Sherif Shot Dead in W.VA

[tvguy]

Sorry but I really do think that expecting people to load their own shells to get around a bullet tax in moronic.The IDEA is moronic. Rowen is not but the truth is that he doesn't really know what he is talking about.This is sort of an apology
No one loads 22 shells and people who have several guns would have to have a lot of different reloading crap.

I also strongly object to someone who knows very little other than what they Google telling me what kind of gun I DON'T NEED.

Gotta go

[gapper]

No one loads 22 shells and people who have several guns would have to have a lot of different reloading crap.

You are correct about the 22 shell reloading thing, however, I think you might be surprised how many gun enthusiasts already have a lot, and I mean a LOT of different reloading components. And, a lot of these same people also buy factory loads, too.

[csrowan]

I appreciate the apology.

I also know someone who loads shells to save money, just like I used to roll my own cigarettes to save money. It may not be fun, it may be time consuming, and you need to know what you're doing when you're working with gunpowder, but it's doable. If cartridges are taxed, I predict an increase in the number of people doing their own loading, moronic or not.

Frankly, I don't think a bullet tax is necessary. I'd rather have gun insurance (or posted bonds if you don't want to have to make regular payments and can afford it). It's a little more even handed, even if it does mean that safe gun owners are being penalized because of non-safe gun owners. It's a matter of give and take. With over 200,000 people every year being shot and injured or killed in crimes and accidents*, one would think that gun owners would be saying "What can we do about this? What can we do to minimize accidents and crimes of passion? What could be done to make more people as responsible as I am?" I don't understand why gun owners aren't jumping at the bit to provide examples of what they would consider to be good legislation that doesn't interfere with their rights to own guns, but still helps lower the number of firearm injuries and fatalities.



*yes, and suicides, but I don't have the numbers without that, and besides, the presence of a gun in a house increases the likelihood of suicides just like it increases the liklihood of domestic homicide, so as far as I'm concerned, a reasonable number of those suicides can be directly attributable to easy access to a firearm during a depressive episode, and would not have occurred otherwise.

[gapper]

With over 200,000 people every year being shot and injured or killed in crimes and accidents*, one would think that gun owners would be saying "What can we do about this? What can we do to minimize accidents and crimes of passion? What could be done to make more people as responsible as I am?" I don't understand why gun owners aren't jumping at the bit to provide examples of what they would consider to be good legislation that doesn't interfere with their rights to own guns, but still helps lower the number of firearm injuries and fatalities.

Some are, but quietly and out of the spotlight for political, professional and/or personal reasons.

[csrowan]

Sorry. I should have said "...more gun owners..."

[gapper]

Sorry. I should have said "...more gun owners..."

[PonderThis]

Even the non gun nuts like me can see how much you enjoy poking TV (and others). It has nothing to do with whether we agree with you or not and everything to do with your one-liners meant to do nothing more than insult people.

When you've been on the receiving end of the fuck you's I have from TV and Larry both, you'll have reason to comment.

[csrowan]

Even the non gun nuts like me can see how much you enjoy poking TV (and others). It has nothing to do with whether we agree with you or not and everything to do with your one-liners meant to do nothing more than insult people.

When you've been on the receiving end of the fuck you's I have from TV and Larry both, you'll have reason to comment.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about you responding to a 'fuck you'. We're talking about you metaphorically walking into a room, walking up to someone, and spitting in their face. It doesn't matter what they've said to you in the past, you're just picking a fight in the here and now.

[Larry]

Even the non gun nuts like me can see how much you enjoy poking TV (and others). It has nothing to do with whether we agree with you or not and everything to do with your one-liners meant to do nothing more than insult people.

When you've been on the receiving end of the fuck you's I have from TV and Larry both, you'll have reason to comment.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about you responding to a 'fuck you'. We're talking about you metaphorically walking into a room, walking up to someone, and spitting in their face. It doesn't matter what they've said to you in the past, you're just picking a fight in the here and now.

Increasingly irrelevant for him to include me in his diatribes. I have had him on ignore for a VERY long time now, and have not once responded to him since then. With or without a fuck you.

I only see what he posts when it is quoted, and I STILL never respond to anything he says.

Time for him to STFU and leave me out of it.

[tvguy]

No one loads 22 shells and people who have several guns would have to have a lot of different reloading crap.

You are correct about the 22 shell reloading thing, however, I think you might be surprised how many gun enthusiasts already have a lot, and I mean a LOT of different reloading components. And, a lot of these same people also buy factory loads, too.

No I wouldn't be surprised at all. Loading your own has always been a way to save money and even more important to many gun enthusiasts is the fact that you can make your own custom loads.

But if they impose a bullet tax they will figure out a way to tax guys who reload also.Taxing the components probably.
Rowan says.... I also know someone who loads shells to save money, just like I used to roll my own cigarettes to save money. It may not be fun, it may be time consuming
Maybe what he doesn't not realize is that the government also taxed the hell out of loose tobacco so rolling your own is also VERY expensive.

