This has to work!
Posted by Vast_Meal_5990@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 136 comments
City of Sacramento is looking to slow down the gun violence in the city. Instead of something that makes sense, let’s charge responsible gun owners a ridiculous fee so that we can teach gun safety to people who don’t own or want guns!
Let’s be honest, that money will be used for other things and will just be the beginning!
You can’t stop evil and you can’t fix stupid!
UngovernableMisfit19@reddit
Today I was just looking at how much the government has taxed from my paychecks this year… they get enough of my damn money
Zerskader@reddit
Single and no dependants is miserable. And you pray you don't owe anything after filing taxes because apparently taking damn near a third of your paycheck isn't enough already.
Radiolotek@reddit
The fact that you get penalized for not having crotch goblins is absolutely disgusting. I know someone with 4 kids, that they shouldn't have, and they get an absolute crap ton of money every year from taxes.
libertyordeath99@reddit
They’re not doing their taxes right then. Ideally, you want your refunds as close to 0 as possible. Why would you want to give the government an interest free loan?
theoriginaldandan@reddit
That’s your opinion.
For most people that’s the only way they’ll ever be able to “save” enough money for a large purchase
libertyordeath99@reddit
It’s not an opinion. You come out further ahead the closer to zero your return is. People who “save” that way have a poor mindset and will always be poor. I grew up poor. Christmas was never in December, it was always when the tax return hit and as soon as it had, it was gone. If people were able to keep more of their money in the first place, they wouldn’t be so broke.
theoriginaldandan@reddit
Mathematically you’re correct.
But you’re ignoring human behavior expecting rationality from chaotic creature
dangered@reddit
Claim properly to have it as close to 0 as possible, take that same percent and add it to a Roth IRA directly from your paycheck.
The money never hits your bank (allowing spenders to save), is already taxed, gains interest, and the principal can be taken out without penalty.
Compound interest is insane, if you get a $1200 tax return each year the interest alone would add up to over $26k after 40 years (assuming 8% annual interest). Using the IRS instead of an investment vehicle is literally choosing to give the IRS your retirement funds.
rhusta_bymes@reddit
No that's not what they are talking about, they likely are filing their taxes correctly. The money they are referring to are credits that the government gives parents simply to assist with the expenses of childcare. The CTC child tax credit gives parents $2k per child per year, that is completely independent of how you file your taxes, it's just a given. Then if you file your taxes correctly you qualify for the ACTC additional child tax credit which is an additional $1.4k/child/year. Then if your income is bellow a certain threshold you also qualify for the EITC earned income tax credit worth $6660 for families with 3 or more kids. So if you file your taxes correctly and you are a medium income family with 3 kids you get close to $17k in refunds that is separate from your income tax refund. During the pandemic the CTC was expanded from $2k/kid to $3.6k/kid and I think the EITC was expanded as well, although I don't recall by how much. But in 2021 that same hypothetical family probably saw well over $20k in tax credits.
Successful_Error9176@reddit
To come out positive in this situation, they would need to make below poverty and not get other government assistance. Tax credits reduce the taxes you paid, the child tax credit is only partially refundable, and that refund would be removed if they were on un employment or food stamps. So if they get it back, they paid more than 20k in income tax, they had their deduction way off, and they were refunded the full amount, basically giving the government a tax-free loan.
BirchBlack@reddit
"crotch goblins" hahaha. Get a grip
Melkor7410@reddit
Think of it more as, you are rewarded for having crotch goblins. They don't increase your taxes for not having them, they decrease your taxes for having them. And the reason is, society ceases to exist without them, and basically all social programs would be unmaintainable. Society benefits from having children.
