To reduce gun ownership, tax weapons like property
Lewis DiuguidAmericans will never surrender their lust for guns.
For a lot of people, one is never enough and bigger is always better. That includes magazines that hold more rounds. The 22-caliber, bolt action rifle that I learned to shoot at age 11 as a Boy Scout is insufficient.
The revolvers my grandfather carried every day to his job as a railroad brakeman and that my dad inherited are so 19th century. Today’s firearms have to give law-abiding gun owners a bigger advantage over “bad guys.”
That lust for guns is why President Barack Obama will find it tough getting Congress to ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, expand background checks and tougher gun-trafficking laws.
Liberal gun laws enable gun owners to be licensed to carry the weapons concealed, and some area cities let people openly carry firearms.
The U.S. ranks No. 1 globally in private gun ownership with 270 million guns in civilian hands, or 88.8 firearms per 100 people. U.S. law enforcement officers only have 897,400 firearms; the military, 3.1 million.
Americans are as addicted to guns as smokers are to cigarettes, as adults are to beer, wine and hard liquor; as gamblers are to slots, lottery tickets and the roll of the dice; and as most of us are to our cars, boats, campers and trailers.
That unwavering attachment to guns should make every gun and bullet subject to federal, state, county and municipal taxes in addition to sales taxes. Think of the bonanza governments could reap.
Cigarettes have been proven to be bad for health. But the heroin-like addiction prompts people to crave the product.
Governments have gotten wise and tax the dickens out of sin industries. New York, for example, ranks No. 1 in the nation with a cigarette tax of $4.35 a pack. Rhode Island is second at $3.50.
Of course a pack of cigarettes in New York costs $12.50, and it’s $8.16 in Rhode Island. But people pay it.
They do in Missouri’s neighboring states. In Illinois the tax is $1.98 a pack. In Kansas the tax is 79 cents a pack.
Missouri has the lowest tax on cigarettes at 17 cents, and a pack costs just $5.87. Compared with other states, Missouri is leaving money on the counter.
Governments aren’t bashful in heavily taxing booze. Alcohol causes myriad health problems, including drunken driving injuries and deaths.
The tax is a way of raising the cost, which lessens the consumption. It also generates revenue, which states need.
The same thing applies to government revenue from lottery tickets and taxes on casinos. States like Missouri and Kansas rake in big money.
The gasoline tax provides vitally needed funding for roads and bridges. Sales and property taxes on cars, trucks, trailers and recreational vehicles help keep city governments, schools, libraries, counties, community colleges and health services solvent.
Guns should be no different. Every gun and clip in homes should be declared for taxing purposes. The bullets, too.
The special federal, state, city and county taxes on guns, bullets and magazines should apply each year. Notices should go out in the mail as they do for real estate and personal property taxes.
The privilege of gun ownership has to come with a cost equal to the damage in loss of property, injuries and life that guns annually cause. Taxing guns will ensure that our society will get less gun ownership. The tax will simply price people out of the habit.
The higher the caliber of the gun — just as with bigger cars and trucks with more horsepower — the higher the tax should be. Higher-caliber bullets and multi-round clips also should be subject to higher taxes.
Hunting equipment should be taxed, too, just to be fair, but at a lower rate. Gun owners can still wrap themselves in the Second Amendment. But they’ll have to pay for the privilege. The gun and bullet tax revenue could fund improved mental health services, boost the quality and reach of the Affordable Care Act and even provide needed care for victims of shootings. Guns are as American as tobacco.
Each helped build this country. But America from the start has been a capitalist nation with taxes. Taxing guns fits the historical capitalist nature of the U.S. What could possibly be wrong with that?
To reach Lewis W. Diuguid send call 816-234-4723 or send email to Ldiuguid@kcstar.com.
Bob Chichester
3 months, 3 weeks agoI’m glad to see Mr. Diuguid admit that, when you tax something, it reduces consumption and/or activity. So why don’t we tax abortions?
