Sandy Hook Elementary Is the United States - Let's Tax the Bullets!

by Robert Wilkinson

In light of the recent slaughter of innocents in Connecticut, said to be the second worst in the history of our country, I’ve decided to reprint something I posted in response to the VA Tech shooting a few years back, said to be the worst mass murder in US history. Though the circumstances are different, it’s still another abomination perpetrated by another psychopath against other human beings.

At the risk of arousing contentious bullet worshipers, I feel that this carnage taking out way too many young innocents on an elementary school campus warrants a moment of reflection. And I must here state that I don’t mean to be offensive, but when I first posted this I was hit with some very strident arguments against nonviolence.

So if you disagree with the tenor of this post, or want to debate gun laws and the efficacy of violence as a deterrent to violence, please meditate on the law of "as you do so shall be done to you" instead of leaving a comment. Readers in other countries and other cultures may find some of the comments from 2007 interesting in revealing the mindset of some Americans.

For those who need to challenge my point of view, I have chosen to reprint some of the original comments that did so. They’re at the end of this article, along with my answers. So if you want to know where I stand on many things, including my philosophy about violence, please read this entire piece before posting something I’ve already answered.

While it’s a very long piece due to including those old comments, I felt it necessary in order to avoid a replay of old discussions. And because of past rude, inflammatory, or insulting comments about this topic, new ones fitting these descriptions will not be posted, but thoughtful ones will. Just letting you know. Grazie.

And now, the original post with edits:

In the midst of yet another incident of carnage created by a lone whackjob, I have again revisited something I've maintained for a long while. There are too many guns, and while the NRA insists that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," in the final analysis bullets kill people. In fact, bullets kill or seriously injure almost any living thing they hit; and yes, if you shoot a tree or a cactus often enough it will die, just like people and animals.

I don't know if we can ever get rid of guns, since too much of the global economy depends on the sale of weaponry. There are too many who have a vested interest in weapons for them to give up what they see is their means of livelihood, as misguided as I believe that means of livelihood is. But we can and should tax bullets to the degree it takes to bring down the number of times anyone can commit mass murder, or even individual murder.

This is strictly a matter of economics. Let the guns be bought and sold. However, we should make the price of bullets so astronomical that people will think twice before spraying a bunch of them at anyone. It may not stop the crazies among us, but they could only do damage to the extent they could afford say, twenty dollars (or fifty, or a hundred dollars) a bullet.

Then instead of gang bangers spraying hundreds of bullets in drive by shootings, or lone crazies spraying a massive number of bullets into University classrooms, or in this case a 20 year old Goth nutjob carrying 3 guns (all the victims died from the assault rifle) and killing 27, we would have maybe a few dozen bullets or even a hundred discharged, not all of which hit targets. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it brings down the odds of any number of thousands of bullets finding human targets every year.

If the gunman at VT had to pay $2000 or $5000 for a hundred bullets, he might not have been able to afford the damage he did. If the psychopath at Sandy Hook had access to three of his mother’s guns but not that many bullets, the tragedy in Connecticut might not have shattered so many lives.

Our governments have taken the same approach to cigarettes, and it really has brought down the number of smokers in our country, both teen and adult. Young people cannot afford to smoke nicotine delivery systems with the same cavalier attitude that existed when I was young. Making cigarettes 15 times more expensive than they used to be has definitely cut the rate of smoking in the US.

The statistics seem to prove the efficacy of this approach to bringing down teen and adult smoking. If we can tax cigarettes, we can certainly tax bullets to the extent they put a burden on our public health system. There are just too many gunshot wounds in our emergency rooms across the country to debate that.

It is not a given that we should have semiautomatic weapons. The framers of the US Constitution never envisioned a reality when a disturbed adolescent could easily buy two or more semiautomatic handguns along with a lot of bullets. It took a while for the revolutionaries to load, shoot, and reload a weapon.

The ease and speed with which guns can empty their clip and be reloaded is mindboggling, and dangerous for us all, given the instability of our times, the seeming inability of anyone in authority to do anything about getting the disturbed into counseling, and the extremely violent imagery of our mass media. These three vectors all add up to a disaster waiting for anyone with a grudge, a credit card, and an emotional imbalance serious enough to play out their drama on others.

Besides the usual psychopaths, I believe some of America’s problem with violence results from the pandemic violent imagery Americans are fed through video games, television, and movies. For those who object, well, it’s been proved in psychology that being conditioned to hurt others leads to a tendency to hurt others. What part of programming the mind don’t we get? The mind tends to want to make real whatever it is focused on. That’s the way thought forms work.

Other countries in our world are astonished at the number of gun deaths in our nation. We are easily the most armed, most belligerent, and most gun-obsessed nation on Earth. Being armed, belligerent, and gun-obsessed is not a good formula for domestic peace and harmony.

I have heard many say we should not blame the gun dealers for selling weapons that are used to kill others. Well, despite the outpouring of sympathy and solemnity of the gun dealers who sell handguns and bullets, the karma of those deaths is squarely on their shoulders. If they didn't want direct responsibility for the thousands who now grieve, they should not sell the weaponry. Period.

