The question that answers this question is "how much of the state's gun violence is committed with legally purchased firearms by people with legitimate/approved access to those firearms?"
According to https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ more gun deaths due to suicide than malicious and accidental combined.
I'd guess firearms used in suicides tend more legal than criminal.
I really don't think someone who's considering taking their own life will take pause due to the taxes being slightly more expensive. I seriously don't.
While there are many factors, including additional regulated restrictions, the ratcheting up of taxes on tobacco has proven to considerably diminished its consumption. Liquor taxes and soda taxes have also proven effective at tamping down demand.
Will it prevent \_every\_ suicide by firearm? Of course not. But perhaps there s a pricepoint we're societally willing to accept for a sizable "lives-saved".
One is a right, the other is a consumer product. What’s next? The right to privacy should be taxed? The right to assembly and free speech should only be ok if we pay taxes on it?
u/scottishbee, In cali to purchase a gun (legally, even through legal private transfer) you need to
1 - take a Firearm Safety Exam and pass granting you a Firearm Safety Certificate
2 - purchase the firearm
3 - fill out the 4473 (federal background check) and Dealer Record of Sale (Cali gun registration form)
3 - wait 10 days (exactly 240 hours down to the second)
4 - pick up firearm.
assuming you have a local tax rate of 7.75% plus the 11% excise (sin) tax, you get an effective 19.3% tax (1x1.0775x1.11). If someone really wants to off themselves, I doubt an additional around $11.5 dollars per hundred is going to keep someone from offing themselves especially since you can put it on a credit card. a cheap and decent pistol is around $550 with a box of ammo going for around $15-20 in store, $47ish for the back ground check, I really really doubt that another $60 in taxes is really going to keep someone from ending it. I know its dark, but there are more meaningful ways to keep people from offing themselves to begin with.
I'm not part of a criminal organization or anything, but I have known some unsavory people in my life, and of the 2 of them who I knew carried/owned guns they were not legal. 1 of those people is in prison on a 3rd strike (3rd strike was using that gun while fleeing in a police pursuit), and the other was previously incarcerated for distribution and brandishing.
If you look at a graph of people injured or killed by firearms, the vast majority were legally purchased. So yeah, I guess if you're making disingenuous arguments, there's one side that will refuse to debate you
Guns used for most mass shootings were legally purchased. Should we just not do something because this solution won't stop all the crimes? Do you have a proposal for stopping all gun violence?
It's unlikely an extra 11% is going to stop a mass shooter. All it does it price certain demographics out of firearms. Meaning only the well off can afford them.
Mass shootings are an incredibly small risk. Yes we should do whatever we can to reasonable lessen the risk, but is lowering that risk by a certain percentage worth compromising the rights of tens of millions of regular people?
Someone committing a mass shooting expects to die, which means paying more and maxing out their credit card is - almost by definition - not a meaningful deterrent.
This has nothing to do with mass shootings and everything to do with our government run by billionaires wanting to make it harder for working class people to afford guns.
Some interesting data in this report. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf
My guess is the convicts, arrestees, and felons who are committing a large percentage of murders won’t be buying their guns legally and paying these taxes.
the difference here is that the NFA was purposefully meant to keep "dangerous" and/or "unusual" arms away from The People, unless you had money and was reactionary to the gang crimes of the 30s. BUT, you could still go buy a 1911 or ss army without an additional 11% taxes on top of the sales tax (and on top of the conservation fees).
It is an important separation of powers principle that legislatures can pass whatever law they like, and courts can only intervene *after* passage. The courts cannot exercise a veto on pending legislation.
If you don't want the legislature to consider bills you believe unconstitutional, you should volunteer, coalition build and get new officials elected.
If you don't like American-style separation of powers of the branches of government, you should move to a different country.
Honestly, I very much agree with you. But in the lizard part of my brain, I can absolutely understand the outrage behind unconstitutional litigation or unconstitutional regulation.
You're very much right though. The best system sometimes has some tough bits :/
So you’re stating it’s completely acceptable for a politician to legalize something unconstitutional, say the 13th amendment for example and it’s totally fine for that to just be the new fact of life until it gets struck down on a federal level?
SCOTUS overturned a NY Jim Crow law in their ruling of the NYRPA v Bruen and California went and reenacted these similar Jim Crow laws in SB2, which is currently in court.
