Taxation to control behavior - Taxing Guns
Taxes are necessary to run the country and keep society going. Pooling our resources for the collective efforts of the greater good, be it to build roads or bridges, or social security and medicare, is necessary to keep society running, and generally provide us with the benefits we've been accustomed to. Be it running water or the police, electricity or the military, there is clear evidence that the government can be a powerful force for change, and positively impacts the well being of people. Irregardless of your stance on higher or lower taxes, most people agree that some taxes are necessary, and therefore taxation at it's core isn't inherently bad. However, taxing people to control behavior has alway been an issue for me, for a number of reasons. The most obvious and most succinct observation would be that it's a form of class warfare, effectively increasing the price of the goods which we are taxing, which really only stands to effects those with less money, such as the poor, disproportionately than the rich. As rich people generally not only have more money, but higher disposable incomes, making things more expensive in the hopes that less people will buy them, truly only hurts the average person, and the poor. You are essentially telling poor people that they need to spend vastly greater proportions of their income on a good than the rich, simply because you don't like it. In the case of say, banning guns, if your only goal is to keep them out of the hands of criminals, why is it that everyone is being punished, and why are we punishing people by taking away their money?
Taxing alcohol or cigarettes doesn't make people want to use them less, it makes people have to spend more money on the goods, which in turn causes them to be more likely to turn to crime to fund their addiction. When it comes to guns, it's not as if the need for self defense is lower among poor people, in fact the poor are more likely to experience violence than the rich, and making it more expensive isn't going to effect those with lots of money very greatly. Conversely, criminals who stand to actually make money by committing crimes with guns or who are committing passion crimes (like say a mass murder) likely don't care all that much about the price, and it's unlikely that an increase in price would effect the ownership rates. A plumber buys tools for his trade, even if they are expensive to allow him to work; a 1,000 dollar wrench or volt gauge may seem expensive for the average person, but for a plumber this typically isn't an issue. A doctor needs a scalpel, a truck driver a truck, and spending more moeny on these goods likely effects how much money they get in return. A bank robber needs a weapon of some kind, and if they use a gun, it's not as if spending 3,000 dollars on a gun, instead of 1,000 dollars, in order to make 30,000+ dollars a year from robbing banks isn't worth the initial investment. While us normal people don't see guns as investments unless we plan to resell them or become competition shooters (of which is extremely rare among all gun owners), a criminal looking to get a start does. If paying 3,000 dollars to make 30,000 dollars is the requirement, it clearly obviously is a benefit. Yet by comparison, 3,000 dollars is a lot of money to spend if you only make minimum wage, or 15,000 to 20,000 a year, and this is money you will never see again. A suicidal mad-man such as a mass shooter who plans on getting killed by police or going to prison for the rest of their life likely doesn't care how much money he has to spend. Maxing out a credit card or selling your house before you plan on committing suicide isn't really a problem, and neither would it be for a mass murderer. All anyone can really hope to achieve by taxing guns is that the poor are less likely to buy them if they can't afford them. This effectively tells the poor that they are lesser citizens than the rich, as it would do little to deter the rich or upper middle class from buying them who have less concerns over the price. If trying to control our behavior by making things more expensive arbitrarily is done, it likely would have no impact on crime, disproportionate effect on the poor and middle class, and simply make it more difficult to own guns for the common man.
Bear in mind, I don't really mind taxing guns as way to generate revenue from a business. Cars, general manufacturing and many other businesses are taxed, in order to simply make money for the government. My issue stems from people taxing guns that is, arbitrarily raising the price of guns, to make them harder to obtain. Ideas always float around about gun control how we should make bullets twice as expensive, or three times as expensive and if we did so, criminals would be less likely to use them. The idea is that if we punish people by taking away their money, they'll be less likely to commit crimes. As a ridiculous an argument that may seem on the surface in it's own right, this still only really effects the poor, as it's unlikely a criminals mind will be changed due to a slight difference in price. It obviously won't stop the rich from buying a gun as it doesn't stand to effect them greatly when they not only have more money, but more disposable income (I.E. not spent on necessities like houses, or cars). And it likely won't effect criminals, as criminals who stand to make money from their actions or are crazy likely don't care. The only people you hurt significantly by increasing taxes on guns to make guns less available, are the average person.
