Whiskey_Fiasco

Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u7ybk wrote

It doesn’t. It just makes you far less capable of killing many people in a short period of time, through malice or negligence. An unarmed criminal is far less of a threat to those around them than an irresponsible gun owner.

Guns are a weapon. They serve only one purpose.

−4

Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u7po3 wrote

Taxes aren’t punishments. When you pay a gasoline or a tobacco tax or an alcohol tax it isn’t a punishment. Why should the general tax payer be punished with additional taxes to cover the costs of dealing with the fall out coming from gun owners actions? Why shouldn’t those costs fall on the shoulders of those who actually have a weapon?

6

Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u6yc4 wrote

Those dastardly criminals… throwing bullets at children to death…

You are fucking ridiculous. Being a gun owner doesn’t make you a responsible or law abiding person. It just means you have a tool designed to kill. Someone with a gun is just as likely to be a criminal as any other section of the population, but the gun enables them to do far more damage whether it be via malice or negligence.

−9

Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u632m wrote

Why should the societal cost of gun ownership fall on the shoulders of the general tax payer?

We have gasoline taxes so people who operate a vehicle can fund the roads they drive on.

Why shouldn’t gun owners pay taxes on their ammunition to help fund government operations to protect people from gun owners?

−6

Whiskey_Fiasco t1_j9u5nuk wrote

I’m tired of the general population having to spend all this extra money because an extreme minority can’t responsibly own, store or operate their weaponry. If society has to bend over and accept more danger to accommodate gun owners then let it be gun owners who bear the costs.

−2