A final comment on our attitude about guns, violence, and “war” in whatever form it takes. It’s always been ironic to me that we feel very badly when one of our own does this to our own, but many turn a blind eye and cold heart when one of our own does it to people far away in the name of political policy. That's unacceptable in a world where we are all in fact ONE. One life, one love, one Earth, one humanity. Let us affirm this will be an awakening.

***********************

Now for some of the original comments and my answers. Because the circumstances are different, please take the following in stride if it doesn’t exactly match what just happened in Connecticut. The reason I’m reprinting these comments is that I’ve seen many of these exact arguments against gun control and my idea of taxing the bullets all over the MSM comment streams, so I have no doubt that someone who reads this may attempt to make the same arguments.

So if you take issue with anything I’m saying, please read to the end before commenting. I’m sure I’ve already addressed your concerns. Again, rude, inflammatory, and insulting comments will not be posted.

And now, some of the original dialog in the comment stream from 2007. ADD - I've decided to rearrange the order of what what posted and my answer to each, since the way it was was not easy to follow the dialog.

*******************

From “bluemoon” - In my neighborhood, a woman in her early twenties was killed by a man who broke into her house and stabbed her and her small son to death in 2006. Let's tax the knives until no one can own one! It's not people that kill people, it's knives!

There are millions of people in the world who consider astrology wrong. They would back a bill banning anyone from doing what you're doing right now. Before you eagerly back the removal of someone else's rights, consider the Karmic backlash.

My Response:

Hi bluemoon - Anecdotal stories aside, I've known too many friends who died at the hands of others to approve of any of this. The fact that homicidal slashers exist says more about the luridly violent imagery of our times than the existence of knives. If you want, I will agree that we SHOULD tax ALL knives that are capable of killing people. See - I am equal opportunity. If someone wants a hunting knife, they should be documented and taxed accordingly. Butter knives at a different level, of course.

All snarky comparisons aside, I believe we need better means of evaluating those who can kill others. That jerk at VT was confined and then released when those supposedly "expert" in their assessments knew he was a bomb waiting to go off. Does that mean that I approve of universal testing and confinement of those who show tendencies? No.

(Ed. - An aside regarding 2012 - While it was clear that the killer at Sandy Hook was disturbed, so far we have no ability to determine when a “tipping point” will occur, moving a psychopath to kill others. And we can’t begin rounding up everyone who appears disturbed, since then we’re into thought police territory.

While we do know that abusing animals is a prelude to abusing humans, and we know that certain obsessions indicate a tendency to violence, so far we cannot know when someone will uncork. I suspect that has more to do with the free will of the subject than anything else. Once the free will decides to kill, then what’s to stop it?)

Back to the 2007 comments:

There is too much extreme rhetoric around weapons, which I suppose is to be expected by those who actually believe weapons are a solution to the pandemic violence of our stupid, retrograde society. An Einstein quote about being unable to solve problems using tools that created the problem to begin with comes to mind.

Some knives are more capable of killing than others. People with homicidal tendencies should not be allowed access to weapons. I've known a few crazies with knife fetishes, and they should not have been allowed to possess even one, much less their "collection."

I consider any weapon to be abhorrent. Would I use one at my disposal if my life were being threatened? Probably. But never a gun. My attitude and disposition always selects least violent, least forceful means to deal with threats. Only enough to diffuse, never enough to kill. We can disable without killing. The means of killing must be muted. "Take the finger to spare the hand. Take the hand to spare the arm. Take the arm to spare the life." Least violence is always preferable to killing, regardless of however we seek to justify killing.

As for banning astrology, you're mixing mustard greens and pistachios. In astrology, you or anyone can come or go, accept or not, and there is no violence done to you or me in the exchange, or lack of one. Any contract requires the assent of both parties, so your analogy is not applicable.

Or if you still think it is, then perhaps we should ban all belief systems that promote violence, which is more to the point of the discussion. Then we'd get to ban all extreme forms of so-called "christianity," "islam," “hinduism,” and "judaism," since as practiced by violent extremists they are demonstrably the most violent organized belief systems on Earth in practice, if not in theory. At their best, they all lead us to God. Twisted by violent dogmatic minds, they are very destructive belief systems.

(Ed. - Another aside - We could always try to ban all “isms” that create conflict, including capitalism, communism, and all the other isms, but that probably would not work. Trying to ban people from beliefs doesn’t have a good track record.)

So no, I'm not into banning religion, as sane as that would be in the long run. Let each have their beliefs, as long as they do no harm to another. BTW - there are more on Earth who follow astrology than not, if we take a global perspective.

***********************

Then there was this comment from “anonymous” - Robert you are normally so wise, how can you be so stupid when it comes to guns? Do you not understand the threat of tyranny? By taxing bullets you're essentially saying, only the rich can own guns. And what is one of the defining characteristics of those who threaten the liberties of Americans today? That's right, they are all excessively wealthy. The 2nd Amendment exists for a VERY important reason. Please either put more thought into your political postings or leave them off this site. I very much enjoy your astrological articles. Don't make me dislike you. It is a fact that when gun ownership increases in a community, crime DECREASES! There is a reason for that and it only takes common sense to understand it.

On a sidenote. Taxing bullets wouldn't stop violence either. These mass shootings aren't as random as you might think either. You may want to read up on the connection between columbine and anti-depressents. I believe they are called seratonin uptake inhibitors.

