Should the Tax on Firearms and Ammunition be Increased? (Congressmen, enemy, Israel)

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by Rachel NewYork

Weren't proposed Red Flag laws defeated by the Texas legislature in 2019 and again in 2021?

Thanks for the NICS links. I've read, though, that there have been notable lapses in the national background-check system, one of which accounted for 21-year-old Dylann Roof being able to purchase a gun (with his birthday money) which he used in his mass murder of congregation members of a South Carolina church in 2015.

I think it behooves each State to employ additional background checks of their own based on local investigation. If done so, then perhaps someone might have questioned why Ramos had dropped out of high school, why he wasn't living with his mother, what his current home situation was like, and so on.

Granted, Ramos was no longer a minor on the day of his 18th birthday (the day he purchased the guns and ammo), but I don't believe that one instantly morphs into a mature adult the minute they turn 18. Some people don't even seem to reach adult maturity well beyond the age of 18, if you ask me.

Red flag laws are different from what I described as "flags" in my previous answer. They've turned out to be problematic in some cases. Here in Maryland there was case right away where the man was killed during the service of the warrant.

Dylan Roof is one example of where the locals failed to forward mandated information to the FBI for inclusion on NICS. Was that a lapse in the system itself or a lapse, an error of omission if you will, in the local agency.

As far as Ramos dropping out of high school goes, so what? Why would that be a warning he was going to do this? As a teacher I had kids every year who would have been better off dropping out. And again, there could be a multitude of reasons why he lived with his grandparents, none of which would be an indicator of anything other than he lived with his grandparents.

As far as being 18 goes, you're right about brain development (I'm old enough to remember when 20 year old males had to have their parents sign off on a marriage license while an 18 year old girl could get one without her parents signature) but that then should negate every other thing 18 year olds can do.

No more signing contracts, no more voting, no more approving medical procedures. Maybe no more enlisting in the military. Colleges would go back to being in loco parentis (which they were the first year or so I was in college) institutions.

I intellectually have a problem with the drinking age being 21 (not that I would want to sit in a bar with high school Seniors).

[Athair]

Originally Posted by Rachel NewYork

It's the individual State gun laws that need strengthening. Last year Texas Governor Greg Abbott relaxed Texas' gun laws, making it no longer necessary for a person to be required to have a permit in order to carry a gun in Texas.

I honestly don't know what kind of gun permit (if any) was required of the 18-year-old mass murderer in Texas who was able to purchase two semiautomatic rifles and 375 rounds of ammunition legally under Texas law, but it seems to me that the laws in Texas made it pretty easy for him to do so the very day that he turned 18.

I don't know whether a Federal tax on the purchase of guns and ammunition may be a likely means of making it more difficult for 18-year-olds to purchase such items on their own. But it seems to be a logical response to certain State governments that are determined to undermine Federal efforts to curtail gun violence by relaxing their own State gun laws.

You referenced constitutional carry, which means a permit is not required to carry a gun in public. That has nothing to do with purchasing a gun. At least reference something vaguely relevant to your own understanding of ownership permits like Illinois FOID card.

I agree with your observation that once the person became an adult by law, at age 18, he was legally permitted to buy firearms.

When you cite the number of rounds purchased, seemingly to sensationalize it even more, it shows a poor understanding of gun ownership. You can go to Walmart or Cabellas or any other store selling ammunition and find boxes of ammunition that have upwards of 1200 rounds and there’s no limit to how much you are allowed buy, unless there is a store policy.

What you might like to recognize is that there currently stands a law regarding entering schools with guns, a law regarding shooting someone, even laws simply “discharging” a firearm… it’s almost as if laws don’t factor into the equation with mentally deranged people.

This psychopath from a few days ago… his mother seems so aloof and disconnected from him, maybe that will show similarities to every other person who decides guns solve problems.

[Buck_Mulligan]

Originally Posted by Marcl

No. Read my post again.

Yes, I always use the gun show loophole.

Handgun vs auto rifle etc.

Pay for mental health and other social services.

Absolutely! Just like tobacco tax.

Don't know.

Reduce gun violence.

I'd increase the 50AE to 500%.

No idea.

I have none, other than taxes reduce consumption.

