BILLIONS OF NON-GUN OWNER TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR GUN OWNER’S HOBBY

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Aleksander Ulyanov, Apr 22, 2017.

  1. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do we know that you aren't doing that, or that society as a whole isn't doing that? It takes more than access to a firearm or other weapon to make a criminal.

    You're not writing about personal responsibility. You're seeking to create a universal responsibility on the part of lawful gun owners in conflict with settled law. My owning firearms and using them in safe, lawful ways is not "terribly dangerous". When I commit crimes with mine then I should face the consequences. I cannot stop inner city gangs from committing violence.
     
    Texan likes this.
  2. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you give a Gun to someone else and tell them to kill (Murder) another person, or kill themselves, or to commit any crime(s) you will be prosecuted for that crime and any ancillary crimes as a result of the criminal use of a firearm.

    Then you can be subject to a Civil law suit for resultant damages pain and suffering and lost wages etc...
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
  3. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More liberal whining about guns, except this time they toss around ridiculous unrelated numbers to attempt to make that whining look legitimate, how sad...
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
  4. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gun control is simply a badly tailored garment made to dress up a crooked Agenda.
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  5. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isn't why alcohol is taxed. Like virtually all sin taxes, under the guise of increasing costs of a product identified by many as immoral or unhealthy these taxes are sold as a means of raising costs to curb immoral and unhealthy behavior and used such funds for targeting remedies for 'victims' of such behavior at least that is how they are sold, but the reality is these types of taxes are seen as a means of raising tax revenue streams with a tax that meets minumum opposition from the public, but it is political slight of hand, rarely do funds get used for their advertised purpose but get diverted into general funds. These taxes become regressive consumption taxes that do not impede those with money, almost never directly fund remedies, and virtually never curb consumption. They can create greater opportunities for criminal enterprise such as the massive cigarette and fuel smuggling across the border of the North of Ireland.


    Sugar Soda tax anyone?

    Does anyone really believe revenue from Seattle's tax on ammo will be used for victims of criminal gun violence?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
  6. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The gun is stolen or misappropriated and the only way any stealing takes place is through the owner's carelessness, more or less: the gun is obtained legally but easily through the insanely lax gun laws supported by gun advocates
     
  7. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obviously we are not, or not doing it effectively, or we wouldn't have several thousand gun deaths every year

    Universal or not it is still a personal responsibility on your part not to do terribly dangerous things, or to at least compensate those who are harmed as a result of your doing them, and, yes, your just having firearms is terribly dangerous to the rest of society. Like most conservatives you seek to avoid responsibility because that is a major part of conservatism's entire ideology. You seek to live within society and enjoy all its benefits but are not willing to pay for any of them or even to compensate the people your irresponsibility harms

    You may not be able to stop inner city gangs from being violent but you shouldn't have any part in arming them, and if you have guns and/or support lax gun laws you are.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
  8. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I read the article, where is the part that says my hobby is costing anyone money?
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  9. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Circumstances of each incident vary wildly... but I have what I am sure is a controversial opinion to offer: a lot of people brutalized by violent crime could have protected themselves and prevented the violence if they had chosen to pursue responsible personal defense capabilities and been prepared to fight back. Too many people embrace the sheep mindset that someone else is responsible for keeping them safe in today's world.

    That said, yes, if a gun owner is negligent in his actions and that results in his firearm being misused to harm another person then he should be held liable and prosecuted for it. Demanding all gun owners pay a fee to exercise their constitutional rights because of the actions of an extreme minority is short-sighted and reprehensible.
     
    Small Town Guy likes this.
  10. Otern

    Otern Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    What you're really trying to do here, is to pin a extremely complex problem on a group of people you don't belong to. That way escaping the societal responsibility of funding the treatment of that problem yourself.

    As I've mentioned before, a drunk man shoots his ex wife, she gets injured, and needs support, or compensation. Should the compensation then only be paid by gun owners, or do alcohol drinkers, and the rest of society also have to chip in?

    If the gun tax/insurance/whatever is the ONLY thing covering the injuries, that's A LOT less fair than the system already in place. As I've said, guns already have a special tax fixed to them, and so do ammunition. But so does alcohol.

    Really, the gun is not the ONLY relevant aspect of a gun injury, or gun death. Other factors are just as important, especially when such a huge amount of murders and violence in general is committed under the influence of alcohol.

    Going all "well, guns were used, so obviously gun owners should pay for all expenses related to the misuse of guns" is pretty childish.

    SOME of the expenses, alright, agree. But this is already in place.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  11. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ... And maybe the problem is our failure to treat our right to bear arms with the proper respect.

