Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u632m wrote

Why should the societal cost of gun ownership fall on the shoulders of the general tax payer?

We have gasoline taxes so people who operate a vehicle can fund the roads they drive on.

Why shouldn’t gun owners pay taxes on their ammunition to help fund government operations to protect people from gun owners?


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ucu0l wrote

Hear Hear!!! Well we already have the added tax on ammunition. Hmmm. Let’s tax those well-healed EV owners for the roads they use. Let’s get those roads safe and stop exploiting the poors and their fossil fueled death machines.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ud1j3 wrote

I’m down with charging EV’s a road tax for recharging at gas stations.


Laurajw12 OP t1_j9u6jum wrote

This is a secondary tax. We do pay tax on ammunition. And gun owners aren't the ones killing people. Criminals are. Gun owners and criminals aren't the same. Hence the article. I think we are all sick of being lobbed together.


AdHistorical7107 t1_j9u6yut wrote

Who killed those bristol cops? Hint, he was a gun owner. Turned criminal.

Make the connection.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u6yc4 wrote

Those dastardly criminals… throwing bullets at children to death…

You are fucking ridiculous. Being a gun owner doesn’t make you a responsible or law abiding person. It just means you have a tool designed to kill. Someone with a gun is just as likely to be a criminal as any other section of the population, but the gun enables them to do far more damage whether it be via malice or negligence.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u7iwf wrote

not owning a gun doesn’t make you a law abiding citizen either. your standing grounds are shattering.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u7ybk wrote

It doesn’t. It just makes you far less capable of killing many people in a short period of time, through malice or negligence. An unarmed criminal is far less of a threat to those around them than an irresponsible gun owner.

Guns are a weapon. They serve only one purpose.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u9lw9 wrote

there plenty of people that are just as capable of killing people without a gun. anyway, back to the taxes. regular sales tax is applied to guns and ammo aswell as another 11%. if this isn’t enough to fund these programs, maybe ask yourself where this 17% markup is going in the first place. surely 17% of taxes paid on guns and ammo in ct should be boatloads of money already. wheres this money at?


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ucqjl wrote

It’s not that much money. It’s like 7 million dollars annually across the state. How much money do you think a single gun trafficking or shooting investigation costs?


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ud552 wrote

you guys are all over the place lol. we aren’t talking of funding investigations. we’re talking of funding gun violence programs. 7 milli should be plenty!😄


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9udh67 wrote

You think 7 million is a lot of money on a state level to serve the needs of 3.5 million people?


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9uduis wrote

7 MILLION dollars should be enough to host some events and teach a bunch of classes across the state a couple times a year actually, yes. just stop while you’re ahead buddy.😂


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ue6vj wrote

And if the only thing we want is a performance to pretend we are doing something that’s probably just fine.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u78n5 wrote

i dont own one yet but hopefully will soon. im just now starting to educate myself on the laws and purchasing in the state, but as far as i know ammunition is already taxed to hell. use these taxes that are already being paid for these programs maybe? punishing law abiding responsible gun owners to fund the programs that are put up in response to the irresponsible unlawful owners of guns doesn’t seem to make too much sense to me lol.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u7po3 wrote

Taxes aren’t punishments. When you pay a gasoline or a tobacco tax or an alcohol tax it isn’t a punishment. Why should the general tax payer be punished with additional taxes to cover the costs of dealing with the fall out coming from gun owners actions? Why shouldn’t those costs fall on the shoulders of those who actually have a weapon?


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ud664 wrote

Agree 100%. Let’s get the EV drivers to pay their fair share.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9udatx wrote

Sure. Not sure what point your trying to make here pivoting to EVs though.


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ufoq4 wrote

It’s an easy whataboutism. The fact is gun ownership is a complex issue. They provide recreation on skeet fields for the (generally speaking) affluent. They provide a tool for hunting for the ( generally speaking) working class.

In rural areas they provide a means of self-protection. I don’t have much use for ammunition but it seems like a particular demographic is targeted and made a scape goat.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9uk0uc wrote

They didn’t propose arresting people for buying bullets. They proposed a modest tax on bullets. It’s hardly a scapegoat.