Lampwick@reddit
Eh. When it comes to taxes, the assumption is that the tax rates are set to cover government expenses. If one person is getting a tax exemption, the people not getting that exemption are necessarily paying more in taxes than if everyone paid the same rate. The way it's presented in the tax code is just semantics. Like when the government has you pay a tax into Social Security and then has your employer pay the same amount as well, they present it as each of you "paying half", when the reality is that businesses have a budget for employee payroll, and all that stuff gets rolled together as the cost of employing you. Sure, you could argue that if they didn't have to pay that SS payment they'd just keep it, rather than add it to your salary, but the fact is that the government is taking that money so neither of you get it, so neither of you can negotiate over who gets it, rendering the point moot.
Tax policy is 50% accounting, 50% psychology of convincing people to just pay it and take up pitchforks and burn down the legislature.
Melkor7410@reddit
I think we've moved well beyond the assumption that taxes only cover expenses for a net zero, at least on the federal level. States generally have to run their taxes like that. As far as social security goes, it's absolutely half and half, otherwise self-employed people wouldn't be paying both sides of it. I'm not sure what businesses categorizing that as an expense has to do with it. It is an employer tax.
But the point still stands, taxes are what they are, and people with kids pay less, the government subsidizes it, because kids theoretically end up as a net positive for the government long term (more future taxes). So the government is reducing someone's taxes because they're providing the government with a new person to pay future taxes.
Lampwick@reddit
OK, let me simplify. When it comes time for the feds to collect that SS money, it comes as a single check from the employer. The fact that the employer gets to pretend that it's being "paid" to you and count it as part of your hourly wage is just part of the whole song and dance. Employers don't look at your hourly wage or yearly salary when they consider the cost of an employee. They add up everything they have to spend, i.e. salary + SSA + insurance + whatever. If you ask for a dollar an hour more, they're going to evaluate the cost of that dollar in the context of a dollar plus however much more they're going to have to spend. If they decide they can't give you a dollar because while the budget could support that dollar, but can't support the 8 additional cents for "their half" of SSA so they come back and offer you 92 cents, then you very much are paying "their half" of the SSA tax.
ComicallyLargeAfrica@reddit
"Crotch goblins" Yeah nothing you say has any value and you should be fertilizer.
italianpirate76@reddit
Furry. 🤮
ComicallyLargeAfrica@reddit
Get a job.
street_style_kyle@reddit
Get a hobby that’s not an abomination.
ComicallyLargeAfrica@reddit
Lmao
Astronaut-Proof@reddit
Government incentivizes you having more children because they become another person they can tax eventually. Also, the incredibly high amount of boomers drawing medicare and ss benefits need a young workforce to support them all.
More people = more tax revenue.
snippysniper@reddit
I made a little over a grand last year from the federal government cuz of my little ones
CaptainSmegman@reddit
It's supposed to be around 2k-3k per...
snippysniper@reddit
I got everything I paid into federal back plus 1000. So the government paid me 1000 to have children
CaptainSmegman@reddit
It's in their benefit... that's their future taxpayer? Hopefully..
ComfortableDemand539@reddit
I'm assuming they meant they got $1,000 back instead of having to owe. They may have gotten a 2 to $3,000 credit but it only offset so much.
gremlin50cal@reddit
I haven’t figured out why but in my experience the universe like to award financial windfalls to people who will use it irresponsibly and never to people that have it all together. I once worked with a single mom with 4 kids and she got a $10K tax refund and immediately spent all of it on dumb shit like getting her hair done.
I knew another woman who got in an accident as a child that resulted in her getting a head injury and being mentally handicapped the rest of her life, her parents sued the owner of the establishment and won $100K in 4 installments over about a decade. For some reason the mentally handicapped woman had full control over how the money was spent and it wasn’t put in a conservatorship or anything. Every time she got one of those $25K checks she immediately quit her job and started going on lavish vacations with several fair weather friends and going out clubbing multiple times a week and generally acted like she was a multi-millionaire and would never run out of money. She would always be surprised when all the money was gone in a month or two but she never learned from her mistakes and now all the money is gone and she’s still mentally handicapped and struggles to find a well paying job or pay her bills.
