Political Roundtable - Part VI

[Zonkerbl]

Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are millions of gun owning American citizens that truly believe that our right to bear arms protects this country against tyranny. I think a careful study of history would lend some credence to that position. And yes, there is a price to pay for that right, young children accidentally killed, easier suicides, crime sprees with higher death tolls than would otherwise occur. But for millions of Americans, they believe the awful trade-off is worth the price.

a) One logical fallacy that I'm starting to see more and more of is the "majority rules" argument or even worse "plurality rules". Even if there is a sizable chunk that decides that virgin sacrifices will keep the economy afloat does not make it true. This is even worse as it pertains to matters of science and fact (evolution?!).

b) Another logical fallacy is to trace history. Historical evidence of violent revolutions by the populace does not necessitate future violent revolution. That argument is downright Marxist in modern interpretations. A democracy by definition goes through a bloodless revolution every election cycle. There is literally nothing to rebel against other than your very own vote. To say that Spartacus led his gladiator slaves to a bloody coup through the good graces of being armed means that Americans need to be armed is as false an analogy as there is.

c) It is a uncivilized and backwards reaction to take up arms every time things don't go your way. We have many avenues of checks and balances in the modern age than before to keep things on the up and up. The internet has made political policing exponentially easier. The ties of economies (China, Europe, and the US forming a delicate tripod of interdependence) brings relative peace to the world. We have so many different ways to be heard and to enact change, the idea that the people need to be able to threaten the legislature with murder in order to feel safe is a remnant from the cavemen times.

Pancakes - i think you must have misread my post.

Point A – I won’t argue against your statement that “majority or plurality rules is a fallacy”. Obviously there have been governments in the past where majority rule was not a fallacy but no need to split hairs.

Point b - you say that “Historical evidence of violent revolutions by the populace does not necessitate future violent revolution.” Agree, but isn't that in large measure because the opponents of the revolution have been murdered, hacked to pieces and disarmed? The Russian, Cuban, Iranian, Vietnamese and Chinese revolutions left opponents dead, imprisoned and disarmed. It’s no surprise that a counter revolution has not occurred.

Point C – I agree it’s “uncivilized and backwards to take up arms every time things don’t go your way”. Not sure who on this site would have proposed such a thing. I also agree that “the idea that the people need to be able to threaten the legislature with murder in order to feel safe is a remnant from the cavemen times”. Again, don’t know anyone who would propose such action.

Gotta agree w popper here.

However, popper's argument does not mean that it is necessary to flood the country with so many guns that dozens of children routinely die each year, ho hum. To me that's a sign we've gone too far.

Popper, you say the death of these children is a necessary price to pay. But who's paying? The dead kids are. Not the gun owners. I have absolutely no problem with insane gun fetishists obsessing over their replacement phalluses, so long as they pay the true cost of their deadly paranoid fantasy game. Pay $1,000 per gun.

[popper]

a) One logical fallacy that I'm starting to see more and more of is the "majority rules" argument or even worse "plurality rules". Even if there is a sizable chunk that decides that virgin sacrifices will keep the economy afloat does not make it true. This is even worse as it pertains to matters of science and fact (evolution?!).

b) Another logical fallacy is to trace history. Historical evidence of violent revolutions by the populace does not necessitate future violent revolution. That argument is downright Marxist in modern interpretations. A democracy by definition goes through a bloodless revolution every election cycle. There is literally nothing to rebel against other than your very own vote. To say that Spartacus led his gladiator slaves to a bloody coup through the good graces of being armed means that Americans need to be armed is as false an analogy as there is.

c) It is a uncivilized and backwards reaction to take up arms every time things don't go your way. We have many avenues of checks and balances in the modern age than before to keep things on the up and up. The internet has made political policing exponentially easier. The ties of economies (China, Europe, and the US forming a delicate tripod of interdependence) brings relative peace to the world. We have so many different ways to be heard and to enact change, the idea that the people need to be able to threaten the legislature with murder in order to feel safe is a remnant from the cavemen times.

