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

This doesn't seem fair at all to me. Can any of you gun advocates explain how it is fair? Can any of you name any other hobby that has anything even close to these kind of costs being shouldered by the taxpayer? (Or any hobby that has ANY of its costs being supported by the public for that matter.)

Mind, the discussion here is NOT about whether one should be allowed to have guns at all but who should pay the costs

Also, I know many will object to anything from Mother Jones as "fake news" but the article is well sourced and even if the actual figure is only HALF of what they say that's still well over 110 billion or well over twice what guns raise and NONE of that is directed at the people effected.

So again, why do I have to pay for your hobby?

PR 22, 2017 — BILLIONS OF NON-GUN OWNER TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR GUN OWNER’S HOBBY

Last week the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) released a report claiming the firearms and ammunition industry helps the economy. It contributes $51.3 billion to the economy, generates $6.8 billion in tax revenues and excise taxes and employs over 141,000 people, says NSSF

WHAT THE REPORT DOES NOT MENTION IS THAT THE TOTAL ANNUAL COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN THE U.S. IS $229 BILLION, REPORTS MOTHER JONES. (See link below.) That includes $8.6 billion in direct spending from medical expenses to court and prison costs, 87 percent– $7.5 billion– is paid for by taxpayers. That sum exceeds what NSSF claims it generates in tax revenues and represents only a portion of taxpayer’s costs.

THE $7.5 BILLION SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATES THE TAXPAYER COST BECAUSE TAXPAYERS ALSO PAY A PORTION OF THE $221 BILLION OF INDIRECT COSTS such as lost earning power of victims and their family caregivers who can no longer work and required medical and skilled nursing care. In addition to the more than 10,000 who die from gun homicides each year, 80,000 are shot but survive often with severe permanent disabilities.

For example, Mother Jones cites a teenager— paralyzed from the neck down by gun shot who could no longer feed, toilet or dress himself or turn over in bed and WILL LIVE THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN A NURSING HOME, PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS UNDER MEDICAID. OVER TWO DECADES, THE PRICE TAG FOR THIS ONE PATIENT'S SKILLED NURSING CARE IS UPWARDS OF $1.7 MILLION.

MOTHER JONES, FURTHER REPORTS THAT A SINGLE GUN HOMICIDE IN AMERICA "IS NEARLY $400,000. AND WE PAY FOR 32 OF THEM EVERY SINGLE DAY."

The NRA and gun owners will shout and rant that it is not fair for law-abiding gun owners to be paying for the cost of criminal violence. But that, as well as the claims of economic benefits from the gun industry, misses the point.

If I do not own a car, my tax dollars are not used to pay for the cost of car-driving deaths and accidents. Law-abiding drivers pay for them through their insurance. Additionally, their premiums have a built-in excess to cover costs generated by illegal drivers who do not have insurance.

The NRA and gun owners would further argue that taxpayer dollars are used to pay for highways and bridges that motor vehicles use. But, what they don't mention is that these roads and bridges have “public utility” ––they allow food, consumer and commercial goods, construction materials etc. to be moved from region to region.

GUNS, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE NO “PUBLIC UTILITY”; THEY ARE AN INDIVIDUAL, PRIVATE HOBBY THAT TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO FINANCE.

What makes the NRA’s and gun owners’ position even more outrageous is that they oppose and defeat any law that would make it harder for criminals to get guns; this causes far higher rates of gun violence—and consequently far higher taxpayer costs.

Additionally, making sure criminals have guns allows the NRA to turn around and say everyone must carry a gun—at all times— to protect themselves from armed criminals. IN THE 1996 NAACP SUIT AGAINST AMERICAN ARMS, THE EXPERT WITNESS LUCY ALLEN REPORTED THAT HANDGUNS SALES TO CRIMINALS REPRESENT MINIMALLY 22 PERCENT OF ANNUAL HAND-GUN INDUSTRY SALES. (See reference below). ATF veterans we have spoken with place the figure at 30 percent.

A fair solution to cover the cost of gun violence would be for the law-abiding gun owners to carry insurance as do the law-abiding car drivers. Further, there should be a tax on gun and bullet purchases just as there is for gasoline and tires. THE GUN OWNERS WANT THE PLEASURE OF OWNING THEIR GUNS BUT DO NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COVERING THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE. That is patently unfair to the law-abiding citizens who do not own guns and have no interest in gun-related activities.

