The fact that the only response you have is a childish raising of the internet meme banner, I'm confident that my points stand valid, and that you, in fact, do not have a reasonable nor rationale counterargument.
Thanks for conceding the point, although I do wish you kids would find more grown-up ways to do so.
Amount of guns doesn't mean unregulated. In Sweden we have plenty of guns but even the complete gun-nuts wouldn't leave a gun unattended.
Because knowledge of firearms and their proper use and storage is part of your culture.
Here in the US, when intelligent, reasonable gun advocates push for bringing firearms education back into our schools (as was the case in many places 40 years ago), the anti-gun people scream and whine about how we're trying to "indoctrinate" their kids into liking guns.
Please do us all a favor and talk to these anti-gun weirdies (my word) - coming from one of the Scandinavian cultures they seem to consider so much more civilized than our own, they might actually listen to you.
Your entire argument is that if you take something away, it can't be used anymore by crazy, bad, or angry people. That is a logical argument. So, why don't we just round up everyone that we think is crazy, bad, or angry and put only them into jail. That should stop the violence also, shouldn't it??? How about a law that says if you threaten someone, you are put into jail for 20 years to make sure you can't. What if we pass a law that says that if someone is scary, they also get put into jail. How about we pass a law that says the nice, quiet guy that lives next door, never bothers anyone, always says hi, is also thrown into jail just in case he goes nuts.
And rapes, and beatings, and other non-gun related violent crimes? Did they also "drop sharply," or did they increase exponentially?
FYI, I already know the answer. I'm just curious if your broken-record train of thought can handle admitting a fact that contradicts the claims you're implying.
But the availability of guns is far lower so the rates of homicide and other deaths due to guns is also far lower.
No shit, Sherlock; and you may also be shocked to discover that countries with lower availability of blenders have lower rates of blender-related injuries and deaths.
What irritates me about that particular talking point, besides how contrived and stupid it is, is that the people who espouse it are basically saying, "if you didn't get hurt or killed by a gun, fuck you because you don't matter."
Which I find to be pretty fucked up thinking, myself. FYI, a number of those nations with lower gun death rates have exponentially higher rape and violent mugging rates. So "less guns" doesn't equate to the chocolate-rainbows-and-sexy-unicorns utopia that busybodies seem to think it would.
I'm not anti-gun by any means, but how do "We need more guns!" people respond to the fantastic Onion article headline? Yes there have been shootings in Germany and Norway and other places, but do you think it's merely a coincidence that the USA has so many more than other countries for any reason other than the fact that we're all packing?
Oh that's easy, they respond by saying hammers kill people and dodging the subject.
Hammers don't kill people any more than any other inanimate object... such as a gun.
If guns kill people, then cars cause drunk driving, spoons make people fat, and houses make people agoraphobic.
Yes there have been shootings in Germany and Norway and other places, but do you think it's merely a coincidence that the USA has so many more than other countries for any reason other than the fact that we're all packing?
So, by that logic there are more bombings in Europe than the US, because everyone in Europe carries bombs around.
Which, of course, is ridiculously idiotic. Please understand, so is the inverse.
Side note: Never quote an Onion article if you wish to be taken seriously.
So, your uncle, a law "enforcement" officer, basically admitted to you that he conspired to commit many, many murders over the years, even going so far as to teach his fellow cops how to do the same.
Then he told you about it, and presumably you did not turn him in as you would be legally required to.
Makes a guy wonder... if the average American commits 3 felonies a day, how many felonies do you think Americans who hide behind badges, and their families, commit?
"Gun nut" is a horribly inappropriate term. "Gun loving bedwetter" is exponentially more descriptive;
So, you're the one who is so utterly terrified of what people you'll never meet might do with a tool they may own, but other people are the "bedwetters?"
Now, in what ways specifically has the 2nd amendment been used to advance the cause of freedom in the US?
An armed populace is a deterrent to totalitarianism. Specific enough?
Go through a history book, look up all the societies that allowed government to disarm them, and how things turned out for the regular people living there.
Puh-shaw, ever look inside the "tool cabinet" at a BDSM club?
Me neither! But I bet if we did, we might find one or two repurposed buggy whips. Just because the primary use of your product goes out of vogue doesn't mean it stops being useful alltogether. Hell, silly putty started life as a failed plastic explosive.
So basically what you're saying is that I'm wrong for accepting a certain speculation, which you go on to "prove" your point by introducing more speculation? Or do you have a specific breakdown of what items fall into that "75% tax-free" bracket you mentioned?
How can anyone argue against the statement that taking 4 from 20 leaves less than taking 40 from 200?
The CDC lost a lot of street cred with me once I found out how their SAMMEC algorithm determines "smoking-related deaths:" basically, if a person dies, and their medical history shows that they smoked at any point during life, the system calls it a "smoking death." Doesn't matter that the person was morbidly obese and died of a heart attack, he smoked when he was 18.