Conversely I know several other people that are very responsible with money and have actual plans for how they would spend a huge windfall if they got one, like starting a business or investing it in mutual funds or getting into real estate or whatever but those people never get a windfall.
Batsonworkshop@reddit
You cease to have a society if no one reproduces. Households with children also tend to contribute more to cashflow within the local economy more than single resident or childless households due to increased consumer spending.
I still don't support income or taxes on exchange of money outside the use for the exchange of goods and services (i.e. inheritance taxes, or taxing the gifting of large sums of money)
NPC_no_name_@reddit
taxation is theft.. Hell its why I dont play the lottery the state gets enough of my money
UngovernableMisfit19@reddit
Even more than theft, it’s straight up extortion
DCGuinn@reddit
So which amendment is the car one?
NPC_no_name_@reddit
A right does not require fees permits once it does its no longer a right
Repeal the nfa
bpg2001bpg@reddit
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for the poor. Fuck the poor.
-not the US Constitution
RojerLockless@reddit
Next up a 25 dollar. fee every time you tweet. Or post on social media.
And a thousand dollars fee to vote.
SnooConfections1200@reddit
Cars are not a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!
AKC74Y@reddit
They are, or at least they should be.
Devils_Advocate-69@reddit
Driving is a privilege, not a right
AKC74Y@reddit
Driving is and should be a right. You cannot pretend have any sort of “liberty” if you cannot engage freely in commerce and cannot move freely between public and private places, and driving is at the crux of both of those.
Silence_of_Ruin@reddit
Owning a car is a privilege, owning a firearm is a right.
AKC74Y@reddit
Car ownership should be a right, as much as gun ownership.
SouthernYankee421@reddit
Guns are a civil right. Cars are a luxury.
AKC74Y@reddit
Cars should be a constitutional right as well. Freedom of movement/transportation is certainly a right, and cars are the default mode of transportation for Americans, ergo Americans should have the right to own cars unless they violate laws severely enough to lose that right for the good of the community.
We are way too casual about what constitutional rights are. Our natural rights are not limited to the ones written in the Constitution. The bill of rights is literally just a sample of our natural rights, not an all-inclusive list.
KrowleyLives@reddit
*"constitutional right"
not trying to be pedantic but Civil rights refer to the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment under the law and to be free from discrimination based on characteristics such as race, gender, religion, or disability.
and
Constitutional rights are rights granted and protected by a constitution, often the national constitution (e.g., the U.S. Constitution).
SouthernYankee421@reddit
I'm OK with the correction. Thanks. Appreciate it.
GrimIntention91@reddit
They used to teach gun safety in schools?
Novel-Chicken-9700@reddit
They did??
ohpizzawow@reddit
Yeah man. It used to on par with metal shop or wood shop Schools would have shooting teams
KrowleyLives@reddit
it stopped in the mid 70s i remember it, even in california where i grew up.
Ramius117@reddit
It was briefly covered in health class in MA in the late 90's or early 00's. We watched some Hallmark movie about a kid that shot his brother fooling around with a revolver and then went over the rules of gun safety. I'm not sure if you meant there was an actual firearm handling component though
theoriginaldandan@reddit
Yep. My dad shot skeet and something sorta similar to an NRL 22 match once a year in high and middle school with his vice principal as a gun safety credit.
GrimIntention91@reddit
Seeing guns in vehicles on school property was also a regular thing as well. Kids would go hunting after school.
hikehikebaby@reddit
This isn't insurance, just a tax.
But while we are on the subject - most people already have gun insurance in some form, check your home owners or renter's insurance. Mine covers firearms up to a certain value and you can add riders, just like with any other valuable property.
