We're the NRA and we're responsible gun owners, just not responsible for the cost of gun

[flamin lib]

violence.

NRA sues over Seattle's adoption of 'gun violence tax'

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/NRA-sues-over-Seattles-adoption-of-gun-violence-tax-322709641.html

Officials modeled the tax after a similar one in Chicago's Cook County, Illinois; the NRA said Chicago is the only other city with such a measure. Seattle's tax, which would take effect in January, would add $25 to the price of each firearm sold in the city, plus 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition, depending on the type. The revenue would be used for gun safety research and gun violence prevention programs.
====
According to Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess, who proposed the tax, the direct medical costs of treating 253 gunshot victims at Harborview Medical Center in 2014 totaled more than $17 million. Taxpayers paid more than $12 million of that total. City officials estimate that the new tax would bring in $300,000 to $500,000 a year, but gun shop owners told council members those numbers were inflated. They said the law would cost them customers and sales and could force them to move out of the city.

Gun violence costs the tax payer $12 mil and the tax will bring in a max of $.5 mil or 4% of the damage done to the taxpayer. How is that burdensome?

Run of the mill pistols sell for $300 to $400 each depending on make and model, much more for specialty items and AR-15s go for $600 to $800 each, again depending on make and model. How is an extra $25 going to sway the decision to purchase to "too expensive" category?

Two to five cents a round. Is that so draconian? A NATO 5.56 round (AR-15) sells for .45 each. A 5c increase makes it .50 each and is a 10% increase. If you fire 500 rounds at the range that's $25 or about what your lunch will cost for the day. So while the % increase looks large, the actual cost increase isn't that much. Nine MM pistol ammo is about .25 a round, so the % increase is twice that of the 5.56 but the cost increase for 500 rounds is the same, about $25 or $1 for a box of 20. The stuff I shoot is at least $1.00 a round so I wouldn't even notice the % increase and after 50-60 rounds your shoulder is ready for a rest so the actual cost increase wouldn't be noticeable either.

People who drive on US highways pay a fuel tax to maintain those highways, why isn't it appropriate for people who shoot to pay a tax to cover the cost to the state of that activity?

Oh, I forgot, gunz is sooooooo special.

[villager]

1. Further evidence how infantile the whole psychology behind "heavily fortifying" yourself really is

No responsibility comes with it...

[CTyankee]

2. This is a classic form of what is called a Pigouvian tax in economic theory

Definition here: In a true market economy, a Pigovian tax is the most efficient and effective way to correct negative externalities. A type of a Pigovian tax is a "sin tax", which is a special tax on tobacco products and alcohol.

I had a big debate here with another DUer a while back on whether Seattle's gun tax is truly Pigouvian.

Paul Krugman blogged this (not on guns but cap and trade policies): http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/the-real-pigou/?_r=0

There is also a Pigouvian subsidy in which the government helps pay for an activity that produces a positive effect, e.g. development of vaccines and cures for disease.

[Hoyt]

3. Gun fanciers are antisocial. If they won't voluntarily modify their bad habit, tax the hell out of

them.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. This law won't survive a legal challenge.

Washington has state-level preemption for gun laws. It's highly unlikely this law would survive a legal challenge on that basis, so arguments over its merit are probably moot.

Moreover, Seattle's city limits encompass only a fairly small part of the (enormous) Seattle metropolitan area. Only a rather small percentage of the area's gun shops are within Seattle city limits. It would take most Seattle gun owners a matter of only a few minutes to drive to a shop without the extra charges (even given Seattle's truly horrific traffic congestion). I'm not sure what this law's backers intended that it accomplish, really.

Personally, I wouldn't object to paying such a modest amount, despite the fact that like most shooters, my firearms will never be involved in incurring the cost to society of gun-related violence. Of course, that's assuming the money was actually going to be allocated to something that will do some good. Facilitating expanded background checks, funding gang outreach programs, what-have-you...

People who drive on US highways pay a fuel tax to maintain those highways, why isn't it appropriate for people who shoot to pay a tax to cover the cost to the state of that activity?

