America's Gun Violence #2

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i read a few days ago that there was a potential bill that would have the tax rate for ammo for weapons like the ar-15 be 1000%. I can get behind that. you want to shoot up a place, you better run up your credit card first.

I think that’s incredibly stupid, and should be illegal if it isn’t. You can get out of contracts if it’s deemed too demanding, interest rates on loans are only allowed so far.
This also opens the door to tax anything you don’t like. Why not tax alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or even abortions 1000% then? They’d just argue it’s still legal to get an abortion. Seems like you’re opening Pandora’s box when you play this game.

Except that alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and abortions (unless you actually believe an embryo is a person) only kill those who use them on themselves.  Big difference.

I guess you don’t listen to those commercials about second hand smoke?
But that wasn’t the point. Tax guns or ammo 1000%, what do you think that opens the door for? Eventually something you like would get taxed 1000% because those in charge don’t like it.

Thank you for more shaming!  Nothing motivates me more than shaming and screaming at me.  A little beating on bratty me with a baseball bat (oh yeahhhhhhhh)  is also effective. 

:JOY:

I wasn’t shaming. I’m sorry you took it that way. Was more making fun of the ineffectiveness of those cheesey commercials of the 80s if anything with that commercial comment.

You could still smoke on a plane in the 80’s. And in bars, restaurants, the office and anywhere else you so desired. Fail.

What’s a fail? That if you tax one thing 1000% why wouldn’t they tax something else? Or that I think most PSA commercials are cheesey?

That second hand smoke wasn’t a thing in the 80’s and that taxes are evil, particularly if they’re 1,000% and can you cite an example of one thing that was taxed but then it became another because, well, however you’ve squared it?

So, what firearm tax % would be acceptable to fund all those gun safety solutions you’re in favor of? 

I’ve see most gun owners here agree on many new gun reforms. Why are you hung up on this one? Most don’t require a high tax to implement. Universal background checks, no loopholes, magazine limits, etc require no additional tax.
I never said taxes are evil. They are essential to find government, which provides roads, police, fire, etc. 
“can you cite an example of one thing that was taxed but then it became another because, well, however you’ve squared it?” I don’t know what this means and I never said that. I never said one thing was taxed but then became another. I did say if you tax guns or ammo at 1000%, then you open the door to tax anything at 1000%. And no I can’t cite examples because that’s never happened. Why do you expect examples on a hypothetical situation that has never happened?
Okay, so second hand smoke became a thing in the 90s and not 80s? Who cares?

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i read a few days ago that there was a potential bill that would have the tax rate for ammo for weapons like the ar-15 be 1000%. I can get behind that. you want to shoot up a place, you better run up your credit card first.

I think that’s incredibly stupid, and should be illegal if it isn’t. You can get out of contracts if it’s deemed too demanding, interest rates on loans are only allowed so far.
This also opens the door to tax anything you don’t like. Why not tax alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or even abortions 1000% then? They’d just argue it’s still legal to get an abortion. Seems like you’re opening Pandora’s box when you play this game.

Except that alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and abortions (unless you actually believe an embryo is a person) only kill those who use them on themselves.  Big difference.

I guess you don’t listen to those commercials about second hand smoke?
But that wasn’t the point. Tax guns or ammo 1000%, what do you think that opens the door for? Eventually something you like would get taxed 1000% because those in charge don’t like it.

Thank you for more shaming!  Nothing motivates me more than shaming and screaming at me.  A little beating on bratty me with a baseball bat (oh yeahhhhhhhh)  is also effective. 

:JOY:

I wasn’t shaming. I’m sorry you took it that way. Was more making fun of the ineffectiveness of those cheesey commercials of the 80s if anything with that commercial comment.

OK, thanks for clarifying.  So to be fair, I'll answer your question:  No, I don't listen to questions about second hand smoke.  I haven't listened to a commercial in so many years I couldn't tell you.  20, 25?  Easily. I don't watch TV.

In any case, yeah, second hand smoke is problematic.  But most people know not to expose others to second hand smoke.  If they do, it could be considered abuse and charged as such.  But if someone wants to smoke, who am I to judge?  I smoked for a lot of years.  The worst thing about smoking in terms of harming others (assuming they are not exposing others to it) is the use of filtered cigarettes and chew in plastic tubs.  I posted elsewhere an interesting article about tobacco use being the most common source of plastic trash (it's here on AMT somewhere).  But if tobacco is sold in tins or, better yet, bags they way Bull Durham was sold when I was in my late teens to early 20's, then it's not a porblem (a little side note here- in the early 70's you could buy a bag of Bull Durham that came with a small package of 20 rolling papers for a dime.  Smoking deal- if you like smoking floor sweepings). 

Yeah, so anyway, I stand by what I said about alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and abortions.  They only hurt the people who use them on themselves.  Most guns are used on others.  BIG difference.