Reginald Thornton
3 months, 3 weeks agoOh, where to begin….
Could someone please provide Mr. Duiguid a link to Webster’s Dictionary, preferably directly to the word “infringe”? Then give him some time alone to contemplate how taxing guns might somehow also infringe upon their ownership.
Next…..
Explain to him how each of these products he references as being taxed have developed their own underground black markets. Not a solution.
Reginald Thornton
3 months, 3 weeks agoFinally….
America has NOT been from the start a nation with taxes. America started as a nation that despises taxation without representation.
Taxing gun ownership solves only two “problems:” the government doesn’t know everyone that owns a gun, and the government needs more money to fund its unsustainable spending.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 3 weeks agoThe NRA has advocated for better mental health care and screening and for special armed guards in schools (why stop there?) What a better way to pay for it than with special a sales tax on the purchase of guns & ammo? You already have to pay sales taxes in most states & cities so there is no constitutional issue. A 10-15% surcharge ought to do the job and high prices certainly haven’t discouraged buyers thus far. It’s a win-win!
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoThe liberal mind is an interesting place. First, Lewis downplays the danger of crime by saying law abiding gun owners need bigger guns to have an advantage over “bad guys”. Yes, A Lewis put “bad guys” in quotations. You do that to draw attention to what is within the quotation marks. Obviously, he is playing down “bad guys”. That creates a conundrum. There are tens of thousands murdered each year, mostly with hand guns. If “bad guys” aren’t a problem, then who are committing all of those murders? By definition, not the law abiding gun owners who Lewis wants to tax. It’s another case of a bad guy doing something wrong, so then we go and punish a good guy. Absolutely nonsensical.
Also, the tax proposal. Wow, that is a truly scarey thing. Lewis Diuguid is now proposing taxes, and probably steep, regressive ones, on a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Once we do that, then what is to stop taxing guaranteed rights like freedom of speech? The expression of religion? To vote?
What is the difference between placing a tax on guns that is meant to decrease gun ownership and placing a tax on votes? It is a horrible idea.
Curt A. Hodapp
3 months, 3 weeks agoStupid on so many levels. A recent poll suggest that 2/3 of those who own guns would not declared them. Using Mr Diuguid figures, 60 out of 100 homes would have an undeclared gun. That is 5 out of the 9 neighbors living around you would still have a gun. So what are you going do then classify them as criminals?
Do you really want to classify 60% of Americans as criminal? I do not think you want to do that. So what then? Nothing the genie is out of the bottle and you cannot put it back. Ever!
Your best Bey is to educate citizens on responsibility and safety. Just remember this. Just as sure that you cannot build an unsinkable ship. You cannot teach intelligence to stupid people.
Michael Middleton
3 months, 3 weeks agoMr. Diuguid wants to punish gun owners by taxation for exercising a constitutionally protected right. How about we tax him for every article he writes? How about we pass a special journalism tax for all newspapers, Media outlets, and internet newssites? How about we tax people every time they go to church? If we tax someone for exercising their Constitutional rights, it’s no longer a right.
Tim Smith
3 months, 3 weeks agoIf we are going to tax people for exercising there privilege to bear arms, then why don’t we tax people for the privilege to free speech. Oh wait those aren’t privileges they are rights afforded to us by the constitution.
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 3 weeks agoHey, we tax people for their right to travel — in cars, trains and planes. Don’t want to pay any of those taxes? Exercise your right (and your body) by walking. You pay a higher tax on a Lincoln than a Honda, so why not a higher tax on your AK than on an actual hunting gun?
The idea that the 2nd Amendment means everyone can have every weapon they want without restriction or regulation is absurd. No court has ever held such a foolishness, nor is noe likely to. It is an NRA masturbation fantasy.
I do not believe that the Second meant that every former colonialist had the right to a cannon — the equivilent of a weapon of mass destruction back then. So, why should every nut tall enough to reach the counter be able to own a weapon able to kill more of his fellow citizens without reloading than a cannon could?
