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

Very interesting article, it seems to call into question the whole idea of being able to hold one responsible for carelessness, if the carelessness enables a malicious person to cause harm.

The question here is not whether one can insure themselves against the liability of one's OWN malicious act but whether one can be held liable for ENABLING the malicious act of another.

 

I agree, but why do you want to further punish the law abiding VICTIMS of these guns as well?

 

It is a known fact that illegal aliens commit LESS crimes than the overall population

So you DO think we should kill people for any felony conviction?

The suggestion is not that we tax or insure those who possess or use firearms illegally, but those who may be inadvertently enabling them to do that.

If you wish to do something that is terribly dangerous to everyone else you should be required at the least to pay for the harm you enable to be done to others, even if the harm is inadvertent. I though conservatives believed in personal responsibility, is that the case only when it doesn't apply to yourselves?

All males cannot help being males, you can help if you own a gun.

 

Fine, long as gun owners are willing to take responsiblilty

 

Nonsense, rights are taxed and regulated all the time. Try to exercise your right of free assembly without getting any permits or paying any fees one time.

 

So you can't be sued for giving a gun to someone and telling him to kill someone else?

 

As is typical of Mother Jones journalism, it was a patently dishonest and deliberately deceptive article, a clever bit of biased journalism designed to stage a conclusion and then pack dishonest interpretation of fake statistics to support that conclusion. What I find humorous is that that the article is an indictment of the inability of the government's ability to protect the people, in effect squandering the tax money we currently pay for policing; rather than an indictment of gun ownership, it provides rationalization for gun ownership; It is obvious the government isn't protecting the people. The costs sighted are the result of crime and the damage perpetrated on the victims of that crime. That guns are used in commission of the crimes and collateral damage does not mean those crimes wouldn't have occurred as the article bids us to accept as a truth. It's just another way to package the same old gun control arguments that have repeatedly been debunked... and, notice the article, of course references, the charlatan, Kellerman. Bunk, bunk and more bunk from Mother J.
BTW, guns are no more a hobby for me than they would be for any hunter or police officer. In this country, I see them as necccessary as any tool for sustenance or safety. As stated by others, I accept the responsibility for my actions, fully understanding of my liabilities if I am negligent or engage in malicious behavior. The government doesn't protect me and mine from criminals so I will excersize the right for arming to protect myself and my family; if we are victimized they will only potentially punish the offenders after the fact. Also, it won't be the government that picks up the tab if I am or mine are victimized, but the health insurance for which I already pay.
By most measures, guns in civilian hands prevent somewhere between 60,000 and a couple million crimes a year depending on whose numbers you believe. How many crimes, rapes, murders, assaults, are actually prevented or stopped by LE?

 

And this is where you lose me entirely, because it doesn't make any sense. A car insurance won't cover criminal acts, or suicide. This type of insurance would basically only cover negligent discharges. Accidents and the likes. It wouldn't cover what you'd want it to cover.

Comparing guns and cars is pretty silly, especially when comparing alcohol and guns would make a lot more sense in the societal cost aspect. You don't need alcohol insurance anywhere, but it's taxed differently all over the world depending on the societal costs.

So, do you think the gun tax should be higher, or lower than the alcohol tax?

 

What does that have to do with insurance? Do you think anyone would insure for type of action?

You don't need a permit to assemble or speak on your property. Permits and fees are applied when there is impact on shared public property, use of shared public space or impact public resources.

 

Why should either be taxed?

 

It makes sense to tax alcohol, to cover the costs related to the societal damages related to alcohol. But guns shouldn't anywhere be taxed MORE than alcohol, since the direct societal costs of guns, will always be lower than alcohol.

But I'm really more approaching this concept from a system where universal health care is already in place. It wouldn't be the same in a country where people rely on medical insurance, since each individual cover their own health care costs in that scenario.

 

Because they have social costs.

 

So, after a harsh divorce, a man gets drunk, and shoots his ex wife.

How much of the damages should be paid off through gun taxation, how much through alcohol taxation, and how much should be covered by tax in general? Assuming the man haven't got anything to pay himself.

 

Did a little research on firearms tax in the US. Seems like you already have this in place. 10% excise tax on handguns, 11% on long guns and ammunition.

I would assume you guys have sales tax too, so add this to the already pretty high excise tax.

The thread started off at the premise that guns aren't already taxed, but they are, and it's a pretty high tax too.

 

Which is not something that can either legally, or realistically, be done through what you are proposing.

 

What you refer to is not a sport. It is an illegal activity, no different than going out and committing felony assault.

How do you propose mandating insurance for those who are committing criminal actions? Do you intend to have them charged for commission of a crime without proof of valid insurance?

 

Then perhaps you should elaborate on how precisely anyone who owns a firearm, is in any way enabling the malicious act of another person.

 

Pray tell how are the victims punished through such a course of action?

 

Indeed it is not.

Will it ultimately save lives, and reduce the number of potential victims, thus further reducing the amount that taxpayers must shell out annually for both housing career criminals, and providing care for those injured through the criminal misuse of firearms? Is that not the overall goal that is being presented?

Would you support the continual releasing of known violent criminals with extensive rap sheets, which prove conclusively that they simply will not abide by the rules of society?

In order to save lives, one must accept that it is necessary to end lives. It is a simple fact of life that not every life is precious and worth saving.

Again, prove how one who chooses to own a firearm is in any way enabling the criminal actions of another.

Owning a firearm does not put anyone at risk of harm. Criminal use of a firearm is not the same thing as owning a firearm. Simple possession of a firearm poses no more risk of harm than having a parked motor vehicle sitting out by the curb.

Do not assume that conservationism is the angle of approach from myself. You are merely being addressed from such a position because nothing meaningful is being presented. Your entire position ultimately boils down to the notion that the victims must be held responsible for the actions of the criminals.

Irrelevant and off topic. An individual can choose to refrain from engaging in criminal activity. One drug dealer does not need to murder a rival over matters of disrespect, yet they choose to engage in such a course of action regardless.

 

Permits and fees are for the use of the public space, not for the assembly or speech. It is done by those who hold the property on which you will be speaking, to insure free access by others who may wish to assemble and convey a message. You are assigned a location, and a time frame, so that you do not monopolize the area for an indefinite period of time, in a manner that would deny others their ability to legally assemble.

 

Is doing such considered a legal activity? Or is doing such a criminal offense, and thus not covered by liability insurance?

If you truly engaged in the above, you would have more serious issues to worry about than whether or not you would be subject to a lawsuit. You would instead have to concern yourself with defending against criminal charges and conviction.

 

Then name what these costs are, rather than simply referring to the notion that they exist.

 

Sure. You can be sued for anything. Liability insurance will not cover deliberate criminal actions.

 

Why are the actions of a criminal my fault?

 

Law number one would be that lawful gun owners aren't responsible for the criminal acts of oyhers.