@lpdb185 You would concede, wouldn't you, that gun shows are events designed almost exclusively to sell guns, right? And there are vendors, correct? Who sell guns?

Whereas grocery store and police station parking lots have other, more primary uses, the purpose of the gun show seems pretty straightforward. So it might still make sense to start with the gun shows, since they're a place where a fair bit of gun selling is goin' on.

Automobiles, incidentally, also have other primary uses. While they do frequently kill people, that's not what they're designed and manufactured to do, and they're subjected to a dizzying array of regulation intended to keep them from killing as many people as possible. So I'm not sure your metaphor holds up.

Guns, again, are designed to kill things -- and certain types of guns, bullets and attachments are designed specifically to kill people -- it's not a side-effect of their use for some other task like transportation, food preparation or tree cutting. So it only follows that their manufacture and sale should be "well-regulated," no?

Your comment does do a service -- it points out a loophole in worrying only about gun shows. The solution it suggests to me that not only should we facilitate background checks at gun shows, but perhaps require that private sales of guns go through a licensing process -- a solution exists in your own metaphor -- the sale of a car requires a transfer of title and licensing of the car by the new owner. Maybe it's time gun owners walk their guns down to the county courthouse for a transfer of ownership that includes a background check?

Hey kdavis... yes, you did a little better. You're free to disagree with folks, just do it agreeably. (And, for the record, I've seen Bryan be more than "man enough" when prognostications have gone wrong in the past.) If Ole Miss ends up in the NIT will you be back? Time will tell! :)

Try to keep it civil, kdavis, even if the discussion is about Ole Miss. You clearly know very little about the author of the piece.

I find it difficult to comprehend how a film could feature the character Tony Stark and yet not be nominated for Best Picture.

Here's the 2012 story: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…

@Richard -- I understand what you're saying and don't dispute the internal logic of your argument, but I would submit that you're making the argument like a financial planner, not an entrepreneur. If the investors are looking at such low-margin businesses that 3-4 more points of taxes on their investment income would keep them out of the market completely, then maybe those aren't the best investments in the first place. (Sure, there are exceptions, like the newspaper business [grin], but then at that point you're probably investing for something other than pure $$ returns.)

If our well-healed folks are making good investments -- for whatever reason this high-income individual would care to participate in them -- then you're arguing that making another $100,000 in relatively passive income isn't worth the extra $4,000 you'd have to pay in taxes. Tough to swallow. (Not the mention that it's your opportunity to pay down some of those billed we've accrued as the strongest nation in the world. :)

Also, we're nowhere near historical highs on these tax rates and the capital gains tax is pretty ridiculously low; you could argue that the gap between the top income tax rates and the capital gains rate actually created some of the problems that lead to the Great Recession. On a macro level it's logical to bring revenues up to 17-18% of GDP and one place to start is by restoring to rates that we've seen and succeeded with in the past.

And, finally, Richard, you might be able to speak with expertise to some of the history here -- it seems to me that one of the reasons we have S-Corps and LLCs was to avoid double-taxation of C Corps... people seem to be forgetting the benefits of this arrangements as we argue at the margins; it's hard to make a case that people will suddenly stop investing in all of this "job creator" activity (which is only a "job creator" for as long as there's a market for the product or service being offered) because of the pass-through income. Not that it isn't a problem -- it's something that needs to be dealt with. But it's not as much a rate problem as a tax reform (and/or corporate structure) problem.

@bjalder Welcome to the discussion. Thanks for enumerating the details of the "assault weapon" vs. "assault rifle," although your corrective comes a few months too late; this has been adjudicated fully up-thread.

Note, by the way, that the assault weapons ban actually banned some specific weapons by name (colt AR-15, TEC-9, certain AK-47s) and used the additional criteria you mention in order to try and catch similar weapons manufacturer by others or manufactured under different names to circumvent the ban. Were another ban to be considered I imagine more imaginative criteria will be required, although that list suggests perhaps a bit of lobbying and compromise back in the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As…

The Federal ban also applied to "high-capacity magazines" -- my understanding is that it was 10 rounds under the ban.

And that, dear readers, is what we call a slippery slope.

@legalgunowner A few answers:

*tstauffer, you have conveniently failed to bring existing weapons into the equation. Ban guns or not, people that want one will find a way to own one. Please refute this point because it is fundamental in the gun control debate.*

I actually don't have to, because I haven't called for a gun ban.

That said, the most obvious answer would be to craft a more effectual assault weapons ban. Sure, it's a massive undertaking... the federal government makes manufacturing, selling, owning or transporting an assault weapon a felony, and offers ways that people can turn in those guns, get paid for them, etc. But it's not without precedent or support.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs…

Clearly some folks agree with the premise; you could make the assault weapons ban stronger, enforce it, and make these guns much harder to come by. And I imagine that's something that will be explored in the next few weeks.

*As for the government regulating us down to how large a soda we should drink-you may agree with this nanny state thinking, but I don't.*

Which is fantastic except that (a.) I didn't say I agree with it; I said that it's based in psychology and (b.) simply stating your opinion on that matter isn't actually a premise in an argument regarding its effectiveness.

*I see people on this blog make the argument that semi automatic weapons should be banned because on one NEEDS a gun like that. So it stands to reason our government should ban tire swings, cable tv, ice cream and lemonade (after all no one truly NEEDS these things).*

(a.) Your comparisons are non-sensical -- the government certainly could ban ice cream, but it would require support from the people to make it happen. If there's enough support from the public and public officials to ban semi-automatic weapons, then they might very well be banned.

(b.) The more logical way to read people who say you don't "need a gun *like that*" is that you may well have the right to own a gun, just not one designed primarily for killing lots of people in a short period of time.

A more apt example might be that you're allowed to sell ice cream, but not ice cream with rat poison in it.

*I apologize if i've offended your sensibilities by using the term liberals.*

LOL. Im the same spirit, I likewise apologize for trying to discuss this rationally.

*Yes this may be a generalization, but that's all it was meant to be, a generalization. We are lucky that it has been several generations since most of our forefathers were forced to take a stand against injustice. You must think it will never be necessary again-I hope you're right.*

If that's your argument against an assault weapons ban, the answer you'll need to start working on is what "injustice," exactly, has as its solution a high-capacity semi-automatic assault rifle.

Bubba: In the list I linked to, outdoors in Tulsa is not a gun-free zone (conceal carry in Oklahoma?), Accent Signature Systems is a company, Cafe Racer Espresso is a business, Salon Meritage is a business, IHOP in Nevada is a business, Hartford Beer Distributor is a business, Fort Hood is an army base, Capitol Hill in Seattle is outdoors (conceal carry in Washington State?), Lockheed Martin is a private business, Edgewater Technology is a private business, and Atlanta day-trader firms are private businesses.

Unless your assertion is that the government *should* be able to tell people that they can have guns on private property, etc., then the only point you *may* be making is that schools shouldn't be gun-free. Otherwise, even if some of those on the list are posted gun-free, what are you going to do about it?

Second, sure, you could make a case that mass-murders don't generally go into gun clubs or police stations, or if they do they don't get very far and thus don't get reported as mass murders.

But I don't think you've otherwise made a case that "gun-free" zones are causal in mass murders, nor is it clear that the location for mass shootings are rationally chosen by the shooter in each case based on whether or not it's posted gun-free. Again, most of those people had a "reason" to be in those places whether they were posted gun-free or not.