And, PLEEEEEZE, do not tell me that the Second was designed to allow you to kill FBI agents and American troops when you feel put-upon by government. It was NOT intended to empower sedition.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 3 weeks agosounds like another regressive tax on the poor, but I am not a smart lib like lewis the “racist hunter”…..
Matt McKinley
3 months, 3 weeks ago“I do not believe that the Second meant that every former colonialist had the right to a cannon”
As normal, you are wrong. There was no governmental apparatus to limit anything regarding arms possession from the time of ratification until the 1934 Federal firearms Act. The 2A has nothing to do with hunting, no matter how many times you repeat this fallacy.
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoPhil, leave it to you to Phil these pages with, well, I’m not sure what that is.
Taxing the right of people to travel….so, hell yeah, let’s tax the right to bare arms. While we are at it, how much in taxes is Phil willing to pay to vote? To worship? To not worship?
To use Phil’s analogy, if you can tax people for something in particular, then you can tax them for anything and everything. That is not true, and certainly now what people outside of Phil’s little group wants.
I didn’t expect it, but then Phil does the unexpected. Sedition? Phil…here is what I have to say….hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahhhhhhahahhhhahahahahahahahhh
I’m leaving because Phil made my side hurt. I thought more people understood the issues. Guess not.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 3 weeks agoIt’s clear from the NRAs actions that this in about selling guns not owning them. They whip up their members with fear and anxiety and what happens? Buy, buy, buy! Sell, sell, sell! Yet they have yet to put forth a salient argument that contradicts the ability of the government to restrict ownership of certain classes of weapons and why that ability to restrict cannot be applied to large capacity magazines or military style carbines. You’d think that universal background checks wouldn’t be objectionable. Keeping guns away from felons, terrorists etc but from their perspective it may reduce the number of potential customers. It’s not about the Constitution, it’s about commerce.
John Stewart
3 months, 3 weeks agoMaybe Mr. Diuguid would approve returning the poll tax as well? What is it with journalists hating poor minorities… So sad.
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 3 weeks agoActually, the argument is simple: You have the right to vote. No one should impede your actual right to do so. A poll tax does, because it directly interferes with that right.
You have the right to travel. (In that Ninth Amendment the righties like to ignore.) But, if you want to own a car or truck, you pay a tax on it. And you pay taxes on the fuel you buy to enable that car to work — and to pay in part for the cost of the roads you drive it on. And, if you want to travel by air, you not only pay a tax, but submit to regulations related to that travel decision (like not being able to carry a GUN on the plane, 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.)
You need a driver’s license (a chauffer’s license for more sophisticated operations)to drive a car on a PUBLIC roasd — and don’t get me started on the info you need to get on an airplane!
I see no reason to tax a hunting rifle or shotgun, or to limit their possession or (unloaded) transportation for lawful purposes. That would more than satisfy any actual 2nd Amendment basics.
I suspect that we already tax the sale of both guns and ammo. But, hey, we tax Caddy’s more that Camreys. And we regulate wher and how you can drive — and the fuels you buy. If we can tell folks that they cannot put gasoline into an unsafe container, we can keep armor-piercing bullets off the streets. (I can sometimes be hard on cops — but I don’t think anyone should shoot them.)
Which brings me to the crux of the matter. We all agree that anyone who needs to fire 100 rounds a minute to kill a deer ought to take up bowling instead. Which leaves these folks arguing that the purpose of the Second is to have an armed populace ready and able to resist the “tyranny” of our own government. To kill police officers, federal marshals, FBI agents, American soldiers or Guardsmen — whenever someone decides he is put-upon by government.
Our Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. This seditious nonsense is both insane and dangerous. The NRA hierarchy cynically spouts it to sell guns for their corporate masters. But, it logical conclusion is Ruby Ridge, Waco and Oklahoma City.