Here was my answer to anonymous:

Hi anonymous - thanks for weighing in with an insult. Great way to kick off a dialogue. Tyranny? Like state sponsored corporatism, the model that we all live under? How will ownership of guns take away the delusions of an electorate who actually believe in and agree to government power regarding taxation, war, and nuclear waste disposal? Or greedy manipulations involving prescription drugs and AMA policies regarding disease and cures, or arguments that we must pollute our land, air, and water in the name of industry, or allowing violence to be done to people in the name of gun ownership?

We cannot pollute ourselves to prosperity, or believe that nuclear anything is going to lead anywhere but radioactive death to all life forms around it. Arguments that are pro-weaponry are illogic taken to an extreme if the point is to achieve less violence, not more. Reference the Einstein reasoning above.

Bullets can only destroy. They can never build, never give life, and never promote joy or peace or health. That's not what bullets are for. Perhaps the threat of a greater threat is a useful deterrent for a short time, maybe not.

Gandhi didn't think so, but many regard him and his philosophy as an irrelevancy in our "modern" world. However, he (and his disciples, like MLK) did in fact demonstrate and prove to the world the power of peaceful non-cooperation with violence as a better way than meeting violence with violence. They really did achieve substantial results that we cannot afford to dismiss.

Mostly those with power in any form, large or small, tend to abuse it if they don't regard the well-being of others. Many psychological studies demonstrate that. Whether governments or individuals with guns, the pattern is that those who believe they have the power and the right to hurt others for any "justifiable reason" usually escalate hurtful behaviors, if a lot of research is to be believed.

As for the rich owning guns, I'm for restricting ALL semiautomatic and automatic weapons, since they're only useful for spraying a lot of death-dealing devices we call bullets into things, many of which die. And it's surely an illusion to think that the 2nd Amendment will protect us from the Halliburtons and Neocons who want to promote an agenda of Fascist Chaotic Radicalism, the very philosophy Hitler used to keep his own violent shell game going for as long as it did.

As for what I post here, pleeeeze do NOT presume you can come here, insult me, and then tell me what to leave on or off this site. That's cryptofascism in a classic form. I dislike those who presume to tell me what I can and cannot say, since you are presuming to violate the right for me to have an opinion, something you would loathe were I to suggest it to you. You've now taken this from asserting your right to possess a means to hurt into my right to have an opinion.

FYI, I cannot MAKE you dislike me. That's the same reasoning of the whackjob at Virginia Tech. You will or won't, for whatever reasons your mind attaches to as a result of your astral conditioning, just like you do or don't like different races or types of ice cream.

Also your statement of "fact" is not statistically correct regarding crime going up or down due to gun ownership. That's an old canard that just is not supported by facts, all anecdotal assertions aside. There are too many police department statistics that prove that argument false.

As for certain prescription drugs and other government sanctioned factors creating massive imbalances in the brain chemistry in too many people, I agree completely. And given the instability of so many who are on drugs that are creating brain chemistry imbalances, I still must assert we need less means to creating wreckage, not more. Peace out.

*********************

Then anonymous responded:

Robert, I apologize for snapping however you need to understand that I come to this site for enlightenment and when I read something as offensive as this, I lose it. I shouldn't have implied that you are stupid but rest assured what you said is incredibly stupid. I take personal offense to suggestions by ANYBODY who think that Rights are up for debate, especially Americans.

Thanks to our abysmal education system, few Americans today understand what Rights are. I am not even a gun owner but I understand the importance of the Right to own one. You even acknowledge the threat of our government and I'm sure you are aware of the police state that is growing everyday.

Homeland Security has control of every police department in the USA. And recently in a town near where I live, a journalist called 911 to report suspicious heavily armed men stalking his home. Well, these men intercepted the 911 call and said they will respond. Well, to keep the story short, the men NEVER identified themselves, they tackled the journalist and broke his arm and tasered (tasers are deadly weapons) him in front of his wife in children and are now prosecuting him for "resisting arrest".

It is clear our government has no respect for the law. How will your tax prevent those criminals in government from owning and using guns against us? I am not suggesting guns are the answer for peace. Guns are more like an insurance policy. A deterrent if you will, against those who don't respect one's Rights. Remember, laws only work against the law-abiding. If everyone owned a gun, the government would be a lot more hesitant to act aggressively against the people it is supposed to serve.

NEVER forget that Rights are NEVER up for debate.

As for my suggesting you not bring politics into this forum, I simply found this article out of place. I would never censor you no matter much I disagree. You have the Right to say whatever you want. Your Rights end where mine begin and vice versa. What I meant was, if I get disgusted enough with your intolerance of basic Human Rights, I will simply stop visiting your site. And yes, gun ownership IS a Right endowed by the Creator. Guns don't kill people, people do. It is common sense.

My response to anonymous:

Hi anonymous - Thanks for the more civil tone. As for rights, I yield to no one when it comes to the right to live life in peace, free of ALL weaponry. That is the most basic human right, if we have rights at all. To me, it's not a given that we have the "right" to possess any size of firearm, from a handgun to a mortar, that could be used to hurt another, even inadvertently. Period. That's my standard of measurement.

Of course, in a nod to our manufactured "right" given by men to men in the 2nd Amendment, then I would somewhat agree to everyone's right to own a musket, powder, and shot. Just not loaded anywhere near me, my loved ones, or yours for that matter.

