New normal?

[pondwater]

It's already like that in some cities for soda and sports drinks. Someone will make it cheaper here ... but you can't do anything on what's already here like a tax levied on "sweetened beverages"

A 65% sweetened beverage recovery fee. What the fuck are they recovering?

[Fau Teixeira]

China doesn't export aluminum or steel to the US, this tariff is meaningless to the chinese. The EU is for sure going to retaliate against american exports. There's a reason Bush in 2003 proposed this same thing and then backed out right quick after the EU put up retaliatory tariffs.

[Phishfan]

It's already like that in some cities for soda and sports drinks. Someone will make it cheaper here ... but you can't do anything on what's already here like a tax levied on "sweetened beverages"

Do the math. That is about 75 cents per 16 ounce bottle. I bet you pay more here.

[pondwater]

How much you got to bet? Because you are way off.

[Phishfan]

How much you got to bet? Because you are way off.

Costco site isn't listing Gatorade. Sam's site is showing me around 62 cents per 20 ounce bottle.

[CF DolFan]

Do the math. That is about 75 cents per 16 ounce bottle. I bet you pay more here.

You are totally misunderstanding. That is in addition. That is an added tax to the price. It’s not the price. If you go outside of Seattle you only pay the top price. In fact ... I’ve seen pics where Costco ... or maybe Sam’s ....have posted signs that say as much.

[pondwater]

Costco site isn't listing Gatorade. Sam's site is showing me around 62 cents per 20 ounce bottle.

I routinely get 32oz bottles of gatorade at the grocery store for 79¢.


Costco in Seattle

• 35 units x 16.9oz = 591.5 oz
• $26.33 ÷ 591.5oz = .0445¢ per oz

Sam's site per you

• 62¢÷20oz = .031¢ per oz

My local grocery store

• 79¢÷32oz = .0246¢ per oz
  
  So Seattle is almost double per oz than what I pay locally. Interestingly, if you remove the recovery tax it comes out to .027¢ per oz at Costco.  Which is right in between the price of Sams and my grocery store. So yes, the idiot recovery tax in Seattle significantly affects the price.
  
  I won the bet. Instead of a case of Gatorade, I want beer, LMAO....
  
  Anyhow, back on topic.....
  
  

[pondwater]

You're insisting that "it doesn't matter when it was made" because the fact that the 1986 gun control law effectively removed all new fully-automatic firearms from public availability exactly as it was intended to completely and thoroughly disproves the claim that gun bans don't work.

In 1986, Congress said, "No more new fully-auto firearms shall be allowed into public hands from this day forward."
It was completely successful.
We can do it again for other weapons, too.

I would also like to point out that there was no epidemic of crimes committed with fully automatic weapons before the 1986 law was enacted. Therefore, if there were virtually no crimes committed with that small subset of Class III automatic weapons before the law was enacted. How did the law do anything?

You're saying the law worked as intended because virtually no crimes were committed after the law was passed. However, there was nothing for the law to fix since virtually no crimes were committed with those firearms before the law was passed. You can't fix a problem that didn't exist. It was just another feel good law that in all actuality changed nothing.

[Spider-Dan]

Whether or not gun control laws will actually make an impact on the amount of violent crime committed with guns is a reasonable discussion.  But that's not the discussion we're having.

The discussion at hand is the claim that gun control laws cannot have an impact on gun crime because criminals don't obey the law and will simply buy illegal guns on The Black Market.  All available evidence indicates that the black market for post-1986 fully-automatic weapons effectively does not exist, which means that said gun control law (which said the public MAY NOT PURCHASE this category of firearms, under ANY circumstances) was extremely effective.  Therefore, we may deduce that a similarly restrictive gun control law - one that's not full of loopholes, and is similar to the gun laws in many other countries that have successfully curbed gun crime - would be equally effective.

[pondwater]

Whether or not gun control laws will actually make an impact on the amount of violent crime committed with guns is a reasonable discussion.  But that's not the discussion we're having.

The discussion at hand is the claim that gun control laws cannot have an impact on gun crime because criminals don't obey the law and will simply buy illegal guns on The Black Market.  All available evidence indicates that the black market for post-1986 fully-automatic weapons effectively does not exist, which means that said gun control law (which said the public MAY NOT PURCHASE this category of firearms, under ANY circumstances) was extremely effective.  Therefore, we may deduce that a similarly restrictive gun control law - one that's not full of loopholes, and is similar to the gun laws in many other countries that have successfully curbed gun crime - would be equally effective.

There was no crime and/or a black market relating to fully automatic firearms. It did not exist before the 1986 law was imposed. It didn't exist before the law and it didn't exist after the law. Therefore the law had no effect. Please prove the difference the law made, because as far as I can tell, no black market = no black market. Again, pre or post 1986 doesn't matter, there wasn't any crime or black market before or after. If there was no black market, what black market did the law stop? You don't make any sense.

[Spider-Dan]

It's kind of strange that you're only focusing on the 1986 law as relates to crimes with fully-automatic weapons.  It is, of course, true that the 1986 law is not the prime mover in that regard; the more significant law was the 1934 National Firearms Act, which greatly restricted (but did not outright prohibit) public purchasing of fully-automatic weapons.  And as you have stated in this thread many times, there are a near-zero number of crimes committed with Class III NFA weapons... yet another example of a highly-effective gun control law.

So there are really two points here:

1) The 1934 law drastically reduced actual crimes committed with fully-automatic firearms
2) The 1986 law completely removed all new fully-automatic firearms from the public marketplace (and the black market) from that point forward

The primary arguments that gun advocates use against gun control laws is that they won't reduce crime and that even if they would, you can't enforce them because criminals don't obey the law and will still get illegal guns anyway.  America's experience with the regulation of fully-automatic firearms disproves both of those arguments.

[Phishfan]

You are totally misunderstanding. That is in addition. That is an added tax to the price. It’s not the price. If you go outside of Seattle you only pay the top price. In fact ... I’ve seen pics where Costco ... or maybe Sam’s ....have posted signs that say as much.

I didn't misunderstand.. The sign is a simple read. I just expected our local price to be higher.

[Phishfan]

It's kind of strange that you're only focusing on the 1986 law as relates to crimes with fully-automatic weapons.  It is, of course, true that the 1986 law is not the prime mover in that regard; the more significant law was the 1934 National Firearms Act, which greatly restricted (but did not outright prohibit) public purchasing of fully-automatic weapons.  And as you have stated in this thread many times, there are a near-zero number of crimes committed with Class III NFA weapons... yet another example of a highly-effective gun control law.

So there are really two points here:

1) The 1934 law drastically reduced actual crimes committed with fully-automatic firearms
2) The 1986 law completely removed all new fully-automatic firearms from the public marketplace (and the black market) from that point forward

The primary arguments that gun advocates use against gun control laws is that they won't reduce crime and that even if they would, you can't enforce them because criminals don't obey the law and will still get illegal guns anyway.  America's experience with the regulation of fully-automatic firearms disproves both of those arguments.

I kept waiting for you to bring up the earlier law.

[CF DolFan]

I didn't misunderstand.. The sign is a simple read. I just expected our local price to be higher.

How is it not less here? You don't have to pay the $10.34 here or at their other local stores.

[BuccaneerBrad]

China doesn't export aluminum or steel to the US, this tariff is meaningless to the chinese. The EU is for sure going to retaliate against american exports. There's a reason Bush in 2003 proposed this same thing and then backed out right quick after the EU put up retaliatory tariffs.

Bush was too scared to play hardball with the EU.  Trump certainly aint