Citation750X@reddit
Or a deterrent to keep poor people from owning guns and throwing them jail for not paying their fees.
noobprodigy@reddit
They don't mean insurance for loss or damage. They mean liability insurance.
hikehikebaby@reddit
It's not liability insurance though. It's literally just a tax.
noobprodigy@reddit
I understand that. What I'm saying is that people who advocate for insurance on firearms mean liability insurance so someone has to pay up if the gun is used on someone unlawfully. That's not what this is at all, but that's what people mean when they talk about insuring guns like cars.
hikehikebaby@reddit
It's a ridiculous premise - we already have that too. If you injure someone they can sue you. It doesn't matter how they became injured or what kind of weapon was involved. Plenty of people do have CCW insurance that covers civil suits.
Car insurance also isn't legally mandated everywhere, and where it is mandated it still may not cover your full liability.
noobprodigy@reddit
I think the end game is to make it so that if someone is deemed uninsurable then it will make it so they can't own a firearm. It's also a tactic to get insurance companies involved as the enforcement of proper storage, etc. I would imagine.
hikehikebaby@reddit
Obviously - but again, this isn't even insurance, it's a random tax.
noobprodigy@reddit
I agree.
grawrant@reddit
My homeowner's insurance doesn't cover firearms, I have to have a separate valuable property insurance for firearms, jewelry Nd photography equipment.
drwuzer@reddit
1 - This would require a registry of gun owners, and share it with Insurance companies. - the Constitution says they can't do that.
2 - Car ownership and driving are not Constitutionally protected rights. Gun ownership IS.
Any politician who is suggesting and trying to institute this measure, is committing treason against the CITIZENS of the United States and needs to be charged, tried, and hung.
santar0s80@reddit
Yeah those criminals are going to line up to pay insurance on their guns, they probably don't don't have car insurance either.
dusky_hunter@reddit
No no no no no. The insurance industry is a parasite, a dishonest slime sucking parasite. Find another way to fuck things up please
FPSXpert@reddit
Every fucking time. They always compare it to cars because that's all they can think of, while completely ignoring that car insurance and registration are for public property and public liability prevention, not for public and private. Meanwhile they seem damn hell bent on regulating what's in your own home or private property, even if it is fired only on private property of private owned ranges for the lifetime of the firearm.
Fuck it, let's go a step further Sacramento and make a $25-per-anglo monthly fee with the money going toward reparation funds.
I hope the FPC shafts the piss out of them in court. Of course the councilpeople don't care about that, it's more fun to do stuff like this when it's other people's money and not your own.
Larouse12@reddit
Driving a car is a privilege, bearing arms is a right. Hell, gun owners pay taxes that fund the national parks now.
stugotsDang@reddit
Driving is a privilege. 2A is a right. There is a huge difference. Someone should explain that to her.
Kevthebassman@reddit
I think we would have fewer idiots like this on government if it cost $2500 to vote.
Sad_panda_happy300@reddit
driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right. Shall not be infringed. The end.
The_TexaSOT@reddit
And you should have to pay it immediately after the background check. That way all the good citizens will get screwed, and all the criminals will keep doing exactly what they've been doing since the beginning of ever! It's Perfect!
jrod1814@reddit
CA becomes more ludacris by the day
Sliced_Orange1@reddit
So you mean they've passed light crazy and went straight to ludicrous crazy?? They've gone plaid!
RuntM3@reddit
They always say driving is not a right and a privilege well guess what owning a gun is a right! So now you want to compare apples to oranges.
No-Philosopher-4793@reddit
The money would go to antigun groups, just like the 11% excise tax, whose only idea of gun safety is banning them.
But really, it’s just another step to circumvent the 2A and make firearm ownership more difficult.
theoriginaldandan@reddit
The 11% Pitman Robinson tax goes to wildlife conservation. A noble goal and as worthy of a cause as you’ll find with a tax
No-Philosopher-4793@reddit
I know that but no good deed goes unpunished. CA is using that tax as the legal justification of theirs. If you don’t live in CA, you might not know that they enacted another 11% tax on firearms and ammunition. Even worse, the 11% is calculated on the price including the sales tax.
theoriginaldandan@reddit
Yeah, when I saw 11% I just assumed it was the pitman-Robinson tax that’s federally gathered and state distributed.
