• Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      There won’t be less ammo out there. Alcohol taxes don’t cut down on alcohol consumption, tobacco taxes don’t cut down on tobacco consumption, and ammo taxes don’t cut down on ammo purchases.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Those do actually cut down on consumption. Alcohol and tobacco are also addictive; ammo is not.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        tobacco taxes don’t cut down on tobacco consumption

        The more expensive cigarettes have gotten, the more people I know have quit. Every time there’s a cigarette tax hike, I’ll hear about someone quitting.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I can only tell you what I’ve experienced in my lifetime, and if it’s generational, it’s not amongst my peers. We’re in our late 40s and we all smoked as teenagers.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sure, but can you rob or kill a crip with a pack of Marlboro smooths? People will pay the tax especially to murder people either in disputes or self defense.

          The only thing this could possibly do is make it so people are less likely to go to the range, instead saving ammo for when they need it, in turn making them less practiced and therefore less accurate, in turn making it more dangerous for bystanders in the case of armed defense.

          Gangbangers don’t train at the range, mass shooters don’t need accuracy for “fish in a barrel” so to speak who can’t fire back and are often trapped, and someone murdering their wife or some shit can usually do it at point blank cannot miss range. This bill is not only pointless, it may be actively detrimental. It only serves as an attempt by the leading party to say “see we did something, vote for us again,” while (imo intentionally) not actually solving anything so they can keep running on the issue year after year.

          Sure, it may make some future poor people say “well I’d love to get a gun to protect myself because I live in a bad neighborhood but I can’t afford it,” but is “no guns for poors, only rich whities” really a desirable outcome just because “anything that decreases the number of arms is good even if it really only decreases for the poors and POC?”

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Well the rest of the thread is, the cigarettes you mentioned were previously mentioned in the context of being analogous to this tax. In the future it might be prudent to lead with a disclaimer like “well this actually doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand except for this one specific thing you said, and it’s very important we ignore all other context from the thread, however…”

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    It might, except for the fact that you seem to be the only person confused about this and I don’t foresee myself catering my future posts to you personally, generally speaking.

        • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          The commenter above you was clearly not around in the eighties if they don’t think tobacco consumption has dropped. I’m amused that I’ve seen this argument at least twice in this thread.