    Wrong. Dead wrong. Every syllable of what you just wrote shows that YOU are the one who doesn't understand self-responsibility, OR your duties as a citizen of a society based on personal freedom and political liberty.

    Yes, I own firearms. Those firearms are owned responsibly. I practice with them regularly and seek the most advanced training I can whenever I can afford it so that I can handle them safely and should - heaven forbid - I need to use my gun to defend myself or my family I can do it effectively. My firearms ownership endangers NO ONE, and my ownership of them is NOT "terribly dangerous to the rest of society". YOUR POSITION is what is "terribly dangerous to the rest of society". You advocate for totalitarianism, tyranny, and rejection of Freedom because you refuse to accept your own responsibilities under a free society.
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  12. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're absolutely wrong on this last part.

    I'm not a conservative. I am pro-gun.

    I'm quite willing to compensate those who my irresposibility harms, if that ever happens. I do not accept responsibility for the violent criminal actions of others. Shall you also suggest that we pay compensatory taxes on knives, baseball bats and cold medicine because someone else abuses them to the detriment of themselves and others?

    You are 90 degrees to reality in your thinking. There are no gun laws that will keep guns away from criminals, the same way that the strict prohibitions on meth, heroin and crack don't keep those out of the hands of criminals.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By such logic, one must be required to possess liability insurance simply for having cash one hand, as such could be stolen or misappropriated, and used to further facilitate other crimes. Or perhaps parents should be required to obtain liability insurance in the event their children are utilized in the production of child pornography?

    Do you seriously intend to put forth the argument that one must possess liability insurance in the event of their legal possessions being stolen, and used for the purpose of furthering a criminal offense?
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  14. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it can deter even one citizen from exercising their 2A rights it's a win for the anti's.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pray tell how exactly does one logically arrive at such a conclusion? The majority of firearm-related deaths that are not suicides, are committed by those who cannot, under any circumstances, legally possess a firearm. It does not matter how they might go about acquiring a firearm, the acquisition and possession are both legal in terms that are absolute. Pray tell how much more can actually be done?

    Then explain precisely how the above is accurate. Do not claim that it is indeed accurate, demonstrate the mechanics behind such. Demonstrate how the mere possession of a firearm by someone without a criminal record puts society in general at the risk of harm, without relying on the false narrative that the firearm can be stolen, and used by a criminal.

    If someone is harmed with a firearm, the person who used it for such purposes is criminally responsible, and faces a prison sentence. You cannot simply shoot someone by mistake, claim it was an accident, and that will be the end of it. Even if it was an accident, you will be charged and tried for your actions.

    A claim that you cannot support. You have failed to demonstrate that anyone is supplying firearms to known criminals.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
  16. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where has any conservative stated that law abiding gun owners are not responsible for their actions? It's also the law in Texas.

    From the Texas Penal Code Chapter 9:

    Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
  17. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can have stronger consequences for people who are careless and let their guns be stolen or misappropriated.

    If you are going to say that the fact that a gun can be stolen and used by someone to do wrong is a "false narrative" then I indeed can't answer that argument, except to say that your assertion that a gun CANNOT be stolen and used to do wrong, which your calling my argument a "false narrative" implies, is utterly absurd on its face.

    So? Are you saying that people cannot share responsibility for something?

    Most gun advocates are not supplying the firearms directly and nobody said they were, they are making it much easier for the criminals to get them, and that cannot be denied or obfuscated away.
     
  18. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. Personally, I believe fiercely in the idea that each of us, AS INDIVIDUALS, is responsible for our own actions. If someone can be proven to have been negligent in their exercise of their 2nd Amendment rights and an innocent person is harmed by that negligence, then that irresponsible person should face dire consequences. Firm, swift prosecution and punishment will act as a deterrent to those others who might not take their responsibilities seriously.

    Placing an undue financial burden upon those who have done nothing more than exercise a Constitutional right is fundamentally wrong.

    Everything must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Multiple people can bear responsibility in a given situation; but you can't tell me I hold any responsibility for something that takes place 1000 miles away from me.

    It's not denial or obfuscation to state that your comment here is simplistic and offensive. My ownership of a firearm does nothing to make it "much easier for a criminal to get them". It does, in fact, reduce the possibility that my family will be left helpless in the face of an unanticipated criminal attack.
     
  19. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    horse poop. Your posting history demonstrates you despise honest gun owners due to the fact that they tend to vote for GOP candidates. you push schemes to harass gun owners and impede lawful gun ownership because of a political vendetta
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  20. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If someone has indeed allowed their firearm to be utilized in a criminal manner, then they are going to be facing felony charges in connection for whatever offense may be committed with it. If their firearm is utilized in a murder, they will be charged as an accessory.

