Skip to main content

View Diary: Another school shooting. Is taxing firearms the answer. (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But can't it already be argued that cost... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clinical12

    ... is a limiting factor in the purchase of firearms?  Prices in the gun market are being dictated by elastic supply and demand.  That AR-15 rifle could be less expensive today if Bushmaster simply decided to manufacture more.  Based on their production decisions, which sets the price they charge, they are limiting the "rights" of someone to own one.

    A new tax on the weapon would basically shift the supply/demand curve upward along the price axis.  However, the manufacturer can still achieve the same profit by increasing the supply (assuming the tax is less than the current profit made by the gun manufacturer).  And the manufacturer may actually gain from the scenario if the cost/unit dropped due to the increase in production.

    I am staunchly on the gun control side of the house.  But taking a weapons tax, or an insurance fee off the table because it may increase the price of a weapon seems to only look at a small part of the pricing matrix.  And as I stated earlier, the gun manufacturers are already infringing on someone's  2nd Amendment decisions by limiting supply to set the cost.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:05:04 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Check back in a month or two. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clinical12, VClib

      It's a transient demand. This happened the last time around, in fact a number of times in the not too distant past, with ammo also. Nobody was trying to limit the amount of ammo on the market, they couldn't keep up for a while, and then everybody lost interest or ran out of storage room or whatever, and things got back to normal.

      Same thing will happen with AR supply too. Nobody's going to increase their capacity for a transient demand.

      If the intent of a tax is to get or keep guns out of the hands of people, that's different from somebody making a business decision not to invest in plant and equipment for a demand that won't be there in the future.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:52:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey338 - I think that market prices (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too

      and taxes, fees, and insurance costs set by governments are in separate categories. I think you will likely see an additional small fee to cover a more robust background check system. The courts will look to see if any of the added costs were put in place because they were intended to reduce access and will make their judgements accordingly.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:06:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site