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?”
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…”
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.
Actually I’d argue that I am not the one confused, I’m replying to someone who was confused about the nature of the thread they posted in, which I only found out after they claimed that they were only being hyperspecific and I should have known that due to what I can only surmise is my supposed psychic ability.
In any case, good day. It seems we have no further business.
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?”
Ok, but I was talking about the claim that tobacco taxes don’t cut down tobacco consumption.
And I’m saying “they may have, but bullets are different than cigarettes.”
That would be fine if I was talking about guns, which I was not.
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…”
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.
Actually I’d argue that I am not the one confused, I’m replying to someone who was confused about the nature of the thread they posted in, which I only found out after they claimed that they were only being hyperspecific and I should have known that due to what I can only surmise is my supposed psychic ability.
In any case, good day. It seems we have no further business.