I actually assume it can lead to more gun fatalities because the cost of ammo becomes prohibitive to some, and so people are less likely to practice using their firearm and will therefore not operate it as competently as they would if they could afford to use it more often

Are you satisfied now?

[Rachel NewYork]

Moderator's note to all participants in this thread. This is the Great Debates forum, where participants are expected to remain civil and respectful towards others. Additionally, participants are expected to put thought and effort into their posts here, which means that one-line posts, snarky remarks, charged language, personal attacks, etc. will be deleted.

For those unfamiliar with the rules for Great Debates, you will find them here:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/grea...ply-forum.html

These debate rules are strictly enforced here. If you feel that you are unable to abide by these rules due to emotions generated by the subject matter in this topic, then you are welcome to take your posts to the Politics & Other Controversies forum.

I have had to delete several posts in this topic already.

Thank you to those who are already engaging in respectful debate here.

[mgforshort]

I was born in Hungary, which has now, and had before, very strict gun control. During the 1956 Hungarian revolution the Soviet Red Army moved in and shut the uprising down in a matter of days. Compare that to the current situation in Ukraine, where private citizens take up arms alongside their army. They were able to defend their country against a much bigger military. I doubt there is gun control in Ukraine. Firearms and ammo are like attorneys, you might hate them until you need one.

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by Rachel NewYork

It's the individual State gun laws that need strengthening. Last year Texas Governor Greg Abbott relaxed Texas' gun laws, making it no longer necessary for a person to be required to have a permit in order to carry a gun in Texas.

That just makes it legal for people to carry a gun. Criminals ignore the law anyway. As you know, NYC has stringent gun-carry laws yet there are hundreds, possibly thousands of armed criminals walking around NYC right now.

I honestly don't know what kind of gun permit (if any) was required of the 18-year-old mass murderer in Texas who was able to purchase two semiautomatic rifles and 375 rounds of ammunition legally under Texas law, but it seems to me that the laws in Texas made it pretty easy for him to do so the very day that he turned 18.

No gun permit was required, as far as I know. He passed the instant background check because he had no criminal history. So it is "pretty easy" as long as you don't have a criminal history. But the guns the kid bought cost $1500 each and the ammo was another $500. I don't think he was from a rich family so I don't know where he got the money. The point is, if someone is dedicated to mass murder they will save up for a gun and ammo no matter how expensive it is, or steal it.

I will say that I am not against raising the age to purchase a gun from 18 to 21, like for alcohol and cigarettes. That doesn't mean children can't hunt or target shoot with family members, just that the purchasing has to be done by someone over 21.

I don't know whether a Federal tax on the purchase of guns and ammunition may be a likely means of making it more difficult for 18-year-olds to purchase such items on their own. But it seems to be a logical response to certain State governments that are determined to undermine Federal efforts to curtail gun violence by relaxing their own State gun laws.

I think raising taxes on guns & ammunition simply to make life harder for working class gun owners is misguided. Criminals and would-be mass murderers don't care because they either steal for a living or their plans do not include saving for the future.

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan

Current federal taxes are 10 & 11% respectively.

As an immigrant, I am not sold on the 2nd amendment. I understand the heritage of*guns in US history for self-protection, but today there is much less shortage of police officers, so I think that is less of a valid argument. Tobacco, stagecoaches, rodeo clowns, and more were once part of American*heritage.
The militia is a different argument.

With 400M guns in the US, how many times has an armed member of the public used a firearm to prevent or end a tragedy?

Blaming the prevalence of gun violence on mental health issues is a false equivalence. Other countries have mental health issues too, but little gun violence. Since 2018, at least three bills have been introduced in Congress that would, amongst other things, have increased the federal tax on both guns and ammo to 50%. They've gone nowhere.*

I'm not a fan of the current three-tier alcohol regulation system, but I think it might have some application to the gun and ammo industry. Manufacturers can only sell to wholesalers, who can only sell to retailers, who can only sell to consumers. Anyone found in violation would automatically lose their license to do business. The rest of the problems with that, who's a wholesaler/retailer etc. are only bureaucratic matters.

Then I would tax the hell out of the ammo. $1 per round for the basics, more for the more sophisticated, and further increases if that proved ineffective. Wouldn't try to take guns away from anyone. Severe penalties on anyone who uses homemade ammo.

