This doesn't make sense to me because imposing taxation, and a fee is a form of taxation, that increases the revenues of government merely increases the social cost. I could see a benefit in these fees being used as compensatory for victims and their families but I can't see it providing any real benefit if it merely funds government. Government is also coercive so we'd merely be replacing one form of coercion with another form of coercion. It would be a net "no-win" situation. We need a win-win situation.
Originally Posted by Reiver
Another point comes to mind. If reducing the total number of guns in society without limiting the ability of the individual to protect themself is the goal because it would result in less crime then the government would, in theory, require less revenue to combat crime. Currently we're paying for the "social costs" of firearms through taxation so is the proposal of adding fees to gun purchase also linked to reducing taxation?
The social costs is already being carried, predominately by property owners that pay property taxes which support law enforcement, and it is spread over all of the property owners. The fee seems to target the cost for this social costs on the gun owners so wouldn't linkage to a reduction in the tax burden also be requires as lower overall costs for law enforcement would be the result of this proposal? It isn't a question of off-setting revenue but instead a reduction in the cost of law enforcement resulting from a reduction in gun related crimes.
PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall