When the City of Seattle passed a tax on all sales of guns and ammunition, the measure was hailed as a way to defray the rising costs of gun violence.


But since the tax took effect, those costs have only risen as gun violence in the city has surged. And the tax has apparently brought in much less than city leaders projected it would.

“How much data do you need?” asked Dave Workman, senior editor of TheGunMag.com and member of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The data says the law has failed to prevent what they promised it would prevent.”


Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess introduced the tax in 2015. It puts a $25 tax on every firearm sold in the city and up to 5 cents per round of ammunition. The measure easily passed and took effect January 1, 2016.


Comparing the first five months of 2017 with the same period before the gun tax went into effect, reports of

1. shots fired are up 13 percent
2. the number of people injured in shootings climbed 37 percent
3. gun deaths doubled

according to crime statistics from the Seattle Police Department.

In selling his gun tax to the public, Burgess predicted it would generate between $300,000 and $500,000 annually. The money would be used to study the root causes of gun violence in hopes of reducing the costs to taxpayers.

Seattle officials refuse to say how much the tax brought in the first year, only giving the number “under $200,000.” Gun rights groups have sued to get the exact amount.

But Mike Coombs, owner of Outdoor Emporium, the last large gun dealer left in Seattle, said the actual tax revenue is almost certainly just over $100,000, a figure based on information he says the city shared with his lawyers.


The $500,000 they hoped to raise is not a mistake. They are spending $500,000 on a gun violence study. So instead of getting the revenue in a year as planned, it may take more than 5 years, plus they have to spend more on gun violence.

By the way, gun and ammo sales outside of Seattle is booming, whereas gun retailers are laying off people in Seattle.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/...asses.html[/i]

Idiots.

This is what happens when you falsely believe that mankind is naturally good.

(06-15-2017 02:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  When the City of Seattle passed a tax on all sales of guns and ammunition, the measure was hailed as a way to defray the rising costs of gun violence.


But since the tax took effect, those costs have only risen as gun violence in the city has surged. And the tax has apparently brought in much less than city leaders projected it would.

“How much data do you need?” asked Dave Workman, senior editor of TheGunMag.com and member of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The data says the law has failed to prevent what they promised it would prevent.”


Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess introduced the tax in 2015. It puts a $25 tax on every firearm sold in the city and up to 5 cents per round of ammunition. The measure easily passed and took effect January 1, 2016.


Comparing the first five months of 2017 with the same period before the gun tax went into effect, reports of

1. shots fired are up 13 percent
2. the number of people injured in shootings climbed 37 percent
3. gun deaths doubled

according to crime statistics from the Seattle Police Department.

In selling his gun tax to the public, Burgess predicted it would generate between $300,000 and $500,000 annually. The money would be used to study the root causes of gun violence in hopes of reducing the costs to taxpayers.

Seattle officials refuse to say how much the tax brought in the first year, only giving the number “under $200,000.” Gun rights groups have sued to get the exact amount.

But Mike Coombs, owner of Outdoor Emporium, the last large gun dealer left in Seattle, said the actual tax revenue is almost certainly just over $100,000, a figure based on information he says the city shared with his lawyers.


The $500,000 they hoped to raise is not a mistake. They are spending $500,000 on a gun violence study. So instead of getting the revenue in a year as planned, it may take more than 5 years, plus they have to spend more on gun violence.

By the way, gun and ammo sales outside of Seattle is booming, whereas gun retailers are laying off people in Seattle.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/...asses.html[/i]

Wise Libturds running the show!

so if it went into effect starting in 2016: why they are comparing 2016 to 2017 rather than 2015?

(06-15-2017 03:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so if it went into effect starting in 2016: why they are comparing 2016 to 2017 rather than 2015?

Because some of the effects of the tax law, such as businesses picking up and moving out of Seattle, hadnt occurred yet. Its a fair comparison.

(06-15-2017 03:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so if it went into effect starting in 2016: why they are comparing 2016 to 2017 rather than 2015?

Because some of the effects of the tax law, such as businesses picking up and moving out of Seattle, hadnt occurred yet. Its a fair comparison.

How is it a fair comparison? Gun violence is in no way relevant to tax numbers so I'm not sure how you can spin one having to do with the other unless you want to have a discussion of public policy costs which isn't the premise of the OP.

It's a very misleading way to cite numbers given that said statement in the OP could be accurate if the law created less gun violence or more gun violence. We don't know without pre-law data which the OP specifically omits.

(06-15-2017 03:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so if it went into effect starting in 2016: why they are comparing 2016 to 2017 rather than 2015?

Because some of the effects of the tax law, such as businesses picking up and moving out of Seattle, hadnt occurred yet. Its a fair comparison.

How is it a fair comparison? Gun violence is in no way relevant to tax numbers so I'm not sure how you can spin one having to do with the other unless you want to have a discussion of public policy costs which isn't the premise of the OP.

It's a very misleading way to cite numbers given that said statement in the OP could be accurate if the law created less gun violence or more gun violence. We don't know without pre-law data which the OP specifically omits.

They passed the law under the pretext that it would reduce gun violence.

It failed.

These numbers prove it.

It failed to reduce gun violence. It failed to raise the taxes they anticipated.

It failed.

What part of that cant you get. They compared the first 5 months of 2017 to the first 5 months of 2015, the last year in which the law was not in effect.

(06-15-2017 03:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  This is what happens when you falsely believe that mankind is naturally good.

