Illinois is still the only State in the Union that does not allow some form of carry of firearms in order to protect yourself if you choose to do so. Chicago's ban on guns was struck down by the SCOTUS, but Chicago is still making it cumbersome to own a firearm in the city, and many municipalities around Illionois are enacting ridiculous gun control measures that do absolutely nothing to stem crime. Here is the latest example from one county... Illinois county considers 'violence tax' on guns and ammo: Officials in Illinois' Cook County are eyeing a so-called "violence tax" on guns and ammo -- a move aimed at curbing violence and closing the budget gap, but one that's drawing a rebuke from the gun lobby. MyFoxChicago.com reports that homicides in Chicago are up 25 percent this year, and some officials in surrounding Cook County are looking to use such a tax to curb the number of guns in circulation. But NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde told the Chicago Sun-Times it's "just another example of the blame game." "Chicago and Cook County has a gun violence problem, Chicago's got a high high school drop-out rate, they've got a drug problem, they've got a gang problem, but they want to make legal gun owners, guys like me, the scapegoat," he said. The Sun-Times reports that Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle is leading the charge for the tax, though the specific amount is unclear. Preckwinkle Chief of Staff Kurt Summers told the Sun-Times that while it wouldn't "popular" with the gun lobby, "it is consistent with our commitment to pursuing violence reduction in the city and in the county." Summers said gun violence costs the government in a number of ways, including the $143 a day it costs to keep someone in jail. Further, he said it costs $52,00 on average to treat a gunshot victim without insurance in the taxpayer-backed local hospital. But Vandermyde said the tax would end up "jacking up the price of guns and ammunition" on people who can't afford it. A Cook County proposal in 2007 for a bullet tax was ultimately defeated. Source
I don't suppose Illinois would consider putting a 'violence tax' on young Black males? Or on undocumented Hispanic immigrants? (Illinois surprisingly has a lot of them) Why should law abiding citizens have to be taxed to pay for the crimes of criminals? "the right to bear arms" is a right, guaranteed in the United States Constitution. If guns become discriminately taxed, it raises the question at what point does such a tax infringe on this right? When a lower middle class family cannot afford a gun because of all the taxes and regulations, that is an infringement. I am not necessarily against taxation of guns in itself, but this would inevitably lead to a slippery slope. If liberals try to tax guns out of existence, I am sure conservatives will respond by trying to tax abortion out of existence.
Bowerbird, It's a funny video of course, but high taxes on ammo will just hinder law-abiding citizens, and create a black market for ammo. Once again, persecuting the inanimate objects instead of the criminal.
Some good ideas, but would never fly. Conservatives would also know that taxing abortion would just lead to backroom abortions that are unsafe. Let's not turn this into an abortion debate, however. You're right though, trying to tax something in order to punish the trouble-makers, is starting to infringe upon our rights, in this case.
Just a side note. Its not "Guns" that Chicago has an issue with. It is pistols in particular. You can own as many shotguns or rifles or whatever as you want. The "gun" ban wasnt a "gun" ban. it was a Pistol ban. My personal thought on the matter is that shotguns make better guns for home deffense anyways instead of pistols. I honestly dont see the need for pistols outside of warfare. If we only let the public have rifles and shotguns, it would be next to impossible to conceal a weapon. I personally dont think thats a bad idea either. The sad fact of the matter is, that far more people are innocently harmed with guns and fire arms in the home, than crimes stopped. There was just a story in the papers the other day about a father who killed his own son because he thought he was a burgler. This is a more common story than someone actually stopping a burglar or crime with a gun. As for armed justice in public. For example, if your in a bank, and someone comes in with a gun to hold the place up. The second you decide to take justice into your own hands, and draw your weapon, you need to remember that you are ALSO making that desicion for EVERY OTHER PERSON IN THE BANK. If I am in that bank with you, and you pull a fire arm to stop a crime, you have just made the desicion for me, and everyone else in there as well to be involved in a gun fight. And odds are that, even if you stop that crime from happening, an innocent person will likely be hurt or killed. I is RARELY just the criminal OR the person who draws their weapon to prevent said crime that get hurt. But if you had just let that person steal the money, and get away, most likely no one would be hurt. And IMO, someones life is far more valuable than the money.