People who claim they want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but then tax everyone, punishing everyone for owning a gun, are contradicting themselves. Clearly this is an effort to keep the common man disarmed, and more importantly the poor. According to the BJS, persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000). [1] A free speech tax or 5th amendment tax would seem insane, but taxing the right to own weapons for self defense is somehow seemed justifiable by many. The right to self defense doesn't only apply to those with money, and placing an unnecessary burden on those trying to exercise their right just seems morally wrong. It doesn't really make sense to provide arbitrary taxes on guns as compared to any other product. In fact taxing anything to control behavior is a clear abuse of what taxation is supposed to be, which is a way to run the country, not control the people. It's a disgusting attack on the poor when people's rights are being taxed, and it doesn't seem like it would have any tangible impact on crime.
This is of course assuming in the first place that criminals generally tend to buy guns from gun stores. Only a relatively small percentage of all criminals bought their guns legally, and a smaller fraction of violent offenders legally obtained their firearms. 79% of firearms used by criminals for instance were illegally obtained, suggesting that only a fairly small fraction of guns are purchased legally, and thus would be subject to any kind of government mandated tax. Criminals tend to get guns on the street for 50-100 dollars, compared to about 500+ dollars for the average law abiding citizens. Not only would criminals be able to avoid the tax quite easily, but their guns are already considerably cheaper than what civilians must shell out due to various reasons already. But even if criminals legally obtained their guns, it likely wouldn't have enough of a dent to stop them from owning guns to commit crimes. You truly only stand to hurt the average man, and using taxes as a punishment in the first place is an abuse of authority.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Mass Murder - A global Comparison
Mass Murder - A global Comparison
According to the president of the United State's, mass shootings don't happen with this kind of frequency in any other country in the world, and we have the highest level of violence. So, what do the facts say, do mass shootings, and mass murders, occur in other countries than the U.S.? Other industrialized or "advanced" countries?
Here is a chart of such countries.
As you can see, the U.S. has a rate of about .15, and Switzerland is .17, Finland is .34, while Norway is 1.3. Norway had a homicide rate of .6, but then suddenly, a single mass attack brought it up 2.2 homicides per year. They have a mass murder rate of 1.3, compared to the U.S.'s of .15? How is this possible? The fact of the matter is, mass murder is sadly completely random. It has almost no bearings on the total murder rate, gun control laws or in reality almost any single factor. Crime is random, and random mass attacks are even more random. We can't blame anyone, any law or any procedure for this. It is an inevitability in a free world. The UK has had mass attacks since their gun laws were enacted. Australia has had them. Australia has had knife attacks, and fire attacks.
These violent attacks are caused by deeply rooted psychological issues. Each one of them has been insane, a terrorist, or possessed other mental issues. By ignoring the human aspect, by ignoring these people as people, and instead focusing on the weapon, be it the car bomb in the Oklahoma city bombing attack, the knives in the Chinese attacks, the box cutters or the plane used in 9/11. The fact of the matter is, these problems will persist as long as there are people motivated to kill one another, and it's naive or even willfully ignorant to simply think that regulating a single tool will take away the ability for people to kill one another, even in large numbers. It is of the opinion of this author that the only practical, reasonable solution is to focus on the criminals, improve things like education and the mental health system, and generally focus on people rather than things to solve the problems. Crime is fundamentally a social problem, not one due to the existence or use or various tools. Therefore, focusing on people gets to the heart of the issue, rather than ignoring them and placing the blame on things. To ignore the human element would lead to catastrophic results.
A comparison to other forms of attacks - Australia
Various claims have been made that, after harsh gun control measures were implemented, there wasn't a single mass shooting in Australia. This of course would be a fairly impressive feat, although chalking it up all to gun control would be extremely difficult. After all, a myriad of factors contribute to high crime, ranging from poverty, to culture to even randomness, making it impossible to truly control crime, let alone with a single piece of legislation. But, the question still remains; did Australia manage to eliminate all mass shootings?
The answer to this question, of course depends inherently on how you define a "mass shooting". While some figures go by 4 or more killed, others guy by 3 or more injured. The distinction is important, as while the difference may not seem like much, there is only a 5-15% chance of being killed by a bullet, if you get immediate medical attention. A mass shooting done outside a hospital may have injured a lot of people, but not resulted in the deaths of any of them. A mass shooting done at a time or place where medical attention was scarce could result in far greater casualties, meaning that injury rates are vastly different from death rates for different reasons. Nonetheless, the figures used in most sources seem to reference the mass shooting statistic of 4 or more people killed. According to the source, they did. But, does this hold up with reality? [1][2][3]
The short answer is, no. There have been at least one casesof mass shootings involving the deaths of 4 or more people in Australia. The first is the Hunt mass murder, where a man killed his wife and three children, constituting four people killed. The number is not zero, but due to the difficulty of compiling such records and their general rarity, there isn't much information on the subject. So, what about 3 or more injured? While there are not comprehensive lists, there are at least a few dozen cases of this happening, notably the Hectorville Siege, the Monash university shooting, and the Melbourne Shootings. [4]
But let's ignore mass shootings for a moment. Even if they had stopped, and criminals decided to use arson, explosives, vehicles or poison, would more lives had been saved? If a criminal used a knife instead of a gun, would more lives to be saved? The simple answer is, yet again, no. The Cairn's Child killings resulted in 8 stabbed to death, without a gun, which is far more than 3, 4 or 5 dead. The lin family murders resulted in at least 5 dead from a hammer. So, if a suspect used a knife or a hammer, could they not kill more than 4 people? Of course not. They have and they will.