404freedom14liberty t1_j9ul8ph wrote

In fairness it’s a relentless chipping away of gun owner’s rights.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9um3ns wrote

Why do you think that the second amendment exempts gun owners from tax liability?


404freedom14liberty t1_j9unfvx wrote

I don’t think that. Sorry if I implied that.

The issue is it seems that citizens have the right to possess firearms. At the very least they are a tool for rural nutmeggers.

Ammunition is already taxed above sales tax. This tax is being applied to a distinct demographic. We can assume this tax is part of a social program to depress gun ownership. As a stated it’s a relentless taking.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u8ezw wrote

“taxes aren’t punishments” and then you follow up with “why should the general taxpayer be punished with additional taxes..” doesn’t make sense. so gun owners shouldn’t look at this as a punishment but the general tax payer should? as i said in a previous comment, use the extraordinary taxes they ALREADY accumulate from guns and ammunition and use that for the programs.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ueia3 wrote

It’s a responsibility, and those who are responsible for the problem should be responsible for the solution. That’s a principle gun owners tend to agree with until they personally can be held responsible.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9uepdb wrote

im done entertaining this clown in particular at this point he seems to be broken.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9uezxe wrote

I know you understand what I said, so your refusal to respond means you don’t have a way to actually defend your position.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ufg54 wrote

um no actually. you’re being incoherent and don’t seem understand that law abiding gun owners are not responsible for those that misuse their guns. just like you, a lawful purchaser of alcohol aren’t responsible for those that kill entire families in car accidents while under the influence. i hope i was able to dumb this down enough for you man. im truly sorry youre like this💀


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9uju43 wrote

Law abiding gun owners are responsible for every person injured or killed with their gun, even when the owner wasn’t the one operating the gun. The gun community should be responsible for the costs associated with deterring, investigating, prosecuting and compensating those harmed by gun violence. Why shouldn’t the firearm community bear the burden instead of the general population?

And btw: CT drinkers already pay an excise tax to the state because they drink.


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9ul46x wrote

youre simply going in circles at this point lol.

and btw: ct gun owners already pay an excise in tax to the state because they bought the guns.

get over the fact that your logic simply does not make sense nor do u have any backbone to any of your misconceptions. hope u have a better day than this homie.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ulyfh wrote

Simply saying “your logic makes no sense,” is a denial, not an argument.

When you buy a car you pay a tax on your car. When you buy gasoline you pay a tax on that gasoline.

Similarly there is no conflict between paying taxes on your initial purchase of your firearm and paying taxes on the purchase of ammo


BackhandStrongAF t1_j9um8k1 wrote

theres no denial here. you’ve seemed to have forgotten about the already 17% tax on guns and ammo. you’re speaking as though its not taxed at all. its got sales tax plus an additional 11%. it enough taxes. trust me.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yf3js wrote

Sin taxes are indeed punishment. That’s why they’re called sin taxes.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9yg1te wrote

All those poor car owners… punished by being forced to help pay for the upkeep of the highway system via gasoline taxes…


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yg5kr wrote

Gas tax isn’t a sin tax, genius.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9ygw1q wrote

Gas tax is an excise tax, just like alcohol and tobacco.


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_j9yh48k wrote

Yes, and two of those are referred to as sin taxes. Hint: it’s not gas.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9yil05 wrote

Excise taxes are referred to as sin taxes by anti-tax advocates, and gasoline is subject to excise taxes


CalligrapherDizzy201 t1_ja01ge8 wrote

Sin taxes are called as such because they are designed to curtail the use of that which is being taxes. The gas tax isn’t to discourage the purchase of gas. It’s to pay for the roads that the gas is being used on.


gewehr44 t1_j9vltvt wrote

You make the false assumption that guns are only a negative value. They are used more often in self defense than to commit crimes.


Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9vmfl9 wrote

Lol. Did you read this article. It defines the weapon not being used but simply being present as “defensive use”.