whaaaaaaaa .
no matter what we can prove they wont stop.The argument against this fact is ban all guns so nobody can steal them "problem solved". I forgot who thought that once the magazine is empty its thrown away, gun attrition by use.

In 2017, more people died from hammers than "assault rifles". And this included the Vegas shooting.  No DNCer went after hammah's.

DNC plan is to take assault rifles, which is an easy target due to the fake news.  Once they get those, they will come after handguns next because handguns killed more total people than assault rifles.  It's their slow plan.

tax credit if you buy a gun safe?  How about a state tax credit if you get the same special door hinges the marijuana dispensaries are required to have so their marijuana does not get stolen?

tax credit if you buy a gun safe?  How about a state tax credit if you get the same special door hinges the marijuana dispensaries are required to have so their marijuana does not get stolen?

Tax credits are like rebates. They anticipate a certain percentage of purchasers will not qualify or forget to send in the claim on time.  Tax credits are not a great incentive at point-of-sale anyway.  "Instant gratification" is a better method, especially after someone with limited means just paid for a firearm, ammo, accessories for cleaning and practice, and perhaps required classes/certifications mandated by law. Add all that up, and it's tough to entice the buyer into another $100+ purchase even if they may get a credit next year.

My idea has always been to do instant rebates for a safe or qualifying lockbox for one new firearm per five years, up to a certain dollar amount -- like $150.  If you need a bigger safe than a one-gun size, you still get $150 off the purchase. If you want to use the rebate more than once in 5 years, you can turn in your old safe/lockbox for a discount based on the original purchase price up to the $150 max. After 5 years, you can get both the $150 AND a trade-in discount if you don't want the old safe.

Trade-ins could be provided free to new buyers in lieu of the rebate -- a 100% free (used) safe that's potentially a more expensive model than what $150 would afford.  The program only paid $150 max for any safe, so giving a $300-$500 safe to someone saves the program $150 on a new one, and the person turning it in gets a cumulative $300 for 2 rebates over 5+ years.

Logistically, dealers would need to store/display trade-in safes and have access to rebate info to track submissions. I'm sure some would argue that amounts to a registry, which is false. No firearm specs, serial numbers, calibers, or even number purchased would be recorded. All anyone knows is you bought a qualifying firearm which might include airsoft if the program covers that, too.

This not only addresses safe storage incentives vs. unenforceable mandates, it will also increase demand for safes to help that industry.

Standards for safes would be improved as well to meet minimum security requirements for the program and compete for new customers.

How about an enhanced castle doctrine?  If you defend yourself against an armed home invasion and the assailant is killed in the process of the self defense, you get the equivalent of 80% of the cost of the prison time they would have received.  So if it would have been a 10 year prison term and prison costs tax payers an average of $31000 a year, you'd get $248,000 for saving the tax payers that money. 

Bit much? 

How about an enhanced castle doctrine?  If you defend yourself against an armed home invasion and the assailant is killed in the process of the self defense, you get the equivalent of 80% of the cost of the prison time they would have received.  So if it would have been a 10 year prison term and prison costs tax payers an average of $31000 a year, you'd get $248,000 for saving the tax payers that money. 

Bit much? 

I like the way you think, but the Left would argue the state is effectively putting a bounty on the heads of anyone breaking the law.

Since we would also be doing the job of law enforcement -- ensuring public safety -- we should be paid for time spent from the time of the shooting until all related tasks are complete:  interviews, retrieving the confiscated firearm from evidence, and so on.

Any civil liability protections afforded to the police should also be provided to the defender, especially legal fees.  Basically, if the shooting was justified, citizens should be financially supported exactly the way Cops are.  If you do the Cop's job, you should be compensated commensurately.   

We non LEOs policing after ourselves?
I think its about power the government wants to have.
There is a pattern. We the People ask for govt's help and it usually ends up with less rights or less choices. They take this away and that. We become so reliant on govt. we are somewhat slaves to them.

I like the way you think, but the Left would argue the state is effectively putting a bounty on the heads of anyone breaking the law.

Since we would also be doing the job of law enforcement -- ensuring public safety -- we should be paid for time spent from the time of the shooting until all related tasks are complete:  interviews, retrieving the confiscated firearm from evidence, and so on.

Any civil liability protections afforded to the police should also be provided to the defender, especially legal fees.  Basically, if the shooting was justified, citizens should be financially supported exactly the way Cops are.  If you do the Cop's job, you should be compensated commensurately.   

I have a somewhat similar bill ready for next session (will anyone be willing to introduce it? Will it get a committee hearing? Will it pass out of committee? Etc. I think we know the answers to those questions...). It's based upon Indiana's just passed HB 1284 (the bill was written by an attorney who has helped several people being sued by the families of criminals who were seriously injured or killed in the commission of a crime and the self-defense was ruled "justified", but sued anyway because nothing at all to lose in doing so, and likely that it will be less costly for the sued to settle rather than take the legal process all the way and win... with no "penalty" to the suers (note double entendre)(Here is the attorney and his client, who saved the life of a police officer and was sued... https://www.nratv.com/videos/relentless-guy-relford-and-kystie-phillips-self-defense-and-the-legal-system):

On April 22nd, both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly voted to concur with the amendments made to House Bill 1284 during the conference committee process.  HB 1284 has been amended to now include many important concepts from HB 1643.  House Bill 1284 will now go to Governor Eric Holcomb’s desk for his signature. This legislation will improve the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families.
House Bill 1284, authored by Representative Lucas will provide immunity for a justified use of force in certain instances to help prevent frivolous lawsuits.  Victims of violent crime shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary civil suits, therefore being victimized twice.  It will require a court to award, in certain instances, reasonable attorney's fees if it determines a suit was brought unjustly, helping to prevent financial ruin for individuals protecting themselves and others.  

That is why I carry USCCA insurance.

Unless I missed something, it didn't really cover how the largest group of guns got on the market (black market)

So we all know that it is the illegal guns that are the majority of the problem but how do we address the illegal gun problem? I know some of them are homemade guns and there is little law enforcement can do about those but often the criminals who have these guns are using name brand firearms. A fair number are stolen but where are the rest coming from? I know that a large number of guns in Mexico are traced back to American manufacturers, could some of the criminals guns be coming from outside America?

This article said that 30 percent of guns at crime scenes were stolen firearms. Firearm theft is a big problem, and I think that is where some liberals believe that restricting all our firearms will lead to fewer guns in the hands of the criminals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.6a1f72aa0ed0

Another question I have is this, if about 1/4th of the guns come from straw purchases then where are the straw purchasers getting the guns from? Either stores or private sales so how do we tackle the problem of the straw purchasers.