Repeal the 16th Amendment (or just admit it was never legally ratified), reset the legal meaning of "income" from "money given in exchange for labor" back to "capital gains as a result of business profits," and BOOM!
The simple answer is to exclude necessity items from the flat tax.
Then it's technically not a 'flat' tax anymore.
I recognize this opens the door to loophole items into tax exemption, but while we're spitballing utopian tax systems, might as well start somewhere.
We've already started there with our existing graduated tax system - I fail to see how throwing the baby out with the bathwater, then replacing it with a brand new baby as we refill the tub, is somehow going to be a more workable solution.
Of course, I come from a long line of people who fix things when they break, rather than just throwing them out and buying new stuff, so that probably colors my view significantly.
Except that the government will just increase taxes on other common goods to make up for the shortfall. So? Low income people still spend a lower percentage on their income on those "common goods" than the wealthy.
Actually, the opposite - low income people spend less dollars, but a larger portion of income, on those items than rich people. Plus, you really can't limit spending on "must-have" items like food, shelter, utilities, etc.
As OP stated, and I already repeated, a 20% tax on a $20,000/yr income is a much larger chunk of income than a 20% tax hit on a $200,000 income.
With a "flat tax," there isn't any way around that issue. There are lots of ways around the issue. You could tweak the system further.
Then it's not a "flat tax," it's a graduated tax system, like the one we already have.
Slashdot Mirror
> A democracy is all fun and games, until you get shot in the head,
+ ...by a cop.
+... who gets 2 weeks paid vacation as a "punishment."
"Wilson's goal is still to render government gun regulation useless"
That's more than just making a gun.
It's also nothing close to anarchy.
And the thread is Godwined. Awesome.
The fact that the only response you have is a childish raising of the internet meme banner, I'm confident that my points stand valid, and that you, in fact, do not have a reasonable nor rationale counterargument.
Thanks for conceding the point, although I do wish you kids would find more grown-up ways to do so.
Amount of guns doesn't mean unregulated.
In Sweden we have plenty of guns but even the complete gun-nuts wouldn't leave a gun unattended.
Because knowledge of firearms and their proper use and storage is part of your culture.
Here in the US, when intelligent, reasonable gun advocates push for bringing firearms education back into our schools (as was the case in many places 40 years ago), the anti-gun people scream and whine about how we're trying to "indoctrinate" their kids into liking guns.
Please do us all a favor and talk to these anti-gun weirdies (my word) - coming from one of the Scandinavian cultures they seem to consider so much more civilized than our own, they might actually listen to you.
Armed confrontation with the state will not work. Syria is most recent historical example,
Um... is that the same Syria where large portions of the country have been taken over by rebels engaged in an armed confrontation with the state?
Sure you want to use that one as your example?
Your entire argument is that if you take something away, it can't be used anymore by crazy, bad, or angry people. That is a logical argument. So, why don't we just round up everyone that we think is crazy, bad, or angry and put only them into jail. That should stop the violence also, shouldn't it??? How about a law that says if you threaten someone, you are put into jail for 20 years to make sure you can't. What if we pass a law that says that if someone is scary, they also get put into jail. How about we pass a law that says the nice, quiet guy that lives next door, never bothers anyone, always says hi, is also thrown into jail just in case he goes nuts.
Dude!
Don't give those nosy fuckers any more ideas!
Gun deaths in Australia dropped sharply after the ban was enacted.
And rapes, and beatings, and other non-gun related violent crimes? Did they also "drop sharply," or did they increase exponentially?
FYI, I already know the answer. I'm just curious if your broken-record train of thought can handle admitting a fact that contradicts the claims you're implying.
ie, you're 40 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US than in UK, but sure.. believe what you like.
Go look up the statistics for what social group would be most likely to be holding that gun that shoots you.
Hint: They wear badges and roam the countryside extorting the population at the behest of the feudal-minded lords and ladies of their domain.
But yea, let's keep arming them with tanks and machine guns, and keep disarming everyone else. That will surely work out for the best.
Not true. Gun regulation is a statistical win.
Yea, look at how well it worked out for Hitler an Mao.
The first guy killed what, 6-8 MILLION people shortly after disarming them?
"Statistical win," so fuck the losers, right? That's what they get for being on the wrong side of power, fucking plebes.
But the availability of guns is far lower so the rates of homicide and other deaths due to guns is also far lower.
No shit, Sherlock; and you may also be shocked to discover that countries with lower availability of blenders have lower rates of blender-related injuries and deaths.
What irritates me about that particular talking point, besides how contrived and stupid it is, is that the people who espouse it are basically saying, "if you didn't get hurt or killed by a gun, fuck you because you don't matter."
Which I find to be pretty fucked up thinking, myself. FYI, a number of those nations with lower gun death rates have exponentially higher rape and violent mugging rates. So "less guns" doesn't equate to the chocolate-rainbows-and-sexy-unicorns utopia that busybodies seem to think it would.
