Tacoma, WA — The City County of Tacoma, Washington is considering a radical way to fund ‘gun violence prevention programs’ in their city.
Instead of taxing criminals, talking about the mental health crisis, or addressing the myriad of other factors that would drive somebody to want to hurt themselves or other innocent people, they’re blaming guns.
The proposal would assess a tax of $25 per gun sold in the city, as well as a tax on every single round of ammunition.
City County Member Ryan Mello suggested the idea, and it will be voted on this week.
Of course, a tax like this would be devastating for mom and pop gun stores.
Their profit margins are much smaller, because unlike big box stores, they deal in very small quantities.
One local gun store owner, Mary Davies of Mary’s Pistols in Tacoma said that the measure would close her store. “I’m certain I will close.”
Her husband Dan, co-owner at Mary’s Pistols, went on to say, “I don’t make a lot of money per gun. The $25 per gun would literally price me out of business.
This ordinance threatens my livelihood, my family, and my friends.”
Meanwhile the City Council’s talking points are right off a Bloomberg Poster.
Ryan Mello, who proposed the measure, said, “Gun violence is a real problem with 40,000 gun-related deaths in 2018, and 22-gun related homicides in Tacoma this year alone.
This is a modest tax to fund gun violence prevention programs in Tacoma.”
Where Does That Stop?
This sets a terrible precedent.
Do parents of children all pay a tax to fund anti-bullying campaigns?
Do all grocery store customers pay a tax to fund anti-obesity campaigns?
No, like all taxes and insurance schemes for gun owners, this penalizes the innocent and law-abiding for the actions of the criminal.
Some kids do bully, but we don’t tax all parents.
Some people do over-eat, but we don’t tax all grocery purchasers.
But there’s more at play here than “who should pay for crime prevention?” Most Americans would see that the innocent don’t pay for the crimes of the guilty.
No, what’s not addressed here is the issue of paying to use our rights.
Do we pay for the right to free speech?
Or do we pay the government for the right to travel freely in our country?
How about a tax for the right to not be held as slaves? No, and we don’t have to pay for the right to bear arms, either.
Mary Davies said it well, “It’s the principle that people will have to pay for what they think is there right. You would not pay a tax to vote, pay a tax for free speech.”
Yes, Mary, you’re right.
It’s the principle.