Should the Tax on Firearms and Ammunition be Increased? (Putin, Afghanistan, death)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you don’t currently own a gun, I suggest it would be an interesting pursuit to acquire one - heck, sell it soon after and chalk it up as a life experience. If you purchase a firearm through private sale, let’s call that the gun show loophole… you’ll notice it’s quite an interesting experience in itself. I’ve sold firearms privately and even though I was in a state that allowed ANYONE over the age of 18 to purchase them, I still required they have a concealed carry permit as evidence of no criminal history and proof of identity. I also had them sign a paper saying they’re legally allowed purchase the gun. All for my own peace of mind, but if you browse guns for sale in your area, you might find many people are the same as me, expecting more than just money in the transaction.
There was a New York(?) reporter who did this in an attempt to write a story about how easy it was to get a gun.
They were rejected from purchasing a gun.
In fact, this situation has happened several times.
... If you want to actually help, why not look to reforming the mental health crisis to get help for the people so mentally unfit they carry out mass killings. Whether by bombs, Cars, knives or firearms, a deranged individual will find a way to kill no matter the tool.
I saw an article that the NRA first started pushing for mental health screenings in 1966.
They want gun owners to be stable people.
It is not the NRA who has been stopping that screening from happening.
It's not enough just to have a valid ID. The ID has to have your physical address and not just a PO Box on it, at least in Pennsylvania and that's probably an FBI background check requirement. Care to guess how I know?
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.
Greg Abbott did not relax gun laws, the State Legislature did, with Abbott signing the bill.
No permit was required to buy the two rifles. Texas doesn't have permits to buy, never required a permit to carry a long gun in public, and eliminated the need to have a CHL to carry a handgun.
I am not sure why a tax on ammunition would be useful in reducing gun violence. It would mostly be hard on people who shoot 500 or 1,000 rounds in a weekend.
The link is an NPR piece that provides 12 stats on gun violence. Each stat has a link to a story about the topic. I want to highlight the last stat because I referenced the issue in the OP. Specifically, the number of victims who rely on guns to deter violent crime.
A Harvard study found that less than 1% of violent crimes were resisted by a victim using or threatening to use a firearm. Current stats for violent crime are 395 per 100,000. which translates to about 1,300,000 per year. That means less than (how many less?) 13,000 people availed themselves of a firearm in response to threat. That's at most 0.004% of the population, in a country of 400M guns.
The link is an NPR piece that provides 12 stats on gun violence. Each stat has a link to a story about the topic. I want to highlight the last stat because I referenced the issue in the OP. Specifically, the number of victims who rely on guns to deter violent crime.
A Harvard study found that less than 1% of violent crimes were resisted by a victim using or threatening to use a firearm. Current stats for violent crime are 395 per 100,000. which translates to about 1,300,000 per year. That means less than (how many less?) 13,000 people availed themselves of a firearm in response to threat. That's at most 0.004% of the population, in a country of 400M guns.
13,000 people potentially saved their live by having a firearm on them per year? 1300 people have died in the USA from mass shootings from 2009-2021. About 120 a year. And some people want to take away everyone's firearms because of that number.
Look at Ukraine. They have few regulations on guns. One reason Russia has been unable to take the country is because citizens are well armed. Thousands of lives saved because they have guns. And one reason it would be very difficult for another country to take us over.
Correction.
Ukraine had a strict gun laws, the population was generally unarmed.
We are sending them weapons, which were distributed on the streets- to anyone including criminals.
The invading army made a point to not fight civilians and at the beginning was even taking just weapons and letting Ukrainian soldiers go home - think they changed that tactic now.
I get my news from an American in Ukraine, he sounds like former? military.
He said that for the Russians their tactic of being very careful in sparing civilians and Ukraine soldiers is the same as to fight with 1 hand tied.
As now population has guns and some fight back more lives are actually lost - not saved due to them being armed by us
Almost all large city school districts have armed security and a double vestibule entrance where you do not past the 2nd set of doors without security buzzing you in. We spend 93 millio0n dollars helping Ukraine and cannot take care of our own problems.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 05-27-2022 at 07:53 PM..
Reason: Removed comment about OP. Discuss the topic, not forum participants.
Correction.
Ukraine had a strict gun laws, the population was generally unarmed.
We are sending them weapons, which were distributed on the streets- to anyone including criminals.
The invading army made a point to not fight civilians and at the beginning was even taking just weapons and letting Ukrainian soldiers go home - think they changed that tactic now.
I get my news from an American in Ukraine, he sounds like former? military.
He said that for the Russians their tactic of being very careful in sparing civilians and Ukraine soldiers is the same as to fight with 1 hand tied.