Pancakes - i think you must have misread my post.

Point A – I won’t argue against your statement that “majority or plurality rules is a fallacy”. Obviously there have been governments in the past where majority rule was not a fallacy but no need to split hairs.

Point b - you say that “Historical evidence of violent revolutions by the populace does not necessitate future violent revolution.” Agree, but isn't that in large measure because the opponents of the revolution have been murdered, hacked to pieces and disarmed? The Russian, Cuban, Iranian, Vietnamese and Chinese revolutions left opponents dead, imprisoned and disarmed. It’s no surprise that a counter revolution has not occurred.

Point C – I agree it’s “uncivilized and backwards to take up arms every time things don’t go your way”. Not sure who on this site would have proposed such a thing. I also agree that “the idea that the people need to be able to threaten the legislature with murder in order to feel safe is a remnant from the cavemen times”. Again, don’t know anyone who would propose such action.

Gotta agree w popper here.

However, popper's argument does not mean that it is necessary to flood the country with so many guns that dozens of children routinely die each year, ho hum. To me that's a sign we've gone too far.

Popper, you say the death of these children is a necessary price to pay. But who's paying? The dead kids are. Not the gun owners. I have absolutely no problem with insane gun fetishists obsessing over their replacement phalluses, so long as they pay the true cost of their deadly paranoid fantasy game. Pay $1,000 per gun.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Zonk. Sorry we got cross-threaded a couple of pages ago. I agree whole-heartily that the cost from gun damage, dirty soot from energy plants, and every other thing we do that harms innocent people should be born by those that benefit.

It get's very complicated to array and measure these things and attach a price but we should make the effort. Gun damage from irresponsible behavior is one of many. Maybe we should start with a list of the top 10. Would obesity or smoking fall within this category (assuming the guilty party's are receiving taxpayer funded subsidized care). If they are paying for their own insurance/care then I would assume that no innocent people are being damaged and therefore an additional tax should not apply to them. Does that make sense?

Edit - for instance, I have been smoking for approx. 40 years, two pack a day. I've always had private insurance that cost many times what a non-smoker would pay. My life insurance is through the roof as well. Since I'm paying my own way, not harming anyone else, should I be exempt from the cigarette taxes that ostensibly go toward paying for the cost of uninsured smokers?

[Zonkerbl]

Pancakes - i think you must have misread my post.

Point A – I won’t argue against your statement that “majority or plurality rules is a fallacy”. Obviously there have been governments in the past where majority rule was not a fallacy but no need to split hairs.

Point b - you say that “Historical evidence of violent revolutions by the populace does not necessitate future violent revolution.” Agree, but isn't that in large measure because the opponents of the revolution have been murdered, hacked to pieces and disarmed? The Russian, Cuban, Iranian, Vietnamese and Chinese revolutions left opponents dead, imprisoned and disarmed. It’s no surprise that a counter revolution has not occurred.

Point C – I agree it’s “uncivilized and backwards to take up arms every time things don’t go your way”. Not sure who on this site would have proposed such a thing. I also agree that “the idea that the people need to be able to threaten the legislature with murder in order to feel safe is a remnant from the cavemen times”. Again, don’t know anyone who would propose such action.

Gotta agree w popper here.

However, popper's argument does not mean that it is necessary to flood the country with so many guns that dozens of children routinely die each year, ho hum. To me that's a sign we've gone too far.

Popper, you say the death of these children is a necessary price to pay. But who's paying? The dead kids are. Not the gun owners. I have absolutely no problem with insane gun fetishists obsessing over their replacement phalluses, so long as they pay the true cost of their deadly paranoid fantasy game. Pay $1,000 per gun.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Zonk. Sorry we got cross-threaded a couple of pages ago. I agree whole-heartily that the cost from gun damage, dirty soot from energy plants, and every other thing we do that harms innocent people should be born by those that benefit.

