Sure. But all that won't generate a % of increase unless the base number is known - How many guns in Wyoming, 1992? And, at the bottom of the NICS month/year/state PDF, it says: These statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS. They do not represent the number of firearms sold. Based on varying state laws and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...usg=AOvVaw1bElKfa7U5YLIGLiWlqQ8s&opi=89978449
Don't know but I know there are lots more guns in private hands NOW than when I first started buying guns in the late seventies. I also know that the number of handguns has gone WAY up as have AR styled rifles. two reasons for the latter-the first was the Stoner Patent that was owned by Colt, meaning there really was only one maker of AR rifles. Now there are dozens of really good ones. Smith and wesson, Daniels Defense. SIG, Rock river Arms, DPMS, FN, Windham Weaponry, Bushmaster, "Armalite" Wilson, JP, among others. the number of AR style rifles has increased dramatically since the Colt patent evaporated.
Too bad. My posts are about trying to find a back door way to reduce gun ownership and use whilst trying to protect the second amendment that Americans hold so dear. Don’t assume everybody who posts on here is an American.
LOL I call BS on that. You cannot reduce legal gun ownership while protecting the second amendment. And those who aren't American have absolutely no relevance to our rights
Never said I had relevance did I? I am making a very helpful suggestion that might go a little bit of the way to reduce school spree shootings. If some kind of weapon can fire 500 bullets per minute then the killer would have to find 25,000$ to spree for a minute. I will ask once again because I am not aware of the purchase tax rules in America, but are guns and other weapons sold completely free of tax?
You really need to pay attention. A tax laid on the exercise of a right, with the objective to restrict the exercise of that right, infringes upon same. The 2nd Amendment prohibits such a tax.
Sure. The claim, however, was a specific ratio: +10% guns = +35% mass shootings. As the +10% cannot be demonstrated, the claim is worthless.
helpful suggestion of 100 dollars a bullet what do you think that would do 1) wipe out all recreational shooting 2) wipe out hunting and target shooting 3) create a massive black market for ammo that would easily be filled with foreign imports and domestic production on the down low Completely idiotic suggestion as well as being unconstitutional
At last. Weapons are subject to taxes. Isn't that an 'infringement' on the right to bear arms? Or are you simply concerned about the level of tax? Incidentally are all goods sold subject to the same percentage of tax whatever the goods are?
in reality my point is one that the NRA, SAF, and GOA have made if gun banners were correct-our rate of gun violence would have skyrocketed compared to the sixties and seventies it has not it has actually decreased
A tax laid on the exercise of a right, with the objective to restrict the exercise of that right, infringes upon same. The 2nd Amendment prohibits such a tax.
Not at all. The tax take could revolutionise American mental health services by making them free to all, because we are often told it is mentally ill people who go on spree killings. It appears that the taxation of goods happens everywhere in America so my suggestion is not unconstitutional,
firearms are already subject to state sales taxes and a federal excise tax that is used to support wildlife conservation. What you want is to essentially ban ammo sales in a country where your views have no relevance to our rights
well you are wrong. why do you dislike our ability to keep and bear arms 1) is it because your nanny state government doesn't trust you with the same rights 2) or do you despise America
I don't despise America, it is a big country. What nanny state are you referring to? Ireland? I hold an Irish passport, and I am well aware of historic colonial oppression, but to paint the American revolution as some kind of noble cause whilst not mentioning actual facts that point to the 'founding fathers' being worried about maintaining their wealth is rather hypocritical. As for your ability to keep arms, I have not said you shouldn't, but have suggested people pay the price for such privilege, like schoolchildren massacred pay the price with their lives.