Thanks for sharing what you "would do" but you are wrong about several facts.

There is actually a shortage of police officers, especially in areas where crime rates are high. Those areas have a lot of poor people who are not criminals. Taxing ammunition to the point where people can't buy it, means the poor suffer disproportionately.

How many times has someone used a firearm to prevent a tragedy? It happens a lot. You're not looking very hard if you think otherwise.

Other countries have mental health issues but they have strict gun control. OK. But in the U.S. we have always had less gun control than most countries yet we've only recently started seeing these mass shootings. The AR-15 was invented in the 1950's yet when did you hear of mass shootings in the 60's, 70's or 80's? Something has changed in America and it's not guns.

I don't know what you mean by the three-tier alcohol system. It sounds like you want to ban sales of guns between private citizens when neither is a licensed gun dealer. I guess I'd be OK with that inasmuch as it allows people to skirt background checks.

Taxing ammunition at prohibitively high levels only hurts the poor. The poor are the ones most in need of protection from criminals, as I said before. And it's legal to make homemade guns and ammunition right now. It's illegal to do it if you are not legally entitled to own a gun, of course. Please stop trying to turn ordinary people into criminals.

I understand the impulse to "do something that's easy" to solve the problem of mental health that has been building for decades. But it's going to take time and hard work and it won't be easy.

[Countryfreak]

Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan

Are you satisfied now?

I'll address it from a law enforcement standpoint. While my career is long over I know that if someone is planning on killing someone, even many, then the cost means nothing. Someone spending a lot of money on ammo is both stockpiling and very likely likes to practice, a lot. I spoke to one FBI agent involved in mass shootings and he said spending several thousands on someone getting ready to go out in a blaze of glory means nothing as they won't be paying the credit card company back anyway. Is there a perfect system out there where we could stop these? No and I wish there were. If I thought raising this tax as you suggest I may be willing to look at it more. But as it stands right now the extreme masses would be punished for the extreme few. And people will not stand for that.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by SilverBear

Which totalitarian dictatorship that fears their citizens so much they disarmed you did you escape from to imigrate here?

The only reason I don't immigrate to a country with strict firearms control is that it is easier to make money here in the USA. A lot of things would make the USA a better country without seriously impeding people's rights and freedoms, but most of them are unworkable due to political polarization.

Here are some workable ideas (that will nonetheless be disregarded).

Fortify Elementary Schools

Really, the inability to protect elementary school children from shootings, abductions, and assaults (in many areas vagrants wandering on to campus and threatening children and staff is a common occurrence) is just an obscene and unnecessary travesty.

It stems from a misguided idea that America must not LOOK as unsafe as it is. However, the fact of the matter is that this is the wild west, and it is only getting wilder with firearms deregulation pushes in many "Red" states and softening of laws against crime and vagrancy in many "Blue" states. You can even throw in the "decline in morals" panic de jour of this moment's firearms apologists if you like.

Elementary schools cannot remain soft targets. In the country I noted above, though crime is exceptionally low, their schools are fortified against intruders, because their society prioritizes children and their safety. All entrances are guarded by school staff with electronic gate controls. Visitors must sign in before the gate will be opened from the inside. There are also vehicle barriers across inner courtyards sufficient to stop personal vehicles. Short of a tank or some other manner of breaching a heavy steel gate, there is no way for an assailant to enter. Fencing is made from steel rather than chain link. While all this sounds intimidating, the schools actually look quite nice, because the structures are functional but not made to look imposing. They are much better than the prison-like but ineffective chain-link you see haphazardly strung around American schools.

Any proposal for a tax or surcharge on firearms and/or ammunition should direct the extra monies to fortifying soft targets for mass shooters, beginning with elementary schools. Most schools are fairly easy to fortify for fairly low cost. There is usually a check-in desk near the front of the school where electronic gate controls could be located. Glass windows and doors can be retrofitted with bars and chain-link fencing around the grounds can be either replaced with sturdier solid fences.

Middle and High Schools already have SRO's that have stopped, shortened, or just acted as bullet sponges (rather than children) mass murders. More SRO's will mean less children being murdered. A worthy use of extra firearm-related tax revenue.