I had no idea Cali had it’s own tax on top of that, not terribly surprised but when I saw the same number I made an assumption.
FellsApprentice@reddit
The 11% excise tax is very specifically allocated for wildlife conservation and public ranges though. Like that money doesn't even hit the treasury it goes straight to the department of the interior and is divvied up accordingly.
That bill is designed from every aspect to promote things that gun owners use. And it's not just on gun owners, archery equipment, fishing equipment, and outdoor camping equipment, among others have that same tax because of that same bill because the point of that bill was to ensure that the people using the outdoor spaces were helping to pay for the upkeep and protection of the outdoor spaces.
No-Philosopher-4793@reddit
This is the precedent CA used to justify another 11% tax on firearms and ammunition. Though the money in this case is being used to further antigun propaganda.
distortion76@reddit
Yeah, as much as I'd like to not pay that tax, at least it goes towards nice things for everyone to use. I'm super on board with having nice outdoor recreation areas for us all.
No-Philosopher-4793@reddit
The problem is, once you accept a special tax like that, it sets the precedent for unscrupulous, corrupt agenda driven politicians down the road to inflict more taxes for less positive programs. Like CA is doing now by taxing us to fund political groups whose sole purpose is to end civilian firearm ownership.
Lampwick@reddit
Are you confusing the 10% federal excise tax on firearms with the new CA 11% tax? California doesn't have a Dept of the Interior.
FellsApprentice@reddit
The federal excise tax, the robertson-pitman act, is 11%. But that is what I was referring to.
real_witty_username@reddit
Are you referring to the new CA excise tax? If so, that's not what I've read about it.
Effective July 1, 2024
Imposes an excise tax in the amount of 11% of the gross receipts from the retail sale of firearms,
firearm precursor parts, and ammunition.
Establishes the Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Fund within the State Treasury. Funds
collected pursuant to the new excise tax will be deposited into this fund and allocated to specified gun
violence prevention, mental health, law enforcement, and victim service programs
FellsApprentice@reddit
Ah, okay. Different 11% tax. I'm referring to the federal Robertson-pittman Act.
real_witty_username@reddit
Gotcha. My mind was solely focused on the stupidity of CA and all their infringements.
Lord_Larper@reddit
That’s it. Next time I’m SF I’m shitting on the street
MarryYouInMinecraft@reddit
Shit on street: Believe it or not, no jail!
Sliced_Orange1@reddit
What if it was an emergency and I really had to go
SeattleHasDied@reddit
Ms. Kaplan, go fuck yourself. I have homeowner's insurance. I learned after dealing with an armed home invasion, that the fucking criminals could very well sue me in a civil suit and that my homeowner's insurance includes coverage for that possibility. The fact that criminals could potentially profit from their criminal activities from their "victim" just pisses me off to no end! So, again I say, Ms. Kaplan, go fuck yourself.
Consistent-Site3667@reddit
“Shall be infringed if it makes idiots less scared of law abiding citizens.”
TraumaticSarcasm@reddit
Anyone got the rest of this article somewhere?
Zerskader@reddit
I always like how when people have these ideas on things to exercise some random fee or tax, they are ambiguous with where the money will go and how it will help.
Undivided_Stingray@reddit
Because it doesn’t sound as good when they say it’s going to be given to groups that just so happen to be big donors to their campaign.
SniffYoSocks907@reddit
It honestly make you believe they really don’t care about reducing any amount of harm and just want wealth extracted from the public.
Societal issue = stealing more money from people.
Vast_Meal_5990@reddit (OP)
Exactly, because if throwing money at gun violence was the solution, that should have happened years ago!
atmosphericfractals@reddit
what's next, insurance on my chainsaw? insurance on my nailgun? insurance on my table saw? insurance on my routers? insurance on my dirt bikes? insurance on my electrical panel, because we all know how deadly 200A can be.
insurance on my reciprocating saws? insurance on my grinders? insurance on my welders? insurance on my oxy fuel torches? insurance on my kitchen knives?
insurance on my tractors? insurance on my mowers?
