HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I Love It - Not Gun Contr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:24 AM

I Love It - Not Gun Control - But - Ammo Control.......

sounds reasonable to me. Sen. Blumenthal will put a bill through that is pretty comprehensive - but he is stressing enforcing the laws already on the books and also 'ammunition control'.

40 replies, 2672 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply I Love It - Not Gun Control - But - Ammo Control....... (Original post)
global1 Jan 2013 OP
Speck Tater Jan 2013 #1
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #7
Speck Tater Jan 2013 #32
hogwyld Jan 2013 #38
frylock Jan 2013 #39
backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #2
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #12
Larrymoe Curlyshemp Jan 2013 #3
PotatoChip Jan 2013 #8
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #21
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #4
CanonRay Jan 2013 #10
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #13
CanonRay Jan 2013 #29
NickB79 Jan 2013 #35
CanonRay Jan 2013 #37
rbixby Jan 2013 #30
backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #25
global1 Jan 2013 #11
Recursion Jan 2013 #24
Riftaxe Jan 2013 #5
Exen Trik Jan 2013 #6
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #23
NickB79 Jan 2013 #9
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #14
Orrex Jan 2013 #15
backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #16
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #18
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #17
Orrex Jan 2013 #19
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #22
Orrex Jan 2013 #27
rbixby Jan 2013 #31
frylock Jan 2013 #40
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #20
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #26
NickB79 Jan 2013 #33
stlsaxman Jan 2013 #28
NickB79 Jan 2013 #34
dkf Jan 2013 #36

Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:26 AM

1. Reloading your own ammo is trivial.

 

So it wouldn't do any good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:49 AM

7. Ban the sale of gunpowder and the primers problem solved

 

100% LEGAL too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stultusporcos (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:00 PM

32. Black market gunpowder would be all over the place.

 

Instead of meth labs there would be gunpowder labs everywhere. The stuff is really easy to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:56 PM

38. If you want to play with a single shot musket

be my guest. But the primers are not so easily made, and they sure as hell can be regulated. I just don't envision a bunch of bathtub primer houses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:16 PM

39. oh well, then fuck it

</jon_stewart>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:50 AM

2. oh my

Guess I'll go stock up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:39 AM

12. Too late

That pipeline is also emptied

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:17 AM

3. I love Chris Rock!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larrymoe Curlyshemp (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:16 AM

8. Ha! You beat me to it! I immediately thought of that.

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

(Warning- Not for the easily offended.)

Chris Rock:
"You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? We need some bullet control. We need to control the bullets. That's right. I think all bullets should cost 5000 dollars. 5000 dollars for a bullet. You know why? Because if a bullet cost 5000 dollars, there'd be no more innocent bystanders... Yeah! Yeah!!!...

Every time somebody gets shot, you be like, damn, he must of did something. That's like 50,000 dollars worth of bullets in his head!!!

People would think before they kill somebody, if a bullet cost 5000 dollars... Man, I would blow your f'n head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me another job, gonna start saving me some money, and you a dead man. You better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larrymoe Curlyshemp (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:23 AM

21. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:46 AM

4. You think paying a few more dollars to fill a gun magazine will deter someone?

 

If someone is contemplating MURDERING someone else (which is prety much the ultimate law to be breaking) I dont think they'll give a shit about spending a few more bucks to fill that magazine up. You could a 400% tax on bullets and it would only increase the cost to fill a Glock 9mm magazine less than $20.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:58 AM

10. OK, tax it 4000%, or 40000%

tax it until it does hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:39 AM

13. So you support poll taxes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:15 AM

29. What does taxing bullet sales have to do with a poll tax

Just wunderin'? The gov can slap a tax on any interstate commerce it chooses to tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:16 PM

35. It would be regarded as a "use tax" for a constitutional right

The US Supreme Court has already struck down such a thing with regard to the 1st Amendment: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/460/575

Intentionally taxing bullets to the point they are uneconomical to the average citizen to buy would most likely be ruled unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:08 PM