[csrowan]

No one loads 22 shells and people who have several guns would have to have a lot of different reloading crap.

You are correct about the 22 shell reloading thing, however, I think you might be surprised how many gun enthusiasts already have a lot, and I mean a LOT of different reloading components. And, a lot of these same people also buy factory loads, too.

No I wouldn't be surprised at all. Loading your own has always been a way to save money and even more important to many gun enthusiasts is the fact that you can make your own custom loads.

But if they impose a bullet tax they will figure out a way to tax guys who reload also.Taxing the components probably.
Rowan says.... I also know someone who loads shells to save money, just like I used to roll my own cigarettes to save money. It may not be fun, it may be time consuming
Maybe what he doesn't not realize is that the government also taxed the hell out of loose tobacco so rolling your own is also VERY expensive.

Please. It may have been more expensive than if it weren't taxed, but I cut my cigarette budget by 80%. And that was with me buying pre-made filtered tubes to stuff the tobacco into.

[tvguy]

I appreciate the apology.

I also know someone who loads shells to save money, just like I used to roll my own cigarettes to save money. It may not be fun, it may be time consuming, and you need to know what you're doing when you're working with gunpowder, but it's doable. If cartridges are taxed, I predict an increase in the number of people doing their own loading, moronic or not.

Frankly, I don't think a bullet tax is necessary. I'd rather have gun insurance (or posted bonds if you don't want to have to make regular payments and can afford it). It's a little more even handed, even if it does mean that safe gun owners are being penalized because of non-safe gun owners. It's a matter of give and take. With over 200,000 people every year being shot and injured or killed in crimes and accidents*, one would think that gun owners would be saying "What can we do about this? What can we do to minimize accidents and crimes of passion? What could be done to make more people as responsible as I am?" I don't understand why gun owners aren't jumping at the bit to provide examples of what they would consider to be good legislation that doesn't interfere with their rights to own guns, but still helps lower the number of firearm injuries and fatalities.

A bullet tax isn't going to do anything about the criminals and lunatics that cause all the problems. What I hear is supposed to do is create funds to do a better job of keeping track of crazy bastards???
What does the alcohol taxes do to reduce the much bigger problems for society???

answer,, not a damn thing.

I don't understand why gun owners aren't jumping at the bit to provide examples of what they would consider to be good legislation that doesn't interfere with their rights to own guns, but still helps lower the number of firearm injuries and fatalities.

In my case it's because I haven't heard of any good examples.

*yes, and suicides, but I don't have the numbers without that, and besides, the presence of a gun in a house increases the likelihood of suicides just like it increases the liklihood of domestic homicide, so as far as I'm concerned, a reasonable number of those suicides can be directly attributable to easy access to a firearm during a depressive episode, and would not have occurred otherwise.

Sorry but I don't have guns laying around in case my grand kids want to off themselves and I don't deserve to be punished because mentally unstable people kill themselves.
Besides if you look at the facts, the MOST suicides are the elderly and they deserve to die if they want to die.

[tvguy]

No one loads 22 shells and people who have several guns would have to have a lot of different reloading crap.

You are correct about the 22 shell reloading thing, however, I think you might be surprised how many gun enthusiasts already have a lot, and I mean a LOT of different reloading components. And, a lot of these same people also buy factory loads, too.

No I wouldn't be surprised at all. Loading your own has always been a way to save money and even more important to many gun enthusiasts is the fact that you can make your own custom loads.

But if they impose a bullet tax they will figure out a way to tax guys who reload also.Taxing the components probably.
Rowan says.... I also know someone who loads shells to save money, just like I used to roll my own cigarettes to save money. It may not be fun, it may be time consuming
Maybe what he doesn't not realize is that the government also taxed the hell out of loose tobacco so rolling your own is also VERY expensive.

Please. It may have been more expensive than if it weren't taxed, but I cut my cigarette budget by 80%. And that was with me buying pre-made filtered tubes to stuff the tobacco into.

You are missing the point. Yes I know that at first when they started taxing the crap out of cigs you could save a lot of money rolling your own.
I quit long before but I have friends who did the same as you.

But NOW they ALSO tax the holly living crap out of loose tobacco, It's about the same cost to roll your own as it is to buy packs.

[csrowan]

You are missing the point. If it gets taxed too much, people who care enough will work harder to save money.

Also, as of two years ago, when I was still smoking, it was still cheaper to make your own cigs.

Also also, if you look closer at what I wrote, there are other things I'd far rather see put in place than a bullet tax. I'm not arguing for it, I'm just arguing against some claims you have made about it.



--------------EDIT----------
Also also also, for someone who hates comparing things that are in the least bit different, how can you use what you perceive to have happened with an actual tax on tobacco with a hypothetical tax on cartridges?

[tvguy]

You are missing the point. If it gets taxed too much, people who care enough will work harder to save money.

Well you got that one right. I AM missing the point. I have no idea what people working harder or saving has to do with anything.

Also, as of two years ago, when I was still smoking, it was still cheaper to make your own cigs.

