Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 51
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicagoland Area
    Posts
    4,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    Look at Chicago, a raping ground for criminals rum amok, they need more police there. I think the people should have guns, but that is a personal opinion I do not wish to impose on another person. So if they pay a tax, they get more police that they need.
    There was talk last year about adding a fee on our utility bills to pay for more uniformed beat cops.

    Quote Originally Posted by hearthman View Post
    It's hard to hire more cops because they are unionized and cost too much. Some of the workers in large cities make obscene salaries and their pensions are out of sight. They have priced themselves out of a job.
    I am related to Chicago police officers pulling down 6 fgures a year. A good portion of which is mandatory OT because of the shortage of officers. Rahm couldn't care less whats happening on the west and south sides. As long as it doesn't spill into the Loop and the Lakefront where all the tax income originates.
    Officially, Down for the count

    YOU HAVE TO GET OFF YOUR ASS TO GET ON YOUR FEET

    It was working when I left...
    Liberalism-Ideas so good they mandate them

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    The vast majority of guns are used legally.

    I might have misunderstood another point if you were making it.
    If a gun is used legally (hunting, target shooting and even self defense) then no issue

    But if a gun is used in a crime and at one time the gun itself was legal, then based upon your tax of non gun owners, then the cost of a gun crime must be paid for by the original gun owner (who allowed " by not ensuring his gun was secured from those who commit the crime" his gun to be used in an illegal activity), or the gun owning community.

  3. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    Quote Originally Posted by AStudent View Post
    Making people pay tax for something that may or may not happen to them is similar to making them pay insurance. Obama wants to take your tax dollars and give them to a doctor when your neighbor gets sick. You want to take my tax dollars and give them to a cop when my neighbor goes to the the bad side of town and gets mugged.
    Not exactly, excellent scenario AS. My suggestion says you pay for the idiot neighbor, and we do that anyway today, the only difference is recognizing demographics and understanding that if the idiot neighbor had a gun he would be less likely to have been mugged to begin with. It is more a tax on the idiot neighbor for not having a gun, don't take it personal.

    This is more of a conceptual civic duty concept. The tax. There is no need to be jealous, if anyone need police I am all for it. But some need it more than others.

    If the stupid neighbor had a CCW he might not have been mugged. Maybe I am thinking about this backasswards and we should just give a tax rebate for those with guns. Thoughts?
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "Ain't nobody got time for that". Corny

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    Quote Originally Posted by barbar View Post
    If a gun is used legally (hunting, target shooting and even self defense) then no issue

    But if a gun is used in a crime and at one time the gun itself was legal, then based upon your tax of non gun owners, then the cost of a gun crime must be paid for by the original gun owner (who allowed " by not ensuring his gun was secured from those who commit the crime" his gun to be used in an illegal activity), or the gun owning community.
    Sorry buddy, but I think you missed the op point.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "Ain't nobody got time for that". Corny

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    Quote Originally Posted by AStudent View Post
    I need the police? Hahaha... my uncle's a cop...most of my friends are cops...trust me I'm not calling them....ever.


    Okay tough guy.

    The of us live in a real world without samari cowboy alien killers on MTV Xbox. We need guns. You may can put the vulcan pinch on the bad guys, I cannot.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "Ain't nobody got time for that". Corny

  6. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    Sorry buddy, but I think you missed the op point.
    I understand, those who do not have guns, need protection which has to be paid for, hence increased tax. I agree.
    Also if being a gun owner does reduce your individual chance of being a crime victim, then it must also follow that your insurance premiums will also be considerably less (is the insurance true, do gun owners pay much less insurance premiums. because insurance premiums are based solely upon risk!).
    Should a non gun owner pay for a gun related crime (directly or indirectly), because he does not have a gun, that a crim. may use in the future.

    a simple example (and not a personal attack), you choose to own a gun, I do not but pay your 5% tax, we both happy and in agreement.
    Your in Texas, you go shopping, leave your gun under your car seat. The gun gets stolen, used in a crime, the crime has a cost, policing, the actual cost of the crime. Why should i pay when i have paid my 5%. if they broke into my car they would not find a gun and the crime may not of been committed. You should pay for the consequence of owning the gun, as I have paid for not owning.

    and what is unfair about that!

