a tax on guns would be somewhat problematic.
kara's referring to a "tax" in human lives.
@karajoma, I no longer really have the heart to get deeply invested in this discussion, but isn't the argument that "if only there were fewer guns in circulation, these violent crimes wouldn't happen with such frequency" a near-perfect example of reductive logic? Further, are not the cultural differences between America and non-American Western societies sufficiently large to necessitate a solution unique to the American situation? However, I agree with the general gist of your recent points; Winston Churchill once said that "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, once all other options are exhausted". I guess we haven't exhausted all options yet. (I admit I'm ignoring the other points of your recent post, I just don't want to do a point-by-point response/rebuttal)
If I'm not making a lot of sense, I apologize. I delved into this topic and related depressing issues a bit too deeply as of late, and I just don't have the heart to really discuss these matters. If this is going to turn into a gun control thread, I'm going to contribute just a bit and I'll be done. Here's my fraction of a cent: the American gun control "debate" (or "public discourse" as I prefer to consider it) is hamstrung by a refusal by each side of the aisle to accept a respective axiom. The conservative faction must accept that guns are *weapons*, and when used properly, have no purpose other than ending lives. Whether those lives are human or not is malleable. (And don't even start on "sport/target shooting". All firearm-related activities eventually lead back to developing skills to use said firearms to kill- full stop.) The liberal faction must acknowledge that people are fully capable of committing violent crimes without firearms, and in plenty of cases, without proper weapons at all.
No, I don't have some witty closing one-liner or "tl;dr" for those who won't read this thing. I'm done.