Bullets are useless except to hurt, maim, or kill. The whole world is in the grip of a delusion that believes that violence in any form can yield good results in the long run. To indulge even for a moment in the belief that violence can lead to peace is a delusion, shared by many perhaps, but a delusion nonetheless.

This is not stupid. Thinking violence of any sort can cure violence is insane. Perhaps my belief is somewhat naive for our barbaric era, but there are problems all the guns in the world cannot solve, but WILL aggravate.

They certainly can never help the situation, except only temporarily, and even then create such hatred, fear, and lingering animosity that whatever short term "good" we accomplish is irrelevant a few thousand hours down the road. Still, we must try something other than the spread of weaponry, or we shall see misery for as long as such things are allowed.

I am all for a person's right to live as they please, as long as it does not interfere in another's right to live in peace. My neighbor may own his gun; that does NOT give him the right to keep it loaded, lest it discharge through my wall and interrupt my life.

We do NOT have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, we do NOT have the right to threaten the lives of the president or each other; we do not have the right to an honest vote, or clean water, or chemical free air (though we should). These are part of a shredding social contract that is killing the many to benefit the few. All the guns and bullets in the world will not solve these problems, but they will cause a whole lot of people grief when those guns and bullets kill people.

Guns will not solve the problems that are a plague on our societies. Much is the abuse of human freedom, much is benign neglect, much is overweening greed and desire for absolute wealth and power run amok. All is based to some degree in the delusion of fear. Again, we cannot beat barbarians with their level of violence, or we become them, even if for a righteous cause. Becoming the problem will not solve the problem.

I believe we all have the right to lives our lives as we will, as long as it does not hurt another, or interfere with our common right to health, wealth, love, or self-realization. If you try to fight a police state with guns, you will lose - Period.

They have the biggest, most guns in the world. They have also shown their willingness to use them to kill those of us who were students in the 60s and 70s. What makes you think they're any more merciful now? To fight that using guns is insane, and will only result in them having more power, not less.

I agree the Fascists have already taken absolute power, and have set up institutions to implement and perpetuate that power. I agree the US government is barbaric. Guns and bullets will not solve the problem. Restoring our right to an honest vote would. That's why Bradblog is one of my faves.

My bullet tax will not stop anything other than random whackjobs from using a credit card to buy as many bullets as they wish. As for "rights," we need some restrictions on our right to jam each other's gears. Our elected officials are not guaranteeing the public safety and well-being.

Would it be a bad thing if every cop and soldier and government official took a battery of psychological tests to prove their mental and emotional fitness for their given job? If they can do it to teachers, then surely we can insist on the same rigorous standards. And I surely think that those who want to buy bullets should have the most rigorous testing, since they hold the tools of mass destruction. No one with whackjob tendencies should be allowed to buy bullets.

We cannot stop the arms merchants, since they manufacture them. Good luck stopping that, as I noted earlier. There are too many people buying and selling guns. Doing more of that will certainly not diminish that in any way. Too many people already own guns and it hasn't stopped the police state one iota. You're using means that won't accomplish the ends.

You may assert your opinion that this article is "out of place." I have had to deal with a lot of disapproval in my life from people that don't want to face uncomfortable realities as I experience them. For example, once upon a time people didn't like me speaking about African famine; other times people didn't like me talking about the stolen elections via voter disenfranchisement and electronic vote machine fraud.

Over the years I've encountered many who are uncomfortable with me freely discussing issues around grieving the death of a loved one, in my case my daughter. Do you or anyone think those of us who grieve the deaths of our loved ones can possibly agree that sources of death and destruction are viable options in this world? Bullets kill people, and I'm against anyone dying one instant before they need to, whether by famine, bullets, or the legalized murder that is war.

I do NOT agree that my rights end where yours begin, and vise-versa. That's BS. WE have rights in common as a function of the social contract. I do not have to agree to your beliefs, nor you to mine - but WE do not have the right to trespass on each other's peace, safety, property, and so forth. Nor does our government. These ARE basic human rights, and no one has the right to hurt another. Period.

I find it astonishing that you're asserting that the Creator endowed us with a "right" to possess the means to kill each other. God didn't manufacture guns; people manufactured guns. This is a human created "right," not a Divine one, such as life and liberty.

It is incoherent to assert that a God of Love endowed us with the right to kill or hurt another. You're right in that a gun without bullets probably won't kill much of anyone, so guns don't kill people, bullets do. But if you must insist that people kill people, then we are speaking of what is supposed to be "original sin" which surely was not the intention of our Creator who we are told is a God of Love.

Bullets only facilitate people killing people. Are you arguing for a God who values bullets more than Life? Like it or not, we must "give peace a chance," given how long and often we've tried bullets and never achieved anything close to the ideal.

If anything kills, it's bullets fired by people using guns. This could not be the intention of a God of Love which desire good for all its creatures. Aum.

************************

Then anonymous responded - What about the millions of hobbyists? How is shooting a gun at a target hurting anyone? Banning something arbitrarily because it "might" hurt someone is a terrible precedent. Why is a gun always automatically a means to KILL someone? It is also a means to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY! You have the Right to Life and Liberty and that means you have the Right to the means to protect your Life and Liberty.

