jmog;1799077 wrote:Box cutters/planes=9/11
Fertilizer=Oklahoma City bombing
Pressure Cooker=Boston Marathon Bombing

You make this too easy there sleeper.

In the same stupid logic of taxing bullets/guns to pay for the wounded/dead why not tax all Muslims since most of these mass shootings/terrorist attacks happen to have been perpetrated by Muslims?

You say you use logic and reason and then use absolutely zero logic and reason in this thread.

Those are pretty long tail events. Gun violence happens every day in this country and it seems mass shootings happen multiple times a year.

Also, you don't tax groups of people. That's why there is never a "tax on smokers" its a tobacco tax. Are your statements tongue in cheek or is this how you really feel?

sleeper;1799078 wrote:Those are pretty long tail events. Gun violence happens every day in this country and it seems mass shootings happen multiple times a year.

Also, you don't tax groups of people. That's why there is never a "tax on smokers" its a tobacco tax. Are your statements tongue in cheek or is this how you really feel?

The Federal Government already makes $123 million/year in sales and other taxes from just firearms (not ammo).

The Federal/State Governments already make $525 million/year in hunting license sales (mostly used for land conservation).

There is already an 11% tax on all ammunition sales in the US.

At about $1.5 billion/year in just ammunition in the US and an average cost of around $0.33 per bullet that's about 4.5 billion bullets sold per year.

How much higher would you go above the already 11% tax on ammunition? 12%? 15%? 25%?

The government already collects over $1 Billion/year from guns/ammunition/license taxes. How much more should we collect?

How about that money just be taken out of the federal budget and directly paid to gun violence victims? Or at least the amount that is higher than normal sales tax?

jmog;1799080 wrote:The Federal Government already makes $123 million/year in sales and other taxes from just firearms (not ammo).

The Federal/State Governments already make $525 million/year in hunting license sales (mostly used for land conservation).

There is already an 11% tax on all ammunition sales in the US.

At about $1.5 billion/year in just ammunition in the US and an average cost of around $0.33 per bullet that's about 4.5 billion bullets sold per year.

How much higher would you go above the already 11% tax on ammunition? 12%? 15%? 25%?

The government already collects over $1 Billion/year from guns/ammunition/license taxes. How much more should we collect?

How about that money just be taken out of the federal budget and directly paid to gun violence victims? Or at least the amount that is higher than normal sales tax?

More is needed. 25% would be a good start.

If people want guns, then they can pay for the negative externality of ownership.

sleeper;1799086 wrote:More is needed. 25% would be a good start.

If people want guns, then they can pay for the negative externality of ownership.

Wouldnt there need to be proof of negative externality of ownership?

When end are we going to realize that people are killing people, not the tools themselves. It was box cutters for 9/11, a pressure cooker for Boston Marathon, Fertilizer for the McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing.

Do you truly believe the murder rate in the US will go down if guns disappeared tomorrow? Please tell me you are not that naive.

I'm seeing on another forum I frequent that gun nuts are losing their shit about the AR outrage. Some are lobbying for CCW to be allowed in bars/nightclubs. LOL great fucking idea. I think I need to quit the internet for a few weeks.

jmog;1799022 wrote:100% correct, an AR-15 only gets called an "assault rifle" because it looks scary. It is not even close to an assault rifle.

It does have some "assault" similarities, like folding stocks, quick load magazines and some even have flash guards. Most AR-15s are marketed for their military/police/Special OP resemblance.

True, the AR 15's you can legally buy are semi automatic at the most and do not have any sort of automatic/3 round burst.

Plus close-to 80% of all murders by gun are actually performed by pistols but when wanting to mass murder a group, the AR-15 is indeed the weapon of choice.

sleeper;1799086 wrote:More is needed. 25% would be a good start.

If people want guns, then they can pay for the negative externality of ownership.

Frankly, most people should be provided a gun by the government; that would be a nice acknowledgment by government that The People are in charge and tyranny will never be permitted to foment.

On another point, it is rather ironic that most of the mass shootings have come during the obama administration. I don't exactly know why, but the numbers have increased significantly.

Automatik;1799088 wrote:I'm seeing on another forum I frequent that gun nuts are losing their shit about the AR outrage. Some are lobbying for CCW to be allowed in bars/nightclubs. LOL great fucking idea. I think I need to quit the internet for a few weeks.

