a learners' permit for driving in Texas you must pass a number of requirements and are not allowed to operate the device without adult supervision. Once you pass an exam and accrue sufficient time operating the device, you are allowed a provisional licence (until 18) that places restrictions on your usage of that device.

The claim that common sense gun control measures are logistically unworkable is, and has always been, untrue.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, from a Snopes article. This is specific to mass shootings and not overall gun deaths in general. I do not know how to reconcile your stats with Snopes but likely some different definitions, assumptions etc.

It's because the AWB was a federal law affecting all states and the Snopes article (which is really a re-printed article from The Conversation) addresses state laws.

The weakness with state laws is that they only affect that state. Illinois & Chicago, for instance, can restrict guns all they want, but it's trivially easy to go over the border to Wisconsin or Indiana to get guns if you really need them.

All of which to say, again, is that it's the guns, and specifically the widespread availability of guns, which is the problem. The root problem.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

FWIW, I'm the one who brought up gun elimination, and I didn't do so as a dog whistle. It's a serious proposal. Not one that I personally advocate, but it is what I think is required to get to a level of violence that many would consider acceptable.

I think this is just another example of why it's hard to have substantive discussions on a lot of issues. We just assume people can't be serious about what they're saying or that if they are, it's not worth discussing. But I wasn't being the least bit disingenous. I think that's what it takes if you want to get US violent attacks to a level near what they are in other major industrialized nations. Or we can leave some level of guns out there and accept a higher level for the reasonably foreseeable fuure.

I was not saying that you were being disingenuous. What I am meant is that 30 years of having discussions about gun control has taught me that the quickest way to end that conversation is to say that phrase. It is the reason why we have not had any movement on this issue because any actions would be a step down the road to the "elimination of guns." While you were not doing it, we all know how that phrase been used to prevent any and all gun controls. If I believed that all options were on the table not just on this board but in the national debate, then sure let's have the discussion. But that is not the case. Eliminating guns has been brought up before numerous times. It is used as a dog whistle. This is not new. So for me, in an effort to actually have meaningful debate on this issue, I choose not to use what I believe is a dog whistle with people who have made it perfectly clear that the elimination of guns is a real fear and a hard no. If you can have that discussion seriously and have it not delve into chaos, by all means carry on. I am telling you I can't.

[Kodos]

Here's an easy way to help. Jack the prices of ammo and guns way up. Tax the hell out of them. I'm thinking $10 per bullet. $100 per bullet for bullets that can be used in semi-automatic guns. Whatever guns cost now, make them 500% more expensive. Plow the additional tax money into mental health.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Earlier in this thread:

miami_fan: "As far as I know, he did not have a criminal history and bought the guns legally. This is where I agree with Brian. I don't know what gun control proposals solve that."

me: points directly to a previous post of my own with reasonable idea that could potentially do just that.

miami_fan (and all other advocates here): crickets

Sure. I am game. We could try that. Whenever we get to a point where we are willing to try something, we can add yours to the list. My question is if we are ever going to get to that point.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Here's an easy way to help. Jack the prices of ammo and guns way up. Tax the hell out of them. I'm thinking $10 per bullet. $100 per bullet for bullets that can be used in semi-automatic guns. Whatever guns cost now, make them 500% more expensive. Plow the additional tax money into mental health.

This would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional. You can't tax a right into oblivion.

[Kodos]

I didn't know you were a legal scholar. With great power comes great expense.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

My question is if we are ever going to get to that point.

Oh, we're never going to get to that point. I have no illusions about that.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional. You can't tax a right into oblivion.

SCOTUS seemed just fine with Florida's poll tax.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

SCOTUS seemed just fine with Florida's poll tax.

Because it's not a poll tax? Florida is following what the voters approved which includes felons completing all terms of their sentence before they can vote again.

Personally think that every US citizen should be allowed to vote regardless of criminal status.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This would immediately be struck down as unconstitutional. You can't tax a right into oblivion.

Even if you're solidly anti-gun and anti-ammo, this is almost certainly correct.

[Kodos]

Maybe we can tax them on the level that we tax cigarettes.

[Kodos]

FWIW, I do realize that this is just another idea that has no chance of happening.

[NobodyHere]

FWIW:

https://casetext.com/case/murphy-v-guerrero

Basically a federal district court shut down a $1000 tax on imported handguns.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Maybe we can tax them on the level that we tax cigarettes.

The problem with that analogy is that there is no constitutional prohibition to just banning tobacco.

A better analogy would be to taxes on newspapers, cost of permits for holding public demonstrations, etc.

The answer (and please understand this is outside of my area of expertise) is that you could do small but not punitive taxes.