RE: Tax for gun owners

RE: Tax for gun owners (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

OsideGirl -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 12:14:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: HappySubMan Owners should be taxed for the possession of guns. These taxes should be used to cover the medical and rehabilitation costs of gun victims. No they shouldn't since it's mostly criminals who didn't buy their guns legally doing the shooting. So you support such measures as closing the Gun Show Loophole to prevent guns from getting into the hands of these criminals? What's your suggest for the leading source of illegally diverted guns, straw purchasers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States ...In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."... The loophole doesn't exist in California. All purchases at a gun show here, whether private party or a dealer, have to go the DROS process just like buying at a store. The rules vary from state to state, so blanket statements like the one above, while they give jollies to the anti-gun folks, aren't exactly accurate.

BamaD -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 2:20:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl The loophole doesn't exist in California. All purchases at a gun show here, whether private party or a dealer, have to go the DROS process just like buying at a store. The rules vary from state to state, so blanket statements like the one above, while they give jollies to the anti-gun folks, aren't exactly accurate. Just curious, how do they work that?

SternSkipper -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 2:34:58 PM)
quote: I suspect that is because a USA person relatively often requires two seats in an airplane, whereas one seat usually is sufficient for a Brit. Even THIS GUY?

OsideGirl -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 2:41:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl The loophole doesn't exist in California. All purchases at a gun show here, whether private party or a dealer, have to go the DROS process just like buying at a store. The rules vary from state to state, so blanket statements like the one above, while they give jollies to the anti-gun folks, aren't exactly accurate. Just curious, how do they work that? If it's private party it would go through an FFL with the normal background check and 10 day wait period, then you would pick up the weapon at the FFL. Sales through a dealer, they would do the paperwork for the background check, wait 10 days and then go to the dealers location and pick up the weapon.

SilverMark -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 2:43:26 PM)
I have no real issue with gun ownership, I have an issue with assault style weapons and the fact that not only can responsible people own them, but so can idiots! http://www.indystar.com/article/20120730/NEWS/120730020/South-Bend-3-year-old-accidently-shoots-himself They keep their guns in a gun safe, perhaps they should consider LOCKING IT!

Just0Plain0Mike -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 3:55:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: HappySubMan Owners should be taxed for the possession of guns. These taxes should be used to cover the medical and rehabilitation costs of gun victims. No they shouldn't since it's mostly criminals who didn't buy their guns legally doing the shooting. So you support such measures as closing the Gun Show Loophole to prevent guns from getting into the hands of these criminals? What's your suggest for the leading source of illegally diverted guns, straw purchasers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States ...In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."... Are you back to that sad nonsense again? There is no such thing as the "Gun Show Loophole". It's a fiction perpetuated by the gun control lobby. Yes, it makes it easier to meet and conduct a sale at a show. Many people walk around with rifles with For Sale signs on the muzzle. If you see one you like, you can buy it. It doesn't go through a background check, because Federal law doesn't require it. But you could do the same through an ad in the paper, on Craig's List, a bulletin board at the store, or any other place where one person is looking to sell and another is looking to buy. There's nothing special about a sale being conducted at a show, other then convenience. I don't known where the author of that wikipedia article got his facts, but they aren't current. Since at least 2007 all handgun sales must go through an FFL dealer and require a background check. This doesn't vary by state, it's a Federal law. I believe it goes back considerably further then that, to a law passed in '87-88, but I'm not positive. Now there's nothing stopping someone from selling a gun illegally, other then the risk of prison of course. So yes, a felon could get a gun through a straw buyer, but that's already illegal. So how would more legislation help? Doing a straw purchase is already a mandatory 10 year prison sentence. If you want to make the sentence longer, I'm all for it. By the way, if someone sees you making an illegal sale at a show, you will be detained and the police called. Around here at least.

Just0Plain0Mike -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 4:08:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark I have no real issue with gun ownership, I have an issue with assault style weapons and the fact that not only can responsible people own them, but so can idiots! http://www.indystar.com/article/20120730/NEWS/120730020/South-Bend-3-year-old-accidently-shoots-himself They keep their guns in a gun safe, perhaps they should consider LOCKING IT! What exactly does your link have to do with assault weapons? It doesn't mention anywhere what type of weapon was used. This accident could have happened just as easily with a single-shot flintlock as with a full-auto M16. I agree that idiots shouldn't have guns, but then I also don't think they should be allowed to have children. The same idiots who allow children access to their loaded weapons also don't keep them away from prescription meds, dangerous chemicals, kitchen knives, or power tools. So why is it the guns are being blamed and not the moronic parents?

mnottertail -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 4:17:36 PM)
Are you back to that sad nonsense again? There is no such thing as the "Gun Show Loophole". It's a fiction perpetuated by the gun control lobby. That is a lie perpetrated by the gun lobby. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<A FFL dealer in guns

SilverMark -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 4:33:08 PM)
The assault style weapons comment was simply an explanation of my stance on guns in general, the rest was fairly self-explanatory.

BamaD -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 5:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl If it's private party it would go through an FFL with the normal background check and 10 day wait period, then you would pick up the weapon at the FFL. Sales through a dealer, they would do the paperwork for the background check, wait 10 days and then go to the dealers location and pick up the weapon. Yes I understood that part, how do they see to it people comply?

