Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:46:51 -0400 From: Terry Wintroub Subject: Re: [firearms-alert] CA: SCA 12 - Bullet Tax hearing coming up! Dear Senator Poochigan: This tax, like all price increases, will reduce demand. Ammo buyers will buy less, therefore shoot less, therefore practice less, therefore become less proficient with their guns, therefore cause MORE injuries. This tax will reduce ammo sales in California as gunnies take their business out of state via internet and mail order. This will reduce CA sales tax revenues. This tax will reduce the amount of shooting that gunnies do, therefore reduce the demand for ranges and gun clubs, therefore driving some out of business, therefore reducing tax revenues further. This tax will not reduce by so much as one (1) the number of victims of firearms injuries. That's okay because this tax is not intended to reduce ammo sales, ammo use, crime, or accidental shootings. It's intended to crank out money for government use, specifically for government to further subsidize emergency rooms because they cater to the "approximately 10,000 Californians a year" who suffer gunshot wounds. This is an unjustifiable act of income redistribution. First of all, 10,000 victims per year from 425 million rounds sold means a teeny minority (0.002%) of rounds are causing injuries. There is no rational or fair basis for making all those ammo buyers pay for the offenses of so few wounders. Second of all, even if ammo buyers are going to be taxed to provide medical care to gunshot victims, their taxes should NOT be used to subsidize emergency rooms in general. They should be used to subsidize care only to gunshot victims. If emergency rooms are to be further subsidized by new taxes on all users of items that send people to the ER, then you need taxes on automobile windshields, steering wheels, bumpers, tires, doors, windows, dashboards, and seatbacks. Car wrecks cause trauma and related medical care expenses in amounts that dwarf those caused by gunshots. Terry Wintroub Lawrenceville, NJ