I am 41 years old and despite never being in the military, being exposed to excessively loud noises throughout my life, and having no genetic preconditions for hearing loss, I have tinnitus. It started to creep up within the first year I began training with a pistol for the purpose of self-defense after being jumped and attacked no less than 5 times in the 2 years prior to buying that pistol. When I went to the range, I wore ear plugs AND ear muffs (the latter costing nearly $300 in an attempt to get the best of the best) and STILL I realized quickly that, despite being in a quiet room, I was hearing loud ringing. This combination is capable of reducing the concussive noise of a gunshot only minimally. My doctor says there's really no possible other source other than my exposure to firearms. My exposure that was only a tiny fraction of what soldiers are subjected to, what shooting sports enthusiasts are subjected to, and so forth. Had I been able to afford a suppressor and $200 NFA tax at the time, I would have been able to reduce the decibel output of my pistol by up to 35 dB. Combine that with my hearing protection, and I would have NEVER come to have tinnitus from shooting sports AND everyone else in the range with me would have been subjected to far less noise as well. A suppressor should be easily accessible, taxed only at the prevailing consumer goods sales tax, and require no government approval so that there are no barriers to protecting the hearing of a shooter and those around them while exercising one's 2nd amendment rights. It seems as if a $500 tax on suppressors is a retaliatory action not grounded in any kind of premise of safety or health. It would limit once again access to what is fundamentally a hearing protection device to wealthy VA residents. Is this the message Democrats want to send: "We want guns to be as loud as possible and if you are keen to be respectful to your own hearing and others, we will force you to pay $500!" That doesn't land well with anyone. It fundamentally makes no sense, especially since in Europe, South Africa, and other parts of the world you can simply walk into a store, buy a suppressor (you're encouraged to do so), and walk out in as much time as it takes to drink a cup of coffee. This tax obviously solves nothing, will not raise revenue fairly and justly, and will likely cost VA more to defend than it rakes in as suppressors are already commonly $1,000 or more. Anti-2A laws do not reduce crime in the same way anti-reproductive rights laws do not reduce abortions... in both instances the result is worse. Stop infringing on Constitutional rights and start focusing on what matters.
I am 41 years old and despite never being in the military, being exposed to excessively loud noises throughout my life, and having no genetic preconditions for hearing loss, I have tinnitus. It started to creep up within the first year I began training with a pistol for the purpose of self-defense after being jumped and attacked no less than 5 times in the 2 years prior to buying that pistol. When I went to the range, I wore ear plugs AND ear muffs (the latter costing nearly $300 in an attempt to get the best of the best) and STILL I realized quickly that, despite being in a quiet room, I was hearing loud ringing. This combination is capable of reducing the concussive noise of a gunshot only minimally. My doctor says there's really no possible other source other than my exposure to firearms. My exposure that was only a tiny fraction of what soldiers are subjected to, what shooting sports enthusiasts are subjected to, and so forth. Had I been able to afford a suppressor and $200 NFA tax at the time, I would have been able to reduce the decibel output of my pistol by up to 35 dB. Combine that with my hearing protection, and I would have NEVER come to have tinnitus from shooting sports AND everyone else in the range with me would have been subjected to far less noise as well. A suppressor should be easily accessible, taxed only at the prevailing consumer goods sales tax, and require no government approval so that there are no barriers to protecting the hearing of a shooter and those around them while exercising one's 2nd amendment rights. It seems as if a $500 tax on suppressors is a retaliatory action not grounded in any kind of premise of safety or health. It would limit once again access to what is fundamentally a hearing protection device to wealthy VA residents. Is this the message Democrats want to send: "We want guns to be as loud as possible and if you are keen to be respectful to your own hearing and others, we will force you to pay $500!" That doesn't land well with anyone. It fundamentally makes no sense, especially since in Europe, South Africa, and other parts of the world you can simply walk into a store, buy a suppressor (you're encouraged to do so), and walk out in as much time as it takes to drink a cup of coffee. This tax obviously solves nothing, will not raise revenue fairly and justly, and will likely cost VA more to defend than it rakes in as suppressors are already commonly $1,000 or more. Anti-2A laws do not reduce crime in the same way anti-reproductive rights laws do not reduce abortions... in both instances the result is worse. Stop infringing on Constitutional rights and start focusing on what matters.