General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why The Gun Lobby Is Terrified Of California - from Mother Jones - *5-cent tax on each bullet* [View all]Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)Where to begin?
First of all, other than .22 rimfire ammo, there is no corollary between the popularity and the size of bullet used. .22 rimfires are by far the most poplar caliber because of the low cost and the ease with which they can be shot but the popularity has nothing to do with the size of the bullet that they use.
Secondly, the cost of bullets is not based on weight, your claim that heavier bullets are always more expensive is just plain bunk. Most of the cost variance involved with different types of bullets is based on bullet construction. There are a wide variety of different types of bullet styles, from soft points, hollow points, round nose, boat-tailed, jacketed, bonded to solids. Weight plays almost no role in price, it's the construction that makes the difference. For example, take a particular caliber such as a 7mm-08., 139 gr. Remington or Winchester jacketed soft points are about half the cost of 120 gr. Barnes solids. Sorry, your claim that heavier bullets always cost more is just factually incorrect. Popularity of the caliber and the amount of ammo produced of a given type has much more bearing on cost than bullet weight.
"Heavier weights are nastier". Again, simply not true. I suggest you look at a ballistics table that includes ft. lbs of energy at various distances and compare a number of different calibers and bullet weights and the difference in energy at various ranges. For example, a 12 ga. using a 300 gr. slug has about 1,600 F/P of energy at 100 yards, where a 30-06 using a 150 gr. bullet has about 2,600 F/P of energy at the same distance, despite being half the weight. Weight coupled with velocity certainly enters into ballistic calculations but it's not a given that a heavier bullet will be deadlier than a lighter one.
As far as hunters only using one bullet, obviously you don't hunt. Hunters, at least the ones that know what they are doing, tend to do a lot of shooting, to become thoroughly familiar with their weapon, to keep their shooting skills honed and to make sure that their level of accuracy is sufficient so that they only need to use one bullet, when the time comes. Why would you want to make hunting ammunition so expensive, so as to discourage hunters from doing a lot of practice? Dumb idea that could have some unfortunate results for the quarry that they pursue.
Yes, I understand that the revenue from the proposed tax would be directed towards reducing crime, as could a tax increase on popsicles or CD's, both of which have about as much to do with increasing levels of violent crime as ammunition does (although if it's a rap CD, you might be able to make a reasonable argument for the culture that's promoted playing a role in increasing violence among urban youth).
What I was looking for was an example of how an ammunition tax or any of the other proposed measures would directly reduce the potential for crime. Do you seriously believe that a mugger is going to skip using a gun because the bullets cost an extra nickle apiece?