Is it legal to tax guns?

[fskimospy]

its been tried
https://www.guns.com/news/2016/09/30/court-finds-1k-excise-tax-on-handguns-to-be-unconstitutional

Yes, eventually a high enough tax wouldn't be allowed but in case you didn't notice the sale of guns is already taxed.

 

[glenn1]

No, I just think that things that are bad for society should be taxed and things that are good for society shouldn't be (as a broad principle).

I guess that's why blue states are taxed so much more than red states.

 

[Viper1j]

What are your thoughts on applying those same "regulations" against other amendments?

I fully support the Second Amendment.

In fact, I think every American, on their 18th birthday, should be given a free flintlock musket.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess that's why blue states are taxed so much more than red states.

Clearly, lol. It's more like you have some taxes to encourage or discourage certain behavior and you have other taxes because the sin taxes aren't sufficient to fund all the welfare that red states need.

 

[dainthomas]

You don't think something codified in the Bill of Rights is a right?

The "getting rid of it" part.

 

[Skel]

Sure, I agree it's not the be-all and there are plenty of reasons why someone could conclude that even if it were the case that they wanted people to own guns anyway. Although to be clear it's not just one study, it's many.

Could you link me to them? I've only come across the one, anything else I've seen has always ref back to the original one.

 

[Skel]

You don't think something codified in the Bill of Rights is a right?

They're as much rights as the rest of the amendments that have come. The Bill of Rights is only what we call the first 10. There are a bunch more, in fact the 21st overturned the 18th, so we could add another one that drastically changes things. It'd be a hard road to go on, but it's tech possible.

 

[Wuzup101]

Broadly speaking the various research on the topic looks at gun ownership data and homicides while attempting to control for things that we know affect homicide rate like crime rates, income, etc. That being said no study is perfect and so sure they could be missing something or wrong but to me it's pretty plausible because the person most likely to murder you is your significant other. Once you introduce a gun into the home you potentially escalate what might be screaming fights or fistfights into gunfights. People walk away from those other fights 99% of the time, not so much with guns.

So from what I understand above you are right, in that owning a gun makes you more likely to be the victim of domestic homicide, but it does not otherwise impact your likely hood of being the victim of homicide from anyone else but your partner. So if, for instance, you are single, there is no impact. Furthermore, the domestic homicide rate is greatly skewed towards women being the victim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/us/gun-ownership-violence-statistics.html (interesting read).

From a regulation standpoint, it would make a lot of sense to ban people with a violent history, especially of domestic violence, frown owning a gun.

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/ (another good read involving gun laws vs banning types of guns, it touches on how regulations on who can buy guns greatly impacts homicide rates).

The above is interesting, because when combined with the above domestic violence statistic, it would seem that it would be a VERY good idea to ban ownership to people who have any sort of domestic violence history. For female victims in particular, >70% (in the age populations shown... link below) were previously victimized by the same attacker.

https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

Sure, but we do mandate registration for all autos, which is for all intents and purposes a tax by another name. So sure, a tax would restrict ownership by poor people more than rich most likely but I think that's generally true about all flat taxes.

I think that most gun owners, myself include, differentiate a tax from a registration. Tax is money paid to the government for purchasing or owning a product, good, service, etc... Registration is something that ties something I own to me. I'm not arguing for or against here, just making a point. I own guns that are/were taxed (i.e. subject to state sales tax), and I own guns that are/were taxed and registered to me (NFA items).... or in my specific case registered to a trust where I'm a trustee.

 

[Wuzup101]

True, but which one kills more people?

Bullets or methamphetamine?

When you figure in that the population of the US that uses meth is MUCH smaller than the population of US gun owners, Meth kills more people per user, by far. The pool of meth users is estimated at like 1.6 million, and the pool of gun owners is more like 30% of the population (that was ~327mil in 2017, so lets say 97mil). I would venture to guess that most of those gun owners probably have at least 1 bullet for their gun.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...-crisis-peaks-meth-and-cocaine-deaths-explode (numbers from 2017, 10,000 meth related deaths).

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicati...scope-methamphetamine-misuse-in-united-states (also from 2017, 1.6 million meth users).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/ (gun statistics, 40k deaths from homicides and suicides in 2017, 30% of adults say they own a gun).

 

[Skel]

So from what I understand above you are right, in that owning a gun makes you more likely to be the victim of domestic homicide, but it does not otherwise impact your likely hood of being the victim of homicide from anyone else but your partner. So if, for instance, you are single, there is no impact. Furthermore, the domestic homicide rate is greatly skewed towards women being the victim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/us/gun-ownership-violence-statistics.html (interesting read).

From a regulation standpoint, it would make a lot of sense to ban people with a violent history, especially of domestic violence, frown owning a gun.

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/ (another good read involving gun laws vs banning types of guns, it touches on how regulations on who can buy guns greatly impacts homicide rates).

The above is interesting, because when combined with the above domestic violence statistic, it would seem that it would be a VERY good idea to ban ownership to people who have any sort of domestic violence history. For female victims in particular, >70% (in the age populations shown... link below) were previously victimized by the same attacker.

https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/



I think that most gun owners, myself include, differentiate a tax from a registration. Tax is money paid to the government for purchasing or owning a product, good, service, etc... Registration is something that ties something I own to me. I'm not arguing for or against here, just making a point. I own guns that are/were taxed (i.e. subject to state sales tax), and I own guns that are/were taxed and registered to me (NFA items).... or in my specific case registered to a trust where I'm a trustee.

They already ban people that have domestic violence charges from ever having guns. The Lautenberg Amendment did that.

 

[Wuzup101]

They already ban people that have domestic violence charges from ever having guns. The Lautenberg Amendment did that.

Nice - I didn't realize that it was regulated to that level (misdemeanor violence offences).