Bullet Insurance

While I recognize this is a pie-in-the-sky idea, requiring insurance on slugs would be a very American and very effective way of decreasing gun violence.

Slugs would be embedded with an RFID chip. An insurance database would track which insurance company insures which slug. Victims or their families would then be able to claim compensation from the insurers of the bullets that wounded or killed them.

Insurers would evaluate applicants psychological state, any hunting licenses they hold (and how long they have held them), criminal record, sporting/shooting club memberships, gun safety courses they've taken, and how and where the applicant will secure their ammunition.

A hunter with two decades of hunting permit history, locking ammunition storage, and no criminal record would be able to insure a few dozen rounds for a monthly premium of just pennies. Insurance policies would cover a set # of unexpended rounds, so slugs that had been fired would no longer be insured and the policy would transfer to newly-purchased ammunition. Lying about expending rounds would mean that they were now uninsured and you would risk the penalties outlined below.

Same deal for a homeowner who had taken a firearms self-defense and safety training course and wanted their ammunition for home defense.

Even a "well-organized militia" could have carve-outs for paramilitary organizations that wanted to stockpile small-arms ammunition at a discounted rate. The armory of the militia would need to be inspected by insurance adjustors for security measures, but at no time would there need to be any government interference.

Meanwhile:
- The two recent elementary school shooters would probably have to pay a premium of 5M per bullet based on their profile and psych evaluations.
- Same deal for gang members with a criminal record.
- Even shot-in-the-face overindulgent grandma would raise red flags if she wanted to insure more than nine rounds (and then illegally give them to scumbag grandson).
- Anyone "losing" (selling) their bullets on the black market would be quickly shut down by rising rates after purchasing a dozen rounds or so with no legitimate use or excuse. Furthermore, the insurance information on each bullet would make it easy to trace and find the person who sold the ammunition.
- If ammunition was stolen, the owner would very much be motivated to report it immediately due to this tracking. If they were negligent in storage, their premiums would skyrocket and they'd only be able to afford one or two rounds--and only if they were exceptionally motivated to keep owning ammunition.

Ammunition would be treated and protected like diamonds.


Of course, to keep people from making, cross-border buying, or stealing uninsured (and untracked) rounds, severe penalties would be imposed for being in possession of uninsured rounds or rounds with someone else's insurance information. 10 years mandatory minimum for possession. Life sentence for selling. After all, sellers are essentially aiding and abetting murder.

This would be a huge boon for law enforcement, as it would become common practice to stop and search a suspected criminal/'s car because they/it "smelled like bullets". The judicial process would be sped up as well, since finding uninsured or stolen bullets on a suspect and mandatory minimum sentences would make prosecution a breeze.

Finally, in order to facilitate the massive turn-in of unchipped ammunition, there would need to be a carrot as well as the stick of potential jail time. The more rounds you turn in, the better your insurance profile, the lower your premiums.

Even with the penalties and "turn-in discounts", there would be hundreds of millions of uninsured rounds floating around or sitting in storage for years, but the number of uninsured rounds in active circulation would eventually decrease for obvious reasons, and in a couple of decades we would have a much safer and less deadly society while still preserving everyone's rights.

...

America would no longer be America if it's government removed guns or ammunition from law-abiding citizens. We don't even need to try to have the government remove them from criminals or persons with poor mental health. We should just throw the problem onto the insurance free market and let capitalism have it's way, as with automobile insurance.

[Ted Bear]

When a criminal steals a gun he doesn't much think about whether the tax was paid on the unit. To him it is just a tool for use in whatever manner he decides--sane or otherwise.

The ONLY way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of guns. We can do this if we decide that we have had enough killing. It will take generations to get used to the idea of not having a gun in possession, but over time...maybe a hundred years...we can accomplish taking this scourge out of our society.

Taxing only puts an additional cost into the system which is ignored by those who can afford it. People will either pay it, or find a way around it (such as private gun sales).

Now, if you want to corral all the hardware which is out there, check it into a gun range, and have users check it out and pay for the bullets, with a tax to fund the clean-up, that might have some merit.

But it still leaves guns out there and we know of no system which will secure them in the face of someone who is determined.