What about Arson? By far, Arson is the deadliest means of death in all of Australia to date. The quaker's hill arson attack killed at least 11 people. The Childer's palace fire killed at least 15 people. Finally, the Black Saturday's Bushfire killed 173 people. 173 people. And it left another 400+ injured. If just one murderer decided to use arson instead, they could literally kill more than all the mass shootings from 1960 to 1996, combined. So, if a murderer switched weapons to a knife, or arson instead of a gun, is Australia safe? The short answer, once again, is no. Australia is actually worse off by letting criminals use other methods than a gun to kill people. What about in France where guns that were involved in the deaths of over 140 people were illegally smuggled in to the country? Or an 18 wheeler attack that killed 80? Are there no 18-wheelers in Australia? The idea that Australians are safe because guns are harder to obtain is in and of itself a fallacy. What does it matter what weapons they use when the same, if not more people, die?
World Comparison
The Oklahoma City Bombing attack killed 168 people and wounded an additional 680 people, with a fertilizer bomb. The Indian subway bombings killed 209 people and injured an additional 700 people, with bombs made from pressure cookers. In the United states, 2001, September 11th, two terrorists managed to overtake a plane with box cutters and killed 3,000 people. Comparatively, only about 500 deaths and another 1,000 injures have resulted from mass shootings in the year, from 1980 to 2012. If guns are so deadly, how is it that a single attack can kill and injure at least as many as all of them combined in 30 years?
The reality is, guns are not needed for mass murders. The worst mass murders from other weapons have been worse from guns. These weapons, such as pressure cookers and fertilizer, are widely available and generally unregulated. Making bombs or weapons from them are generally fairly easy. Easiest of all is arson, which has death tolls far beyond that of most shootings. And on top of this, even if guns are banned, they can be illegally smuggled in to the country with relative ease. An 18 wheeler can be used to kill over 86 people, worse than the worst single person mass shooting of all time, at 67 deaths. So are guns the problem? The answer is very simple; people are. If you want to lower crime, you need to focus on the murderer, not the methods. Several far more easily obtainable, and deadly methods exist for criminals. Massive mental health coverage is needed to track and detain suspected terrorists and murderers to protect society. Simply banning guns is at best a patch to cover up the problem. If you really want to save lives, you have to dig deeper, and focus on humanity, rather than things.
According to the president of the United State's, mass shootings don't happen with this kind of frequency in any other country in the world, and we have the highest level of violence. So, what do the facts say, do mass shootings, and mass murders, occur in other countries than the U.S.? Other industrialized or "advanced" countries?
Here is a chart of such countries.
As you can see, the U.S. has a rate of about .15, and Switzerland is .17, Finland is .34, while Norway is 1.3. Norway had a homicide rate of .6, but then suddenly, a single mass attack brought it up 2.2 homicides per year. They have a mass murder rate of 1.3, compared to the U.S.'s of .15? How is this possible? The fact of the matter is, mass murder is sadly completely random. It has almost no bearings on the total murder rate, gun control laws or in reality almost any single factor. Crime is random, and random mass attacks are even more random. We can't blame anyone, any law or any procedure for this. It is an inevitability in a free world. The UK has had mass attacks since their gun laws were enacted. Australia has had them. Australia has had knife attacks, and fire attacks.
These violent attacks are caused by deeply rooted psychological issues. Each one of them has been insane, a terrorist, or possessed other mental issues. By ignoring the human aspect, by ignoring these people as people, and instead focusing on the weapon, be it the car bomb in the Oklahoma city bombing attack, the knives in the Chinese attacks, the box cutters or the plane used in 9/11. The fact of the matter is, these problems will persist as long as there are people motivated to kill one another, and it's naive or even willfully ignorant to simply think that regulating a single tool will take away the ability for people to kill one another, even in large numbers. It is of the opinion of this author that the only practical, reasonable solution is to focus on the criminals, improve things like education and the mental health system, and generally focus on people rather than things to solve the problems. Crime is fundamentally a social problem, not one due to the existence or use or various tools. Therefore, focusing on people gets to the heart of the issue, rather than ignoring them and placing the blame on things. To ignore the human element would lead to catastrophic results.