 

[Viper1j]

They already ban people that have domestic violence charges from ever having guns. The Lautenberg Amendment did that.

They "ban" bank robber from having guns, but they always seem to show up with one.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think that most gun owners, myself include, differentiate a tax from a registration. Tax is money paid to the government for purchasing or owning a product, good, service, etc... Registration is something that ties something I own to me.

Pretty much everything except sales taxes ties something you own to you. For the government to tax you for something they have to have a record that you have it. All such taxes are also registrations.

They "ban" bank robber from having guns, but they always seem to show up with one.

Nope. Only convicted bank robbers are banned from having guns. Until they are caught and convicted of a crime they are legal gun owners as they rob the bank.

 

[Viper1j]

Pretty much everything except sales taxes ties something you own to you. For the government to tax you for something they have to have a record that you have it. All such taxes are also registrations.



Nope. Only convicted bank robbers are banned from having guns. Until they are caught and convicted of a crime they are legal gun owners as they rob the bank.

I'm the El Paso shooter, and I approved this message.

 

[Skel]

Pretty much everything except sales taxes ties something you own to you. For the government to tax you for something they have to have a record that you have it. All such taxes are also registrations.



Nope. Only convicted bank robbers are banned from having guns. Until they are caught and convicted of a crime they are legal gun owners as they rob the bank.

Except for they're not.. I don't get a tax when I register to vote.. nor do I have to register to buy cigarettes, which are the perfect example of putting a special tax to guns. The Government could add a special tax required to be paid when you register, like a auto, but it's still a separate thing from a registration requirement. If anything the proposed extra tax on guns would be a special sales tax unless you overturn the law forbidding a DB that tracks firearms to owners..

 

[WelshBloke]

... unless you overturn the law forbidding a DB that tracks firearms to owners..

Why the hell is there a law forbidding that?

God forbid you should check that responsible gun owners are responsible for their guns.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Why the hell is there a law forbidding that?

God forbid you should check that responsible gun owners are responsible for their guns.

A national database of gun owners? Yikes, sounds fascist.

 

[WelshBloke]

A national database of gun owners? Yikes, sounds fascist.

Why?

 

[Skel]

Why the hell is there a law forbidding that?

God forbid you should check that responsible gun owners are responsible for their guns.

From what I've heard, the DB would be the first step in allowing for the Government to seize them. Not saying it's right, but I do have concerns about how a DB might be used. While some Anti-Gun people wouldn't see any issues with punishing gun owners, it would be punishing US Citizens for a right they possess. To be clear, some states and cities do require guns to be registered, such as Las Vegas, and there are some back door DBs. Just nothing that national. There is a growing fear this might be overturned, which is why the "Ghost Gun" market is ramping up more and more.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Except for they're not.. I don't get a tax when I register to vote.. nor do I have to register to buy cigarettes

Not all registrations are not taxes.

Sales tax is the specific exemption to this. It is a tax on the exchange more than the product. The type of product gets figured into the exchange, but the item is not taxed before or after the exchange. We already charge sales tax on firearms. It would be easy to just put a special rate on firearms, or to use tax stamps for them.

I think this whole topic has kind of wandered. We need to focus on what the purpose of taxing or registrations would be, and then fit which one we use to the purpose. I personally think we should use both. Registrations are going to be needed. There is no way around that in my mind. Taxes could be used to discourage ownership or just to pay for the program.

If anything the proposed extra tax on guns would be a special sales tax unless you overturn the law forbidding a DB that tracks firearms to owners..

Well, we are talking about overhauling the laws that deal with firearms, that would probably be one of the first things to go.

From what I've heard, the DB would be the first step in allowing for the Government to seize them. Not saying it's right, but I do have concerns about how a DB might be used. While some Anti-Gun people wouldn't see any issues with punishing gun owners, it would be punishing US Citizens for a right they possess. To be clear, some states and cities do require guns to be registered, such as Las Vegas, and there are some back door DBs. Just nothing that national. There is a growing fear this might be overturned, which is why the "Ghost Gun" market is ramping up more and more.

We should not make laws based on paranoia. No government is going to try to seize guns. It would be a bloody war. If they decide to go that route an ownership DB is going to be the least of your concerns, and finding food and shelter will be the top.

It is more likely that they would use it to punish owners, but only if there was some reason to do so. I think we can agree that if there was some reason to believe that a firearm was used in a crime that the owner should be held responsible.

I personally believe that registration is going to be an absolutely minimum step in any effective gun control. I see reluctance to this idea as a sign that a gun owners is not responsible.

 

[cytg111]

A national database of gun owners? Yikes, sounds fascist.

This sounds like a traitor :

edit : What Slow is doing here, as pr command from his superior comrade is to water down the meaning, definition of the word fascism.

 

[WelshBloke]

From what I've heard, the DB would be the first step in allowing for the Government to seize them.

Is motor vehicle registration the first step in allowing the Government to seize motor vehicles?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Why?

They'll know whose doors to knock on when/if they confiscate them, which would be what many liberals would be happy to see. But all the people that buy stolen guns and don't care about their legality will still have their guns.

 

[WelshBloke]

They'll know whose doors to knock on when/if they confiscate them, which would be what many liberals would be happy to see. But all the people that buy stolen guns and don't care about their legality will still have their guns.

None of that paranoid babble makes it any more fascist than registering your car.

 

[SlowSpyder]

None of that paranoid babble makes it any more fascist than registering your car.

Cars kill more people than guns and no one cares. In this context I don't know what can be compared to guns as nothing is scrutinized like guns are, despite being bigger killers. So seeing as guns are unique in the context, I don't think comparing them to cars tells us anything. You can call it paranoid babble, but it is exactly what the founders wanted when they inked the 2A, and for good reason in my opinion.