    That is provided the firearm can ever be traced back to the original owner, provided the firearm is ever found, provided the original owner is still alive, provided the original owner did not file a false report about it being stolen in order to cover their bases, and provided the serial number was not obliterated previously.

    Are you able to demonstrate a legal basis anywhere, that holds a person must possess liability insurance in the event their privately owned property is stolen from them, and utilized to facilitate a crime? Or a legal basis to demonstrate that the victim of one crime can legally be held culpable and complacent in the commission of another crime, because it was their property that was used? Is someone held liable if their motor vehicle is stolen, and used in the killing of another?

    You are the one going on and on, incorrectly, about the notion of firearm owners not wishing to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. The fact is they are quite responsible for the consequences of their actions, and the misuse of their firearms. If they are misused they face felony convictions for recklessness, negligence, manslaughter, murder, and a variety of other charges. But there is absolutely no basis in united states law, that holds they are responsible for the actions of another, simply because they own a firearm, or simply because it was stolen from them.

    If a parent discovers that their children have been kidnapped and subjected to human trafficking, are they held responsible for the kidnapping and human trafficking taking place? Are they charged as accessories? Or are they legally regarded as being victims just as the children are?

    Indeed it can be denied, because you have yet to demonstrate how anyone is supposedly making it easier for criminals to acquire firearms. Easier than what precisely? What actions are they taking that makes this supposed acquisition possible in the first place? Are you going to claim that their decision to own a firearm makes it possible for a criminal to acquire a firearm, because it may potentially be stolen from them?
     
  21. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    what really bothers him is that people like you and I often vote for conservative pro gun politicians, That is what is really behind the jihad against gun ownership
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  22. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    more nonsense-its already illegal for criminals to have firearms. I support getting rid of lots of gun laws but there would be plenty of statutes left to actually prosecute those who use firearms in a harmful manner or possess firearms after losing their second amendment rights through due process of law. You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact-that "lax gun laws" are why gang bangers have guns
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  23. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, what bothers me is that gun advocates indirectly cause untold suffering, death and anguish to millions and then callously say "not my problem, talk to the person who shot you with MY weapon" to their victims. People who knowingly carry diseases that kill others are rightly regarded as moral reprobates by all, even when their only real alternative is to incarcerate themselves. Why not even more so people who enable others to murder us through carelessness in order to indulge a hobby?
     
  24. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What absolute HS. Not only have you failed to make your case that gun owners have responsibility for the violent behavior of many criminals by merely owning guns, you have seriously misplaced blame from criminals mistreats to a group of people you generalize without understanding. Nothing like an ingrained bias. Pretty despicable... but you'd certainly scream racism if someone attributed the majority of crime to people of color.
    I have used guns for subsistence and for earning a living for most of my life, it isn't a frivolous hobby. I have used a gun in self defense against the real disease... criminal predators where had I not, I wouldn't be posting here. I have also used one in self defense against a government intent armed subjugation of it's own citizens and it's program of state sponsored assassination of one undesirable segment of their population. I get tired of the rhetoric from those that have never had to defend themselves or others from death or great bodily harm that choose to judge from a comfy chair and have no knowledge of the real world; people that expect others to defend them and place their lives on the line for them. You certainly don't understand the principles of liberty that so many have died for you to enjoy or that you have a moral responsibility to participate in the defense of that liberty and the defense of your fellow citizens; that is the bond we should share, one of common defense against those intent on violence against us. You relegate yourself to being a statistic rather than one who accepts responsibility to beat the odds. Many gun owners, including me, posting here would step up to defend those that can't, or in your case, won't take responsibility to defend yourself or those around you from criminals that would inflict violence on you. It's why many of us have no respect for your position... it is baseless inanity.

    Your position is exactly consistent with the image below.

    [​IMG]

    If you want to be a victim in waiting, it's your right and I won't infringe upon that. I choose to excersize my right to sting if I am tread upon... it's a right that long predates the Constitution. Tell you what, I will respect your right of victimhood... I won't lift a finger to defend you should that instance occur.
    I was once married to a Lady from a Quaker family. What she nor they understand is pacifists can only exist when others stand in their defense. It is true of countries, it is true of people.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2017
    Small Town Guy, DoctorWho and Otern like this.
  25. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a disease. It's not a hobby. Until you realize this you're going to be stuck with this imaginary bee in your bonnet and your position will continued to be ridiculed here.
     
    Turtledude likes this.

Share This Page