Here is Lesson 101 in the Hierarchy of Legal Power in the USA:

God > American Citizen > State gov > Federal gov

If you are to deny an American a Right, you must first get their consent and then guarantee that the gov can't and won't exercise that respective privilege. Americans have all the Rights in America, government has a few enumerated privileges. And because of this hierarchy of power the government (State, Federal or otherwise) cannot legally do anything that an American Citizen can't do. My point is, your utopia will never happen unless you get the consent of Americans and consequently are willing to disarm all police and military of their weapons as well.

As long as the government has guns, I will fight for my Right to own a gun.

Then I answered a comment from someone besides these two:

The only hope for humanity is if we do not default to escalating tensions, fear, hatred, anger, and ego-driven divisions. That is the wisdom of Gandhi's eternal message that we are ONE beyond our differences, and must find ways to deescalate the animosities between members of the human race wherever these fear-based divisions show their ugly faces.

Any friend of this site can let others know of the good works they're trying to achieve via their website. You and others know I will never allow this site to be crassly exploited, since in the final analysis we all have our own cantina to operate. However, I will gladly bless any and all work that promotes our oneness and our ability to become more aware of our humanness and divinity as I believe our true nature and higher potential is.

I also agree with what I perceive is implied in your questions that we have strayed into some strange ugly nastiness since the world we remember growing up in. As you know, I believe it is a collective irrationality that shows we've hit the hard edge of our evolution where we will "hang together or most assuredly hang separately" to quote one of the best of all time.

Now for my response to anonymous:

Hi anonymous - Shootingness begets opportunities to default in consciousness to shootingness. Often what begins in one arena begets unfortunate involvements in other arenas. It's wherever you put your head at is where you wind up. Cause and effect.

Also, you keep mistaking my position for one in which I would ban guns, or your right to own one. I have never specified this anywhere. I think that's impossible, so why try? I just want to make the implements of destruction a little more expensive to indulge in like we've done with cigarettes, and turn the money to help our collapsing public health care system overloaded in cities like mine (LA) because of too many bullets in the hands of angry adolescents.

There are many ways to protect ourselves and our loved ones that are more effective than guns. Again, I just want the ability to slow or stop those who default to killing. Maiming is better than killing. Disabling is better than maiming. De-escalating before the fact is better than disabling. If we cannot attain the ideal of non-violence, then we must try to attain a condition of least possible violence in any given moment.

And whether you read these words or not, it is important for me to correct an extreme error in your assertion. In my law classes, I learned the "Hierarchy of Legal Power in the USA" derives from one thing only: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Period. It is the absolute law of the land, and no other law can be in violation of it, whether federal, state, or local. Even your notion of state's rights derives directly from our CONSTITUTION. If there is any "sacred document" outlining our rights, it's the Constitution.

Though the "Founding Fathers" did acknowledge on paper that they believed God has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, you will note it was WHITE MEN who asserted we had this right. It didn't come from our equivalent of Mt. Sinai. That's why the Constitution is not venerated more than our mistranslated Bible. If what you said were true, we'd be studying the Constitution on Sundays, not Constantine's manufactured political document.

And even our Constitution does NOT endow us with total rights to do as we please. My paraphrase earlier about not being allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater is a direct interpretation of the limits of free speech as outlined by Supreme Oliver Wendell Holmes. Nowhere are people guaranteed the right to do as they please, especially not in any society that purports that "god" gave them the rules and laws.

Laws are created by groups of beings (usually men up to now) so they may have common understanding about the rights, duties, and limits of the individual in a society. If women had parity in our representative government, we'd have a whole new set of laws, while some of the old ones would definitely be interpreted differently.

***********************

Then bluemoon responded:

It is strange to me that my species has lost the will to live. Partly, we have been taught that forces outside of us will take care of us. We live in a time when it is obvious that this is not true. Murderers go to schools because the people there are unarmed and have been taught not to fight back. When a murderer tells them to line up, they do so without a fight. That would have been unthinkable fifty years ago. (Ed. - This has actually changed since the VA Tech shooting. Many are no longer so submissive when the bullets are flying through the air!)

The answer is concealed carry, but schools insist they don't need the help of individuals, authority is in control. Authority is the one who let the shooter go, even after he had threatened to kill two women. Authority didn't warn other students after the shooter had shot the first set. What more power shall we give to authority and beg them to protect us?

Will taxing knives or bullets or anything else solve the problem? Will banning them solve the problem? Well, some people got pissed off at the drunks who beat their wives, so the US taxed and then banned alcohol for quite a few years. Just didn't work out. There are still drunks to beat their wives and kill people with cars. Maybe we should just ban cars. Let's ban everything. Somebody might do something we don't like.

In the seventeenth century, central planners decided that astrology was a bad thing. And they killed people to enforce their opinion. It can happen again. It is disturbing that people are so quick to call for “more laws.” Who shall we aim our hatred at. Gun owners? Astrologers? Jews?

This was my response to bluemoon:

Hi bluemoon - Yes, it's saddening to me that so many have become thanatophiles in such a short time, and willing to play out that life-denying delusion on objects of their fear. I agree we've learned some other strange delusions of dependency, what we should and shouldn't care about, and so forth.

