Recent comments in /f/Connecticut

Ftheyankeei t1_j9ua0ed wrote

Beyond the incredibly slanted and propagandistic platform on which it was published and the author's recent post history (I'm sure your app for the unvaccinated will go swimmingly, congratulations on your InfoWars appearance!) I'm sure this is a conversation that is worth having from sources that are worth trusting. Gun nuts, when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Either own that or shut the fuck up.

10

BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u9lw9 wrote

there plenty of people that are just as capable of killing people without a gun. anyway, back to the taxes. regular sales tax is applied to guns and ammo aswell as another 11%. if this isn’t enough to fund these programs, maybe ask yourself where this 17% markup is going in the first place. surely 17% of taxes paid on guns and ammo in ct should be boatloads of money already. wheres this money at?

8

welcomebackjelly t1_j9u8rq6 wrote

It’s economic segregation not racial segregation. Go to a poorer state and all the colors live together because every neighborhood is affordable. I wouldn’t really call this a CT issue, I’d call it a byproduct of a wealthy state

2

BackhandStrongAF t1_j9u8ezw wrote

“taxes aren’t punishments” and then you follow up with “why should the general taxpayer be punished with additional taxes..” doesn’t make sense. so gun owners shouldn’t look at this as a punishment but the general tax payer should? as i said in a previous comment, use the extraordinary taxes they ALREADY accumulate from guns and ammunition and use that for the programs.

5

Just_Jer t1_j9u8eml wrote

As said in the article, this only affects law abiding gun owners. We buy our ammo legally, the people causing most of the issue aren't eligible to carry the firearms in the first place, let alone purchase ammunition.

Why punish both kids if that little bastard, Johnny, is the one who broke the vase?

8

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

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j9u7yb9 wrote

“How many catalytic converters is an innocent persons life worth?”

They aren’t innocent if they’re committing a crime. And again…I SAID POSITIVE ID. That doesn’t mean you shoot just because they have a weapon and at no time in my reply did I say that that’s what you do.

“I have actually fired a gun before, more than a few times which is why I am so disturbed by your idea of allowing and encouraging people to treat petty theft as a threat on their life.”

No. I’m simply stating that a person should have the right and ability to adequately defend their property from potentially armed criminals.

“You claim the majority of gun owners would fire until the 100% knew the situation but when you have a gun in your hand and you see someone doing something sketchy, you don’t know what they’re doing, your adrenaline starts kicking in, you start shaking, then stand up suddenly, you don’t know if they have a weapon, you hat do you do?”

Again, that’s brandishing and a completely hypothetical reaction not based on anything factual related to this situation. If you want I can provide links to surveillance footage of actual deadly force encounters and you can see for yourself how people react in these kinda of situations.

“I’m your magical world you claim every gun owner would take the time to do a threat analysis of to determine the exact situation but since we’re not all super genius Sherlock Holmes types who can take in all the evidence and calculate the proper course of action in a split second, people will have to make a snap decision.”

What are you even talking about? You’re saying in my magical world but I’ve been in these scenarios both training and in real life. It doesn’t take a sherlok holmes to have a firearm holstered, approach a situation from a position of dominance, and issue verbal commands to stop the criminal act, or defend yourself if they present you with deadly force. Making it known that there’s a high probability that criminal acts can be met with deadly force if escalated, deters crime. If not, armed guards wouldn’t exist.

“When untrained people are making snap decisions with a gun in their hands, innocent people WILL die. Maybe it won’t be you that does it, maybe your too good for that, but someone else will.”

That’s why training goes hand in hand with being armed and I’ve always said that.

“How many catalytic converters is worth an innocent persons life?”

Then don’t call the police and risk their innocent life when you have a problem. 🤷‍♂️

2

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