37. Making "ink and paper" the equivalent of bullets

is a bit of a stretch IMHO, even for this SCOTUS, but whatever. Probably won't happen, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:15 AM

30. Not sure what poll taxes have to do with ammo taxes....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanonRay (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:41 AM

25. you can't do that

I would explain why but I would just be called a baby killer or something so why bother

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:34 AM

11. I Have No Idea What A Bullet Costs....

so can you help me here? Let's use a Keurig Coffee maker for comparison. Given the fact that the cheapest I can buy a filled Keurig Coffee K-Cup is about $0.50 but I can buy a reusable K-Cup filter for $6.00 and then get the cost down per cup by using that by buying a can of coffee to fill it. So please tell me what it costs to buy bullets for guns.

I was thinking it was comparable in cost if not more to load a gun with bullets - but I don't have a clue as I don't have a gun nor have an inclination to buying one. Now I'm a cheapskate and I want to get the cheapest cup of coffee possible. If coffee got too expensive I would first cut back and not drink as much or quit all together.

I don't smoke either - but I see that they keep raising the cost of a pack of cigarettes and they keep hammering us as to how bad it is too smoke. I have noticed that people still smoke and they will continue to - no matter how high priced cigarettes get - but I also noticed that less people smoke now and more are quitting - either because of cost, or the harmful effects or because it's just not as cool to smoke as it once was.

Hollywood and the TV industry don't use cigarettes as much as they used to in films and tv shows. There are no more TV commercials. One can't smoke in public places anymore. I'm thinking that cigarette smoking is going down. Maybe that is a better analogy to compare guns/bullets to. I know smokers gripe about all this but it appears that this has all ultimately been accepted by society.

Couldn't we use the same tactic for guns/ammo? Tax, raise prices, dissuade conceal carry (like people can't smoke in public places), somehow minimize the use of guns on TV and Movies.

With some background checks, registration and some mental health screening thrown in - can't we begin to make guns less cool, less acceptable and less used.

These are just some thoughts on this from a person that doesn't have a gun nor a desire to have one. That's why I thought the tact by the Senator to control ammo might be a good idea. I can see by the responses to my post that apparently wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:41 AM

24. Anywhere from ten cents to a dollar per bullet

Right now the price is way up because everybody is panic buying, but if it settles down to where it was a year ago, around a quarter for most kinds of ammunition.

Hollywood and the TV industry don't use cigarettes as much as they used to in films and tv shows. There are no more TV commercials. One can't smoke in public places anymore. I'm thinking that cigarette smoking is going down. Maybe that is a better analogy to compare guns/bullets to. I know smokers gripe about all this but it appears that this has all ultimately been accepted by society.

I think convincing Hollywood not to make the gun the co-star of action movies is a great idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:46 AM

5. Speech is free

Yet people talk to much, why not a license for those who tend to prattle?

We enrich the country that way.

Ever notice people are getting a bit uppity about body cavity searches...Well, i imagine a thinker like you would...someday...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:53 AM

6. You will never be able to use a 3d printer for gunpowder

So that's a plus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exen Trik (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:32 AM

23. If 3d printers are here, can replicators be far behind?

Hello, replicator, I'll take an Arcturian Gin and Tonic, and an ounce of gunpowder.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:34 AM

9. The bill that would make armor-piercing rifle rounds illegal?

Ignoring the fact that every single bullet approved for hunting use will penetrate a Kevlar vest due simply to the velocity every rifle bullet powerful enough for deer is propelled at?

Yeah, that will win over the responsible gun owner/hunter crowd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:41 AM

14. Sounds like more incompetence from pols

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:58 AM

15. Another reasonable response from the all-guns-all-the-time contingent

I applaud your consistency.


Have any gun zealots enthusiasts offered any meaningful alternatives to the gun control legislation proposed so far? I haven't seen any, to be honest.

Instead, I've seen a lot of pearl-clutching outrage at the shocking ignorance of politicians and anyone who doesn't sleep with a gun under his pillow. A few have offered tepid support for limitations to magazine size, and some have called for greater access to mental healthcare service, but that's about it.