I'll disagree with you here Hood.. mankind is naturally good.

The problem is the ones who aren't.. are VERY NOT GOOD

(06-15-2017 03:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  This is what happens when you falsely believe that mankind is naturally good.

Bam!

(06-15-2017 04:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so if it went into effect starting in 2016: why they are comparing 2016 to 2017 rather than 2015?

Because some of the effects of the tax law, such as businesses picking up and moving out of Seattle, hadnt occurred yet. Its a fair comparison.

How is it a fair comparison? Gun violence is in no way relevant to tax numbers so I'm not sure how you can spin one having to do with the other unless you want to have a discussion of public policy costs which isn't the premise of the OP.

It's a very misleading way to cite numbers given that said statement in the OP could be accurate if the law created less gun violence or more gun violence. We don't know without pre-law data which the OP specifically omits.

They passed the law under the pretext that it would reduce gun violence.

It failed.

These numbers prove it.

It failed to reduce gun violence. It failed to raise the taxes they anticipated.

It failed.

What part of that cant you get. They compared the first 5 months of 2017 to the first 5 months of 2015, the last year in which the law was not in effect.

again where do the numbers prove it.

let's say in 2015 it was 100.

in 2016 when it was enacted it went down to 1.

in 2017 it rose back to 13.

If you compare 17 to 16 it's a 1300% increase. If you compare 17 to 15 it's a 87% decrease. That's why the 2015 number is so important which is why I say these numbers absolutely do not prove that. Only when you factor in previous years can such a claim be made.

(06-15-2017 04:11 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  This is what happens when you falsely believe that mankind is naturally good.

I'll disagree with you here Hood.. mankind is naturally good.

The problem is the ones who aren't.. are VERY NOT GOOD

Young children... do we have to teach them to misbehave or do we have to teach them to behave?

I love seeing liberals contort themselves into pretzels trying to explain why rates go up when legal gun ownership is repressed via statutes and taxation and why rates go down in every jurisdiction that concealed carry is freely available to those who are legal to carry in shall issue jurisdictions as opposed to arbitrary may issues jurisdictions.

(06-15-2017 04:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I love seeing liberals contort themselves into pretzels trying to explain why rates go up when legal gun ownership is repressed via statutes and taxation and why rates go down in every jurisdiction that concealed carry is freely available to those who are legal to carry in shall issue jurisdictions as opposed to arbitrary may issues jurisdictions.

I love seeing cons have no real answer when I point out a critical flaw in their data.

(06-15-2017 04:11 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  This is what happens when you falsely believe that mankind is naturally good.

I'll disagree with you here Hood.. mankind is naturally good.

The problem is the ones who aren't.. are VERY NOT GOOD

Out of curiosity are you a Christian?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-15-2017 04:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 04:11 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  This is what happens when you falsely believe that mankind is naturally good.

I'll disagree with you here Hood.. mankind is naturally good.

The problem is the ones who aren't.. are VERY NOT GOOD

Young children... do we have to teach them to misbehave or do we have to teach them to behave?

Bingo. All are born into sin.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-15-2017 04:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 04:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  What part of that cant you get. They compared the first 5 months of 2017 to the first 5 months of 2015, the last year in which the law was not in effect.

again where do the numbers prove it.

let's say in 2015 it was 100.

in 2016 when it was enacted it went down to 1.

in 2017 it rose back to 13.

If you compare 17 to 16 it's a 1300% increase. If you compare 17 to 15 it's a 87% decrease. That's why the 2015 number is so important which is why I say these numbers absolutely do not prove that. Only when you factor in previous years can such a claim be made.

So in order to challenge the actual facts presented in the original link, you create a fictitious set of numbers, that is counter-factuals, and then analyze these in a manner that you submit show how these falsities demonstrate a reality that conflicts with the truth and thus the truth cannot be trusted.

This is quintessential post modernism, wherein anything can be exactly what you want it to be. It would be like comparing the "Mona Lisa" and a child's finger painting and saying "Yep, they're both art."

This is the weakness of the proglodytes mind set and shall forever condemn them to the banal argumentation.

(06-15-2017 04:11 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  This is what happens when you falsely believe that mankind is naturally good.

I'll disagree with you here Hood.. mankind is naturally good.

The problem is the ones who aren't.. are VERY NOT GOOD

Have you raised kids?

(06-17-2017 08:49 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 04:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 04:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  What part of that cant you get. They compared the first 5 months of 2017 to the first 5 months of 2015, the last year in which the law was not in effect.

again where do the numbers prove it.

let's say in 2015 it was 100.

in 2016 when it was enacted it went down to 1.

in 2017 it rose back to 13.

If you compare 17 to 16 it's a 1300% increase. If you compare 17 to 15 it's a 87% decrease. That's why the 2015 number is so important which is why I say these numbers absolutely do not prove that. Only when you factor in previous years can such a claim be made.

So in order to challenge the actual facts presented in the original link, you create a fictitious set of numbers, that is counter-factuals, and then analyze these in a manner that you submit show how these falsities demonstrate a reality that conflicts with the truth and thus the truth cannot be trusted.

This is quintessential post modernism, wherein anything can be exactly what you want it to be. It would be like comparing the "Mona Lisa" and a child's finger painting and saying "Yep, they're both art."

This is the weakness of the proglodytes mind set and shall forever condemn them to the banal argumentation.

Do we get to make up the numbers now to make theoretical arguments? Goody.