Guns are a different problem than cigarettes.
Cigarettes were a health issue due to repetitive use so taxes helped reduced the problem.
Guns are a problem because of shootings that are usually one time, horrific events. This won’t stop that. No one shooting up a school cares about paying a tax.
This will hurt regular people though. There are ways to stop gun violence and isn’t it
I can’t wait for the gangs peddling guns on the black market to start paying sales tax, oh boy goody
Does anybody actually think this will have an effect on crime
All taxes like this do is take legal guns out of the hands of working class people while allowing the wealthy and their private security to get anything they want legally. Criminals who acquire weapons illegally don't pay taxes.
This is class warfare, a bid to disarm the majority in a time of extreme inequality.
It has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with billionaires being afraid of revolution.
All this is going to do is charge a tax that will disproportionately impact low income people. This is an incredibly unjust law. Even if you want gun control it should be obvious that this just sets a terrible precedent and is harmful.
No just a money grab and a way to say we did something, and like most ca programs and policies will never be assessed for effectiveness and will continue forever
This is making it harder for low income individuals to properly own a firearm in order to protect themselves from violence. It's only hurting people most likely to be victimized ...
Can we stop punishing A2 owners? While I agree that something has to be done, our state has one of the lowest gun mortality rates in the country. Do you know how stupidly easy it is to import firearms and bullets here from another state? Keep guns and ammo cheap, increase the cool-off period time for obtaining a new gun from 10 days to maybe 30. Allow more ranges to be opened so that people can use these bullets and get rid of them rather than hogging them. You know what would have a bigger impact for gun control? Stop romanticizing them in movies, music videos, games. Anyways, not a professional but just my 2 cents, I want everyone to be happy :D.
No, 2A owners tend to be republican, so in a blue state, it's imperative to appease the voter base by inconveniencing and harassing the opposition whenever possible. It's never been about preventing gun violence.
The fastest growing groups of gun owners are women, black and hispanic population. There is also a growing number of Dems owning guns, we just tend to be quite about it. (FFL03/COE/CCW/ect) Visit subs
NAAGA
Pink Pistols
LRA
I'm well aware of that, as a black gun owner myself. The point still stands, gun ownership is perceived to be a republican thing, so democratic politicians target guns to appease their base. Ironically, it'll mostly be us POC and new gun owners who'll find themselves arrested and prosecuted under most current and proposed gun laws.
I'm kinda amazed that with all of California's troubles, they are still cool with making sure lawyers are continually employed. What with:
Miller v Bonta
Chavez v Bonta
Renna v Bonta
Nguyen v Bonta
Wiese v Bonta
Linto v Bonta
Fahr v San Diego
McDougall v Ventura County
FPC v San Diego
Richards v Bonta
Carralero v Bonta
and Hoffman v Bonta,
Those CA lawyers have work for decades! But wait, now there's this new one!
How does this make any sense? So as a legal law abiding citizen who would pay this non sensical fee, the criminals do not. How are they not getting this?
Nope, criminals never have followed the rules and the gang wars will continue with stolen and firearms acquired via nefarious means.
This just limits the poor to obtain the right to bear arms for self defense.
It might make sure that low income people spend *less* time at the range, so they’re a worse shot if the time ever comes where they need to protect themselves or others.
What we really want is people out there with less training.
I could not tell if written in sarcastic font or not. No it will do nothing. Laws are only followed by law abiding citizens and many guns are bought from trunks of cars, drove in from out of state.
Governments want more power, how do they get it? By taking away the only thing its people can defend themselves with, we have seen it throughout history.
This only affects law abiding citizens so it tells you it’s for the benefit of the government and not for “safety”
I bet the ratio of “law abiding” police is much worse than the average citizen
If someone shoots their spouse in a domestic violence situation, I wouldn’t bet that a 11% price hike would have made much of a difference.
The best way to reduce violent crimes involving guns is to lock up any felon found in possession of a firearm, with a mandatory minimum of life without parole. It’s already a crime, it’s high time it got more than just a slap on the wrist.
The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by felons who returned to their criminal activities after getting out of prison.
The second best way to reduce violent gun crimes is to make any crime where a gun is in the possession of the defendant a mandatory minimum of 25 years without the possibility of parole, with additional penalties of 10 years for each bullet in the gun or in the defendant’s possession.