Just0Plain0Mike -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 5:14:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That is a lie perpetrated by the gun lobby. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<A FFL dealer in guns Whether you are or aren't an FFL dealer, I respectively disagree. Whether at a gun show or not, handguns still have to go through a dealer and require a background check. Whether at a gun show or not, long-arms sold privately don't require a check and don't have to go through a dealer. This is the mandatory, Federal minimum. States can make stricter regulations, but they have to abide by that as a minimum, gun show or not. As to the other post about "assault weapons" my problem is that it requires a value judgement that isn't easily legislated. It's a "scary" weapons ban. If you go by the strict letter of most assault weapon legislation, the weapons that get lumped in can be ridiculous.

Aswad -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 8:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Plain0Mike If you go by the strict letter of most assault weapon legislation, the weapons that get lumped in can be ridiculous. Which largely comes down to trying to satisfy a bunch of people with conflicting interests, instead of saying that it comes down to the ultimate metric of effective field lethality: how much lead it can throw down the range in a given amount of time. Exempt those that require more than one person to operate, and count the reload time when determining its effective on-target rate of fire. One to ten minutes might be a decent interval. That's really what it's all about: sustainable rate of fire. Caliber, range and the rest, those just aren't the make-or-break factors. Which, again, is why it's so messed up: a reasonable definition would probably see the Mini-14 as an assault weapon. IWYW, — Aswad.

BamaD -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/30/2012 9:50:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Plain0Mike If you go by the strict letter of most assault weapon legislation, the weapons that get lumped in can be ridiculous. Which largely comes down to trying to satisfy a bunch of people with conflicting interests, instead of saying that it comes down to the ultimate metric of effective field lethality: how much lead it can throw down the range in a given amount of time. Exempt those that require more than one person to operate, and count the reload time when determining its effective on-target rate of fire. One to ten minutes might be a decent interval. That's really what it's all about: sustainable rate of fire. Caliber, range and the rest, those just aren't the make-or-break factors. Which, again, is why it's so messed up: a reasonable definition would probably see the Mini-14 as an assault weapon. IWYW, — Aswad. In the 90s NY state confiscated bolt action riflesclaiming the to be assault rifles because they had bipods. When the psuedo assault weapons ban was put in one of the charteristics to qualify was a bayonet lug. They just lump in anything that sounds good and looks dangerous. And every gun law is considered a start.

Aswad -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/31/2012 2:39:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the 90s NY state confiscated bolt action riflesclaiming the to be assault rifles because they had bipods. When the psuedo assault weapons ban was put in one of the charteristics to qualify was a bayonet lug. They just lump in anything that sounds good and looks dangerous. And every gun law is considered a start. I wasn't supporting the existing law, I was pointing out how it could be defined: amount of lead down the range per unit time. IWYW, — Aswad.

OsideGirl -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/31/2012 7:56:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark I have no real issue with gun ownership, I have an issue with assault style weapons and the fact that not only can responsible people own them, but so can idiots! http://www.indystar.com/article/20120730/NEWS/120730020/South-Bend-3-year-old-accidently-shoots-himself They keep their guns in a gun safe, perhaps they should consider LOCKING IT! Here's the thing: what constitutes an "assault weapon" is cosmetic. It's defined by the barrel shroud, the grip, the stock etc. It's not defined by it's ability. On Sunday, I shot next to a guy that had an AR15 chambered as .22 long rifle. I was shooting a Marlin .22 long rifle. They're both semi-automatic. They both hold 10 rounds of ammunition in the magazine which is the maximum allowed by California law. They both fire at the same rate. The AR has a pin that has to be inserted to remove the magazine. My Marlin pops the magazine out with a flick of the thumb. Matter of fact, my .22LR has a kick ass scope, so I can use that thing like a surgeon (I was making smiley faces on my targets), while the AR had iron sights which is no where near as accurate. But, if I post pictures of that AR15 chambered as .22LR against a Barrett 50, people will say that the .22LR should be banned. I find it funny that so many people want "assault" weapons banned, but don't know what is deemed an assault rifle. It's about "it looks scary!" and has nothing to with abilities. This is the same thing as all the people that think Pit Bulls should be banned and any living Pit Bull should be killed.

subrob1967 -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/31/2012 8:01:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So in fact you ARE for lawlessness. It's working so well in Somalia and Afghanistan. Is the Castle doctrine not a law? If I say I approve of a law, how does that make me lawless? Do you ever stop and think about what you're typing?

Musicmystery -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/31/2012 8:04:44 AM)
quote: I find it funny that so many people want "assault" weapons banned, but don't know what is deemed an assault rifle. It's about "it looks scary!" and has nothing to with abilities. I'm pretty sure a sensible law could be crafted, and not from Google Images.

BamaD -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/31/2012 2:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the 90s NY state confiscated bolt action riflesclaiming the to be assault rifles because they had bipods. When the psuedo assault weapons ban was put in one of the charteristics to qualify was a bayonet lug. They just lump in anything that sounds good and looks dangerous. And every gun law is considered a start. I wasn't supporting the existing law, I was pointing out how it could be defined: amount of lead down the range per unit time. IWYW, — Aswad. I didn't mean to imply that you were, I was merely pointing out what a terrible job has been done in previous attempts.

Yachtie -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/31/2012 3:20:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad That's really what it's all about: sustainable rate of fire. Caliber, range and the rest, those just aren't the make-or-break factors. A Gatling Gun is classified as a semi-automatic firearm. Legal to own. 2nd source on legality. Just thought you'd like to know that[:D]

lovmuffin -> RE: Tax for gun owners (7/31/2012 3:22:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I find it funny that so many people want "assault" weapons banned, but don't know what is deemed an assault rifle. It's about "it looks scary!" and has nothing to with abilities. I'm pretty sure a sensible law could be crafted, and not from Google Images. I haven't seen anything sensible yet. If you're talking about a ban on semi autos then I would say that's nonsense.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02