I think it's a stretch to consider, for example, my target shooting competition and practice as having anything whatsoever to do with the cost to society of criminal use of firearms. The only commonality is firearms themselves, and I think that's far too general a connection. Criminals seldom use rifles of any kind in their crimes, and high-end target rifles simply aren't seen in crime stats (handguns are the overwhelming choice). My gun use costs the state nothing. My car use does.

[CTyankee]

5. IIRC, most violent gun crime causing societal harm are by stolen guns or legal guns

in the hands of an out of control owner (alcohol involved, as happened in my own family) of a gun. So there's that...

[flamin lib]

7. So? And your point is? nt

[CTyankee]

8. hey, we're on the same side here. Handguns is what I should have said...sorry, my bad.

some recent health issues are interfering with my thought process just now.

[flamin lib]

11. Sorry, I'm having a side bar with Lizzie Poppet r.e.

MY guns don't harm anyone so this tax is unfair to me. I carried that reasoning over to your post interpreting it to mean something similar, i.e. "tax the stolen guns, not me etc"

There's enough "my bad" to go around on this one . . .

[CTyankee]

15. well, if you follow the reasoning of Pigou, you can have an activity that is legal and

has some positive externalities but as it turns out has some extremely negative ones as well. We should focus on WHY so many legally owned handguns in this country account for so much of the violence.

Drill down with the gun lovers on how Norway handles the gun issue. They love their guns there and use them for target shooting and hunting but they also have strict control of guns. Andre Breviek aside, they have a very safe society, proving that you can have both guns and sensible gun safety regulations. But be ready for the "no can do." I guess we can win World War Two and put a man on the moon but we can't solve our gun violence problems.

[flamin lib]

6. My car doesn't cause potholes in El Paso but the fuel tax I pay in Dallas pays for those potholes

too. The fact that your particular gun isn't criminal is moot and a false argument.

The city attorney thinks the law will hold up under the power to tax granted the city. That remains to be seen.

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. False argument? Nope.

Your car may very well cause potholes in Dallas, if not El Paso. You're still paying towards a cost to the state to which you contributed. My guns don't cause problems for others anywhere. If they did, I'd have no problem paying my fair share. Saying I am responsible in part for the costs criminals impose on society because we both happen to own firearms is bizarre reasoning, to say the least. Collective guilt arguments generally are.

[flamin lib]

10. Well, we just don't get to pick and choose which taxes we pay.

If we could, I'd not pay for wars in the middle east and subsidies to use national lands for mining and grazing.

Your argument is absolutely fallacious because we don't get to pick and choose which taxes we pay because we don't like them.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Um...okay.

While we indeed do not have the ability to pick and choose taxes (I'd blow off pointless elective wars and environmentally-disastrous subsidies, too), that's got nothing to do with my argument. That's not remotely the situation in Seattle, where the tax's dubious legal standing derives from Washington's pre-existing state-level preemption of firearms laws. This isn't a matter of "liking" the tax or not, it's a matter of how this will be adjudicated in court.

[flamin lib]

13. Once again, the city attorney is basing the legality of the tax on the city's

taxing authority. It's a tax issue, not a gun control issue. There is no restriction on ammo or gun purchases only a small revenue generation to help cover the costs of gun violence. Much like the SCOTUS saw the ACA's "penalty" for non coverage.

We will see.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. We'll see how it turns out in court.

Sadly, I suspect they'll spend far more on defending the law in court than it will ever generate.

[Statistical]

16. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

A tax on the exercising of a Constitutional right violates strict scrutiny. No possible way it will survive legal challenge. So a good way of wasting taxpayer funds which could be used on safety and education but otherwise pointless.

[flamin lib]

17. State and local sales taxes are collected on guns and ammo.

The tax will not in any way infringe the exercise of the mystical 2nd amendment.

Sorry, ya' gotta do better than that.

[Statistical]

18. A tax on everything is not comparable to a tax on excercising a right.

Another case for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

[flamin lib]

19. Did you read your own link? A tax over $100000/year on ink for newspapers but not other ink users?

And you equate this to 5c a round and other sales taxes?

I know that gunz is soooooo special but not that special.

Besides, said tax does not interfere with the mystical 2nd amendment right, it just attaches responsibility to owning and shooting guns. I have it on good authority that gun owners are big on being responsible.