I disagree with a lot of this.
Im going to back up a little to avoid confusion for anyone who didn’t follow my original comment. I’m not trying to compare tobacco to guns. That was just on my short list of things that could or would get crazy taxed if that becomes a
common practice.

I disagree with taxing anything 1000%. That just seems ridiculous and unlawful to me. But those who are, my comment was why would government stop at ammo? I mentioned tobacco as one example that could be on the list. But really, for those who think the GOP is trying to ban contraceptives, wouldn’t this create an easy path for them to do that?
But to your points. Yes, most people know not to expose others to second hand smoke. Most people also know not to shoot others. There are many forms of second hand smoke that are legal. Planes and restaurants are illegal, but there are very few restrictions in the home or other places kids may be around.
The last statement about tobacco only hurting those who use them on themselves. I don’t understand that because you just acknowledged second hand smoke is a problem. CDC reports 41,000 second hand smoking deaths a year. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

If we are going to compare that to guns, that’s higher higher than gun homicides by a lot.
But back to my original point, I can’t justify taxing anything that high. Its obviously a work around a ban. I can’t get behind the government essentially saying “I can’t ban this, so I’ll just tax it so much it’s impossible for most to get.” Even if you try to justify it because guns kill, it just opens the door and it won’t stop at guns. And all the justifications for guns or ammo seem to equally apply to tobacco to me. But in reality, they won’t look for equal justification when taxing the next thing.

And for the record Brian. I think everyone regards you as one of the most respectful here. You’ve never disagreed with me by making personal attacks. I probably speak for everyone that if you think I’m shaming you, you’re probably reading a tone that wasn’t meant to be there. 

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i read a few days ago that there was a potential bill that would have the tax rate for ammo for weapons like the ar-15 be 1000%. I can get behind that. you want to shoot up a place, you better run up your credit card first.

I think that’s incredibly stupid, and should be illegal if it isn’t. You can get out of contracts if it’s deemed too demanding, interest rates on loans are only allowed so far.
This also opens the door to tax anything you don’t like. Why not tax alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or even abortions 1000% then? They’d just argue it’s still legal to get an abortion. Seems like you’re opening Pandora’s box when you play this game.

Except that alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and abortions (unless you actually believe an embryo is a person) only kill those who use them on themselves.  Big difference.

I guess you don’t listen to those commercials about second hand smoke?
But that wasn’t the point. Tax guns or ammo 1000%, what do you think that opens the door for? Eventually something you like would get taxed 1000% because those in charge don’t like it.

Thank you for more shaming!  Nothing motivates me more than shaming and screaming at me.  A little beating on bratty me with a baseball bat (oh yeahhhhhhhh)  is also effective. 

:JOY:

I wasn’t shaming. I’m sorry you took it that way. Was more making fun of the ineffectiveness of those cheesey commercials of the 80s if anything with that commercial comment.

You could still smoke on a plane in the 80’s. And in bars, restaurants, the office and anywhere else you so desired. Fail.

What’s a fail? That if you tax one thing 1000% why wouldn’t they tax something else? Or that I think most PSA commercials are cheesey?

That second hand smoke wasn’t a thing in the 80’s and that taxes are evil, particularly if they’re 1,000% and can you cite an example of one thing that was taxed but then it became another because, well, however you’ve squared it?

So, what firearm tax % would be acceptable to fund all those gun safety solutions you’re in favor of? 

I’ve see most gun owners here agree on many new gun reforms. Why are you hung up on this one? Most don’t require a high tax to implement. Universal background checks, no loopholes, magazine limits, etc require no additional tax.
I never said taxes are evil. They are essential to find government, which provides roads, police, fire, etc. 
“can you cite an example of one thing that was taxed but then it became another because, well, however you’ve squared it?” I don’t know what this means and I never said that. I never said one thing was taxed but then became another. I did say if you tax guns or ammo at 1000%, then you open the door to tax anything at 1000%. And no I can’t cite examples because that’s never happened. Why do you expect examples on a hypothetical situation that has never happened?
Okay, so second hand smoke became a thing in the 90s and not 80s? Who cares?

Any excuse. Any. What tax from 1% to 1,000% on guns and ammo, to offset the cost of the carnage of your hobby, or is it “right,” would be acceptable to you?

If assault rifles were banned, would you be unable to defend yourself with the remaining firearms available and would your 2A be violated?

Your constant hypotheticals are the gun nutters way of avoiding rational solutions and “responsibility” for your hobby. And why nothing will change. Smoking and autos, as two comparisons, have brought forth a shit ton of legal reforms and restrictions to reduce their societal impacts. Gun nutters not so much.

I’m not sure why, but I’ll try to respond to each question. 

If the right reform is made, and I’ve said many times what I believe would be effective, I don’t think additional tax is needed beyond a flat fee for background checks.