It became legal in Ohio within the last year, with no issues I've heard about.

salto;1799090 wrote: Plus close-to 80% of all murders by gun are actually performed by pistols but when wanting to mass murder a group, the AR-15 is indeed the weapon of choice.

Read an article today citing fbi statistics where knives are used more in murders than rifles. Obviously pistols are the largest group.

I also don't get why people think a little sign in a window saying guns aren't allowed is going to stop anyone from doing it except for the super law abiding. Like if that sign didn't exist everyone would just randomly start carrying guns there. It doesn't make sense. And no, I was in no way advocating people carrying guns and drinking.

QuakerOats;1799091 wrote:

On another point, it is rather ironic that most of the mass shootings have come during the obama administration. I don't exactly know why, but the numbers have increased significantly.

All the gun nutjobs believed Obama was going to take their weapons away, which resulted in record sales and eventually led to where we are now. There's an ease to purchasing quick firing military similar rifles which have magazines that hold (multiple) dozens of bullets.

I'm sure the line for the gun section at my hometown Cabela's is out the door today. I was there a few days after Sandy Hook. ARs were selling like hotcakes.

salto;1799090 wrote:It does have some "assault" similarities, like folding stocks, quick load magazines and some even have flash guards. Most AR-15s are marketed for their military/police/Special OP resemblance.

True, the AR 15's you can legally buy are semi automatic at the most and do not have any sort of automatic/3 round burst.

Plus close-to 80% of all murders by gun are actually performed by pistols but when wanting to mass murder a group, the AR-15 is indeed the weapon of choice.

Assault by definition is about firing rate (3 round burst and fully automatic) and firing power (muzzle velocity and bullet weight). The AR-15 is no where close on either of these aspects. Most assault rifles have 3 times the firing power as an AR-15 and the AR-15 while semi-automatic doesn't even have 3 round burst, let alone automatic in what is allowed to be sold in the US.

jmog;1799100 wrote:Assault by definition is about firing rate (3 round burst and fully automatic) and firing power (muzzle velocity and bullet weight). The AR-15 is no where close on either of these aspects. Most assault rifles have 3 times the firing power as an AR-15 and the AR-15 while semi-automatic doesn't even have 3 round burst, let alone automatic in what is allowed to be sold in the US.

The .223 seems to be the round of choice for our military, right? Yea, I understand there is a hell of a lot more powerful rifles out there.

imo -Firing power is a moot point. The definition of "assault rifles" needs edited. Multiple things should classify the AR-15 as assault, like the rapid magazine change semi-automatic rate of fire, folding stock or the flash guard.

queencitybuckeye;1799032 wrote:This. Not that shooting skill is the only, or even main criterion, but I've spoken to several cops who only shoot once a year to qualify. Many of us "hillbillies" Zwick refers to can out-shoot the vast majority of LEOs.

Please tell me more about your knowledge of this officer and how you're a better shot lol. I mean.... It only makes sense you would be a better shot since some cops you know, know cops who only go to the range once a year.

Dream on, Rambo.

The narrative used to be gun crimes. Now that gun crimes are at an all time low in the last 20 years, with more than doubled the background checks since 2000, the narrative doesn't work. So just like any politician the goal posts have been moved to "mass shootings" (even though the definition of mass shootings are loosely used and most of them occur in gang related activity) and "automatic weapons" (even though automatic weapons are banned and most gun crimes are committed with hand guns). When the AR-15 (not automatic, but semi auto) is banned, and there are still gun crimes, what will be the narrative then?

Sleeper, I am ok with some more measures, but what more can we do that you can't poke a hole in? I don't see how taxing bullets at 25% would work. It only takes one bullet to kill somebody and in the case of the orlando shooter, why the fuck would he care about draining his bank account/maxing his credit card when he was pretty much going in knowing he would die? The 25% tax will just punish the majority of the millions of gun owners and would also punish many small businesses. I could even see an increase in the black market for 25% tax.

Maybe gun owners should be forced to renew their licenses every 12-18 months? At least it will be somewhat of a pain in the ass to own one and the true gun advocates would be willing to go for it. Even in this scenario, 12-18 months is plenty of time for any killer.