As now population has guns and some fight back more lives are actually lost - not saved due to them being armed by us
Actually you are incorrect. The population has been well armed for quite a while. Handguns are not allowed. But other guns are.
Ukraine has long had a tricky relationship with guns. In the course of its post-Soviet history, it has been the only country in Europe without legislation governing the civilian possession of firearms
Today, after numerous shaky ceasefires and direct incursions of Russian soldiers and artillery, a tense, often-deadly stasis has taken hold, and the military weapons are increasingly flooding out of the conflict zone and into the hands of civilians.
According to the Ukrainian photographer Andrey Lomakin, who photographed civilian gun owners in their homes, in 2014 and 2015, the insecurity and trauma of the war have made firearms in Ukraine a kind of “modern amulet,” awarding their owners “an extra power.” “Not everyone is comfortable to point it at the aggressor and shoot,” he has written. “But everyone feels safer having one.”
He has seen a growing number of otherwise law-abiding citizens looking to buy guns, both legally and on the black market. Last year, the head of a Ukrainian association of gun owners told the Associated Press that the country contained as many as five million illegal firearms. “Ukraine has turned into a supermarket for illegal weapons,” he said.
Ukraine has long had a tricky relationship with guns. In the course of its post-Soviet history, it has been the only country in Europe without legislation governing the civilian possession of firearms
Today, after numerous shaky ceasefires and direct incursions of Russian soldiers and artillery, a tense, often-deadly stasis has taken hold, and the military weapons are increasingly flooding out of the conflict zone and into the hands of civilians.
According to the Ukrainian photographer Andrey Lomakin, who photographed civilian gun owners in their homes, in 2014 and 2015, the insecurity and trauma of the war have made firearms in Ukraine a kind of “modern amulet,” awarding their owners “an extra power.” “Not everyone is comfortable to point it at the aggressor and shoot,” he has written. “But everyone feels safer having one.”
He has seen a growing number of otherwise law-abiding citizens looking to buy guns, both legally and on the black market. Last year, the head of a Ukrainian association of gun owners told the Associated Press that the country contained as many as five million illegal firearms. “Ukraine has turned into a supermarket for illegal weapons,” he said.
While I'm definitely not overly familiar with the state of firearms legislation in Ukraine , the way it was explained to me by a lawyer acquaintance of mine ( who has represented clients in several Ukraine related gun cases ) consisted of the following :
After the fall of the Soviet Union the Ukrainian parliament was either unwilling or unable ( if not both ) to pass firearms legislation of its own accord , which resulted in the interior ministry being left with the primary responsibility of regulating firearms , as the article you've linked mentions .
To this very day an extremely confusing web of haphazard ordinances promulgated by said ministry exists in the country , the enforcement of which is very capricious to say the least , that combined with the fact that Ukraine remained with a mass stockpile of leftover Soviet arms makes the country in practice oftentimes very liberal in terms of its overall " gun culture " .
As an aside it's not at all uncommon for interior ministries in other ex Communist countries , like Hungary , to retain some responsibility over regulating firearms which is part of the reason as to why ignorance of the law over there is a reason for acquittal at trial in simple firearms possession cases since even many lawyers can't be expected to know all the obscure passages in various inadequately publicized interior ministry ordinances .
But to swing back to the issue as it relates to firearms legislation over in the United States , in my humble view a survey of the confusing mess firearms legislation is in certain " Eastern European " countries only makes the stance of preventing the federal government from further enacting even more firearms legislation all the more correct , since centralist bodies typically have a tendency towards ( among other things ) being rather obtuse when it comes to passing legislation in general .
All that typed I nonetheless agree that it would be helpful if the Supreme Court were to come forth with a ruling specifying what exactly constitutes infringement of citizens' Second Amendment rights at the state level , especially if it were to give states more leeway regarding this matter than the federal government since more restrictive firearms laws may actually be favored at the individual state level .
I myself don't see why certain individual states emulating the firearms legislation of countries that are more restrictive in a sensible way , like the Czech Republic , would lead to bad results ( including that of abridging the ability of honest citizens to obtain firearms ) though I must emphasize that I'm not in the least in favor of the federal government doing so .
In closing/to further address the specific premise of the OP , I'm not aware of a single country in the broader region I'm familiar with that specifically taxes ammunition , which is why I must reiterate my position that attempting to bring about firearms legislation in the United States which would be ( in this case ) even stricter than that of certain ex Communist countries is a recipe for potential disaster IMHO .
Last edited by William Blakeley; 05-27-2022 at 09:48 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
School security