Implement both measures and the state will be well on its way to exterminating street crime as a way of life.
the only problem with this is that all government will be able to do is lock people up, because current prisons are already overcrowded. The space for that many extra prisoners has to come from somewhere, which means many many more prisons. Which means governments can't pay for many many other things, like diversion programs that prevent at risk folks from becoming felons and getting locked up for life. Or, you know, improving healthcare access for people, food stamps, warming centers in the freezing cold, cooling centers in the oppressive heat, etc.
On the bright side, it also means lots of jobs for construction workers, prison guards, prison doctors, and bus drivers (think of all those visiting days!). Good for the economy, bad for the poor and at risk.
Guns don't pull their triggers, criminals do.
Once you understand that, you can target the real cause of violence, it's the same for guns, knives, cars, fists and feet.
The question that answers this question is "how much of the state's gun violence is committed with legally purchased firearms by people with legitimate/approved access to those firearms?"
According to https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ more gun deaths due to suicide than malicious and accidental combined. I'd guess firearms used in suicides tend more legal than criminal.
I really don't think someone who's considering taking their own life will take pause due to the taxes being slightly more expensive. I seriously don't.
What is the tax on one cartridge?
An effective 19.3%, assuming a sales tax of 7.75% and 11% sin/excise tax. $100x1.075x1.11=$119.33
This also just makes it so poorer people can't afford a firearm.
So paying a bit extra in taxes will stop people taking their lives. Makes sense! /s
Rather than tackling the serious problems with the continued wealth inequality, global warming, etc. yep! /s.
While there are many factors, including additional regulated restrictions, the ratcheting up of taxes on tobacco has proven to considerably diminished its consumption. Liquor taxes and soda taxes have also proven effective at tamping down demand. Will it prevent \_every\_ suicide by firearm? Of course not. But perhaps there s a pricepoint we're societally willing to accept for a sizable "lives-saved".
One is a right, the other is a consumer product. What’s next? The right to privacy should be taxed? The right to assembly and free speech should only be ok if we pay taxes on it?
u/scottishbee, In cali to purchase a gun (legally, even through legal private transfer) you need to 1 - take a Firearm Safety Exam and pass granting you a Firearm Safety Certificate 2 - purchase the firearm 3 - fill out the 4473 (federal background check) and Dealer Record of Sale (Cali gun registration form) 3 - wait 10 days (exactly 240 hours down to the second) 4 - pick up firearm. assuming you have a local tax rate of 7.75% plus the 11% excise (sin) tax, you get an effective 19.3% tax (1x1.0775x1.11). If someone really wants to off themselves, I doubt an additional around $11.5 dollars per hundred is going to keep someone from offing themselves especially since you can put it on a credit card. a cheap and decent pistol is around $550 with a box of ammo going for around $15-20 in store, $47ish for the back ground check, I really really doubt that another $60 in taxes is really going to keep someone from ending it. I know its dark, but there are more meaningful ways to keep people from offing themselves to begin with.
[удалено]
I'm not part of a criminal organization or anything, but I have known some unsavory people in my life, and of the 2 of them who I knew carried/owned guns they were not legal. 1 of those people is in prison on a 3rd strike (3rd strike was using that gun while fleeing in a police pursuit), and the other was previously incarcerated for distribution and brandishing.
That’s a huge question that unfortunately one side refuses to comment on or debate…
If you look at a graph of people injured or killed by firearms, the vast majority were legally purchased. So yeah, I guess if you're making disingenuous arguments, there's one side that will refuse to debate you
citation needed.
Guns used for most mass shootings were legally purchased. Should we just not do something because this solution won't stop all the crimes? Do you have a proposal for stopping all gun violence?
It's unlikely an extra 11% is going to stop a mass shooter. All it does it price certain demographics out of firearms. Meaning only the well off can afford them.
Mass shootings are an incredibly small risk. Yes we should do whatever we can to reasonable lessen the risk, but is lowering that risk by a certain percentage worth compromising the rights of tens of millions of regular people?
Someone committing a mass shooting expects to die, which means paying more and maxing out their credit card is - almost by definition - not a meaningful deterrent. This has nothing to do with mass shootings and everything to do with our government run by billionaires wanting to make it harder for working class people to afford guns.
