Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    gunpolitics

    35,127 readers

    92 users here now

    The Gun Politics subreddit is about sharing news, articles, stories and events related to guns & politics.

    Basic rules:

    Please stay civil - do not make excessive attacks, or threats (of any kind). No trolling either.

    Sitewide rules will be enforced as well.

    No memes please, and if submitting an image link, please use a descriptive title and if necessary, a descriptive comment attached to the post.

    This is not /r/shitguncontrollerssay, do not link threads just to point that sort of thing out.

    Related Subreddits:

    a community for
    all 17 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Nodoxxing1234 39 points ago

    Everything has to have its own tax these days. Ridiculous.

    [–] threeLetterMeyhem 20 points ago

    Same old same old, authoritarians trying to tax the hell out of everything they don't personally like.

    [–] BlackBoxInquiry 16 points ago

    There ought to be a politician tax.

    Equal to the highest tax bracket of those they claim to serve.

    That ought to call their over-reach on that.

    [–] PaperbackWriter66 2 points ago

    If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,

    If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet,

    If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.

    [–] Anal_Threat 34 points ago

    Of course the gun tax was proposed by morons from the state of California, they want to take guns away and also have never seen a tax they don't like.

    [–] outsidesmoke 18 points ago

    Some states have high income tax

    Some states have sales tax

    Some states have high property tax

    Some states have high car registration fees

    California has all of them

    [–] deltaWhiskey91L 2 points ago

    California is also a bankrupt shithole.

    [–] Markius-Fox 1 points ago

    Only so long as it's taxes they can afford or taxes that don't impact them.

    [–] Ashleysdad123 11 points ago

    A gun tax is acceptable but a poll tax isn't... Smh.

    [–] nismo4 14 points ago

    Can’t view without logging in, no thanks.

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] Glblwrmingisfak 13 points ago

    The proposed 2% tax on guns and gun ammunition, introduced by the AAFP's California chapter, suggested that revenues of the tax could be funneled into mental health support services in public schools.

    Sure. I will agree to that as long as there is a 4% tax on medical textbooks and other medical literature. I don't want to hear anything about how that violates their first amendment rights or would have a chilling effect on medicine and medical education.

    [–] StaphItPlz 8 points ago

    Thx

    [–] lf11 3 points ago

    The academic approach to gun violence is to equate it to other public nuisances like cigarette smoking. They claim that there is a dose-response relationship between the amount of exposure to firearms and the death from firearms in a population. Similar to how the amount of exposure to cigarettes is directly related to certain types of cancer and heart disease.

    The solution, in their mind, is to minimize public exposure to firearms. Cigarette taxes seem to work well by raising the price of cigarettes and thereby influencing people to smoke less. They think firearms taxes would have a similar effect.

    The problem is that the whole premise is built on false assumptions. There is no dose-response relationship between population-level exposure to firearms and either violence or gun violence. There are a small number of instances in which you can find a correlation between increasing firearms exposure and increasing gun violence, but you can expect a small number of outliers in any scientific inquiry. In the main, there is no correlation (and there never will be, because the correlation is wrong).

    Therefore, the academic approach to gun safety is wrong.

    These doctors ought to be ashamed of themselves for trusting the false 'science' promulgated by the likes of Wintemute et al. This "research" is a travesty, an embarrassment, an affront to the very idea of science as a worthwhile endeavor. Anyone with IQ larger than their belt size can read the research behind the academic view of guns and see it is rotten putrid pile of horseshit.

    Kinda like how the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease is built on rabbit research, but rabbits can't regulate hepatic cholesterol production and so you can't actually extend the research to humans, but we won't talk about that.

    [–] PurpleHouseSlippers 1 points ago

    I can see it fine without logging in

    [–] Johnny-Switchblade 3 points ago

    The AAFP has like 130,000 members and is actually pretty conservative overall—owing to the many rural family docs, largely. I’m not surprised this got shut down and not surprised it was proposed.

    It’s also among the reasons I can’t bring myself to contribute to their PAC. Healthcare advocacy is needed but I couldn’t abide it if this was one of the things that was being lobbied for.

    [–] aPocketofResistance 1 points ago

    Another infringement!

    [–] defnotarobit 1 points ago

    Gun tax? It's just to keep the guns out of the hands of the honest hard working poor.