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    I understand, those who do not have guns, need protection which has to be paid for, hence increased tax. I agree.

    Great, at least the concept is valid.

    Also if being a gun owner does reduce your individual chance of being a crime victim, then it must also follow that your insurance premiums will also be considerably less (is the insurance true, do gun owners pay much less insurance premiums. because insurance premiums are based solely upon risk!).

    I don't know, but I do know that insurance premiums are reduced for other preventative measures. If not, it should be, and that is an absolutely superb point!

    Should a non gun owner pay for a gun related crime (directly or indirectly), because he does not have a gun, that a crim. may use in the future.

    No, but a careless gunowner may be prosecuted in civil court, not criminal, for a gun misused in his possession or taken. [keys in the car]
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "Ain't nobody got time for that". Corny

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    I understand, those who do not have guns, need protection which has to be paid for, hence increased tax. I agree.

    Great, at least the concept is valid.

    Also if being a gun owner does reduce your individual chance of being a crime victim, then it must also follow that your insurance premiums will also be considerably less (is the insurance true, do gun owners pay much less insurance premiums. because insurance premiums are based solely upon risk!).

    I don't know, but I do know that insurance premiums are reduced for other preventative measures. If not, it should be, and that is an absolutely superb point!

    Should a non gun owner pay for a gun related crime (directly or indirectly), because he does not have a gun, that a crim. may use in the future.

    No, but a careless gunowner may be prosecuted in civil court, not criminal, for a gun misused in his possession or taken. [keys in the car]
    As we go back and forward, on does owning or not actually influence crime, we should just look at insurance premiums as they are a business and having nothing to do with emotions, or even constitution rights. They work on pure statistical data, no bias either way! It would be interesting how they look at it.

    Also in NZ, increases preventive measures reduces insurance premiums.

    On your last point, yes irresponsible gun owners should be charged, but who pays for the consequences? if a crime is committed with a gun involved, then all pay for the cost of the crime, this is unfair on non gun owners who have already paid with your proposed tax. In this case the cost of gun crime, must be borne by gun owners.

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by barbar View Post
    As we go back and forward, on does owning or not actually influence crime, we should just look at insurance premiums as they are a business and having nothing to do with emotions, or even constitution rights. They work on pure statistical data, no bias either way! It would be interesting how they look at it.

    Also in NZ, increases preventive measures reduces insurance premiums.

    On your last point, yes irresponsible gun owners should be charged, but who pays for the consequences? if a crime is committed with a gun involved, then all pay for the cost of the crime, this is unfair on non gun owners who have already paid with your proposed tax. In this case the cost of gun crime, must be borne by gun owners.
    How about letting the ones who commit the crime work and pay for all the associated costs?

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,975
    Quote Originally Posted by cjett View Post
    How about letting the ones who commit the crime work and pay for all the associated costs?
    They should, but HOW?

    They in jail, or where are the jobs going to come from, you already have high levels of unemployment.

    Remember that my comments are to be taken into context with the tax on non gun owners.

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    So tool who claims to be a staunch conservative and adheres rabidly to conservative values proposes:

    1. A new tax

    2. An expansion of government bureaucracy

    3. An expansion of government powers

    4. An expansion of government intrusion into our lives

    5. A database of gun owners

    Sounds pretty pinko/commie/liberal to me.

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    So tool who claims to be a staunch conservative and adheres rabidly to conservative values proposes:

    1. A new tax

    2. An expansion of government bureaucracy

    3. An expansion of government powers

    4. An expansion of government intrusion into our lives

    5. A database of gun owners

    Sounds pretty pinko/commie/liberal to me.
    The OP is intended to be conceptually challenging, and has indeed brought up some new thoughts to me and probably others here. The insurance idea that barbar brought up is fascinating.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "Ain't nobody got time for that". Corny

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    The OP is intended to be conceptually challenging, and has indeed brought up some new thoughts to me and probably others here.
    Yes, it would seem to challenge the values you espouse.

    The insurance idea that barbar brought up is fascinating.
    Yes it is. Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners sounds like a necessary and prudent course of action.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event