It get's very complicated to array and measure these things and attach a price but we should make the effort. Gun damage from irresponsible behavior is one of many. Maybe we should start with a list of the top 10. Would obesity or smoking fall within this category (assuming the guilty party's are receiving taxpayer funded subsidized care). If they are paying for their own insurance/care then I would assume that no innocent people are being damaged and therefore an additional tax should not apply to them. Does that make sense?

Edit - for instance, I have been smoking for approx. 40 years, two pack a day. I've always had private insurance that cost many times what a non-smoker would pay. My life insurance is through the roof as well. Since I'm paying my own way, not harming anyone else, should I be exempt from the cigarette taxes that ostensibly go toward paying for the cost of uninsured smokers?

Your smoking creates second hand smoke, that's why you pay taxes. When you drink, you get in fights and drive drunk and hurt other people.

I think I made this point earlier. That's why I repeat myself so much. Try it this way and that way til I find a formulation that works.

[popper]

Zonk - I don't smoke in the house, car or office (before I retired that is). My second hand smoke blows in the wind much like the un-taxed wood stove smoke which is probably 1000 times more voluminous and harmful. My neighbor sprays un-taxed Roundup several times a week. What are the health implications of that? i could give many more examples if need be. There are tens of millions of Americans that drink responsibly; no fights, no car accidents. Why should harmless responsible party's subsidize the actions of harmful, irresponsible party's?

As I'm sure you know, the taxes collected on cigarette and alcohol, by and large, are not used to compensate victims of those harmed by said products but are instead used to pave roads, purchase and maintain parks, subsidize govt. employee healthcare and pensions, welfare, food stamps, etc. In fact, if responsible people stopped smoking and drinking then our state and municipal govt.'s would be in a world of trouble.

If we want to assign cost to harmful products through the taxation authority of the govt. then we simply need to contract the work out to the experts, private insurance actuaries. I doubt our elected reps would want to do so because the result would cause quite an uproar. Potato chips would cost $8.00 a bag and ice cream $10.00 a gallon. it's much easier to sneak through another fifty cent tax on ciggs to an unknowing and unthinking electorate.

[popper]

Edit - double post

[Induveca]

The gun argument is easy to break down:

Should the second amendment be modified/repealed? Without a doubt.

Will it? For next 10-15 years, no way. A budget can't even be passed, and the gun issue should not even be in the top 10 of senate priorities right now. Add in weapon lobbyists who hold major sway over executive branch/senate.....just won't happen. While the NRA has republicans, companies similar to Raytheon have both parties in their pockets due to national defense.

Excellent way to act like they are doing real work however. Both sides realize no significant gun legislation is passing in the next decade.

Same argument for agriculture subsidies. Are they anachronistic and an enormous waste of taxpayer money? Yes. Is it politically feasible to get rid of them? No.

I really do believe that guns are manufactured to kill people and that the Commandment against murder applies to them. Guns may be a necessary evil, but being necessary doesn't make them any less evil. That's what's wrong with the 2nd amendment -- the endorsement by the Constitution has people thinking "hey, guns are our friends!" It's like marijuana -- I ask kids, "Why is marijuana bad?" And the answer? "Because it's illegal."

I'm against the current gun control legislation because it doesn't do anything except make gun owners mad.

$1,000 excise tax on guns. I don't think that infringes on the 2nd amendment at all. If you really care about guns, put your money where your mouth is. Acknowledge the murder and mayhem that results from our gun ownership fetish and own up to it.

I would have zero problem with a 1000 tax on guns. Once all of the emotion and references to evil etc are jettisoned, it makes a lot of sense.

[gesa2]

if we put a 1000$ tax on guns it would certainly cut down on gun violence. But wouldn't that restrict the whole "right to revolt against the government" to the privileged class? I know the takers and makers crowd has a lot of overlap with the second amendment advocates, but that stretches logic a bit for me.

[nate33]

I don't agree with the tax on guns at all. Why should a law abiding, responsible gun owner who lives in a rural area not protected by the police, pay a $1000 tax just because he wants to protect his home and family? Yes, guns are used to kill people, but not HIS gun.