Murderers go to schools for the same reasons pedophiles go to children; the young are naive, usually weaker physically, and able to be persuaded through different means than say, longshoremen, computer programmers, or district attorneys. That said, we do NOT need guns in our schools, as that's insane.

Our only choices are not a) submit to the slaughter like lambs OR b) have guns and start shooting. That's a false dichotomy. We have many other options. To name but one, I have seen martial arts experts disarm people from 20-30 feet away through a well-directed throw of things that do not kill.

"Concealed carry" will only yield more violence at some point. Martial arts would be far more effective with a lot less violence. As a former security chief for major public events where many tens of thousands attended, I agree the campus police blew it big time. But who looks to the police for peaceful resolution of disputes, or even efficient apprehension of perps? That's another delusion our government has sold us. But more guns on campuses won't solve the problem.

As I noted earlier, taxing the bullets is just my way of making violent insane rampages a little less quick and easy to pull off. It may not have stopped the VA Tech shooter, but it would have tipped off some kind of alarm if we had a system that noted an adolescent buying hundreds of bullets for semiautomatic pistolas.

(Ed. – In the case of Sandy Hook, the perp allegedly tried to buy a gun beforehand but didn’t want to have to deal with the waiting period. That should have tipped someone off right there! I believe that gun dealer should have notified the police immediately. ADD - We just found out the shooters mom was "proud of her gun collection," and liked to teach her kid to shoot, even though she KNEW he was "unstable" and refused to get him psychological help. Now back to our history lesson from 2007...)

FYI - Historically prohibition in this country did not result from "some people got pissed off at the drunks who beat their wives, so the US taxed and then banned alcohol for quite a few years." Don't know where you got your legislative history there, but it just wasn't that way. They didn't ban wife-beatings, they banned alcohol, due to social forces unrelated to wife beating, an abomination standing on its own that is much more serious than drunkenness, as distasteful and destructive as that can be.

Ban cars? Reductio ad absurdum. Look it up. Too extreme a view to be taken seriously. You're also painting too broad a brush on 17th century astrology, since it was very accepted by almost every royal court in the world including Muslim nations.

Even when the august William Lilly was hauled before Parliament for predicting the plague and fire of London, he was acquitted easily. There is NO record whatsoever of astrologers being persecuted at that time. Now "witches" (aka midwives, herbalists, etc.) WERE persecuted, mostly by superstitious violent white men.

I've not espoused any need for more laws. Just a tax on death dealing devices that seem to have NO other purpose than creating destruction (unlike your reference to banning cars - people don't buy cars to plow them into targets or bodies.) And I prefer not to aim hatred anywhere.

The world has not always been in the grip of such "evil," and there will be other times when what we know as "evil" will not exist, though there may be dualisms that are the source of polarization. I agree at present there is a great brooding anger inside of many, but also NOT in the hearts of many others who strive to find a greater Love and Wisdom.

That's what this site's community is, I believe, at heart. Most people here come to learn, and sometimes heal minds and feelings with others who are for the most part gentle loving Souls, and aware of that CONSCIOUSLY. That's a very rare thang. My sincere condolences for your wound, and may you find your way to love, wisdom, intelligence, strength, and courage to stand for peace and love in the midst of the irrational fear and divisions.

*********************

That’s the end of the original comments I've chosen to re-post. I can only add that even though the circumstances are different (this guy took at least three of his mom’s guns - including an assault rifle! - and we still don’t know where he got the others found by police) it probably would have yielded a different outcome if mom had to buy her bullets at 30 or 40 or 50 bucks apiece. Might not have been so many in the clips this Goth whackjob used to kill children. And NO ONE needs an assault rifle. Not for hunting, not for target practice, not for anything!

Same with those who shot up the Colorado theater, or Columbine, or Oregon, or anywhere else young crazies want to go down in history as mass murderers. If bullets were $100 each, then to shoot off 100 of them would cost $10,000. That alone would decrease the number of gun deaths each year. And as for recreational shooting, well, I have no problem with them paying a tax on bullets. Might make them better marksmen if they thought each shot would cost them 20 or 50 or 100 bucks!

I was challenged on a comment stream that my suggestion is useless since people can make their own ammunition. I responded that we could tax and register the shell casings, the ammo, and the power used to make bullets. If we can do it with tons of fertilizer out of fear it’ll be used to make bombs, then we can certainly do it with things used to create bullets.

If guns don’t kill people, bullets do. That’s a fact. And bullets are shot from guns by people. Make the bullets much more expensive, and it’s guaranteed there will be fewer deaths of people killed by bullets shot from guns by people of bad intent. If it works for cigarettes, I’m willing to try it with bullets.

TAX THE BULLETS!!

© Copyright 2007, 2012 Robert Wilkinson

Comments

[chickie]

Ur Highness I haven't read this piece yet as I just walked in and am cooking....however don't cha think it strange that the violence is once again a female name....is there a message in this madness????? Sandy.....

[mike]

I've never owned or shot a gun. I would prefer we live in a peaceful society that would preclude the use of weapons. That isn't the situation here in the USA (with two active wars on our hands in the name of terrorism!) or our neighboring countries.

Taxation sounds good to me Robert, but I think it's only viable on paper. The black market has proven effective at supplying in great quantities: guns, ammunition, drugs, exotic animals...anything. I suspect the Mexican and S American drug lords would simply diversify and become bullet lords, too (some already are) and at a great price.

