The short answer to the question in the title is, Violence is the issue.

I agree with the other poster, you had me, and then you lost me.

Violence is the root problem here, not the various tools people choose to commit violence with. Guns are all but non-existent in Britain, yet their violent crime rate continues to climb. Once guns disappeared people began to use knives, Cricket bats, walking sticks, cars, wrenches, and whatever else is available.



“If we accept that gun ownership is a right, let's make sure that the people who choose to own guns pay for the cost to society of exercising that right.”


One thing that must be remembered about this is that we are discussing a right. Driving a car is a privilege. Smoking is a luxury. We cannot tax the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to free travel, the right against quartering soldiers, or the right to legal defense, so why would we be able to tax the right to defend ourselves?

Penalizing someone financially for exercising their rights is fraught with problems. For one thing, financial penalties are typically not equally distributed. By this I mean that a $1,000 charge/fee/penalty means considerably less to someone who makes $200,000/yr than it does to someone who makes $20,000/yr. That means that the same law governing our rights is effectively 10x more restrictive to the poor than it is for the rich. The discrepancy is clearly even greater for someone who makes less than that amount. Are their rights somehow less valid? I discount this as a fair way to accomplish the goal of reducing violence.

 

There are a number of social issues that clearly contribute to violence. Most of these have to do with economics in one form or another. If you raise the levels of employment, education, and standard of living, you will see a reduction in overall violent crime.

 

I think you were going in the right direction with education. I think that right along with D.A.R.E., music and P.E. we should have firearms familiarization and education. Students should be taught and tested on proper gun handling and safety techniques, loading and how to empty a gun and make it safe. Even if that student never chooses to buy a gun, they will understand how they function, and hopefully how to responsibly own one should they so choose. This would greatly reduce the number of “accidents” involving firearms, as many of these involve people who’ve never handled a gun before.



Oh, and just a little food for thought- the roots of the gun control movement are clearly rooted in racism. That’s right, the first efforts to pass legislation regulating firearms was just after the end of the Civil War, when plantation owners were trying to disarm former slaves. These court proceedings are public record. Notice that in the US the areas that have the strictest regulations on firearms also tend to be the areas with the highest minority populations.

Playing devil's advocate on the tax thing... aren't there potentially costs on society due to people NOT exercising their right to own a gun?

Because they refuse to own a gun or learn other means of self defense, doesn't that mean that we need more police on the streets to rely on to come to our rescue?

In the time it takes the authorities to get there, assuming someone has been able to call them, what other costs have racked up?

So, if we're taxing people for their cost to society, why shouldn't we tax the people who DON'T exercise their right to own a gun or take charge for their own defense?

Now, that said... having someone with a gun isn't enough obviously. You need someone TRAINED on how and when to use that gun (just like you need to be trained at martial arts and other self defense methods).

Remember, the gun is simply the tool of defense, it's only as good as the person using it.

So, I would be perfectly fine with an added tax at the time of purchase on guns and/or ammunition for those who have not completed a training course every 5 years or so. Basically, take the class, get your little certification, and you don't have to pay the tax on purchases.

A trained and responsible gun owner is far less likely to be a cost on society, but rather a benefit. An untrained gun owner however...

I do think that we need to go back to teaching everyone about guns though. Just because someone doesn't LIKE guns doesn't mean they shouldn't understand how they work. In fact, if they feel they are a danger they should definitely know how to properly handle a gun should they find one and how to go about making sure the gun is safe and/or unloaded.

I think if we demystified guns, we would have more people comfortable with the ideas of guns, perhaps a few more gun owners, but most importantly...everyone would be far better educated and (hopefully) responsible.

As for the root causes of violence... well, aren't some of those hardcoded into our very nature? But I do think that we can make significant strides through education, a more sound and fair economy, etc.

If we can tackle some of those issues, people will by nature be far less likely to resort to violence because they will be better equiped with other means to deal with problems.

The mere existence and lawful use of guns in society has an extremely low cost to society. Shooting ranges, firearms manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers must comply with environmental guidelines, the costs of which are are included in the price of purchase or rental.



Cars emit pollution, and require vast networks of roads. Cars are involved in thousands and thousands of accidents, killing far more people than guns. How many police have been killed in car accidents?


