Gun violence will not end on its own’: CA lawmakers push to tax guns, ammo after recent mass shootings “Gun violence will not end on its own,” Levine told the Assembly Public Safety Committee during a hearing Tuesday. “We must take responsible action to end the public health crisis that is gun violence in our state, in our nation.” https://ktla.com/news/california/ca...x-guns-ammo-in-wake-of-recent-mass-shootings/ Can anyone explain how increasing taxes will prevent murder?
gun banners or restrictionists are the most dishonest people in the USA when it comes to actually stating their true motivations. Crime control has nothing to do with their real goals.
Very true. Its not like a criminal would decide against committing murder to avoid paying a $25. gun tax. This will only only make gun ownership even further out of reach for the poor, who live in neighborhoods there it is more likely to be needed.
Imagine the screams and howls form these people, should someone suggest laying a restrictive tax on abortions. I bet you could hear it on the moon.
Mandatory education/training. A license from the state, and a pernit for each procedure. And you have to register each procedure with the state.
I've always held the prohibitionists would end up taxing the 2nd Amendment for all intents and purposes out of existence..."Hey, you've still got your 'rights", we're simply collecting "taxes", as is our "right" to levy". Now how could SCOTUS rule against that? Either vote them out or move to a state with a less idiotic electorate.
I say we tax bullets, say $500 per bullet. I think that is as reasonable as banning abortions on fetuses as soon as they have a heartbeat.
In areas with strict gun control, these taxes already exist. That places the ability to practice marksmanship and gun safety out of reach for the poor that live in neighborhoods where the need for self defense is more likely. Those that don't have a car cannot legally transport their firearm to the shooting range. Gun control is as much about concern for human life as abortion laws. Gun control and abortion laws disproportionately affect the poor. Wealthy people can afford gun taxes and medical tourism. Good example.
Oh look. Liberals want to lay a tax on the exercise of a right with the intent to make that right more difficult to exercise. Imagine those same liberals when presented with the idea that we lay a tax on the right to have an abortion, with the same intent.
Plus training, approval from the local abortion board, insurance and a lifetime limit as to how many abortions a person can have in their lifetime.
And like abortion, restrictions will drive ammo sales into the black market. I do hope you're not suggesting that just because we have some bad laws that we therefore should make more bad laws...
The number I used was just rhetorical. But, We could set it at a level that's reachable for the poor, and impractical for the 100 per clip gun nuts.
I know that, but your example was spot on. Gun laws are just as ridiculous ad abortion laws. Marksmanship and safety training are already out of reach for the poor with the current level of taxation. From manufacturing to sales, government hands are there to take their cut every step of the way. In CA, there is an additional background check for ammo purchases. From your use of the term "clip" I can tell you have no firearm experience. Cops have experience and are the first to arrive on the scene. They see firsthand the affects of these gun laws that leave good people without the ability to defend themselves. Cops are overwhelmingly in favor of private citizens being armed. Gun control is not from a position of concern for human life.
Ok. I’m assuming this is not sarcasm? Are “gun nuts” shooting up places? What is the net worth of the average criminal who uses a gun? I thought poverty was a major driver of criminal activity. How will tax be levied that is affordable for non criminal poor but unaffordable for criminal poor?
Initially, but Doofen got me thinking about adjusting the numbers to practical levels that might work. Not the point. I'm of the opinion that the only persons who should own guns that can shoot 100 bullets without reloading are military and police. I dunno, I'm sure they can figure it out. Naysayers gotta say nay, no matter what, eh?
Work in what way? What is the goal? Then why bring it up? I will never understand why people bring up a subject and then refuse to discuss it—saying it isn’t the point or isn’t the subject—when they are the ones that made it the point. I own a handful of firearms that could shoot 100 rounds if I went and bought a 100 round magazine. Why should I not own them? I use them regularly in my business—much more regularly than any police officer and more regularly than the vast majority of military personnel. Some police never fire a weapon in the line of duty. I use mine for practical purposes sometimes daily. I find it fascinating on subjects like Covid or climate change we are told to listen to the experts. But when it comes to firearms the people with admitted lack of any experience with firearms want to tell people who use them daily what they need. It’s certainly amusing. Figure it out? You honestly think a bunch of politicians can figure out how to put a tax on something that will stop poor criminals from buying the product, but will not be cost prohibitive to poor law abiding citizens? Surely this has to be sarcasm? Also, why should poor law abiding people be able to afford ammunition anyway? Are you admitting they need it to defend themselves? Are you advocating for their right to self defense with a firearm? Pointing out the complete absence of logic and reason in your posts is not “naysaying”. It’s a public service.
