I was curious as to how much this "Freedom" and "right" costs the American public and found John Rosenthal's December 15, 2009 post Health Care Costs and Gun Violence. He's a businessman, not a public health professional, but even being in business would give him an ability to assess the costs. He gives the figure that:
On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those, 75 adults and 9 children will die. In the US there are more than 30,000 deaths and over 100,000 injuries related to gun violence each year.He also states that:
According to the Public Services Research Institute in 2008, firearm homicide and assault cost federal, state and local governments $4.7 billion annually including costs for medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes. They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion. According to the National Center for Disease Control, the cost of firearm fatalities is the highest of any injury-related death. In fact, the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total over $300,000 for each occurrence.
What's your opinion? Do you find those numbers compelling? What's Laci's conclusion?
Rights come with responsibilities. I think that the sale of firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, and other gun related items should be heavily taxed to defray the cost to society since it is society that must bear the burden of their "right". But why should society be burdened and why has society allowed itself to be burdened by those who claim this right, yet are not willing to shoulder their responsibilities?
If they can't exercise their right in a responsible manner, then this right should not exist in the matter of public interest.
I wish I'd said that.
"firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, and other gun related items should be heavily taxed"
ReplyDeleteThey are already heavily taxed. An extra 11% on top of any sales tax.
I have a better idea. Let's bring back poll taxes. That way we won't keep reelecting the very same welfare-mongers who enable the criminal element of this country.
Considering how many millions of rounds are expended in lawful use of firearms, the relatively few rounds used in criminal acts are really insignificant.
ReplyDeleteSee how now they now include "reloading supplies" when there are no known cases of criminals loading their own ammo for criminal use. And you wonder why we claim "slippery slope" and incremental-ism.
I'm not really that concerned with society or what costs they think they incur. I haven't shot anybody. Why should I pay for some dirtbag's crimes? You wanna pay a liberal feel-good tax, go right ahead but I'm not.
FWM, I have to admit any complaint about reloading supplies connot be aimed at criminals. But who is seeking to ban or restrict reloading equipment?
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteI got that from Laci's post:
"I think that the sale of firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, and other gun related items should be heavily taxed to defray the cost to society since it is society that must bear the burden of their 'right'."
Emphasis mine.
This is like a road tax. You demand your right, you pay for its outcomes.
ReplyDeleteThat's more than fair since otherwise society pays the cost of your right, which isn't fair.
You need to be taxed enough to cover the costs of firearms injuries.
FWM, In the context Laci used the term "reloading supplies" it makes sense. By increasing the taxes on things the legitimate gun owners buy we can defray the expense of gun violence. That's a lot different than the Bradys, for example, were calling for a ban on relaoding supplies.
ReplyDelete"By increasing the taxes on things the legitimate gun owners buy we can defray the expense of gun violence. "
ReplyDeleteWe tried taxing rights before. It was called "poll taxes". It was was ruled unconstitutional.
Increasing taxes on firearms arms won't be treated any differently. They'll be seen as a way of preventing low income people from exercising their rights, just as poll taxes were.
AztecRed is right, taxing a right is problematic. That's why we need to, sooner or later, remove the 2nd Amendment from the equation. There'll still be guns but then they can be taxed even harder than cigarettes and booze and gasoline, all of which people have a right to buy.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "There'll still be guns but then they can be taxed even harder than cigarettes and booze and gasoline, all of which people have a right to buy."
ReplyDeleteAnd which they continue to buy no matter how much they are taxed.
Which is why, for anti-gunowner advocates, taxation will be no substitute for prohibitionist legislation.
Which is why this subject is a meaningless distraction.
And of course Laci's "Tax them into oblivion" approach is flatly unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSee Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
The Court clearly understood the power to tax could be misused as a means to surpress individual rights of the minority.
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm
I would suggest Laci do some reading and critical thinking RE the above case, but past experience tells me she won't / can't.
This is a "right" which costs society and doesn't really work for its benefit. And you presupposes that owning a firearm is truly a right outside of the militia context.
ReplyDeleteRemember Heller was a split decision 5-4. The civic right interpretation of the Second Amendment is not dead.
Is it a good right if it takes 3% of the year's federal budget? How much does it cost the states?
This is part of the reason it is next to impossible to find figures on the cost of firearms injuries, criminal prosecutions relating to gun crimes, the cost of incarcerating the criminals and so on.
This isn't a poll tax, it's a user tax for those who demand to see society pay for the cost of their "right".
If you don't mind burdening society with the cost of your "right", why should you complain about health care since society pays for caring for those injured by firearms.
"There'll still be guns but then they can be taxed even harder than cigarettes and booze and gasoline, all of which people have a right to buy."
ReplyDeleteThere is no right to buy any of those things. That's why they been able to get away with taxing them so highly.
AztecRed, Whatever are you talking about? "There is no right to buy any of those things."
ReplyDeleteAre you saying you don't have a right to buy cigarettes if you want to? If you're limiting the use of the word "right" to those things mentioned in the Constitution, then I'd say you don't even have a "right" to own a gun. That went out with the militias, man.
But if you want to use the word "right" in its basic meaning, then I say you have a right to all those things until they become dangerous for society and regulated by the government.
Mikeb: I'd say you don't even have a "right" to own a gun. That went out with the militias, man.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like the anti-abortion folks who like to talk about there being no "right" to terminate a pregnancy as if Roe v Wade never happened.
One can debate SC decisions, but as a practical matter the rights to abortion and gun ownership exist as the law of the land.
"Are you saying you don't have a right to buy cigarettes if you want to?"
ReplyDeleteNope. I don't.
"If you're limiting the use of the word "right" to those things mentioned in the Constitution, then I'd say you don't even have a "right" to own a gun. That went out with the militias, man."
But, according to the law militias never went out. And according to the Supreme Court, I do have a right to own a gun.
This is like a road tax. You demand your right, you pay for its outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Laci'd sing a different tune if the government instituted a heavy "blog tax" to pay for the costs of libel, slander etc.
Fishyjay - Of course. MikeB and his lik are just bitter about being wrong for all these years and having their statist, bigoted agenda slapped down by the SCOTUS.
But, according to the law militias never went out.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but U.S. code recognizing the "militia" as something other than the National Guard doesn't fit with MikeB's worldview, so he pretends that law doesn't exist.