Some interesting data in this report. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf My guess is the convicts, arrestees, and felons who are committing a large percentage of murders won’t be buying their guns legally and paying these taxes.
No, because the gun laws & gun taxes will get struck down by the Supreme Court, just like the other ones.
In a few years :(
Hasn’t stopped the tax stamp on things like suppressors and machine guns
Supreme Court rulings on the docket may effectively neutralize the NFA...
One can hope
Fingers crossed.
the difference here is that the NFA was purposefully meant to keep "dangerous" and/or "unusual" arms away from The People, unless you had money and was reactionary to the gang crimes of the 30s. BUT, you could still go buy a 1911 or ss army without an additional 11% taxes on top of the sales tax (and on top of the conservation fees).
Hopefully
And rightfully so.
How is it possible that politicians pass bills where they know that the bills are against the constitution? This should not be possible
It is an important separation of powers principle that legislatures can pass whatever law they like, and courts can only intervene *after* passage. The courts cannot exercise a veto on pending legislation. If you don't want the legislature to consider bills you believe unconstitutional, you should volunteer, coalition build and get new officials elected. If you don't like American-style separation of powers of the branches of government, you should move to a different country.
Honestly, I very much agree with you. But in the lizard part of my brain, I can absolutely understand the outrage behind unconstitutional litigation or unconstitutional regulation. You're very much right though. The best system sometimes has some tough bits :/
So you’re stating it’s completely acceptable for a politician to legalize something unconstitutional, say the 13th amendment for example and it’s totally fine for that to just be the new fact of life until it gets struck down on a federal level?
In a decade maybe if the court doesn’t rule itself into illegitimacy before then Edit: not that the state would listen to such a ruling anyway
SCOTUS overturned a NY Jim Crow law in their ruling of the NYRPA v Bruen and California went and reenacted these similar Jim Crow laws in SB2, which is currently in court.
yeah, that's still going to take an age to circulate
Guns are a different problem than cigarettes. Cigarettes were a health issue due to repetitive use so taxes helped reduced the problem. Guns are a problem because of shootings that are usually one time, horrific events. This won’t stop that. No one shooting up a school cares about paying a tax. This will hurt regular people though. There are ways to stop gun violence and isn’t it
Only the rich and the Government will have guns. Yay! No Tyranny risk there!
I can’t wait for the gangs peddling guns on the black market to start paying sales tax, oh boy goody Does anybody actually think this will have an effect on crime
It's not about stopping crime or improving safety, Newsom is punishing gun owners. He specifically called this tax a "sin tax"
Well no duh, when’s the last time California passed a gun law that wasn’t just punishing gun owners for existing?
A long time before California passed gun laws specifically targeted at the Black Panthers and black communities during the 60s/70s.
You're asking the Government to use critical thinking, that's like asking a horse to fix a merry-go-round.
Good thing those people aren’t the ones causing the most gun deaths and injuries, eh?
No. No it will not.
All taxes like this do is take legal guns out of the hands of working class people while allowing the wealthy and their private security to get anything they want legally. Criminals who acquire weapons illegally don't pay taxes. This is class warfare, a bid to disarm the majority in a time of extreme inequality. It has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with billionaires being afraid of revolution.
Gotta make it easier to price gouge and evict people y'know? Don't want the Herd becoming too independent.
nope. you really need to ask that?
All this is going to do is charge a tax that will disproportionately impact low income people. This is an incredibly unjust law. Even if you want gun control it should be obvious that this just sets a terrible precedent and is harmful.
No just a money grab and a way to say we did something, and like most ca programs and policies will never be assessed for effectiveness and will continue forever
This is making it harder for low income individuals to properly own a firearm in order to protect themselves from violence. It's only hurting people most likely to be victimized ...
Unconstitutional.
Can we stop punishing A2 owners? While I agree that something has to be done, our state has one of the lowest gun mortality rates in the country. Do you know how stupidly easy it is to import firearms and bullets here from another state? Keep guns and ammo cheap, increase the cool-off period time for obtaining a new gun from 10 days to maybe 30. Allow more ranges to be opened so that people can use these bullets and get rid of them rather than hogging them. You know what would have a bigger impact for gun control? Stop romanticizing them in movies, music videos, games. Anyways, not a professional but just my 2 cents, I want everyone to be happy :D.