What's to stop someone from stealing cash or credit cards and buying bullets? Theft would be the least of problems if one was planning mass murder. What about just stealing bullets? Rival gangs like taking from each other. A big problem in this country already is theft from transport and delivery trucks.

The vacuum left from no bullets would be filled with something. Homemade bombs aren't that difficult to make, whether ingredients are banned or not. The homemade methamphetamine industry attests to the availability of "banned" ingredients. Fertilizer is cheap and readily available for small bombs. Molotov cocktails?

Unfortunately, our political laws allow for lobbying by such great$ as the NRA. Unfortunately, the electorate demands our politicians stop the insanity of mass killings, but without gun (or bullet) control. Unfortunately, some politicians and religious leaders now say the victims are paying the price for removing prayer and worship from education. Is there something wrong with all of this????

[Robert]

Hi Chickie -Well, it sure does seem that there is some kind of bias going on. But we really don't want to discuss that or we'd both be either bummed out, outraged, or both.

Hi Mike - Yes, well, I also wish we'd get over guns. Very 20th century retro, if you know what I mean.

Taxation isn't just viable on paper. We could make it work easily, the same way we regulate many things. Even fertilizer has "markers" put in each specific shipment. If we can do that with bomb material, surely we can do it with things like shell casings. Drug lords? We can spot one pot plant in a national forest with satellite tech. Those in charge surely allow what they allow, and bust those who have not paid the vig. The powers that be have more going on than most people suspect.

If we gave an identifier to EVERY shell casing, EVERY batch of powder, EVERY bullet head, we'd diminish the sum total of killing devices by a thousand fold. This technology already exists. It's in every car and truck we buy, and many things are "chipped" that aren't nearly as lethal as bullet materiel.

I don't care about who steals what to buy what. Chip or create another identifier in every single component used to make bullets, and it's nyet problema. Stealing bullets might become a thriving industry, but those who were stolen from would have a huge interest in making sure that didn't happen. Try stealing Bubba's bullets and you might not live to tell the tale. Steal a gangbangers bullets - good luck on that one - and you can wind up very dead very quickly if you were ripping them off for any substantial amount, or for that matter, any amount at all. Those who value their assets tend to be fierce in guarding them. If they'll kill you for ripping off 500 bucks of cocaine, what do you think they'd do if you ripped them off for a grand worth of bullets?

Homemade bombs are already not that hard to make. I am not advocating we can stop all miscreants from using weaponry. But if bullets were taxed, it would be less likely a psychopath would spray a thousand around just to prove they could.

And yes, there's something terribly wrong when supposedly intelligent and "spiritual" people attribute human violence to anything but psychopathic behavior. We really have to get over certain superstitions about "god" and remember that we can do many things that are good, and true, and beautiful, and stop blaming "god" for the mischief people CHOOSE to do.

[evan]

Extrapolated, researched and updated thought from another website. Latest statistics; in 2010 there were over 30,000 deaths in America from guns. In Great Britain, where even the police do not generally carry guns, there were less than 50. Let's repeat this, in America,where we insist any infringement on owning a gun is tyranny, over 30,000 people died from weapons, in Great Britain it is less than 50 for the same year (note, this includes suicides, but hey, how many U.S. citizens will really commit hari kari if a pistol isn't readily available). Or check wikipedia for a listing of firearm deaths per 100,000 population, 9 of the top 12, including the U.S., are new world countries, many with operating death squad paramilitary mentality even to this day.

Lets look at it another way, guns don't kill people, people do. Or people with guns do. Exchange the mechanism. Thermonuclear bombs don't kill people, people with thermonuclear bombs do. Doesn't the 2nd Amendment give me the right to bear arms, including a thermonuclear warhead? Neither it nor the semiautomatic repeating firearm existed in the late 1700s. Doesn't it give me the right to own radioactive material sufficient to make a dirty bomb, another(destructive)industry of man's creation? If it doesn't, aren't you drawing a line (Supreme Court) at either or both the words "arms" and "right" in the 2nd Amendment. Isn't the cannon in a tank an 'arm' I can own? If I can't own and fire a tank under existing laws, are we currently living under tyranny? Or is there already a distinction, limitation made on the 2nd Amendment that is cognitively ignored that could easily be shifted to allow those who want to hunt, or feel a need to arm up inside their residence for self protection, without allowing the gun prohibition chicken little tyranny sky to fall?

Random musings from the father of a first grader in this great country who hugs his son goodby and good day and says see you tonight each morning before school.

evan

[Shayne Laughter]

Bravo, Robert! You have pointed the reality-based way to fulfilling Chris Rock's superb dictum that bullets should cost $5,000 apiece. Sharing this on Facebook. Oh - PS - besides that ruinous tax, each pack of bullets should be wrapped in the picture and name of someone slain by bullets.