Those are all deadly devices as well.
Oh wait, this clown wanted to bring up insurance and then say "PER GUN FEE".. fuck you bro
BeenisHat@reddit
I 100% approve of this. If I pay the fees and I get the insurance, this will surely help gun violence.
and since I'm showing I can be responsible by paying more money, this means I can have whatever I want, right? Because I would absolutely pay $25 and the insurance premium for a clone-correct Vietnam-era M60.
307wyohockey@reddit
Oh, because criminals will totally fork over $25 per gun and not just the law abiding citizens. Yeah, right.
DFPFilms1@reddit
Hey look, a poll tax!
DarthMonkey212313@reddit
It's a tax directly applied to exercising a constitutional right(keeping arms). No different than a poll tax. Before anyone says we pay taxes on new gun and ammo purchases. Federal excise taxes are only paid once and thus you could sit on inherited guns and ammo and never pay it. Federal excise taxes are also explicitly allowed in the constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, but state and local taxes have no such authorization.
Valac_@reddit
I'm having a hard time arguing with this.
I mean she's not entirely wrong.
But also fuck taxes
12B88M@reddit
If you have to insure it, the city would be able to find out who got insurance and for what guns. That's a nice little backdoor gun registration scheme they have planned.
Oh, and we all KNOW the criminals will get gun insurance, right? RIGHT?
Marino4K@reddit
Right there with their completely legally obtained full auto Glock
fingernuggets@reddit
Idk. Probably not the right move. Ever drove with someone who doesn’t give a shit? Ever heard the phrase ‘hit me then, I have insurance, I don’t care’. That’s the last thing we should want to hear. Does ‘insurance’ cover lost or stolen guns? Meaning less careful people don’t have to care if their firearms are lost stolen or damaged? Meaning more stolen and trafficked firearms out on the street because they’re insured so who cares? That sounds like a solid L policy.
HeadlineINeed@reddit
I feel like there was a program back in the day that taught safety? I think it was in schools?
Maybe going to and educating places with high gun crime and being stricter with gun crimes that might help.v
MarryYouInMinecraft@reddit
The last thing the government needs is more money to spend on dumb shit.
justrobdoinstuff@reddit
They can poll tax this nine inch mesquite log.
juggarjew@reddit
Every second of every day people say things with their mouth that result in all kinds of awful shit, including death. So should we also be requiring people to carry vocal cord insurance? Just stupid.
SouthernYankee421@reddit
OK, so if I agree to get firearms insurance, then it is logical I can take ANY firearm on the policy into any place I can legally access with my car. Correct? OR, are these creeps just trying to make gun ownership more expensive and unattractive.
xtreampb@reddit
Ah yes just like all the law abiding citizens have car insurance and if you don’t, it makes you a criminal. This’ll work just as good as all the people driving around without insurance to the point there are options to by extra insurance to protect against drivers who don’t have insurance. Are they going to start offering insurance as an option to everyone to protect from people without gun insurance? Like a life insurance policy that only covers gunshots? Or medical insurance the same way?
htownchuck@reddit
This would require them to know what you have and wellllll that ain't happening.
518nomad@reddit
If it’s an insurance product and not a tax, then where can I read the policy? What’s my deductible? What coverage is offered to me in exchange for my premiums? Oh wait, it’s not actually comparable to motor vehicle insurance at all, they just want another tax on our right to self defense. Yeah… they can fuck off with that.
ShaggyRebel117@reddit
"Bu.. but gun owners are already buying gun insurance! You've seen USCCA, right? We're just making it mandatory and regulating it, for your safety!" Tax this dick.
CAD007@reddit
Poll Tax
Rip1072@reddit
FU*K YOU! NO!
ilikerelish@reddit
Was going to ask how this could be accomplished.. Like Illinois in the 20s when they had tax inspectors go door to door to look at what you have in your house.. then realize CA.. so yah probably.. or registration.
