Tax Credits for Gun Safety

Last night, CD 11 candidate Edward Lindsey spoke to the Buckhead Young Republicans. He offered a nice wrap up of the legislative session and took some pretty tough questions. When pressed on his second amendment position, Lindsey stated he opposed further regulations on background checks but was “floating” the idea tax credits for gun owners who were willing to take gun safety classes as a way to incentive more responsibility.

After our recent contention over his 2A positions, I like the ‘voluntary’ aspect but I’m still not sure how I feel about this. Has Lindsey seen the light?


  1. Dave Bearse says:

    A tax credit? Highlighting the hyprocrisy of the party that disdains the takers and wants to reform taxes by eliminating credits and deductions to lower rates—just so long as thery’re somebody’s elses credits and deductions, and the rate redeuctions disproportionately benefit the well-off.

  2. Lindsey also voted for strong pro-Second Amendment bills this year…twice. Neither of those bill included a training requirement or increased background checks, and included campus carry.

    I think your 2nd Amendment rights groups (NRA, GA Carry etc..) want folks to get proper training when bringing a firearm into their homes. They just don’t want a government mandate on training – neither do I. Perhaps a tax credit to encourage responsible behavior is a good idea. It’s certainly worth talking about.

    • xdog says:

      Buzz, would you consider talking about tax credits for driver’s ed, or to provide training in rearing a child or caring for an elder at home? Can’t get much more responsible than that.

    • Tiberius says:

      If you ever have to explain the difference btwn conservatives and libertarians on taxes, cite the above last sentence by Buzz. Conservatives, in part, want to use taxes or the tax code to motivate behavior. Libertarians don’t want to use the tax code for anything and believe the very idea is anti-American.

    • Joshua Morris says:

      I agree with Tiberius on this. I have grown very tired of hearing about tax breaks for certain behaviors. This is nothing more than social engineering, and it is a shame that anyone in government thinks it is a good idea to manipulate citizens with the government dollar.

      • Tiberius says:

        I wasn’t stating my opinion on Buzz’s post but just highlighting the difference btwn the 2 ideologies which is sometimes hard for some to comprehend.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      You don’t want a government mandate on training, simply a government handout for those that want training, and that incidentally will enhance gun industry profits.

      • Also I’d like to point out that you have to pay a lot of taxes for a tax credit to be worth your time. Of course the guy from Buckhead wants to pay his friends to take gun safety classes.

        • mpierce says:

          Perhaps you are thinking of a tax deduction? Tax credits are different and many with little to no income tax burden use them. The lowest quintile of income earners pay an average income tax rate of -9.3% (yes that’s negative) as of 2009.

          • That’s true re: credits and deductions, and we don’t know what it would look like. Most of those people pay a high percentage of their income in payroll taxes which last time I checked go into the same pot as income taxes do (thanks to Al Gore’s lockbox not surviving the 2000 recount).

            That said – since when are the Republicans and conservatives no less fans of social engineering the tax code to achieve their goals?

            • Joshua Morris says:

              “Al Gore’s lockbox” – Good one. I needed a chuckle. He could never lock up what was opened by Lyndon Johnson in the 60s.

              People paying more in payroll taxes than income taxes is a problem. If someone is paying less than 7.65% in federal income tax, he is not paying his, ahem, fair share–no matter how small his paycheck is. People with no skin in the game have no reason to care what happens with taxpayer money, except to beg for more of it to come to their own pockets.

    • Michael Silver says:

      As much as I’d like a tax credit, its going to be wasted money. The majority of gun totters , probably close to 90%, already seek out training and education that meets their individual needs. The Marietta PD runs a gun safety class and it is filled wall to the wall with people. At GeorgiaCarry.Org’s convention they have training sessions about self-defense law and those sessions are packed. Gun totters are voracious consumers of education about gun totting. They don’t need a financial incentive. Licensees by their nature are responsible people.

      I often encounter people who think mandated training should be required to carry a gun. Not one of those people can demonstrate with facts that 1) there is a current problem with Georgia Weapons Licensees that justifies a mandated training requirement and 2) that mandated training has any measurable impact on safety or use of force in states the mandate training. They always fall back on some anecdote … my cousin slept with a guy whose sister shot someone’s dog in the shower. And usually the person didn’t know if the shooter had a license.

      The Legislature can do something very simple to encourage the availability and accessibility of training though. Many local governments in Georgia are using zoning laws to prevent gun ranges from being built and severely restricting their operation. Bartow County did this about 4 years ago. If the Legislature added the gun ranges to the state pre-emption clause (16-11-173 (b)(1)), gun ranges won’t be subject to unique zoning conditions and would be treated just like any other industrial type zoning use.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        Michael Silver April 18, 2013 at 6:20 am-

        Excellent points and suggestions.

  3. btfried says:

    I think a “reward” for being a responsible gun owner should come from the private and not the public sector. Drivers who take safety courses can reduce their insurance premiums, so why couldn’t gun safety courses follow that model? Proof of gun safety training could lower someone’s health or homeowners insurance cost.

    • Well but then you run into little actuarial problems such as you’re more likely to be killed by the gun you have in your house (either from a spouse, suicide, accident, scuffle whatever) than you are to kill an intruder or someone up to no good. Lessons or not.

  4. Matt Stout says:

    The 2nd Amendment is just fine without any tax credits or deductions.

    Any alterations by the current officials will be held suspect by the gun owners.

Comments are closed.