[Valerie]

wonderful loaded article Robert... great idea, escalate the price of bullets! i also think that mental health should be more vigorously addressed. many potentially violent people slip through the cracks on a regular basis. as for that comment about the dangers of astrology, well... astrology is a matter of personal belief. i never saw astrology kill somebody. not yet. and now we should turn off the Tv, stop wringing our hands and see what we can do in our own back yard to effect kindness and healing. Edgar Cayce once said, fill the place better where ye are... namaste Robert! :)

[Virginia]

I think you are right about taxing the bullets ... in the linear, it is one way to slow down the insanity, like it has with cigarettes ... but there is a vexing "non-answer" to every huge dilemma currently facing us: the economy, violence etc etc ... basically involving all of our dearest "habits..." we need a paradigm shift; we need to think from a different direction--basically thinking needs to acquire a true connection to our heart. The God of Love cannot influence anything when the communication between our heart and our head is non-existent. We are broken. The tipping point is "accumulating mass" with people who have become present to the broken connection ... many are reconnecting heart and mind ... we are overly educated about every damn thing except what is an emotion and how do we use that force of energy within us for our own good and the good of those in our matrix ... let's adjust whatever we can in the linear ... but let us move in our selves ... those of us who have seen the glimmer and experienced what love can do ... to build/rebuild the sac be between our hearts and our minds ... there are thousands of incredible metaphors for this "work..." the story told by the elder elected by his own people--on behalf of all People--is one that resonates with me. This is free to watch for the next short while ... this appeared on the same day as the CT insanity ... dark and light ... the binary pulse of the Universe is a rhythm we all live in ... may I (and all who have ears to hear and eyes to see) walk/act intentionally, wherever they are, in accordance with whatever metaphor of love speaks to them, to reconnect the Eagle and the Condor ... I'm lakesh ... Watch at http://www.shiftoftheages.com/watch-now/

[BritLitChik]

Tax the bullets AND make folks register to purchase them AND produce verification they have the weapons that will utilize this ammo - just a few ideas. We shouldn't be able to walk into Walmart and buy bullets on discount. Additionally, a whole lot of gun right advocates also agree that current background checks are woefully inadequate and believe that we need to close gunshow loopholes that allow folks who really ought not own weapons to get them with relative ease.

I think it's time to quit having the "guns vs no guns" argument. It has gotten us nowhere. It is time, though, to bring intelligent folks from both sides of the fence (not the far enders, BTW) to come to some middle of the road agreement about how we can maintain our right to bear arms as provided in our constitution but do so in such a way we minimize those who commit these heinous acts whether public mass murders or gangbangers killing each other on the streets of our cities. I do not recall a recent instant where in one of these situations that law-abiding, responsible gun owners were shooters. Most responsible gun owners are tired of the fingers being pointed at them and want the bloodshed to end, too.

Get everyone to the table who is willing to discuss this topic rationally and intelligently. NRA leadership should not show up - they need to send a batch from their general membership. Gun control advocates need not show either - folks who are just tired of the violence and willing to meet half way will be the ticket.

And let's start with making ammo financially out of reach for most instead of offering it as a KMart bluelight special. And we can go from there...

[grace]

Amen Robert. We are a society being systematically dehumanized: by the media, technology, movies, games, etc. We do need to heal those deep wounds. We are also a society where narcissism and a lack if boundaries abound; where the ends (success, fame money) justifies the means and many perpetrators go unpunished.

Obviously many people share this killer's generational signature, but maybe you can speak of both the gifts and pitfalls of this generational signature: he has the Uranus/Neptune conjunction in Capricorn sextile Mars in Pisces and Pluto in Scorpio. Some have the full Saturn/Neptune/Uranus conjunction-- this group the newsmakers of our times. For the good and the ill.

I think of the contrast to the Cardinal tsquare of 1951 -- the coming of age of Flower Power, etc in also quite violent times. I wish you would speak of this too.

Anyway, another thoughtful, insightful article. You hold a powerful healing space fir many in increasingly chaotic times. God Bless.

[chickie]

Ur Highness,

I personally don't see it as a "bias".....call me crazy...I SEE it as a message from an outraged divine feminine. "Sandy" can perhaps be an earthbound message/metaphor saying with an Atlantean (Atlantis)accent upto and including a backdrop of Her-storical demise...."Listen to me..I know what I'm talking about..We've been there, done that, ....ur killing me and soon I will be unable to continue as Mother Protectress...Obviously Father is out of gas!" Just sayin'....Lady with the Tourquois Skirt will return if u continue to ignore me." Don't think there are many"trailers" left?

[Nic]

Good post Robert. Sorry you got such flack for it, but it aloud for you to expand on your ideas.
Two things come to mind: In the UK police, yes police do not carry a gun. And many police officers will leave the force if made or had to carry a gun. Yet, crime rate and security is as good or better than in the US. So, guns are no assurence of security. Also, it is easier in many states to buy a gun than to buy a beer. That alone says a lot about the view of things a society has.
One of the core causes for this violence, is what is fed thorough the media (TV, Radio,video games, pictures), the press, etc. The fear mongering has an effect and people "feel the need" to be ready for they perceive the world as very threatening, and the cycle goes on. It is mostly a mental/emotional percerption of social reality and the ways to deal with it that need to be examined and changed! From basic education, the images, the messages, and all the information that is out there feeding a mind and emotional set.
Life is precious, nothing that threatens life directly (bullets, guns, etc.) should be considered "normal", and a good thing to protect. To me it is evident and has nothing to do with rights of any kind.
My heart goes to the recent victims of insanity.

[Robert]

Hi all - Leonard Pitts has an extraordinarily powerful column about our national gun problem.

Commentary: Too many people who should not have guns do