Elliot Fineman
CEO - Founder
National Gun Victims Action Council
www.gunvictimsaction.org/donate
www.gunvictimsaction.org

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america

See Expert report of Lucy P. Allen at 7, NAACP v. Acu Sport, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 435, 522 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (confirmed as accurate by the court in ¶¶ 201-03 of its Findings of Facts).

 

Guns are not a hobby, they are a constitutional right. Car's are not.

 

So that means that nobody has to pay for them? I have a right to free speech, does that mean everyone else has to pay my costs of publishing or going on the media? Does that mean you have to buy me a computer so as to start a website? I have a right to freedom of religion, does that mean everyone else has to build me a Church? As I said at the beginning we are talking about who bears the costs, not whether someone can do something. It may be a right but your exercising it costs others money, why should you be allowed to do that without compensating them? How is that fair or equitable/

 

There are Millions of legitimate Gun owners that endanger nobody, Millions of Guns that are never misused, and Violent Minorities that incur the costs of the product of Violent acts, sometimes illegally possessed firearms are used, often times firearms are not used, so why call legal possession of firearms a problem to be dealt with and refuse to address the actual problem, Violent Minorities ?

 

LoL this study concludes:

Wyoming, with the nation’s highest rate of gun deaths, also bears the highest gun violence costs per capita of any state: gun violence costs Wyoming around $1,400 per resident every year, twice the national average.

So that means they're counting suicide as a "cost to the taxpayer". So ridiculous.

Suicide has nothing to do with guns, fatal gun accidents are 0.3% of all fatal accidents (lowest in history, ever), and gun homicide is driven primarily by drugs, gangs and criminals.

Perhaps if liberals would stop releasing criminals, like California is currently doing, they wouldn't be able to commit these damages.

The rest of the post is just liberals trying to blame guns for the actions of violent people.

 

Well, you're right that it's not fair.

But let's say guns and ammunition is taxed heavily, to cover these costs. Is it more fair then? Considering the VAST amount of gun owners do not contribute to the deaths and injuries relating to firearms, they'd then have to take the cost for the small minority of gun owners that are either reckless, or criminal.

I'd say that isn't fair either.

So, should the costs relating to firearm casualties be put on the reckless and the criminal? Sure, but they can't cover these costs, so the victims will not get compensation. Some gangster going to prison will not have the ability to pay off the damages done, so the victim will not get what he/she needs. So it's still not fair.

This is not only a gun issue either. Where I come from, a LOT of people do base jumping, and it's REALLY expensive for society to send a heli every time one of those guys get stuck in the mountain, and it's a huge cost when these people die, which they do at a far greater rate than gun owners. Is it fair that non-base jumpers pay to have them rescued? No, but we can't really let them die of exposure at some inaccessible cliff either.

That being said, I have no problem with a small tax on guns and ammunition to cover SOME of the societal costs relating to firearms, but all? Hell no. The tax has to be reasonable, somewhere between 1-5% on sales of guns and ammunition, added to the regular sales tax. It's still not fair though. As people not doing any harm, will have to pay for the ones that do harm.

Gun deaths are not only about guns, so you can't really isolate gun owners and put all the blame on them.

 

That's a false equivalency.

It would be more true if the right to bear arms made tax dollars go into a special "gun allowance" for each citizen, that they could only spend on guns. But that's not the case.

 

My exercise of that right has never cost anyone money. I am subject to both criminal and civil proceedings if I abuse that right. When that happens, come talk to me.

There is no right to homicide. There is no right to negligent dischargel

 

Taxpayers shoulder the financial burden of supporting illegal aliens in the united states.

It has been shown, numerous times now, that the majority of firearm-related incidents of any sort, are directly related to those who cannot legally possess a firearm under any circumstances. This has been pointed out by the FBI, the chief law enforcement division for the entire united states. It is known gang members and convicted felons who are most often responsible for others being injured with firearms, and otherwise killed. It is not the fault of those that can legally own firearms for legal, lawful, and legitimate purposes. It is the fault of career criminals who have proven time and time again, that they simply will not abide by the rules of society, but who are time and time again released back into society where they can do the most harm, as they offend at their leisure.

If you wish to address the problem, you must address the real problem, that being the ones who are directly responsible. Firearm-related accidents among those that can legally own them have been dropping for decades now.