A comparison to other forms of attacks - Australia
Various claims have been made that, after harsh gun control measures were implemented, there wasn't a single mass shooting in Australia. This of course would be a fairly impressive feat, although chalking it up all to gun control would be extremely difficult. After all, a myriad of factors contribute to high crime, ranging from poverty, to culture to even randomness, making it impossible to truly control crime, let alone with a single piece of legislation. But, the question still remains; did Australia manage to eliminate all mass shootings?
The answer to this question, of course depends inherently on how you define a "mass shooting". While some figures go by 4 or more killed, others guy by 3 or more injured. The distinction is important, as while the difference may not seem like much, there is only a 5-15% chance of being killed by a bullet, if you get immediate medical attention. A mass shooting done outside a hospital may have injured a lot of people, but not resulted in the deaths of any of them. A mass shooting done at a time or place where medical attention was scarce could result in far greater casualties, meaning that injury rates are vastly different from death rates for different reasons. Nonetheless, the figures used in most sources seem to reference the mass shooting statistic of 4 or more people killed. According to the source, they did. But, does this hold up with reality? [1][2][3]
The short answer is, no. There have been at least one casesof mass shootings involving the deaths of 4 or more people in Australia. The first is the Hunt mass murder, where a man killed his wife and three children, constituting four people killed. The number is not zero, but due to the difficulty of compiling such records and their general rarity, there isn't much information on the subject. So, what about 3 or more injured? While there are not comprehensive lists, there are at least a few dozen cases of this happening, notably the Hectorville Siege, the Monash university shooting, and the Melbourne Shootings. [4]
But let's ignore mass shootings for a moment. Even if they had stopped, and criminals decided to use arson, explosives, vehicles or poison, would more lives had been saved? If a criminal used a knife instead of a gun, would more lives to be saved? The simple answer is, yet again, no. The Cairn's Child killings resulted in 8 stabbed to death, without a gun, which is far more than 3, 4 or 5 dead. The lin family murders resulted in at least 5 dead from a hammer. So, if a suspect used a knife or a hammer, could they not kill more than 4 people? Of course not. They have and they will.
What about Arson? By far, Arson is the deadliest means of death in all of Australia to date. The quaker's hill arson attack killed at least 11 people. The Childer's palace fire killed at least 15 people. Finally, the Black Saturday's Bushfire killed 173 people. 173 people. And it left another 400+ injured. If just one murderer decided to use arson instead, they could literally kill more than all the mass shootings from 1960 to 1996, combined. So, if a murderer switched weapons to a knife, or arson instead of a gun, is Australia safe? The short answer, once again, is no. Australia is actually worse off by letting criminals use other methods than a gun to kill people. What about in France where guns that were involved in the deaths of over 140 people were illegally smuggled in to the country? Or an 18 wheeler attack that killed 80? Are there no 18-wheelers in Australia? The idea that Australians are safe because guns are harder to obtain is in and of itself a fallacy. What does it matter what weapons they use when the same, if not more people, die?
World Comparison
The Oklahoma City Bombing attack killed 168 people and wounded an additional 680 people, with a fertilizer bomb. The Indian subway bombings killed 209 people and injured an additional 700 people, with bombs made from pressure cookers. In the United states, 2001, September 11th, two terrorists managed to overtake a plane with box cutters and killed 3,000 people. Comparatively, only about 500 deaths and another 1,000 injures have resulted from mass shootings in the year, from 1980 to 2012. If guns are so deadly, how is it that a single attack can kill and injure at least as many as all of them combined in 30 years?
The reality is, guns are not needed for mass murders. The worst mass murders from other weapons have been worse from guns. These weapons, such as pressure cookers and fertilizer, are widely available and generally unregulated. Making bombs or weapons from them are generally fairly easy. Easiest of all is arson, which has death tolls far beyond that of most shootings. And on top of this, even if guns are banned, they can be illegally smuggled in to the country with relative ease. An 18 wheeler can be used to kill over 86 people, worse than the worst single person mass shooting of all time, at 67 deaths. So are guns the problem? The answer is very simple; people are. If you want to lower crime, you need to focus on the murderer, not the methods. Several far more easily obtainable, and deadly methods exist for criminals. Massive mental health coverage is needed to track and detain suspected terrorists and murderers to protect society. Simply banning guns is at best a patch to cover up the problem. If you really want to save lives, you have to dig deeper, and focus on humanity, rather than things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)