Brufar_308@reddit
They don’t lock up the violent criminals now, what’s another $25.00 going to do for them.
real_witty_username@reddit
They're not trying to lock up the violent criminals. They're trying to disarm a population and they know, like they've always known, that the 'death by a thousand paper cuts" tactic is the most strategically sound method of achieving their goal.
FOUNTAINJL@reddit
Y'all are scared of the guns, not us. You pay that shit.
Mobile_Speaker7894@reddit
Taxation is theft. Is the only answer....
real_witty_username@reddit
Believing that their stated goals and their actual goals are actually the same is the first mistake. Sadly, they could come right out and actually put forth their real goals and plenty of NPCs would simply cheer along.
EnglandRemoval@reddit
The only thing this would do is attack the lower and middle class. A rich person may not even notice the extra charges.
crooks4hire@reddit
We are a long long way from the beginning, friend…
Ineeboopiks@reddit
Poll Taxes are back bois
c_clanton@reddit
If Sacramento is willing to let gun owners carry where they please, sure
jfm111162@reddit
I can tell you exactly where the money will go, to anti gun groups that are trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment or at least severely limit it
Crash_override87@reddit
Wait. Kind of like what the NRA does? And kinda of like how hunters and gun people lobbied for a tax on them selves and got it passed called the Pittman-Robertson act? Hunter safety courses are free most of the time and they go over gun safety and various other things. The NRA offers free gun safety courses as well. Hell if anyone wants to learn gun safety I’m sure they can go to literally any gun range and ask about how to handle a firearm safely and they would learn the basics. The programs exist, can’t make people take them. As for reducing gun violence I honestly believe that if you teach someone gun safety and show them how to handle a firearm and how to start getting good at it most gun violence would solve itself. Accidental deaths would become almost non existent. Still would have drunken hunting accidents but, the dude who rips a round through his house because he didn’t clear the chamber would go almost to zero. Some people in policies think money will solve everything. To be honest the gun community is so accepting of new people and overall just full of good people who are willing and wanting to teach people everything they know. I got into shooting when I was 18 because I was raised by gun fearing people and that’s when I got my first rifle. I was nervous as hell my first range day and all the old dudes at the range taught me everything. Let me shoot all their cool stuff as well and I would meet there every Saturday to hang out. It was awesome. I love that now I’m the middle aged dude at the range doing the same with younger people, I feel like I’m continuing a legacy. When I let a teenager and their parents rip rounds out of my m1 or something else they never got to shoot it’s cooler to me than actually shooting this stuff myself at this point. Money can’t buy that culture. The politicians don’t need money to fix the issues mentioned in the article. Just encourage people to head to their local gun range and hang out. They will get all the education and practice probably for free because old dudes in this hobby have been doing that forever and the next generation gladly grabs the torch to do the same.
SplashingChicken@reddit
They can insure dez nuts
SnakeDoctor00@reddit
How about just holding people who use guns in crimes accountable. If a 15 year old kid is found using a gun in a crime, let him be the adult he things he is in a court of law.
PepperJack386@reddit
The first step to confiscation is registration, which would be necessary for this to work.
MuelaLover@reddit
It’s in California which already requires registration of guns
LtCmdrInu@reddit
They mean the money would go to the politicians. F all of that and them.
SniffYoSocks907@reddit
Council member should have to pay a $25,000,000,000 fee to open her fucking trap to reduce so called “”hate speech””. See how that works?
Automata1nM0tion@reddit
Why are they calling it insurance? This proposal send to have nothing to do with insurance, it's more like a registration fee than it is insurance. Insurance would imply you are recording coverage for something and that the pool of money from the insured is there to pay out something upon a claim rather than be used at the whim of the state for xyz program
ILikestoshare@reddit
Well by that logic there should be no background checks, no 10 day wait and no restrictions on what I can buy.