All sticks and no carrots.


PDA






gossamer
February 5, 2013, 09:40 PM
Ever notice how gun law proposals are about restrictions and few to none of them offer incentives to gun owners to increase or improve gun safety knowledge?

Has anyone seen any proposed tax incentives for gun owners to take additional safety courses? Imagine being able to deduct a firearms safety class every year from your taxes or getting a tax credit for it. These could be like CEUs, which lawyers deduct. Granted, lawyers have to take CEUs for their bar license.

A company I worked for was able to deduct OSHA training classes for employees.

Gun tragedies aren't all about crimes. And not every perpetrator of a gun crime is a criminal before they commit their first deadly crime (Lanza).

Gun safety tragedies are real. Escalation to domestic violence with a gun is real. Mass shootings that result from escalation in threat behavior is real. But these aren't problems solvable by restricting guns. Some can be prevented by safety, learning and understanding escalation behavior, and other knowledge and training.

But no one is proposing and incentive to gun owners, of which there are many new ones, to make use of training and education.

If a video game maker can deduct the expense of a gun they bought to create a 3d model from for a game, surely the average American gun owner who wants to keep their guns safe, learn more about threat escalation, protect themselves and other should be able to deduct this education.

The benefit to American society of me learning more and more about gun safety is far greater than me learning how to put on a respirator I would never use. Of course, this might solve some problems. We can't have that.

If you enjoyed reading about "All sticks and no carrots." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
beatledog7
February 5, 2013, 10:17 PM
It's simple. They don't want the population to be safer with their guns--they want the population to be safer without their guns.

Carter
February 5, 2013, 10:25 PM
Sounds like an interesting principal to write a representative about.

OilyPablo
February 5, 2013, 10:30 PM
Maybe the fact that people who want to restrict gun rights consider all people who own guns in the same class as criminals. I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to understand.

Watch this story, read the text. See if you pick up the attitude.

http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Western-Washington-police-sheriffs-departments-selling-guns-189740571.html

And by the way, the one example of illegal activity, is already, well illegal!

gossamer
February 6, 2013, 11:02 AM
It's simple. They don't want the population to be safer with their guns--they want the population to be safer without their guns.

There are two sides to this debate and neither - Anti-RKBA nor Pro-RKBA - offered an incentive for lawful gun owners to improve gun safety, threat training, etc. by providing an incentive for increased training and education.

IMHO there is an inherent unfairness in a tax code that allows for deducting for coffee purchased for daily consumption in an office, but not for annual training on gun safety.

But before even reaching the rabbit hole of tax code fairness, it seems every proposal put forward by both sides is about threats and restrictions to gun owners, and the Pro-RKBA side has overlooked the entire possibility of incentives to gun owners.

The idea that it's built into the tax code is just an idea. It doesn't have to involve the tax code at all.


I find that we become better at things through repetition and exposure. People who rarely practice or think about things like safety, escalation, situational awareness, ever get good at them. Not being trained means not being good and not being good means bad things.

I'm just trying to start a discussion about what can be done from a public policy standpoint at the state, local, or even federal level, to incentivize gun owners to regularly and consistently learn and train on more and better safety practices. Obviously, "you or a loved one can avoid death or serious injury" should be its own incentive.

Bubbles
February 6, 2013, 11:43 AM
How about an annual "sales tax holiday weekend" for people who purchase a gun safe? We already have one for basic hurricane supplies every spring.

Skribs
February 6, 2013, 11:50 AM
I'm not for incentives to gun owners. Incentives to gun owners means the government knows who owns them, and potentially what they're doing. "This guy has gotten a lot of incentive money for training, we REALLY need to take his guns if we want to take over."

I think if guns were de-demonized, we could promote safety better.

ATLDave
February 6, 2013, 11:59 AM
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

Lawyer CLE/CEU's are a business expense. Their expense can be deducted (not a tax credit) for that reason.

If you require the use of a firearm for your business, you may already be able to deduct training. But if you own a gun because it's your hobby (even a hobby motivated by a desire to be better prepared to defend youself), you probably cannot.

Do you really want the government to be (further) in the business of choosing which hobbies get tax subsidies?

gossamer
February 6, 2013, 12:32 PM
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

Lawyer CLE/CEU's are a business expense. Their expense can be deducted (not a tax credit) for that reason.

