No responsibility comes with it...

Definition here: In a true market economy, a Pigovian tax is the most efficient and effective way to correct negative externalities. A type of a Pigovian tax is a "sin tax", which is a special tax on tobacco products and alcohol.

I had a big debate here with another DUer a while back on whether Seattle's gun tax is truly Pigouvian.

Paul Krugman blogged this (not on guns but cap and trade policies): http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/the-real-pigou/?_r=0

There is also a Pigouvian subsidy in which the government helps pay for an activity that produces a positive effect, e.g. development of vaccines and cures for disease.

them.

Washington has state-level preemption for gun laws. It's highly unlikely this law would survive a legal challenge on that basis, so arguments over its merit are probably moot.

Moreover, Seattle's city limits encompass only a fairly small part of the (enormous) Seattle metropolitan area. Only a rather small percentage of the area's gun shops are within Seattle city limits. It would take most Seattle gun owners a matter of only a few minutes to drive to a shop without the extra charges (even given Seattle's truly horrific traffic congestion). I'm not sure what this law's backers intended that it accomplish, really.

Personally, I wouldn't object to paying such a modest amount, despite the fact that like most shooters, my firearms will never be involved in incurring the cost to society of gun-related violence. Of course, that's assuming the money was actually going to be allocated to something that will do some good. Facilitating expanded background checks, funding gang outreach programs, what-have-you...

in the hands of an out of control owner (alcohol involved, as happened in my own family) of a gun. So there's that...

some recent health issues are interfering with my thought process just now.

has some positive externalities but as it turns out has some extremely negative ones as well. We should focus on WHY so many legally owned handguns in this country account for so much of the violence.

Drill down with the gun lovers on how Norway handles the gun issue. They love their guns there and use them for target shooting and hunting but they also have strict control of guns. Andre Breviek aside, they have a very safe society, proving that you can have both guns and sensible gun safety regulations. But be ready for the "no can do." I guess we can win World War Two and put a man on the moon but we can't solve our gun violence problems.

too. The fact that your particular gun isn't criminal is moot and a false argument.

The city attorney thinks the law will hold up under the power to tax granted the city. That remains to be seen.

Your car may very well cause potholes in Dallas, if not El Paso. You're still paying towards a cost to the state to which you contributed. My guns don't cause problems for others anywhere. If they did, I'd have no problem paying my fair share. Saying I am responsible in part for the costs criminals impose on society because we both happen to own firearms is bizarre reasoning, to say the least. Collective guilt arguments generally are.

If we could, I'd not pay for wars in the middle east and subsidies to use national lands for mining and grazing.

Your argument is absolutely fallacious because we don't get to pick and choose which taxes we pay because we don't like them.

While we indeed do not have the ability to pick and choose taxes (I'd blow off pointless elective wars and environmentally-disastrous subsidies, too), that's got nothing to do with my argument. That's not remotely the situation in Seattle, where the tax's dubious legal standing derives from Washington's pre-existing state-level preemption of firearms laws. This isn't a matter of "liking" the tax or not, it's a matter of how this will be adjudicated in court.

taxing authority. It's a tax issue, not a gun control issue. There is no restriction on ammo or gun purchases only a small revenue generation to help cover the costs of gun violence. Much like the SCOTUS saw the ACA's "penalty" for non coverage.

We will see.

Sadly, I suspect they'll spend far more on defending the law in court than it will ever generate.

A tax on the exercising of a Constitutional right violates strict scrutiny. No possible way it will survive legal challenge. So a good way of wasting taxpayer funds which could be used on safety and education but otherwise pointless.

The tax will not in any way infringe the exercise of the mystical 2nd amendment.

Sorry, ya' gotta do better than that.

Another case for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

And you equate this to 5c a round and other sales taxes?

I know that gunz is soooooo special but not that special.

Besides, said tax does not interfere with the mystical 2nd amendment right, it just attaches responsibility to owning and shooting guns. I have it on good authority that gun owners are big on being responsible.