I don’t own any assault rifles, so yes (to the first part, no to my 2A violations). My most recent rifle purchase, which was about 7 or 8 years ago, was a black powder Kentucky long rifle. I can get a shot off about every 90 seconds with that bad boy. Can probably get it down to 60 seconds if I practiced more.

It wasn’t my hypothetical. I didn’t bring up the 1000% percent tax. I was responding to that suggestion and why I don’t think it’s a good idea. So responding to someone else’s hypothetical solution is my way of avoiding responsibility?

I don’t know why you do this every time. You have to see it’s counter productive that every time someone supports 80% of the suggestions you focus on the one detail they disagree with, call them a gun nutter, claim they don’t want any change. There can be a list of 10 proposals and most gun owners here will agree with 8 or 9 of them and this is always your response. I don’t think an NRA employee mole could do a better job of disrupting legitimate discussion towards a elocution if they tried. Not sure why you can’t see that.

Because the devil is in the details. And when those 8 things you mentioned that we can agree on, the but, but, but and hypotheticals start popping up. Or it’s one extreme or another. Someone mentions a 1,000% tax, you raise hypotheticals about that % tax being applied elsewhere or on other things. I think you mentioned abortion and pot? Now you say a flat tax would be acceptable to pay for universal background checks. What amount is that? $250? A % of the sale price? Previously you said going through a third party licensed gun dealer to legally sell your gun was too arduous because of the cost. I found the cost to be somewhere between $25-$75. Is that too much? If so, what is reasonable? If the “right reform” is passed but you don’t specify what that is. 

Which leads me to my previous two part question which you answered: If assault rifles were banned, would you be UNABLE to defend yourself….. to which you said, “yes.” And would you consider your 2A to be violated? To which you said, “no.”  See why I’m confused? You’re unable to defend yourself without assault rifles but it’s not a violation of your 2A if they’re banned. Do I have that right?

All of which leads me to the 2A because you and others seem to be originalists and that it’s not flexible for current times. Well, then there’s no issue adding taxes or fees because the constitution doesn’t specifically mention those as it relates to 2A. Gun violence costs over $200B a year and the current tentative gun safety legislation that has bipartisan support, announced today, adds 10s of billions for mental health and school “hardening” initiatives. Where is that money coming from and why shouldn’t gun buyers and the gun industry pay for some of that? Taxes or fees somewhere between 1% and 1,000%?

As a non-gun owner I believe the gun owners own the solutions to this issue more than folks like me. I don’t want all guns banned but I don’t see the need for assault rifles to be available to the general public nor high capacity magazines. I’d also like to read your list of 8 to 9 gun safety proposals that you agree with.

mace1229 said:

Off the top of my head, ones that had recently been mentioned that I would agree with….

universal background checks
no loopholes for background checks
registration of al firearms
limit magazine capacity
raise age requirement to 21
better red flag laws
storage requirements
require fixed magazines on specific guns/rifles

Theres 8. Could probably come up with more if I spent more time thinking about it.

bootlegger10 said:

And then add to that ending the manufacture and sale of assault weapons (broad definition) that serve no purpose outside of a war scenario.  Gotta start some time.  

bootlegger10 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

bootlegger10 said:

And then add to that ending the manufacture and sale of assault weapons (broad definition) that serve no purpose outside of a war scenario.  Gotta start some time.  

If you ban them you have to let the ones that are still around to be able to change hands.  If you don't make any more there are plenty.  The first assault weapons ban did that.

I know you can’t get the existing ones out of peoples’ hands, but we can at least stop making more.  I think we should then only have options to sell it back to the government and make them non-transferable.  

Criminals will find a way to get guns.  I just want to make it a tiny bit tougher for them. 

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

Off the top of my head, ones that had recently been mentioned that I would agree with….

universal background checks
no loopholes for background checks
registration of al firearms
limit magazine capacity
raise age requirement to 21
better red flag laws
storage requirements
require fixed magazines on specific guns/rifles

Theres 8. Could probably come up with more if I spent more time thinking about it.

raise age requirement to 21
better red flag laws
storage requirements

Work on these 3 and a lot would change.  I would add a waiting period to any purchase.

FiveBelow said:

Bentleyspop said:

bootlegger10 said:

And yet Californians are flocking to Texas.

Unfortunately 
A lot are going to Austin which is the Boulder of Texas.
But still Texas.

Yeah, what a shame. Imagine being priced out of your own state, and having to pack up and move in hopes of a better future. I welcome those who are faced with that sad reality, and if Texas is providing an opportunity, I don’t know how that’s a bad thing.

nicknyr15 said:

OnWis97 said:

The movement from places like California, Minnesota, etc. to Idaho, Texas, and Florida ... 

...is this reflective of people wanting to be in conservative locations? It seems that way.

I think it’s more about a quality of life. I’m just guessing but If you did an exit poll that would probably be the #1 answer. It wouldn’t  be things like abortion, gay rights and owning a rifle. Some people I know that made the move did so because they grew tired of the lockdowns in NY.