The problem with this form of Pigovian tax is that it falsely links all guns with murder when it's only a very small percentage of guns in the hands of criminals or the suicidal that cause the deaths.

I think Pigovian taxes make sense when you can link the product to the cost of society. I would be in favor of taxing high fructose corn syrup, for example.

[Zonkerbl]

Popper, the purpose of the tax is to lower gun purchases, not raise revenue. The "double dividend" you get from pigouvian taxes only results when you use the revenue raised to lower the debt.

You are all a little delusional if you think guns owned by rural americans (or whatever special subgroup) are immune to murder/suicide/accidents. If we knew which people were going to use guns for murder or suicide we could just ban the sales of guns to those people, like we do for felons and the mentally ill.

[daSwami]

I don't agree with the tax on guns at all. Why should a law abiding, responsible gun owner who lives in a rural area not protected by the police, pay a $1000 tax just because he wants to protect his home and family? Yes, guns are used to kill people, but not HIS gun.

The problem with this form of Pigovian tax is that it falsely links all guns with murder when it's only a very small percentage of guns in the hands of criminals or the suicidal that cause the deaths.

I think Pigovian taxes make sense when you can link the product to the cost of society. I would be in favor of taxing high fructose corn syrup, for example.

Amen to that. At the moment our tax dollars are subsidizing it.

[daSwami]

Popper, the purpose of the tax is to lower gun purchases, not raise revenue. The "double dividend" you get from pigouvian taxes only results when you use the revenue raised to lower the debt.

You are all a little delusional if you think guns owned by rural americans (or whatever special subgroup) are immune to murder/suicide/accidents. If we knew which people were going to use guns for murder or suicide we could just ban the sales of guns to those people, like we do for felons and the mentally ill.

If our country ends up regulating the sale of guns (which I hope we do, but it seems highly unlikely at the moment given the political climate), I hope the mentally ill aren't denied a right that the "mentally healthy" have. Many disorders fall under the 'mental illness' umbrella, but very few of those are predictors of criminal insanity (with the exception of psychopathy, which - unfortunately - usually goes undiagnosed until it's too late).

[Induveca]

Popper, the purpose of the tax is to lower gun purchases, not raise revenue. The "double dividend" you get from pigouvian taxes only results when you use the revenue raised to lower the debt.

You are all a little delusional if you think guns owned by rural americans (or whatever special subgroup) are immune to murder/suicide/accidents. If we knew which people were going to use guns for murder or suicide we could just ban the sales of guns to those people, like we do for felons and the mentally ill.

If our country ends up regulating the sale of guns (which I hope we do, but it seems highly unlikely at the moment given the political climate), I hope the mentally ill aren't denied a right that the "mentally healthy" have. Many disorders fall under the 'mental illness' umbrella, but very few of those are predictors of criminal insanity (with the exception of psychopathy, which - unfortunately - usually goes undiagnosed until it's too late).

You would want mentally ill individuals to have a gun? Did I read that correctly?

[Zonkerbl]

More than half of murders are the result of "arguments while not committing a felony." So "law-abiding citizens" commit more murders than felons do.

[nate33]

More than half of murders are the result of "arguments while not committing a felony." So "law-abiding citizens" commit more murders than felons do.

But that's still an infinitesimally small percentage of gun owners.

[Zonkerbl]

More than half of murders are the result of "arguments while not committing a felony." So "law-abiding citizens" commit more murders than felons do.

But that's still an infinitesimally small percentage of gun owners.

You're saying they shouldn't bear the costs because they're innocent. They're not. By owning a gun they contribute to a problem that affects everybody. Not everybody who is exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer. But cigarette smokers are all responsible for the cancer cases that result.

[Induveca]

More than half of murders are the result of "arguments while not committing a felony." So "law-abiding citizens" commit more murders than felons do.

But that's still an infinitesimally small percentage of gun owners.