Why would they try and tax something they want to make illegal anyways? Liberals dont want guns to be illegal. We might think we would be better off without them, but most recognize thats not a viable stance. Thats not the same as conceal and carry laws though if thats what you are refering to. Are you suggesting that you shuold be allowed to own, conceal, and carry a gun with you everywhere you go no matter what? I think most liberals would dispute that point.
Just my perspective, the most important thing is that people be allowed to own semi-automatic rifles. People could still defend their home, and citizens would still have the means to resist tyranny (if such a situation ever arose in the distant future) even if hand guns and shotguns were banned. So as long as liberals leave semi-automatic rifles alone, I would not be going around screaming out alarms. That being said, I still think there is a strong case for being allowed to own handguns and shotguns, and am not in favor of banning them. I suppose that in some specific cities the crime/violence is so bad that perhaps they might be justified in banning people from carrying handguns on their person, without it being in some sort of big locked box. I will admit that this would probably reduce robberies and gang shootings in some areas, because realistically most criminals are not going to go around carrying some big gun that is vissible, and even when they bring their car with them, at least it gives people warning that this criminal has a gun as soon as he steps out of his car. But there is no reason to apply such laws to entire states/provinces. In several convenience stores in the USA, the owners (usually Korean) have a shotgun behind the counter to defend their store, not a handgun, suggesting that a small handgun might not be essential to personal defence in all instances. Yet on the other hand, little handguns have prevented numerous vulnerable women in bad neighborhoods from becoming raped. If carrying concealed handguns are banned, likely it would be the women that would suffer most. I would not be against, in some instances, being sexist and only granting concealed carry permits to women. Hand guns have been called "the great equalizer", and not without good reason. Women, after all, are much less likely to commit crime.
But reducing the overall number of guns in Australia did not cause any of the outcomes most pro-gun lobbyists predicted What it did do was cut down on the accidental death rate (especially for children) and give the police some power to intervene with gangs (OK be a gang but not an ARMED gang)
You anti-gunners have a problem with assault rifles, now it is with pistols. What's next? Who are YOU to decide what can be used for home defense? That's the decision that needs to be made at the time. If I were in a bank, with my gun, and it was being robbed by someone with a gun, I would let them finish and leave. There aren't too many bank robbers that shoot the place up, and then take money. Life is full of decisions. I like the option of being armed and being able to shoot back. What if the guy started shooting people at random? At least an armed citizen can intervene.
I am not an expert on Australian gun violence, but here in the U.S., areas with the strictest laws have the highest crime rates.
I think this is mostly around Chicago. The rest of the state of Illinois is quite traditional when it comes to guns. I bet all the folk in the rural counties are annoyed to no end about what the urban voters are forcing on them.
I'm fine with a tax on guns and ammo for illinois. Being that we live in a country where you can buy things in other states and not have to clear customs because you're in the same country... they can lose gun business with consumers buying from other states. It hurts their state and they'll figure it out... it's not like they'll lose the business to china... it's all the same country here.
if they can wrongly tax cigarettes into oblivion, then we can do it with anything I suppose of course these types of things effect the poor more then they do criminals and like the cigarette tax, it wont be used for what gov claims in the beggining anymore then the cigarette tax is today someday I do think we will have a national a bullet tax, a pack of 20 for $10 .
I hope you are wrong. Cigarettes are not protected by the Constitution like guns are. However, I would never suggest banning cigarettes. This is America.
States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html Gun control does not reduce crime. [video=youtube;UH7tRP_EZ9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH7tRP_EZ9w&feature=related[/video]