In the 40's, 50's and 60's, gun were more prevalent in our society, and culture, and yet the rate of violent crime was lower. This would indicate that guns themselves aren't the issue. Again I point to Britain. Canada has almost as many guns per capita as we in the US, yet their violent crime rate is only a fraction of ours. The cost that you are describing is that of crime. Traditionally the purpose of the legal justice system is to make criminals "pay their debt to society", whether that crime is rape, murder, extortion, etc.  In addition, criminals may be sued in civil court, to extract further justice. Many different types of crime have very high costs to society, take the recent Wall Street debacle (Please!), and it's effect on the world's economy, pollution, arson, child abuse, etc.

 

A car, brick, or knife doesn’t cause or commit murder, a murderer commits murder. They may have many reasons for doing whatever they did (be it parents, schools, church, picked on by friends, loss of a job, etc), but blaming an inanimate object for their criminal actions is well…as a psychologist. If we blame the weapon used instead of the criminal, where do we lay blame for unarmed domestic violence, or child abuse?

 

I believe we have sufficient laws on the books regarding guns:

 

It is illegal for a convicted felon to posses a firearm.

It is illegal for a person dishonorably discharged from the military to posses a firearm.

It is illegal for a mentally unstable person to posses a firearm.

It is illegal for a person with past or current domestic violence action against them to posses a firearm.

It is illegal to leave a firearm where a child can access it.

It is illegal to brandish a firearm in a threatening manner.

It is illegal to use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

It is illegal to commit armed robbery.

Murder is illegal.

In most cities, discharging a firearm is illegal.

Possession of an unregistered machine gun is a Felony, punishable by 20 or more years in Federal prison.

If someone discharges a firearm in self-defense, they are already legally liable for what each bullet hits.

Criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws of society.

 

According to the Bureau of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey (ongoing since 1972) “Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.” and “After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.”

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns

 

There is a lot of hype right now about “gun crime”, but the fact of the matter is that crime rates have been steadily declining since the early 90’s. We are at a low point for violent crime right now, including “gun crime”.  The problem is that the various evening news companies (and especially the 24hr ones) want ratings, so they only show you the worst news in the nation. This gives the impression that crime rates are at record highs, with car-jackings, and murder around every corner, when in fact this is less true now than it was almost 40-50 years ago. Simultaneously politicians want to be re-elected, so they feel like they have to pass new legislation, essentially, so they look busy. 

 

I agree with you that reducing violence in America is a direction we need to move in, but we must carefully choose our course. We must stop trying to cure symptoms, and start treating the illness. We must find the things that motivate people to commit acts of criminal violence, and resolve those problems.

 

As an aside, that guy in PA was a confirmed Neo-Nazi, and cannot be used as an example of  a responsible citizen. There were many things wrong with that guy… Meanwhile a family of 5 was killed recently, while the driver of the vehicle was talking on a cell phone.

I just wanted to add that citizens can make a difference. I myself stopped a rape in progress in 1996, and a man dragging his wife from a car to beat her in a public paring lot in 2006. Both times it took the police 5 or more minutes to get there (that’s not the officer’s fault, it’s just the way the system works), and both times the offender was gone before they arrived. While there were no guns involved in either situation, if they had a gun and I did not, they may have continued to do those things. Citizens can make a difference. We just have to care what happens to the other people around us.

 

Remember: when seconds count, armed police are only minutes away.

My previous post was not intended to advocate vigilantism or any other such nonsense, but to show that being willing to intervene when our fellows are being treated unfairly can make a difference.

There are police reports to support my claims.

And as for "give-everyone-a-gun", I don't believe everyone should have a gun, but when criminals aren't sure who is armed and who is not, their process for preying on the weak becomes much more complicated. There for I support the right to carry a concealed weapon-after completing proper training, and licencing.

Dear J and Amir-

Gentlemen, I would like to thank you both for helping illustrate my original point - discussion about gun control is not very useful for solving the problem of violence.

I'm supporting the Department of Peace idea as a way of getting to the root causes of violence in society and providing the institutional heft to do something about it. I hope you will either join me or propose an alternative approach.

Peace,
Ted