Turn in a gun, get a tax break.

[Macgyver1968]

To me, it's just a feel good measure for them. I'm all in favor of getting assault rifles out of the hands of gangbangers, drug dealers and criminals. They are the ones that are actually going to cause harm with them. However, as a general rule, they don't file income tax, so a tax credit is worthless to them. The only people that will take advantage of this plan are legal gun owners who see an opportunity to offload a junk rifle for more than it's worth...which really does nothing to make our streets any safer.

 

[plague311]

You say their use is rare; that is fine. DeLauro is claiming an absolute by saying "other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible".

A politician using an absolute when they shouldn't? No way! "I will not raise taxes." That's something no politician has ever said.

That is up to you.

mmhmm

I'd bet your uncle understands peppering is not required just because it can happen.

I'd more bet he really doesn't care, and has no desire to dig into it. He uses the guns he uses because he's good with them.

Why is an AR under powered? I have one chambered in 458 socom. While it is not a common caliber, it is readily available to anyone who wants one, even in CA if it is put on a legal lower receiver. I can get them in 50 caliber also, but then they are rather cumbersome. An AR-15 is just fine for large game in the USA. Why don't you understand this? Or perhaps you can explain why it isn't?

I don't understand it, and I won't explain, because I don't know and couldn't care less. I was parroting what he said, and when I called him back and asked him...he laughed. He said he could use a potato gun to shoot a rabbit but that doesn't mean it makes sense to do so. Do with it what you will. As for me? You could have been speaking French and that paragraph would have made more sense. I don't care, nor do I know anything about guns. I'm a computer junkie and an IT guy. In my opinion, the day I need a gun is the day my intelligence has failed me. Personal opinion.

Yes, she sounds like a complete idiot even if her intensions are good.

It makes sense to me, but then again, as previously mention I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I think they're garbage. Maybe she didn't intend the statement to be directed at know-it-all gun people. It was aimed at those that have guns laying around their house that they inherited, or bought and never used, and don't research guns to the point that they can tell you what caliber of bullet goes in the 1946 ninja 790...or whatever gun names are.

Not sure if she is fickle. She sounds stupid or at least acts if the rest of us are.

Ranb

Totally your opinion, and you're welcomed to it. Sometimes when speaking to broad audiences you don't speak to the smartest person in the room. I would say, generally speaking, that her statement was accurate. You obviously disagree.

 

[plague311]

To me, it's just a feel good measure for them. I'm all in favor of getting assault rifles out of the hands of gangbangers, drug dealers and criminals. They are the ones that are actually going to cause harm with them. However, as a general rule, they don't file income tax, so a tax credit is worthless to them. The only people that will take advantage of this plan are legal gun owners who see an opportunity to offload a junk rifle for more than it's worth...which really does nothing to make our streets any safer.

In other states they offered gift cards for gas, food, etc. Maybe this specific one isn't doing that, but this may be a one off.

 

[Macgyver1968]

In other states they offered gift cards for gas, food, etc. Maybe this specific one isn't doing that, but this may be a one off.

But the OP is not about those other programs...it's about one that offers a tax credit. While I'm sure the author of the bill has all kinds of warm fuzzies about "making a difference", in reality it's not really going to do anything to help solve the problem. The only people that are eligible for the program are law-abiding, tax paying citizens...and they generally aren't the ones affecting public safety by owning these weapons.

Edit:

It was aimed at those that have guns laying around their house that they inherited, or bought and never used, and don't research guns to the point that they can tell you what caliber of bullet goes in the 1946 ninja 790...or whatever gun names are.

The bill is strictly for AR's. People who own AR's are generally enthusiasts (or criminals). It would be extremely rare for someone to own one who just inherited it from Uncle Stan, or bought it on a whim and never used it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's certainly not a good thing when an elected official wastes public time to spout ignorant nonsense in an attempt to waste public money to solve a virtually non-existent problem while there are more important things to do.

Like the endless efforts to repeal Obamacare?

 

[fuelair]

Because that's way easier to remember.



Good work, you actually proved her point. You aren't hunting, you're using them to shoot at ****. AR's can be used for hunting, no doubt. Any gun can be used for hunting; however, that doesn't mean there aren't better choices. Whether she's right or wrong, it can be her opinion. I'm sure she had no intention on going up against gun-know-it-all's that will contest what can and can't be done with a gun.



Well, since you're anecdotal tale is obviously the end of the conversation then it's all good. Some say that even if they over paid getting guns off the streets could have saved a life, which isn't that far from the truth. Some even say that their programs were successful by their own terms.

1 2 3

A few stories there of buy back programs that, at least those that held them, felt they were a success.

