Among the latest push by anti-gunners is a new way to try and get around gun control itself. It seems that they believe that since guns are difficult to control, they’ll try controlling ammunition instead.
California’s a prime example of this, of course, and Oregon’s draconian proposal is another such attempt, but these two states are far from alone on this.
Connecticut, a state that hasn’t met a gun control proposal it didn’t like, is jumping on the bandwagon.
A first-term Connecticut lawmaker wants to hike the price of ammunition in the state through the application of a special tax.
State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, D-Hartford introduced HB 5700 late last month to tack on a 50 percent tax to ammo sales, a move for which she has found co-sponsors for in the state Senate.
In a statement, House Democrats clarified the bill would exclude ammo sales to police and the military. They argued the measure would reduce the rate of gun deaths in the state, which is already low, while conceding some 83 percent of those were attributable to suicides.
“I’m hearing push back about the need to protect one’s home… but how much ammunition does someone really need to do that?” Gilcrest said in a post to social media that was soon bombarded with negative feedback from pro-gun commenters.
Well, she’s an idiot.
Protecting one’s home is about more than keeping a loaded firearm handy. Responsible gun owners practice so they can hit what they mean to and, more importantly, not hit stuff they don’t intend to. That includes things like innocent bystanders, their kids, their spouse, the family dog, and so on.
Contrary to what you see in the movies, people don’t just remember how to shoot after ages and ages of not firing their weapons. Marksmanship is a perishable skill. It requires constant upkeep, and that means practice. If you want to defend your home effectively, you need to train to defend your home.
Gilcrest’s bill will seek to penalize you for doing just that, however. Why? Because she doesn’t think you should have guns to do that.
However, her comment about “how much ammunition does someone really need for that?” illustrates how little she understands about the topic of guns or personal protection. Especially in light of a Houston man’s defense of his home from a number of armed attackers recently. I bet the last thing he thought when it was all over was “I wish I hadn’t had all this ammo around.”
When lawmakers try to pass laws on topics they’re not versed in you get bad law. This is a prime example of that. Gilcrest is looking at this measure from the point of view that views guns as bad. A point of view that thinks if ammunition is made more expensive then it will curb crime. Sure, because bad guys never steal stuff and sell it on the black market.
Meanwhile, as per usual, the law-abiding citizen will be the one getting screwed over in all this.
More importantly, this measure reduces public safety as it makes it so gun owners will be less trained with their weapons. That’s not good for anyone.