Yeah I get that, I know that but they changed all of that because they KNEW that people were rolling their own to avoid the high taxes.

And I'm TRYING to tell you they will do the same exact thing it gun owners start avoiding the bullet tax my loading their own

Also also also, for someone who hates comparing things that are in the least bit different, how can you use what you perceive to have happened with an actual tax on tobacco with a hypothetical tax on cartridges?

Its the government taxing something they want to discourage, a sin tax. I don't see any reason they would allow a loophole so people could avoid a bullet tax.

[TennisMom]

[quote='tvguy' pid='278237' dateline='1366163791']


The VAST of people harmed by discharged firearms is because of CRIMINAL activity. I'm not a fucking criminal, far from it.


The VAST number of people harmed in car accidents are because of bad drivers. I'm not a bad driver. I've never even had a ticket, yet I pay insurance because the minute I get behind the wheel, I'm driving something which can cause immense harm. Why shouldn't gun owners have to take insurance, or pay tax on bullets? Perhaps insurance would be a better way to do it. All gun owners, like car owners, should be required to take out insurance.

[tvguy]

[quote='tvguy' pid='278237' dateline='1366163791']


The VAST of people harmed by discharged firearms is because of CRIMINAL activity. I'm not a fucking criminal, far from it.


The VAST number of people harmed in car accidents are because of bad drivers. I'm not a bad driver. I've never even had a ticket, yet I pay insurance because the minute I get behind the wheel, I'm driving something which can cause immense harm. Why shouldn't gun owners have to take insurance, or pay tax on bullets? Perhaps insurance would be a better way to do it. All gun owners, like car owners, should be required to take out insurance.

Stick with one bad idea at a time.

TennisMom Why shouldn't gun owners have to take insurance, or pay tax on bullets?

I have explained why a bullet tax is not fair it eight ways from Sunday I don't know what to tell you that I haven't already said.

TVguy... Careful drivers with good records pay a LOT less than reckless drivers with bad records.

It would be the complete opposite with a bullet tax.

A bullet tax would heavily and disproportionately tax Target shooters and sportsman since they undoubtedly buy a lot more ammunition than the criminals that account for the vast majority of gun deaths.

TVguy...You basically want to place the burden or blame on the people who don't cause the problem with guns.
When any criminal could care less if he had to pay more for a box of 20 rounds.

[csrowan]

[quote='tvguy' pid='278237' dateline='1366163791']


The VAST of people harmed by discharged firearms is because of CRIMINAL activity. I'm not a fucking criminal, far from it.


The VAST number of people harmed in car accidents are because of bad drivers. I'm not a bad driver. I've never even had a ticket, yet I pay insurance because the minute I get behind the wheel, I'm driving something which can cause immense harm. Why shouldn't gun owners have to take insurance, or pay tax on bullets? Perhaps insurance would be a better way to do it. All gun owners, like car owners, should be required to take out insurance.

The difference, as TV will bring up, is that good drivers don't have to pay as much, and bad drivers still have to pay. Criminals aren't likely to register their guns and pay insurance on them.

I do like the idea of posting a bond, though. Of course, that requires money. Or maybe something where if your gun is used in a criminal activity and you haven't reported it sold (with proper background check) or stolen/missing, you are held partially liable for what was done with your gun.

[tvguy]

[quote='tvguy' pid='278237' dateline='1366163791']


The VAST of people harmed by discharged firearms is because of CRIMINAL activity. I'm not a fucking criminal, far from it.


The VAST number of people harmed in car accidents are because of bad drivers. I'm not a bad driver. I've never even had a ticket, yet I pay insurance because the minute I get behind the wheel, I'm driving something which can cause immense harm. Why shouldn't gun owners have to take insurance, or pay tax on bullets? Perhaps insurance would be a better way to do it. All gun owners, like car owners, should be required to take out insurance.

The difference, as TV will bring up, is that good drivers don't have to pay as much, and bad drivers still have to pay. Criminals aren't likely to register their guns and pay insurance on them.

I do like the idea of posting a bond, though. Of course, that requires money. Or maybe something where if your gun is used in a criminal activity and you haven't reported it sold (with proper background check) or stolen/missing, you are held partially liable for what was done with your gun.

These ideas will be and are already being construed as just and end around to the right to bear arms.
Good luck passing a bill that can take away a citizens constitutional right to defend themselves or their familys with a gun.

[TennisMom]

The difference, as TV will bring up, is that good drivers don't have to pay as much, and bad drivers still have to pay. Criminals aren't likely to register their guns and pay insurance on them.

I do like the idea of posting a bond, though. Of course, that requires money. Or maybe something where if your gun is used in a criminal activity and you haven't reported it sold (with proper background check) or stolen/missing, you are held partially liable for what was done with your gun.

My insurance rates may not be all that high but I still pay it.
As for insurance, it could work like when buying a car. You have to have insurance just to drive it out of the showroom. Why couldn't the same apply when someone purchases a gun? No insurance, no purchase.