Seriously though, you guys don't have to waste your time replying to me. I don't understand, or really even care about guns. I just laugh at how pathetic it is that every time something is done with relation to getting guns off the streets there are always people that pop out to talk garbage. Like this person is forcing anyone to do anything, or even has any other intention than to just do some good.

Carry on though...

Your problem is that what she and you want to call assault weapons are not on the streets in any functional amount- but then neither are the weapons that actually are assault weapons. Handguns are the primary source of gun death on the streets or off them in the civilized parts of the world.

 

[Polaris]

Like the endless efforts to repeal Obamacare?

Exactly - neither side of the aisle has a monopoly on this crap.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Exactly - neither side of the aisle has a monopoly on this crap.

Maybe not, but there's a clear preponderance...

 

[Ranb]

A politician using an absolute when they shouldn't? No way! "I will not raise taxes." That's something no politician has ever said.

This was a chance to be rational and not group herself in with the ignorant bigots. She choose poorly.

I don't understand it, and I won't explain, because I don't know and couldn't care less. .... I don't care, nor do I know anything about guns.

You prefer an opinion supported by ignorance instead of trying to educate yourself in the least bit.

One of the things I don't like about this forum is that when is comes to certain subjects it is fashionable to use ignorance in place of skepticism or evidence. No matter what the subject matter is we owe it to ourselves to have an educated opinion.

Maybe she didn't intend the statement to be directed at know-it-all gun people. It was aimed at those that have guns laying around their house that they inherited, or bought and never used, and don't research guns to the point that they can tell you what caliber of bullet goes in the 1946 ninja 790...or whatever gun names are.

Surely she knows that some Americans know something about guns and are not as completely ignorant as she sounds.

So when she wants those guns off the streets she is speaking of guns laying around the house? That is a really big stretch. How did you get there? "Getting them off the streets" normally refers to crime guns.

In other states they offered gift cards for gas, food, etc. Maybe this specific one isn't doing that, but this may be a one off.

No maybe about it. I provided links to show that it was about a tax break and no other compensation. Ignorance is not bliss.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

.... or bought it on a whim and never used it.

I disagree with this. I suspect that many people bought so called assault weapons when a ban was threatened and eventually let them gather dust at home or sold them.

Ranb

 

[Polaris]

Maybe not, but there's a clear preponderance...

Never said it didn't, or that both sides were equally guilty. While the right has gone off the rails in their rocket train of stupid, particularly with the ACA, the left hasn't done itself any favors when it comes to guns (neither side has), GMOs or nuclear power.

 

[Macgyver1968]

I disagree with this. I suspect that many people bought so called assault weapons when a ban was threatened and eventually let them gather dust at home or sold them.

Ranb

Ok..I can agree with that. I really didn't consider those that would "purchase while you still can", and never use them.

To me this is another "BSG" issue. (Big scary gun) From what I understand AR's are used in less than 1% of gun crime....where handguns account for 80%. If you want to make a dent in crime with a "gun trade in" do it with handguns.

It's not BSG's that are problem, while they look scary, it's the LPC (little pieces of crap) that are used in most gun crimes, like this:

[imgw=300]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46946106/raven.25auto.jpg[/imgw]

The raven .25 auto...not big, not scary, not "high powered" and only costs $20-50, but kills 100s of times more people than BSG's. IMO...these are the types of guns you want people to turn in.

 

[Noztradamus]

How many times do we need to have this argument?

I also think we should insult this person that is trying to do something positive because it doesn't align with what I think is....GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY GUNS!!!!

...er...sorry.

Anyway, if they're laying under the bed, or sitting someplace where intruders, kids, or anyone else can get their hands on them, then I applaud this action. Hopefully enough people will take advantage and guns that families don't really want\need will stay out of the hands of criminals. After all, that's what this is all about, keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have them.

I'll let you all get back to insulting the person trying to do something to get surplus guns under control. Degrading her only makes sense in this case.

Laying : lying

learn the bloody difference

 

[arthwollipot]

I would support this initiative, but I would extend it to all guns. Double for handguns.

 

[plague311]

The only people that are eligible for the program are law-abiding, tax paying citizens...and they generally aren't the ones affecting public safety by owning these weapons.

Yeah, you never hear of legally purchased weapons being used for shootings, or causing problems with public safety. Er...wait. That happens ALL THE TIME.

Your problem is that what she and you want to call assault weapons are not on the streets in any functional amount- but then neither are the weapons that actually are assault weapons. Handguns are the primary source of gun death on the streets or off them in the civilized parts of the world.

No, my problem is I really don't care enough to differentiate them. This is a complaint thread about something that didn't need to be complained about. It's just...you know, one of those things for gun owners to be like "LoLz, stupid politicians are stupid! Yay guns!" At least that's how I view, and as such, that's how I'm treating it.