With Aurora and Sandy Hook the bloody stops along the way.
Suzanne Conaway
3 months, 3 weeks agoReginald, you use the phrase”America has NOT been from the start a nation with taxes. America started as a nation that despises taxation without representation.” You’re missing the main point of the line. The reason the colonists were so stirred up was not the taxes. It was the ‘without representation’ part that angered them. The colonists were not represented in parliament and therefore were not given any say-so about what was being taxed.
That’s why in the USA our taxes are made by people we elect, whether on a local, state or federal level. We all have representation. Therefore, if taxes are imposed on guns, it will be done through our representatives.
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoSo a poll tax directly interferes with the right to vote (yes, it does!) but a tax on guns does not interfere with the right to bear arms. Huh?
And Phil, you keep talking about hunting. The Second Amendment isn’t, and has never been, about hunting.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 3 weeks ago“So a poll tax directly interferes with the right to vote (yes, it does!) but a tax on guns”
I’m advocating sales taxes on guns & ammo but I don’t see any real issues with property taxes. We pay them on our homes, cars boats, trailers & motorcycles and it does’t infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights. A special right doesn’t make for special property.
BTW did anyone see where in Seattle at a gun buy back event somebody turned in a shoulder fired stinger missile launcher? It wasn’t loaded… they’re actually single use launch tubes but still illegal to own. Having a guy walk in with that on his shoulder would give you about a ten on the pucker scale…
Suzanne Conaway
3 months, 3 weeks agoKent, a poll tax interferes with the right to vote. However, that’s an intangible right. All the other taxes that have been mentioned are on tangible objects: cars, homes, cigarettes, etc. Guns are tangible, therefore a tax would be perfectly fine.
And, like car taxes do not infringe on one’s right to drive, a tax on gun/ammo sales would not infringe on one’s right to buy a gun. It would just make it more expensive.
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoSuzanne, why the big differentiation between tangible and intangible?
Taxes don’t infringe on gun ownership? “It would just make it more expensive.” Higher prices is indeed a barrier. Otherwise, we would not need to worry about inflation, or providing for the needy. After all, higher prices only make things more expensive, they don’t infringe on the obtaining of those items. So, then higher health care prices would just “make it more expensive”? See? You pass off the the higher prices as if it’s nothing.
And I’m still struggling with the logic that a poll taxes interferes with voting because votes are intangible. But, taxes on guns/ammo don’t interfere with the ownership of guns/ammo because they are tangible.
John Stewart
3 months, 3 weeks agoSuzanne, cars, cigarettes and homes are not RIGHTS. You don’t like guns, don’t get one.
Further, there are already taxes on guns and ammo, what Mr. Diuguid is proposing is raising those taxes to the point that only the rich can afford to own them, much like poll taxes were set high enough to keep the poor from voting.
You may want to do some history research about societies in which only the elite, police and military own guns. Start with the 20th. century.
I’m not a republican, but some liberal logic makes me wish I was. We hear about poverty, seniors eating dog food, millions of babies going to bed hungry every day and you want tax after tax after tax after tax.
Were this to come to pass I am sure some liberal would then devise a department of gun stamps, or section 8 arming, because it wouldn’t be fair that only rich white republicans owned guns.
Just stop. Do it for the children.
John Stewart
3 months, 3 weeks agoPhil, trucks and cadillacs are not necessary to travel. Our founding fathers did not deem it necessary to enshrine your right to a horse either. The bill of rights was well thought out, and created to protect the people from scheming politicians and well intentioned, but misguided people.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 3 weeks agoGood points John—these taxing ideas are just another lib way to screw the poor, who probably need the weapons more given the propensity for them to be preyed upon.
Once more, libs showing howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww much they care for the poor by screwing them…
Libs are such a hoot.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 3 weeks agoA government official actually telling the people how to protect themselves…
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-milwaukee-county-sheriff-guns-20130128,0,7854918.story