 

I'm all for the having someone other than illegal aliens pay for them, as you'd have to actually make the figures on how much they cost widely known and reliable, whereupon even conservatives would have to become aware that they cost LESS than most groups that are here legally.

So we should incarcerate anyone who commits a felony forever, or just go back to Newgate days and have Capital Punishment for all felonies? Somehow I think it might be cheaper just to have taxes and mandatory insurance for gun ownership, but that's just me

 

Nor has your driving a car cost anyone anything (assuming you are a safe motorist which I am certain of) yet you are still required to maintain insurance, and you paid higher rates when you were younger, even being the exemplary operator I know you were, (or maybe are).

Again, no one is saying you cannot have your guns, but you should have to pay for it, and pay ALL the costs. As you conservatives are so fond of pointing out, nothing is free, that's life, not rights or Constitutionalism

 

Yes, it is just you and people like you that view Gun Control and Firearms and ammo Taxation applicable only to Law Abiding Citizens, as a potential solution to an unsolvable problem.

You have a hard core segment of the Countries population that care nothing about Civil Rights, Mafias, Gangstas, Drug Dealers, Felons, Mexican Gangs, and other Minorities.

Police can't always protect people from these Criminals, most Gun Owners do not cost anyone anything, and when a Gun owner does kill a Criminal in the act of commiting a Crime, the savings to the Justice system and future victims far outweighs the cost of permanently putting that Criminal in a coffin or urn.

No, that study is a Stupid attempt to penalize innocent people for what the Guilty alone should bear.

 

Your proposal seems almost reasonable. how much would such a tax as you propose raise?

The thing is we already have an totally effective and time-tested way of dealing with these situations where everyone must pay for the transgressions/diseases/risks of a few. It's called Insurance and it truly may be mankind's greatest intellectual achievement, as my old CLU instructor was fond of calling it.

 

Not even car insurance cover ALL the costs of vehicle related injuries and deaths.

But, how would you regulate such a gun tax/gun insurance? How high should the tax/premiums be? What should it cover?

 

And only the careless should pay for all auto accidents, thing is, they usually can't. So in your misguided attempts to make everything absolutely fair to everyone you would penalize totally innocent people.

Are all you gun owners so freaking poor that a few extra dollars for each gun and pennies on your ammo is too much. If you can't afford to pay the costs of reasonable insurance on something maybe you should consider not doing it.

 

His proposal is pure Crapola, Firearms are not merely a Hobby, Firearms save lives, calling Firearms a Hobby is a Lame attempt to trivialize and minimize the benefits of Law Abiding people owning abd using Firearms.

 

What is reasonable insurance?

Because if ALL the costs relating to gun injuries and deaths are put solely on gun owners, that's neither fair, nor reasonable. There's more behind a shot fired in anger, than a gun. And that is the entire society's problem and responsibility.

As I've said, a 1-5% one time sales tax on a gun, that is, not add the tax for when you want to sell a used gun, seems reasonable to me. Or maybe a fixed rate on all new guns, like $10-$20 for all kinds of guns in all price ranges is even more reasonable.

Americans pretty much have this in place already though, when they have to pay extra to legally own a suppressor, a SBR or fully automatic firearms.

 

Actually you are suggesting harassment of legitimate law abiding innocent people, Gun Owners, making them pay the cost incurred by the Criminal element of Society you cannot control.

As a Police Officer, I saw the fallacy of such beliefs and following such fallacy gets good people killed,
No Thanks !

 

I don't have to pay any insurance on a car - it's only required if I use it on public property. Note that criminals, even though required to have insurance, do not, and if someone deliberately uses a motor vehicle in a crime insurance companies will not pay a dime.

Unfortunately for your position, the Constitution protects rights from being taxed. The only reason you have to want gun owners to pay for all of the damages caused by criminals is to restrict lawful ownership into non-existence. There is nothing Constitutional about forcing gun owners to pay a tax for costs caused by crimes they didn't commit.

 

I have insurance on my guns through my homeowners insurance.

 

Like we do with cars. Give it to insurance cos and let the actuaries work it out.

 

What would this insurance pay for?

 

Is it liability insurance, covering whoever is hurt if someone steals it? That is what is being suggested.

You might argue that you weren't the responsible party if someone steals it but that's not the question here. You're not really the responsible party if you have an accident either. We have no problem with suing people for accidents even trespassers have on your property why don't we require insurance on guns?

 

What would the insurance cover if someone steals it?