How about banning guns from anybody with a violent history. I.e. charged and found guilty for domestic abuse? No longer can use a gun. Still, this man or woman can find a gun from somebody else.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1799116 wrote:Please tell me more about your knowledge of this officer and how you're a better shot lol. I mean.... It only makes sense you would be a better shot since some cops you know, know cops who only go to the range once a year.

Dream on, Rambo.

Please tell us more about how every gun owner is an irresponsible hillbilly that doesn't know how to fire a gun.

like_that;1799118 wrote:Please tell us more about how every gun owner is an irresponsible hillbilly that doesn't know how to fire a gun.

Where did I say that?

like_that;1799118 wrote:Please tell us more about how every gun owner is an irresponsible hillbilly that doesn't know how to fire a gun.

lol...so you'd rather side with the idea that your average "hillbilly" can outshoot a cop? Both sides are extreme and asinine.

I know several cops, varying levels....they all shoot. A LOT.

Automatik;1799122 wrote:lol...so you'd rather side with the idea that your average "hillbilly" can outshoot a cop? Both sides are extreme and asinine.

I know several cops, varying levels....they all shoot. A LOT.

No, I just think it's dumb to label anyone with a CCW a run of the mill hillbilly.

I'm actually with the group that doesn't think people at the bar with guns is a good idea. Alcohol and guns is not a good combo.

like_that;1799117 wrote:The narrative used to be gun crimes. Now that gun crimes are at an all time low in the last 20 years, with more than doubled the background checks since 2000, the narrative doesn't work.

It's not only background checks which contributed to gun crimes being at an all time low. Gun crimes were at their highest in the 80's. What came shortly after? The computer. Theirs quite a data collection built nowadays on criminals that is shared among law enforcement.

said;1799125 wrote:It's not only background checks which contributed to gun crimes being at an all time low. Gun crimes were at their highest in the 80's. What came shortly after? The computer. Theirs quite a data collection built nowadays on criminals that is shared.

There has been a lot that has led to the decline. Data, gentrification, increase in police force in cities, etc. I was just pointing out that background checks have been doubled since 2000 and gun crime is lower than it has ever been. What more can you do in the background checks?

like_that;1799123 wrote:No, I just think it's dumb to label anyone with a CCW a hillbilly.

I'm actually with the group that doesn't think people at the bar with guns is a good idea. Alcohol and guns is not a good combo.

you either can't read or are being intentionally dishonest. You're a smart guy so I think I know which one.

I laughed at cc because he seems to think he'd have made a difference when a cop was there and made no difference. In a situation like that, your ccw don't mean shit.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1799116 wrote:Please tell me more about your knowledge of this officer and how you're a better shot lol. I mean.... It only makes sense you would be a better shot since some cops you know, know cops who only go to the range once a year.

Dream on, Rambo.

Where did I refer to "this" officer? I didn't.

With room for exceptions, someone who practices on a near-weekly basis will perform better than someone who shoots once a year.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1799127 wrote:you either can't read or are being intentionally dishonest. You're a smart guy so I think I know which one.

I laughed at cc because he seems to think he'd have made a difference when a cop was there and made no difference. In a situation like that, your ccw don't mean shit.

Ok, I reread your post. That was a bit of a stretch on my part, but you did say hillbilly vs the cop. Not anyone with a CCW is some average schmo looking to carry a gun, because it looks cool. Most gun owners are pretty well trained. A high percentage of them are retired vets. I would venture to say they are trained better than cops. One CCW in the case of the Orlando shooting likely wouldn't have made a difference although it could. A few more CCWs could have made a difference. There are a lot of cases where a CCW saved a lot of lives. Again, I don't think guns at a bar is a good idea.

like_that;1799126 wrote: What more can you do in the background checks?

That is a great question but I don't know if a more intense background check resolves anything. Personally every gun that I've ever owned (a semi-auto .22LR, .12 gauge mossberg camper special and pump bb gun) I didn't have to pass a background check. Lately I've never had an interest in CCW.
I did visit the bill goodman's show a few times. It was many years ago and only for clay pigeon shooting stuff, talk about a shady gun fans playground. the "B.G. gun and knife show" has some pretty scary stuff available.