Thats basically what they do with NFA firearms here. When they banned new registration of machine guns to civilians that pretty much guaranteed the price to rise greatly. Plus you have to pay a $200 tax stamp, paperwork and registration. Now the cheapest you can get is probably a MAC10/11 for 3 or 4 grand. It can be tens of thousands for good one. Its not as bad for things like short barreled rifles and whatnot but that still takes a buttload of paperwork and a $200 tax stamp.
Also, doesn't Singapore have a really horrible Government?
Currently there is a bill they're trying to pass that would raise the tax stamp to $500, create a 20% firearms tax and 50% ammunition tax. Hopefully it won't pass but I'm afraid a weaker version might get through. I think its more that they just want more money than they're trying to keep us safe. An ammunition tax like that won't really affect criminals since they don't really need that much ammo. Its just the hobby shooters that actually use a lot.
Competitive shooters don't reload their own ammo anymore?
My dad used to shoot competitively and I remember spending weekends melting down lead and reloading empties.
Some do, some don't. Depends on the type of competition, competition rules, how many rounds they fire on average, etc. Plus, if you're firing a lot of rounds for practice, reloading hundreds of rounds can take a lot of time.
Competitive shooters don't reload their own ammo anymore?
My dad used to shoot competitively and I remember spending weekends melting down lead and reloading empties.
A lot of folks do, but some folks don't have the means, a lot of folks don't have the time and there's a good chance that a tax an ammunition could be expanded to include ammunition components (powder, primers etc.) as well.
Also, doesn't Singapore have a really horrible Government?
That seems to be a common misconception amongst Americans, I think Scott expressed the same sentiment when I met him.
The tax is way less, cost of living is incredibly low (it's cheaper to buy food then make it, most companies will give you free lunch at work), you definitely don't need a car to get from one side of the country to the other.
It's the chewing gum law which seems to scare people but after living there, I didn't even notice it. The government is more efficient then the UK and Australian counterparts (from my experiences). Just like littering has a hefty fine in Singapore, they aren't the cleanest city in the world for nothing.
The other thing that people don't get is the military service, once you finish this and upon getting employment a Singaporean citizen will get a hefty pay day.
It's not really a misconception, per se. Other aspects of quality of life are definitely good in Singapore, but there's also quite a lot of restrictions on one's freedom. That alone justifies a rather negative view of Singapore to many people.
Issues like the chewing gum law or the littering fines are just hints at the greater issues, which are things like: - Severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association. - Very high levels of censorship. - Very poor support of LGBT rights.
It's not really a misconception, per se. Other aspects of quality of life are definitely good in Singapore, but there's also quite a lot of restrictions on one's freedom. That alone justifies a rather negative view of Singapore to many people.
Issues like the chewing gum law or the littering fines are just hints at the greater issues, which are things like: - Severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association. - Very high levels of censorship. - Very poor support of LGBT rights.
I didn't really note any censorship when I was there, you oculd order anything from the US or the UK, no internet filter. I didn't really watch TV because I was usually at a bar or out eating with people.
I met a lesbian couple there which meant they did not have rights like a heterosexual couple but that can be said of many places in the world.
Maybe I was too caught up in working at the zoo and investigating all the bars, hawker stalls and restaurants at the time.
The tax is way less, cost of living is incredibly low (it's cheaper to buy food then make it, most companies will give you free lunch at work), you definitely don't need a car to get from one side of the country to the other.
THEN = THAN or THEN =/= THAN?
Is it cheaper to buy food then make it? Is it cheaper to buy food than make it? The entire meaning of your sentence relies on you getting then and than not mixed up, and I'm not sure if you did or not.
The tax is way less, cost of living is incredibly low (it's cheaper to buy food then make it, most companies will give you free lunch at work), you definitely don't need a car to get from one side of the country to the other.
THEN = THAN or THEN =/= THAN?
Is it cheaper to buy food then make it? Is it cheaper to buy food than make it? The entire meaning of your sentence relies on you getting then and than not mixed up, and I'm not sure if you did or not.
I took my daughter to the local pistol range last night because they were hosting a special "ladies night" event. Basically a "buy makeup, jewelry and shoot" event. Sounds like something from the midwest but it happened right here in CT!
She showed great gun control and only missed about two out thirty shots fired on the target. She used two different revolvers and had to cock them first because her finger strength just isn't there.
She also tried out a .22 rifle but found it too large for her and was not able to shoot it comfortably.
We go back tonight because boy scouts sponsors a teen shooting group that meets on Thursday nights. We hope to get her involved in this.
That's pretty cool. Even if she doesn't get into guns, it's good to have a grounding in how to safely handle and use them - after all, very few accidents have come from knowing how to handle a firearm safely.
Both the pistols and the rifle were .22. I think we paid about $5 for a bag of 30 bullets.
The first revolver had a 9 bullet cylinder that popped out while the second was an older style six shooter with a small piece on the right of the cylinder that opened up to allow access to the cylinder. That was a one bullet at a time loader.
The rifle was your basic tube loader. It reminded me of the rifle used by Chuck Connors in The Rifleman.
Her mother told us about the event but it was my idea to bring her. I texted her that day at school to try and give her a heads up about the plan for the evening but I didn't want to say anything that might trigger an overreaction from school officials.
Regardless she was very respectful at the range and gave each weapon proper respect.
That's pretty cool. Even if she doesn't get into guns, it's good to have a grounding in how to safely handle and use them - after all, very few accidents have come from knowing how to handle a firearm safely.
I agree, I'd never used guns before till my final year in University where we asked to go to a gun course where we were taught how to handle different calibre pistols, rifles and shotguns. It was important as if you find yourself in a situation where you need to euthanase an animal and don't have lethal injection when you are travelling around the country side, I still know how to do it if I can borrow a gun from a layperson.
