Warp said:
What do you do to educate people in firearms use?
BTW: Your suggestion definitely costs us something. THat would cost us a *lot* of wasted tax dollars, at the absolute minimum.
1) I'm a firearms instructor, and I've introduced plenty of new shooters to this activity. I coached a college rifle team, I'm a POST certified law enforcement instructor in my state, and I've been a lifelong advocate for gun rights. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of people out there that I've personally introduced to shooting. I've been doing my part, even if you disagree with my suggestions.
2) Giving a company a tax break doesn't cost us anything. It simply denies the government some income. There's a difference. The difference should be obvious to anyone who realizes that the government isn't automatically entitled to tax the tar out of everything. Tax breaks are given for all kinds of silly reasons, in all types of industries. This tax break won't break the U.S. Government, I can assure you of that.
3) My proposal wasn't to "waste" any money. It was simply to provide a small incentive to those businesses that would willingly add a free (to them and the consumer) firearms training component. Frankly, this wouldn't cost the government very much, either.
4) I can assure you that not everyone who needs firearms safety training is seeking it or getting it. The same can be said for chainsaws, and other dangerous equipment. But, roughly half of our federal government's elected officials aren't trying to ban chainsaws during each legislative session; the same isn't true of guns.
5) Nothing I suggested puts any type of infringement on an individual's rights, nor does it create any additional red tape for gun sellers or buyers. It merely provides an incentive to those folks who choose to provide some education to new consumers of these products.
CoalTrain49 said:
Except the tax payer.
Why should the tax payer be on the hook to educate a new gun owner? That should be the gun owners responsibility to pay for their own safety education. Being an FFL dealer is a business just like any other business. Why should they be getting tax breaks? Should car dealers be getting tax breaks to educate the driving public about how to safely operate their new car. How about motorcycle and chain saw dealers? Let the people who actually train new gun owners do the training. If you can afford a gun and ammo you can afford the $50 for 4 hours of training.
Don't you think we have enough business tax loopholes already?
__________________
You said that an FFL is a business just like any other business... That being the case, my proposal sounds even more rational and reasonable. Tax breaks are simply a part of our tax system, a part of our lives, and a part of doing business. Whether you like it or not, you get a tax break if you have children living at home, if you have paid interest on a mortgage on your home, and for business expenses you personally incurred during a tax year. In many cases you can get a tax break for installing energy efficient appliances in your home, or for buying solar panels, or for any number of ridiculous items.
Our system is built around tax breaks, and I'd be happy to throw the firearms industry a break or two from time to time... they sure aren't getting any tax breaks that I'm aware of at the moment. I do my taxes fairly every year, and I pay more than my per capita fair share to the government on an annual basis. Our government is a bloated giant that is burning money as if it grows on trees. I'm perfectly fine with the government learning to do a bit more with a bit less. Tax breaks aren't a bad thing, wasteful government spending is.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that the government can agree to charge a lower fee to a business when the business performs a service they want to have performed. In case you haven't been paying attention, the government is more than a little concerned about firearms safety lately. What I suggested is a manner in which the government can get what they're asking for, without infringing on our rights, while simultaneously giving a benefit to those who run businesses in the firearms industry (businesses that I want to see succeed -- businesses that could benefit from a tax break). I'm not suggesting that these businesses will no longer pay taxes, I'm just suggesting that we give them some type of financial incentive for trying to educate the consumer.
Instead of being concerned with what we aren't paying taxes for, perhaps we should be concerned with what we are paying taxes for. I paid a $200 tax to own my suppressor. I paid another $200 tax because I wanted a 8.5" barrel on one of my AR-15's. I paid a $10 tax on three different occasions in the last quarter, because my state collects that amount every time we fill out a 4473 (don't worry, I still paid sales tax on the purchase -- I'm just listing the "extra" taxes I paid because it's gun related). My wife paid a tax of over $150 for a CCW permit, and has to do so every five years (as a LEO I at least get out of that one). They call that particular tax a "background check fee", but it's simply a tax by another name.
On the manufacturing and import levels, these folks pay around a billion dollars per year in firearms-specific excise taxes levied by our government. You pay these taxes in the end price whenever you purchase a firearm, you just don't see them on your invoice in the gun store. You also don't see these taxes levied against producers of baseball bats, do you?
Bottom line? The firearms industry and its customers are already paying an arm and a leg in taxes. Giving a tax break here and there to this industry shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. Giving some training to new gun owners also shouldn't be a bad thing. Doing all of that without mandating anything, and without passing a direct cost onto the seller or buyer isn't a bad thing either.
