Cross-posted at Daily Kos.
In the wake of the Newtown shootings, we have lots of this:
The tragedy in Connecticut will convince communities across the country to cut other spending in favor of funding greater security measures, including adding armed guards at schools, said Peter Pochowski, the former executive director of the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers.
Okay, then. In order to preserve the NRA’s sweeping claims of Second Amendment gun rights, our schools (and public buildings, and shopping malls, and mass-transit systems, and places of worship, and and and) will almost certainly feel compelled to add new security on top of the childhood-killing shit we’re already doing:
Since the Columbine shootings in Colorado, schools across the nation have increased security. Burlington schools hold lockdown drills and evacuation drills on a regular basis, and keep only one door open to the public.
And I’m old enough to remember “duck and cover” drills and the sense of dread they communicated.
Well, we seem unable to do much about gun ownership laws because politicians are completely cowed by the gun lobby. But if we do face increased social costs because anyone who wants an assault rifle can have one, then how about this: We figure out how much security our schools need, and how much it costs (for the stuff we’re already doing plus the new stuff), and create a security tax on gun sales?
The tax could be restricted to the most dangerous weapons — anything with rapid-fire capability, cop-killer ammunition, etc. — if you’re concerned about placing a burden on someone who just wants a handgun or standard hunting weapons. But the tax should be high enough to hold our schools (and malls and buses and subways and churches) harmless for security costs.
Fair enough? All we’re doing is correcting a flaw in the market: assigning the true costs of gun ownership where they belong.
I would expand it to include all weapons as well as ammo, supplies & other accessories. Sellers & manufacturers should also step up to the plate & give a percentage of sales to this effort. It would make them look good.
And, it would create jobs!
since the cost to the nation (just in terms of dollars and cents) of enabling gun-violators, is so great.
It will be argued, though, that all sales tax is regressive, and will make it more difficult for the poor to own guns.
While unfair, such a tax might appeal to Republicans who have terrified, fevered dreams of a “socialist” revolt. This would put them at odds with the NRA and would be fun to watch.
Unfortunately, I think it will take a more robust and courageous run at proposing reasonable gun regulation, rather than merely additional taxes, to stem the tide of gun violence here in the U.S.
Follow the BIG money and put a tax cost at the source,the manufacturer not at the purchase point.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Well, I’ll amend that to read ‘mostly Americans with guns kill people’.
Errr. Harder than I thought.
‘Mostly American males with guns kill people.’
There. That sort of covers domestic massacres, as well as military adventurism.
And we will hear that we should register and tax knives and fertilizer and cars and airplanes and staple guns because all those things can be used as weapons. All true.
And you can pull my red swingline with extra capacity clip from my cold, dead, hands. Just wait till the stapler lobby gets on this.
Show proof of liability insurance minimum $2M in order to purchase any semi-auto firearm or ammunition for such weapon.
I’d add the provision that if you want to buy anything that can fire more than five or six rounds without reloading you have to spend an hour with a certified mental health professional. If the shrink checks the “not insane” box you can move on the the background check and a firearms safety test.
That’s a requirement in a number of other countries in the world.
The main addendum to any of these proposals is universality. For example, having strict controls in Washington D.C. is virtually useless because the hoods just drive an hour to a state with lax laws. About 3/4 of the guns found on crime scenes in D.C. were purchased elsewhere.
but I suspect we would do better long term to rid the public airwaves of the 10 cable channels of two guys locked in a cage beating the snot out of each other and only do that after taking any and all violence beyond PONG out of the video games that our kids immerse themselves into. The tolerance for violence as an acceptable expression is far too high. Yes, the gun does the killing but the correlation between the killing and the hate talk of FOX and videos and everyone else who is getting paid to impregnate consternation into society is probably much more significant. We have had guns for a good many years-100 round clips have been here also-but the generation growing up with violence as entertainment that you just pay money to experience??? That deserves some attention.
When was the last time someone got shot on Car 54 ???
Yes, simplistic idea, I know. I support the tax idea. But really what we should be talking about is changing behavior.
Gun laws, behavior changes, better school protection, etc, etc. The solution is do all of the above, not just one.
The tax idea works for me except that I would tax all guns, not just assault. And the tax wouldn’t be small, more like 100% or more of price.
Besides banning assault rifle sales, I would also see what could be done about possession limits of current holders. Current holders can own them, but they must be stored in a secure facility.