However I've only ever used a dart rifle and pistol at the Singapore Zoo in practical usage.
That's pretty cool. Even if she doesn't get into guns, it's good to have a grounding in how to safely handle and use them - after all, very few accidents have come from knowing how to handle a firearm safely.
Bah national service saw to that. No jokes, although male baise, it did mean that large portions of the population knew weapon safty.
Its very strange in the UK at least how normal I find it knowing how to use guns from living in the country side that I take it as read that others do. Its very strange encountering people with a massive theoretical knowlwedge of guns yet have never fired them or know how to.
Reminds me of people who talk about race cars and exotics, but never drive them in actual fact. Except of course that firearms are relatively more accessible in terms of cost and education and practicality. Barring legal concerns' weight on the topic. I'll likely never be inside an exotic car, simply due to cost, risk, etc; but for a few grand I can buy and own myself a high-end modern rifle and do 3-gun or something.
Kill em their family still sues you. I still say shoot to kill.
It is the best way to go. You either commit to the action or don't start it at all. Pussy footing around will only make matters worse.
That is one thing I like about stand your ground laws. Not the whole "no duty to retreat thing" but just that it can protect you from a civil suit even if you were found justified.
I still take the stance that you aren't shooting to kill, you're shooting to stop the threat but the fact that the shooting is only justifiable if lethal force is necessary kind of makes that not matter. The people who say "just shoot them in the leg" or "just shoot the gun out of their hand" obviously haven't shot a gun before.
Has the US dabbled with making firearm taxes insanely high and permits super expensive which expire and need to catalogue which firearms are connected to which permit?
i.e. Cost prohibitive barrier of entrance.
I'm just thinking of how Singapore keeps the traffic low, as the cost of maintenance, upkeep and using a car plus the car price is insanely high (with concessions for work related vehicles).
Yes, when the 200 dollar tax stamp for short barreled shotguns was introduced the shotgun cost around 5 dollars.
It did not prove an effective barrier to people having the shotguns who wanted them, or criminals having them.
It did not prove an effective barrier to people having the shotguns who wanted them, or criminals having them.
Exactly; why would a criminal pay the tax stamp when it is nearly free (one hacksaw blade) to make one? After all being a criminal they are already fine with breaking laws. However the tax stamp does provide valuable money to our needy government, you know, to fund the debt and all.
Comments
Also, doesn't Singapore have a really horrible Government?
Currently there is a bill they're trying to pass that would raise the tax stamp to $500, create a 20% firearms tax and 50% ammunition tax. Hopefully it won't pass but I'm afraid a weaker version might get through. I think its more that they just want more money than they're trying to keep us safe. An ammunition tax like that won't really affect criminals since they don't really need that much ammo. Its just the hobby shooters that actually use a lot.
It's the guy buying 1200 rounds of 9mm and 2k rounds of .223 for a competition who will feel the price jump.
My dad used to shoot competitively and I remember spending weekends melting down lead and reloading empties.
The tax is way less, cost of living is incredibly low (it's cheaper to buy food then make it, most companies will give you free lunch at work), you definitely don't need a car to get from one side of the country to the other.
It's the chewing gum law which seems to scare people but after living there, I didn't even notice it. The government is more efficient then the UK and Australian counterparts (from my experiences). Just like littering has a hefty fine in Singapore, they aren't the cleanest city in the world for nothing.
The other thing that people don't get is the military service, once you finish this and upon getting employment a Singaporean citizen will get a hefty pay day.
Issues like the chewing gum law or the littering fines are just hints at the greater issues, which are things like:
- Severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association.
- Very high levels of censorship.
- Very poor support of LGBT rights.
I met a lesbian couple there which meant they did not have rights like a heterosexual couple but that can be said of many places in the world.
Maybe I was too caught up in working at the zoo and investigating all the bars, hawker stalls and restaurants at the time.
Is it cheaper to buy food then make it? Is it cheaper to buy food than make it? The entire meaning of your sentence relies on you getting then and than not mixed up, and I'm not sure if you did or not.
She showed great gun control and only missed about two out thirty shots fired on the target. She used two different revolvers and had to cock them first because her finger strength just isn't there.
She also tried out a .22 rifle but found it too large for her and was not able to shoot it comfortably.
We go back tonight because boy scouts sponsors a teen shooting group that meets on Thursday nights. We hope to get her involved in this.
The first revolver had a 9 bullet cylinder that popped out while the second was an older style six shooter with a small piece on the right of the cylinder that opened up to allow access to the cylinder. That was a one bullet at a time loader.
The rifle was your basic tube loader. It reminded me of the rifle used by Chuck Connors in The Rifleman.
Her mother told us about the event but it was my idea to bring her. I texted her that day at school to try and give her a heads up about the plan for the evening but I didn't want to say anything that might trigger an overreaction from school officials.
Regardless she was very respectful at the range and gave each weapon proper respect.
However I've only ever used a dart rifle and pistol at the Singapore Zoo in practical usage.
Its very strange in the UK at least how normal I find it knowing how to use guns from living in the country side that I take it as read that others do. Its very strange encountering people with a massive theoretical knowlwedge of guns yet have never fired them or know how to.
I still take the stance that you aren't shooting to kill, you're shooting to stop the threat but the fact that the shooting is only justifiable if lethal force is necessary kind of makes that not matter. The people who say "just shoot them in the leg" or "just shoot the gun out of their hand" obviously haven't shot a gun before.
It did not prove an effective barrier to people having the shotguns who wanted them, or criminals having them.
Also I love the rim-fire jokes