If you require the use of a firearm for your business, you may already be able to deduct training. But if you own a gun because it's your hobby (even a hobby motivated by a desire to be better prepared to defend youself), you probably cannot.

Do you really want the government to be (further) in the business of choosing which hobbies get tax subsidies?
I'll just copy and paste this here:

gossamer:
The idea that it's built into the tax code is just an idea. It doesn't have to involve the tax code at all.
I'm just trying to start a discussion about what can be done from a public policy standpoint at the state, local, or even federal level, to incentivize gun owners to regularly and consistently learn and train on more and better safety practices.

JellyJar
February 6, 2013, 01:10 PM
Your proposals won't work.

They are too reasonable!

Cosmoline
February 6, 2013, 01:18 PM
It's simple. They don't want the population to be safer with their guns--they want the population to be safer without their guns.

I'd say they want the population to be without firearms, and could give a flying mule whether anyone is actually safer. Note that THEY will never give up their firearms or armed guards. Ever.

ATLDave
February 6, 2013, 01:28 PM
Well, if you're trying to find common ground with some people who are presently on the fence or weakly in favor of gun control, suggesting some sort of mandatory training program as a prerequisite to gun buying would probably go over really well. But they're not going to want to pay you for having done it.

In many states, hunter safety classes are required before a hunting license is issued. Those classes are required, but not tax-deductible.

Manco
February 6, 2013, 01:55 PM
It's simple. They don't want the population to be safer with their guns--they want the population to be safer without their guns.

Correction--they want themselves to be safer with the population disarmed. They don't want the population to actually be safer (and we wouldn't be) because fear is the most useful tool in increasing government power.

gunsandreligion
February 6, 2013, 05:05 PM
Quote:
It's simple. They don't want the population to be safer with their guns--they want the population to be safer without their guns.
I'd say they want the population to be without firearms, and could give a flying mule whether anyone is actually safer. Note that THEY will never give up their firearms or armed guards. Ever.unfortunatly, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The majority of americans dont want to sound like a doomsdayer, so they refuse to acknowledge the fact that our government is made of selfish, power hungry humans, not perfect, kind, loving big brothers. The sheeple want someone else to be responsible for them, and the government wants to control them. We as Americans who go by the same motto as Patrick Henry are what they cannot stand. Owning guns is a huge barrier for them in getting rid of individual liberty.

El Tejon
February 6, 2013, 05:15 PM
But no one is proposing and incentive to gun owners

Incorrect, there have been several attempts in Indiana to incentivize gun ownership.

Has anyone seen any proposed tax incentives for gun owners to take additional safety courses?

Yes, the Freeman Proposals.

*All ammunition, tuition, and travel expenses for gun schooling are tax deductible, above the line.

*The purchase of gun safes (total amount in one year) are tax deductible above the line.

*Range membership is tax deductible above the line.

*Use of public funds for building public ranges.

*Mandatory firearms training in public schools at grades 6, 8, 10 and 12.

*Firearms proficiency test in order to graduate and obtain diploma.

trueg50
February 6, 2013, 06:07 PM
Sadly we will never see rights INCREASED, only taken away.

Only real benefit people could see would for suppressors be declassified as NFA items and made unrestricted.

Remember making firearms and ammunition taxes already go towards conservation and Fish and Wildlife, so go tax free hurts them.

El Tejon
February 14, 2013, 12:36 PM
Sadly we will never see rights INCREASED, only taken away.


Who is telling you this?:scrutiny:

We have won fight after fight here in Indiana. In states and in courts across the nation the RKBA is on the march forward.

Al Thompson
February 14, 2013, 01:57 PM
Sadly we will never see rights INCREASED, only taken away.

Absolutely untrue. For crying out loud, even our Lady Governor has a CWP - something no one had (except a select few) 20 years ago.

316SS
February 14, 2013, 08:21 PM
I don't believe social engineering is a legitimate function of government, but I'll play along. What precisely are you suggesting we incentivize? Training to reduce accidental shootings? Better marksmanship? Self-defense tactics?

Accidental shootings of children, for example, are vanishingly rare compared to other modes of child mortality.

A government truly of, for, and by the people should value civilian marksmanship, but ours does not. Witness the characterization of returning veterans as potential threats to government.

This suggestion reminds me of when I check out at a retailer and they offer me coupons by email. I'd rather keep my email address off their spam list, and do without the coupons.

If you enjoyed reading about "All sticks and no carrots." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!