Add to that, I’d make gun owners more liable. There needs to be some standards of access. If an owner is lax on security and a perpetrator uses this hole in security to acquire the gun and subsequently use it to shoot people. Then all assets of the owner go to the victims and families. If no family, then to the government.
There is something wrong here in America. As Wes Hamilton wrote in his post, SOME THOUGHTS, we send our troops over to Afghanistan to use high-tech assault weapons to kill Pashtun women and children–this in the name of our National Security (when it’s really in the name of the Rich and Corporate Greed). And here at home, similar weapons are being used by street gangs, asshole macho hunters, other ‘criminal types’ and are readily available to the mentally unstable. The whole f’n’ thing is MENTALLY UNSTABLE.
I have, in the past, been leery of liberal campaigns for sweeping gun control. Not anymore!
I’ve owned guns, rifles and handguns. The handguns were all revolvers. The rifles were all bolt or lever action–one shot at a time. I preferred these weapons because they were ‘safer’ and I didn’t feel the need to ‘git some’, as the Vietnam saying went, by blasting off entire clips of bullets at the tin cans I shot at. A single bullet will take down a tin can. A single bullet will take down a deer, and, unfortunately, a human being too. So…I believe it is now time to take assault rifles, and any automatic and semi-automatic rifles (including .22s) off the store shelves–yes, BAN THEM. And that includes automatic and semi-automatic handguns. The hunter and the American civilian who wants a home-protection weapon can get by with revolvers and bolt, lever action or pump rifles and shotguns. Tough shit, NRA, but it is time to stop the flow of military guns into a society which obviously has severe mental health issues. I would argue that the NRA or any other group blocking legislation to restrict the over-the-counter/over-the-NET sale of military guns is simply highlighting for Americans an illness that has become pervasive in our society. An illness that has made death and the dollar sign the American pandemic.
Name me five…no, name me THREE massacres by military guns that have happened in Britain in the last ten years. Yet here in the U.S., how many such incidents have we had, say, just this year? As a defender of the Second Amendment, I am more than comfortable with a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The Second Amendment said “the right to keep and bear arms,” not the right to keep and bear an arsenal If the Corporations and the Gun Lobby had their way, M-40 and M-203 grenade launchers would be sold over-the-counter for deer hunting and home protection. And M-60 machine guns added on as an option for SUVS. Hell, why not TANKS over-the-counter? And, more Hell, what about air support for hunting and home protection?
I expect there will be a lot of noise from hunters’ rights groups. FUCK THEM. It is time for us to start regulating our weapons of mass destruction here at home. Military guns are for fucking WAR, right? And we all want PEACE? DUH! WAR AT HOME–WAR IN AFGHANISTAN (or Iran, whatever). Let us hope the day will come soon when we will have more time and moral high ground to deplore and work to BAN the killing of innocents abroad by our military guns; when we have eliminated the slaughter of innocents at home by them.
I pay for uninsured motorists on my auto insurance.
It needs to be added to the bill at the checkout of the ammo and gun store.
Perhaps certain types of ammo can maintain exemptions, or be pennies on the dollar compared to more lethal rounds. And maybe you wouldn’t have to pay it if you bought and fired at the range (but you would if you took any home…).
Just to go shopping, or send our kids to school, or spend a day at work. That is the opposite of freedom.
Our freedom is not to be sacrificed just so any random person can avoid being inconvenienced in the acquisition of weapons.
License every gun, liability insurance required of every owner on a per-weapon basis. Insurers inspect the location in which the guns will be stored (just as they inspect woodstove installations), and verify each weapon has a proper guard to prevent accidental discharge. Owners can undergo mandatory safety training, pass both written and field tests, re-register each weapon every [n] years, and renew their own licenses every [n] years – just like we require with the other major deadly weapon we have in our lives: our cars.
And I’d personally like to see a ban on clips holding more than a few rounds – whatever you reasonably expect to need for deer hunting.
Perhaps, if you’re going on a trip to grizzly country, you can get a short-term license that would allow you to rent a larger clip to protect yourself there, but it expires at the end of your trip and the clip has to be returned to the rental site. Failure to return a clip comes with a penalty, and failure to return more than one means you lose your license & hand over your guns to be stored until such time as you can renew your license (requires additional training – just like drunk drivers), since you obviously can’t keep track of them.