You prefer an opinion supported by ignorance instead of trying to educate yourself in the least bit.

Because I have no interest in it. I couldn't care less about guns. I just think it's ironic that, whether feel good or not, someone is trying to do something in regards to a major problem(Maybe not specifically AR, but guns in general and you have to start somewhere), and people are degrading her cause she's not saying smart enough things about guns. Like outside of gun nuts anyone really gives a ****.

One of the things I don't like about this forum is that when is comes to certain subjects it is fashionable to use ignorance in place of skepticism or evidence. No matter what the subject matter is we owe it to ourselves to have an educated opinion.

Uh, yeah. Well, I guess I'm going to rip myself off then because I'm not going to waste my time and effort educating myself about something that I have no interest in. It's weird too, I picked my major in school in a field I like, not just a field I felt I owed it to myself to be educated in. Strange, that.

So when she wants those guns off the streets she is speaking of guns laying around the house? That is a really big stretch. How did you get there? "Getting them off the streets" normally refers to crime guns.

I have no clue what she's speaking of, I offered an explanation. If you don't like it, disregard it. I know, it may be tough to ignore someone that might be wrong about "the preciouses" but it does happen from time to time.

No maybe about it. I provided links to show that it was about a tax break and no other compensation. Ignorance is not bliss.

Yes, yes. I wholeheartedly apologize to you and Macgyvernumbers. I meant that I know in other states they do them for gift cards, food, etc. Which is something that might help people more than this. It's possible that this one is a one off where she feels tax breaks might support people in her state. I wasn't denying that this one was giving tax breaks. I was just saying that sometimes they don't. It will never happen again, I'm sorry.

 

[plague311]

How many times do we need to have this argument?




Laying : lying

learn the bloody difference

Lay:

verb (used with object), laid, laying.
1.
to put or place in a horizontal position or position of rest; set down:
to lay a book on a desk.
2.
to knock or beat down, as from an erect position; strike or throw to the ground:
One punch laid him low.
3.
to put or place in a particular position:
The dog laid its ears back.
4.
to cause to be in a particular state or condition:
Their motives were laid bare.
5.
to set, place, or apply (often followed by to or on):
to lay hands on a child.
6.
to dispose or place in proper position or in an orderly fashion:
to lay bricks.
7.
to place on, along, or under a surface:
to lay a pipeline.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Yeah, you never hear of legally purchased weapons being used for shootings, or causing problems with public safety. Er...wait. That happens ALL THE TIME.

I certainly didn't say that...please don't put words in my mouth. I said that GENERALLY law abiding, tax paying citizens, the ones that are qualified for this program, are not responsible for most gun crime. I didn't say it never happens...sure it does.

My problem with this program is that it targets the wrong guns and the wrong people. If you want a more effective gun trade in program...offer cash for any gun...no questions asked.

 

[Noztradamus]

Lay:

verb (used with object), laid, laying.
1.
to put or place in a horizontal position or position of rest; set down:
to lay a book on a desk.
2.
to knock or beat down, as from an erect position; strike or throw to the ground:
One punch laid him low.
3.
to put or place in a particular position:
The dog laid its ears back.
4.
to cause to be in a particular state or condition:
Their motives were laid bare.
5.
to set, place, or apply (often followed by to or on):
to lay hands on a child.
6.
to dispose or place in proper position or in an orderly fashion:
to lay bricks.
7.
to place on, along, or under a surface:
to lay a pipeline.

VG your're almost there. Now which noun did your verb apply to?.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

♫Lay, lady, lay,
On my big brass bed. ♫

 

[plague311]

I certainly didn't say that...please don't put words in my mouth. I said that GENERALLY law abiding, tax paying citizens, the ones that are qualified for this program, are not responsible for most gun crime. I didn't say it never happens...sure it does.

I don't have any statistics on law-abiding, tax paying citizens or what their contribution to the gun crime is, honestly. I know that a good percentage of mass shootings are done with legally purchased guns; however, when I say that I get reminded (ironically) that mass shootings make up such a minuscule amount of the total gun deaths a year that they aren't important.

My problem with this program is that it targets the wrong guns and the wrong people. If you want a more effective gun trade in program...offer cash for any gun...no questions asked.

I can only imagine that a program like that would have a lot of opportunity for fraud, and misuse. Though it would target the right people (those who want cash and have guns), as stated on here by so many of you. What's the point in doing that? You'll just...go buy another one with the money you get. I can only assume criminals would think just like you guys. Turn in useless guns, or ones they don't use to get cash to go buy better guns!