J
jerrydecoy
Well-known member
Would you be receptive to significantly increasing public funding for mental health support?
For the right programs with no fat attached??? Yes!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Would you be receptive to significantly increasing public funding for mental health support?
For the right programs with no fat attached??? Yes!
Then here’s what you do...
Tax the hell out of guns - making them much more expensive. Cuts out a lot of buyers and generates a bunch of new tax revenue. Funnel that money and a bunch more in to publicly funded mental health programs and institutions for at risk youth. Jam as many weird *** kids through the programs as possible.
Between less guns (organically), and the mental health programs (which would both help people, and identify people who have high chances of violence, etc) - you have at least attempted to address the 2 major issues that have the highest likelihood of improving this issue. Both “sides” also get a pretty even and decent compromise. No new regs specifically needed, 2nd amendment untouched for anyone who cares.
Mic drop. Next
Where’s that “bunch more” money coming from? Should law abiding gun owners eat the brunt of it? And why?
Jack taxes on guns way up....generate money....use money to help attempt to curb violence and keep gun control off the table. If you want it bad enough you’ll pay, and if you dont, you won’t. Just like any taxes or insurances....the good guys pay most of the bill. I’ve never had a car accident, but my car insurance costs what it does because of all the people who have.
Call it whatever you want....that’s a pretty legit idea. Everyone would pay, new gun taxes would just help and also give something to the “left” who ideally want MUCH more gun control than that. Probably the best compromise I’ve heard yet if I do say so myself. You’re welcome AmericaTaxing the chit out of guns is gun control. You said it yourself... “fewer buyers”. You are simplifying the situation!!!
You can excersize all day long....just gotta pay to help offset the additional risk that comes along with every new gun introduced in to the food chain. Just like additional taxes on tobacco go toward offsetting the additional health care costs of tobacco use up here. Both sides give up exactly what they want, in order to have actual progress. Money would come from general tax revenue as well, of course.Sorry Jaynels son, that's a sin tax.
Exercising our 2nd ammendment rights should not EVER be treated as a sin.
You can excersize all day long....just gotta pay to help offset the additional risk that comes along with every new gun introduced in to the food chain. Just like additional taxes on tobacco go toward offsetting the additional health care costs of tobacco use up here. Both sides give up exactly what they want, in order to have actual progress. Money would come from general tax revenue as well, of course.
The tobacco taxation helps offset the health care costs tobacco users cause the public. Tobacco isn’t the problem...it’s an inanimate object, people and their usage habits are. Sounds familiar. It’s an addictive substance tho, so that is a variable not present in the gun situation. Do they use the tax revenue to try and curb tobacco use? Not much that I’ve seen. That goes back to your point of any gov program needing to be focused and well run....not sure I’d look to Canada for those things, unfortunate.Your solution is not a viable solution! If your theory of taxing works then why is it that you have more tobacco related deaths in Canada then in the USA?
So memes and gun control arguments aside ...
Any thoughts as to WHY this is so much larger an issue in the U.S. than other places? Several people are sure that it's not due to the large number of guns, and the relative ease of getting them/lack of regs. So lets say that's 100% true for argument's sake .... why are school shootings so much more likely in the U.S. than anywhere else? U.S kids more violent? Seems kinda shaky. Less public health/mental health care support? Seems like a potential winner....but if you are against gun control in this thread, my math says you're also against public funded health care sooo...where does that leave you guys? What else?
Then here’s what you do...
Tax the hell out of guns - making them much more expensive. Cuts out a lot of buyers and generates a bunch of new tax revenue. Funnel that money and a bunch more in to publicly funded mental health programs and institutions for at risk youth. Jam as many weird *** kids through the programs as possible.
Between less guns (organically), and the mental health programs (which would both help people, and identify people who have high chances of violence, etc) - you have at least attempted to address the 2 major issues that have the highest likelihood of improving this issue. Both “sides” also get a pretty even and decent compromise. No new regs specifically needed, 2nd amendment untouched for anyone who cares.
Mic drop. Next
The tobacco taxation helps offset the health care costs tobacco users cause the public. Tobacco isn’t the problem...it’s an inanimate object, people and their usage habits are. Sounds familiar. It’s an addictive substance tho, so that is a variable not present in the gun situation. Do they use the tax revenue to try and curb tobacco use? Not much that I’ve seen. That goes back to your point of any gov program needing to be focused and well run....not sure I’d look to Canada for those things, unfortunate.
Personally, I think your idea has merit. A gun is not a "necessity." It may be a right, but so is the right to drink alcohol if you are over 21 in the states.
The whole "sin-tax" argument is a moot point. It's something some people buy a lot of & others don't. You aren't issued a gun at birth, or when you turn 12 or 21.
It's expensive & time consuming to get a CDL. Why shouldn't it be expensive & time consuming to qualify to own & use a gun? They both can be potentially deadly.
Yes, it is a tool for self defense & yes, I think it should be accessible to the common citizenry, all the way up to AR-15s. But its a tool that for the most part is used recreationally. And most people who can afford guns & ammo, could afford to pay a little more for their guns & ammo. I'm never going to be one who would be paying through the nose on this because I'm never going to own more than a couple of guns.
I do my part by donating blood every 2 months. I get warm fuzzies. And cookies. I have an appointment this Friday in fact.
How bout we say screw the looney tunes and give every teacher/administrator a glock, concealed carry permit and the training to use it and let these fruit cakes know that the next one to walk into a school is gettin' their head turned into a canoe!
Honestly, Whatever the military & the police use, the common citizenry should be able to access too. I don't know that everyone needs access to a tank, but If you can afford it & use it properly, What's it going to hurt? (ok, maybe the tank is taking it a little too far - Build your own Nuclear warhead kit? - who knows?)What's the big worry with the AR. There's no selector switch. It's not a assault weapon. It shoots a 223. Way more powerful weapons on the market!