Not sure if that would be the best method. Also, basing it on the value of human life would also require dispersing the monies to those that lost someone. I don't believe the money would be used for that purpose though. So if the taxes will not go to them then what is the point of collecting it?

I do think there should be some sort of tax but doesn't need to be that high. And to use it for PSAs and other safety purposes. Maybe a $10 or $20 tax per firearm annually. And all firearms have to be registered so the right tax is collected. If someone's firearm is stolen they need to report it to the police so they don't get taxed. If they sell it there needs to be paperwork. If someone claims it was stolen and turns out they sold it in the black market they would be prosecuted.

I would think that even a low tax would weed out some that have a cache of firearms that fill up their basement and encourage them to reduce what they have.

It is the same principle as taxing pollution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

The "statistical value of human life" is unpleasant-sounding but necessary concept in certain policy areas. For example, the lower the speed limit, the less people that get killed. So, in order to determine the ideal speed limit, you need to somehow be able weigh the economic benefits of faster transportation and shipping, versus the loss of human life. (there are other considerations like pollution, etc., but you get the idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

The 1%ters won't care if the tax is $500/year or $5000/year. But to a single mom, a bus driver, or teacher $500/year is prohibitive. Would you be infavor of a progressive tax based on income?

So I could certainly see where an exemption for actual need based gun ownership, for example a person who is really living off the land and not merely engaged in recreational hunting, would be appropriate.

And if that is possible it certainly would be a good start.

Compute the cost of guns to society and add that cost to the manufacturers for each weapon produced. Ditto for ammunition.

10% on each gun comes out to about $50 per gun, so we're getting pretty close to the $100-per-gun-owning-household lower estimate from the study. Of course, the values in the study are per year, but still, we are not too far off. How much does the average gun owner spend on ammo per year?

On the other hand, that study was done using data from 1980-2000, a time when homicide rates were higher than they are now, so there's a pretty good chance that, at present, the effect is weaker than back then.

Typical lifetime of a modern firearm that gets properly maintained is many tens of thousands of rounds. With replacement of worn parts they can last much longer. Of course some people buy a gun and never shoot it.

That's about 100 a month, not that much, but also not that little. At 25 cents per round, that would come out to $250 per year, which would mean $25 in taxes per year. Combined with the gun tax, we're in the ballpark.

Save us the trouble of prying them from their cold dead hands.