You're saying they shouldn't bear the costs because they're innocent. They're not. By owning a gun they contribute to a problem that affects everybody. Not everybody who is exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer. But cigarette smokers are all responsible for the cancer cases that result.

I'm fine with a tax....but it won't happen in my lifetime. The worse things get economically, the more the NRA will hold onto gun ownership as a necessity.

Quite simply, it's unrealistic considering the opposing forces involved.....and the much larger issues at hand. No need to feed DC's appetite for public distracting non-issues.

[daSwami]

Popper, the purpose of the tax is to lower gun purchases, not raise revenue. The "double dividend" you get from pigouvian taxes only results when you use the revenue raised to lower the debt.

You are all a little delusional if you think guns owned by rural americans (or whatever special subgroup) are immune to murder/suicide/accidents. If we knew which people were going to use guns for murder or suicide we could just ban the sales of guns to those people, like we do for felons and the mentally ill.

If our country ends up regulating the sale of guns (which I hope we do, but it seems highly unlikely at the moment given the political climate), I hope the mentally ill aren't denied a right that the "mentally healthy" have. Many disorders fall under the 'mental illness' umbrella, but very few of those are predictors of criminal insanity (with the exception of psychopathy, which - unfortunately - usually goes undiagnosed until it's too late).

You would want mentally ill individuals to have a gun? Did I read that correctly?

Nope, you didn't read it correctly. I'd prefer that no one have a gun but police and military. But if, as a nation, we decide that gun ownership is a birthright, I'd prefer that we didn't codify discrimination against the mentally ill.

[penbeast0]

I don't agree with the tax on guns at all. Why should a law abiding, responsible gun owner who lives in a rural area not protected by the police, pay a $1000 tax just because he wants to protect his home and family? Yes, guns are used to kill people, but not HIS gun.

The problem with this form of Pigovian tax is that it falsely links all guns with murder when it's only a very small percentage of guns in the hands of criminals or the suicidal that cause the deaths.

I think Pigovian taxes make sense when you can link the product to the cost of society. I would be in favor of taxing high fructose corn syrup, for example.

Having lived in both the country (Eastern VA near Lively) and the city, I sure felt the police were protecting me a lot more in the country. It was when I lived 2 blocks north of Dunbar HS on New Jersey Ave, NW that I felt I needed a shotgun in the house. After all, we have a break-in there which our neighbor reported to the police (he noticed that they were using an electronic pry bar on the metal grates over the door, then reported again 30 minutes later as they were wheeling out the refrigerator on a dolly -- both times the police said, "We will send someone over to take a report in the morning." I also had someone put a bullet through my car fender one night driving home after midnight for no particular reason I ever knew.

When I agreed to move back there, I applied for a shotgun permit and had an alert, barking dog -- without them, I wasn't going to be willing to live in that neighborhood. Typically of DC, the permit was never processed or answered and eventually, we just sold the property to someone who would rebuild and flip it to yuppies (hi Wes-Tiny-Abe) for a big profit.

[montestewart]

^
I've been through Lively many times, just drove through last weekend. Talk about an ironic name.

Once my brother-in-law was showing me the Lancaster Museum (or whatever it's called) near Lively. It was after closing, after dark. I tried the front door (for no good reason) and it opened. I realized immediately I'd set off an alarm, and told my brother-in-law we should leave. He insisted on staying to explain to the responding officer, who he likely knew. I was pretty surprised when a police car showed up within minutes. Most of the crimes there seem to be DUIs or other alcohol-related offenses. It's another world.

[nate33]

More than half of murders are the result of "arguments while not committing a felony." So "law-abiding citizens" commit more murders than felons do.

But that's still an infinitesimally small percentage of gun owners.

You're saying they shouldn't bear the costs because they're innocent. They're not. By owning a gun they contribute to a problem that affects everybody. Not everybody who is exposed to second hand smoke gets cancer. But cigarette smokers are all responsible for the cancer cases that result.

This is a fundamental flaw in your logic. How is a law abiding gun owner whose gun was never used to kill someone contributing to the problem?