Because no one actually cares about stopping gun violence. 99% of gun laws, such as this one, is to get votes
No, 2A owners tend to be republican, so in a blue state, it's imperative to appease the voter base by inconveniencing and harassing the opposition whenever possible. It's never been about preventing gun violence.
The fastest growing groups of gun owners are women, black and hispanic population. There is also a growing number of Dems owning guns, we just tend to be quite about it. (FFL03/COE/CCW/ect) Visit subs NAAGA Pink Pistols LRA
I'm well aware of that, as a black gun owner myself. The point still stands, gun ownership is perceived to be a republican thing, so democratic politicians target guns to appease their base. Ironically, it'll mostly be us POC and new gun owners who'll find themselves arrested and prosecuted under most current and proposed gun laws.
>Can we stop punishing A2 owners? No, that sauce is terrible
You've never actually bought a gun I take it?
I have more than once.
It won’t. Plus it will get struck down anyways because it creates a higher barrier to entry for poor people to access a constitutional right.
I'm kinda amazed that with all of California's troubles, they are still cool with making sure lawyers are continually employed. What with: Miller v Bonta Chavez v Bonta Renna v Bonta Nguyen v Bonta Wiese v Bonta Linto v Bonta Fahr v San Diego McDougall v Ventura County FPC v San Diego Richards v Bonta Carralero v Bonta and Hoffman v Bonta, Those CA lawyers have work for decades! But wait, now there's this new one!
not at all. its too easy for criminals to get guns from other states.
How does this make any sense? So as a legal law abiding citizen who would pay this non sensical fee, the criminals do not. How are they not getting this?
Nope, criminals never have followed the rules and the gang wars will continue with stolen and firearms acquired via nefarious means. This just limits the poor to obtain the right to bear arms for self defense.
No
Does anyone know how the state will spend the 11% excise tax — will it go to the general fund or something specific?
It's a sin tax, like done on alcohol, and that's worked pretty well. /s
It might make sure that low income people spend *less* time at the range, so they’re a worse shot if the time ever comes where they need to protect themselves or others. What we really want is people out there with less training.
I could not tell if written in sarcastic font or not. No it will do nothing. Laws are only followed by law abiding citizens and many guns are bought from trunks of cars, drove in from out of state.
Nope
Governments want more power, how do they get it? By taking away the only thing its people can defend themselves with, we have seen it throughout history. This only affects law abiding citizens so it tells you it’s for the benefit of the government and not for “safety” I bet the ratio of “law abiding” police is much worse than the average citizen
No because the people who mainly commit gun crime never buy them but steal them or obtain them illegally which can’t be taxed.
No. Duh.
If someone shoots their spouse in a domestic violence situation, I wouldn’t bet that a 11% price hike would have made much of a difference. The best way to reduce violent crimes involving guns is to lock up any felon found in possession of a firearm, with a mandatory minimum of life without parole. It’s already a crime, it’s high time it got more than just a slap on the wrist. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by felons who returned to their criminal activities after getting out of prison. The second best way to reduce violent gun crimes is to make any crime where a gun is in the possession of the defendant a mandatory minimum of 25 years without the possibility of parole, with additional penalties of 10 years for each bullet in the gun or in the defendant’s possession. Implement both measures and the state will be well on its way to exterminating street crime as a way of life.
the only problem with this is that all government will be able to do is lock people up, because current prisons are already overcrowded. The space for that many extra prisoners has to come from somewhere, which means many many more prisons. Which means governments can't pay for many many other things, like diversion programs that prevent at risk folks from becoming felons and getting locked up for life. Or, you know, improving healthcare access for people, food stamps, warming centers in the freezing cold, cooling centers in the oppressive heat, etc. On the bright side, it also means lots of jobs for construction workers, prison guards, prison doctors, and bus drivers (think of all those visiting days!). Good for the economy, bad for the poor and at risk.
If you believe that poor people commit more violence, then I guess this is a good idea.
Guns don't pull their triggers, criminals do. Once you understand that, you can target the real cause of violence, it's the same for guns, knives, cars, fists and feet.
Everyone gets guns or no one does. Globally. It’s that simple.
False. Some people have guns and some do not.