I'm not anti-gun by any means, but how do "We need more guns!" people respond to the fantastic Onion article headline? Yes there have been shootings in Germany and Norway and other places, but do you think it's merely a coincidence that the USA has so many more than other countries for any reason other than the fact that we're all packing?
Oh that's easy, they respond by saying hammers kill people and dodging the subject.
Hammers don't kill people any more than any other inanimate object... such as a gun.
If guns kill people, then cars cause drunk driving, spoons make people fat, and houses make people agoraphobic.
Yes there have been shootings in Germany and Norway and other places, but do you think it's merely a coincidence that the USA has so many more than other countries for any reason other than the fact that we're all packing?
So, by that logic there are more bombings in Europe than the US, because everyone in Europe carries bombs around.
Which, of course, is ridiculously idiotic. Please understand, so is the inverse.
Side note: Never quote an Onion article if you wish to be taken seriously.
So, your uncle, a law "enforcement" officer, basically admitted to you that he conspired to commit many, many murders over the years, even going so far as to teach his fellow cops how to do the same.
Then he told you about it, and presumably you did not turn him in as you would be legally required to.
Makes a guy wonder... if the average American commits 3 felonies a day, how many felonies do you think Americans who hide behind badges, and their families, commit?
What guns are designed for mass murder?
30mm cannons, 240 BRAVOs, SAW machine guns, nukes, chemical/biological weapons...
You know, the kind of stuff governments have tons of, but regular folks aren't allowed to have.
"Gun nut" is a horribly inappropriate term. "Gun loving bedwetter" is exponentially more descriptive;
So, you're the one who is so utterly terrified of what people you'll never meet might do with a tool they may own, but other people are the "bedwetters?"
I'll just leave this here...
Now, in what ways specifically has the 2nd amendment been used to advance the cause of freedom in the US?
An armed populace is a deterrent to totalitarianism. Specific enough?
Go through a history book, look up all the societies that allowed government to disarm them, and how things turned out for the regular people living there.
Everyone who isn't an American often finds themselves wondering at your fascination with weapons.
Take an American Civics and History class, and pay attention.
Then you can stop wondering, because you'll be educated in the matter.
The basic chemistry isn't terribly hard, but producing a consistent product is going to be tricky for a guy in his basement.
Lol, remember how people who owned industrial manufacturing facilities used to say this before things like 3D printers became commercially viable?
Dude - it is not hard to get a consistent mixture of powders. Especially a mixed powder people have been refining for centuries.
Or can people in basements not get their hands on mortars, pestles, and measuring systems?
Puh-shaw, ever look inside the "tool cabinet" at a BDSM club?
Me neither! But I bet if we did, we might find one or two repurposed buggy whips. Just because the primary use of your product goes out of vogue doesn't mean it stops being useful alltogether. Hell, silly putty started life as a failed plastic explosive.
What planet are you from?
One where people have decent reading comprehension skills. Obviously, a planet you never bothered to chart, let alone visit.
So basically what you're saying is that I'm wrong for accepting a certain speculation, which you go on to "prove" your point by introducing more speculation? Or do you have a specific breakdown of what items fall into that "75% tax-free" bracket you mentioned?
How can anyone argue against the statement that taking 4 from 20 leaves less than taking 40 from 200?
The CDC lost a lot of street cred with me once I found out how their SAMMEC algorithm determines "smoking-related deaths:" basically, if a person dies, and their medical history shows that they smoked at any point during life, the system calls it a "smoking death." Doesn't matter that the person was morbidly obese and died of a heart attack, he smoked when he was 18.
Repeal the 16th Amendment (or just admit it was never legally ratified), reset the legal meaning of "income" from "money given in exchange for labor" back to "capital gains as a result of business profits," and BOOM!
Problem solved.
The simple answer is to exclude necessity items from the flat tax.
Then it's technically not a 'flat' tax anymore.
I recognize this opens the door to loophole items into tax exemption, but while we're spitballing utopian tax systems, might as well start somewhere.
We've already started there with our existing graduated tax system - I fail to see how throwing the baby out with the bathwater, then replacing it with a brand new baby as we refill the tub, is somehow going to be a more workable solution.
Of course, I come from a long line of people who fix things when they break, rather than just throwing them out and buying new stuff, so that probably colors my view significantly.
Except that the government will just increase taxes on other common goods to make up for the shortfall.
So? Low income people still spend a lower percentage on their income on those "common goods" than the wealthy.
Actually, the opposite - low income people spend less dollars, but a larger portion of income, on those items than rich people. Plus, you really can't limit spending on "must-have" items like food, shelter, utilities, etc.
As OP stated, and I already repeated, a 20% tax on a $20,000/yr income is a much larger chunk of income than a 20% tax hit on a $200,000 income.
With a "flat tax," there isn't any way around that issue.
There are lots of ways around the issue.
You could tweak the system further.
Then it's not a "flat tax," it's a graduated tax system, like the one we already have.