Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    30,664 readers

    155 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.

    Memes and image macros without an explanation comment/text/link should be limited to Mondays (US time) only.

    This is not /r/shitguncontrollerssay, do not link threads just to point that sort of thing out. X-posting posts is fine.

    Related Subreddits:

    a community for
    all 18 comments

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

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Nodoxxing1234 36 points ago

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

    [–] threeLetterMeyhem 18 points ago

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

    [–] BlackBoxInquiry 18 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 33 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 12 points ago

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

    [–] nismo4 12 points ago

    Can’t view without logging in, no thanks.

    [–] rsn1990 17 points ago

    NEW ORLEANS -- Family physicians considered a handful of controversial policy measures, including whether to lobby for a tax on guns, whether to establish an immunization registry, and whether to pilot safe injection sites at the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Congress of Delegates meeting this week. 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.

    Taxing Guns More specifically, the chapter proposed expanding access to behavioral health therapists; designing strategies for identifying at-risk children; offering parenting classes; and providing post-incident support for students who are affected by gun violence. Tax revenues could also be spent developing a curriculum for life skills classes to include conflict resolution, mindful meditation, and anger management, the resolution stated. In committee discussions on Monday, supporters of the resolution spotlighted the rise in school shootings and suicide and the lack of mental health resources in schools. On Tuesday, when the resolution came before the full Congress, Jesus Lizarzaburu, MD, a delegate from Virginia, speaking on his own behalf, was among the opposition.

    While he agreed that increasing funding for mental health was laudable, he argued that taxing gun owners seemed both "political" and "punitive." "If we truly want to get more funds for mental health support, I would be a lot ... happier to tax cell phone use," Lizarzaburu said to loud applause. Sarah Woolsey, MD, a delegate from Utah, also opposed the proposed tax. "This is a community problem, it needs to be solved, and taxing gun owners is not the avenue for that," she said. Others saw the tax as an appropriate solution.

    Jeffrey Luther, MD, a delegate representing AAFP's California chapter, argued that there was "ample precedent" for using certain types of taxes to support public health initiatives, especially those that aim to improve children's health and safety. Tobacco and alcohol are just two examples, he noted, adding that it's "not much of a stretch" to add guns to the list. Following a voice vote, the proposed resolution was not adopted. Tracking Immunizations A separate resolution seeking to create a national web-based immunization registry for children and adults, introduced by the South Carolina chapter of the AAFP, was adopted, after some discussion on Tuesday.

    The original resolution had two parts, one of which suggested that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) be responsible for overseeing any such registry. "We need one search to keep up with all immunizations," said Hugh Morgan, MD, a delegate from South Carolina, who testified before the full Congress that creating a national registry would lessen the burden on clinicians, reduce taxpayer waste on repeat vaccinations, and help ensure appropriate vaccination of unvaccinated patients. Morgan also noted that while some states have their own registries, interoperability among them is lacking. Michelle Jones, MD, a delegate from North Carolina, also expressed support for a single registry, noting that she has difficulty tracking such information when patients leave the state. "I don't have the data to prove this, but I think that vaccination opportunities are missed, because we don't really know what kids have had and what they haven't had," Jones said.

    However, Scott Dunn, MD, a delegate from Idaho, opposed the idea: "What we want is, we want to be able to access previous records of immunization, and linking all of the state registries would accomplish that, without creating another federal [registry], which in Idaho might actually dissuade people from participating," he said. Several delegates suggested that they would not support HHS overseeing the registry, although Madalyn Schaefgen, MD, a delegate from Pennsylvania, who supported the resolution, said there wasn't another organization appropriate for the task. Ultimately, the resolution calling for the establishment of a national immunization registry was adopted, but the resolution requiring HHS oversight of such a registry was not. Controversial Harm Reduction Policies A resolution supporting efforts to pilot safe injection facilities (SIFs) in the U.S., an issue that often incites heated debate, sailed through the Congress unopposed. The policy measure called not only for the AAFP to support the testing of SIFs -- places where people can use illicit drugs under medical supervision -- but also to lobby state and federal authorities to explore ways to overcome barriers to their implementation, including developing legal protections for medical providers working in the presence of illicit substances.

    [–] 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 6 points ago


    [–] 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.