So enlighten us, since the incompetent politicians certainly can't understand the situation as thoroughly as you do. What's the solution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:04 AM

16. I have tried that approach several times here

allI got for it was being called a baby killer and worse.I gave up trying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:18 AM

18. I'm fool enough to keep trying. There are things that need to be tightened up

When I post them, the griefers tend not to respond and a few days later throw the same rock.

Wash Rinse Repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:16 AM

17. No, just a call for some understanding of the basic tech involved here since as old AWB showed us,

it matters. Pols tend not to be detail people, and in the real world details matter. As for suggestions, here are some of mine:

Things I support

NICS checks or equivalent on all transactions, even private party transaction, inheritance, and gifts. My approach would be a Federal FOID that you would automatically get at 18yo so they are not a "firearms ownership licenses", a common objection to that approach. The check is then if the FOID is still valid for the sale to proceed. This is easy from the IT perspective. Note the NRA rejects the FOID approach.

Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations

All firearms must be secured when not in use, being cleaned, transported, etc. While California got stupid on parts of this, its the right thing to do. Some will miss their old time glass front display cases or wall rack, but proper security is a must. Would consider an exemption for non-functional devices. I believe the NRA has fought mandatory safes. It adds costs to gun ownership, but this has to be done.

Mandatory reporting of theft or loss. This is a no brainer. A number of pro gun people say they will report theirs missing to avoid registration etc. That should be felony country.

Enforce the existing Federal laws about false paperwork by purchasers. Bloomie and I even agree on this one

Somethings I have mixed feelings about/no definitive solution

Mandatory owner training. It is not required to exercise any other enumerated right, but I have seen some very scary stuff over the years. Not sure what the standards should be, but I come down on the side of some training being required. The NRA has fought this.

Mandatory safety training for children. Enough for them to overcome their natural curiosity and get an adult should they find an unsecured firearm. While some would find that more offensive than the fundies find sex ed, until things change, its basic safety and needs to be done. Not sure the best way, but it is clearly called for. NRA has not taken a stand on this but does offer such classes. I don't see it as a talking point.

Waiting periods. For someone who already has firearms, not sure what purpose they serve. For first time owners I support them. Overall I think they are a good idea. Not sure what the right time length should be. 1 weeks seems good. There are reports that Lanza tried to buy a rifle but was stopped by the mandated waiting period (if the media reports are to be believed). NRA opposes waiting periods

Better mental health reporting and supervision. Seen a number of posts on that here. Clearly something is called for, but how to do it is not clear. Loughner never should have been allowed to have a gun. Also we cannot and should not demonize the mentally ill and the people who serve them as some have done. The NRA has fought additional reporting of some types of problems yet is trying to blame the "crazies". Go figure

===============================================
That's my current working list. Those will address some of the concerns. Clearly it is not for you enough based on your prior posts, but its a fair start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:58 AM

19. A fair start indeed--thank you.

Those are among the first concrete suggestions I've seen on the subject from any gun advocate that didn't amount to "we need more guns."

Here are a few that I suggest in addition, some of which I suspect you will not support:

1. Background checks and registration of all newly purchased firearms, including those resold privately or at gun shows.
2. Background checks on all ammunition purchases.
3. Ballistic fingerprinting of all newly manufactured firearms as well as any firearms seized as part of a criminal investigation.
4. Mandatory minimum sentences for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm.
5. Permanent forfeiture of all firearms and ammunition by anyone convicted of a crime involving the use or possession of a firearm


Love your suggestions about a mandatory waiting period and requirement of owner training, and I like this one as well:
Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:26 AM

22. Some additional feedback

1. Background checks and registration of all newly purchased firearms, including those resold privately or at gun shows.
As I stated in the prior post, I support background checks on all transfers. There are questions as to how it best could be done. Mandatory registration has not proven to be useful in other nations, so I am on the fence about that. Over time it would be a self solving problem anyway

2. Background checks on all ammunition purchases.
What problem are you trying to address with that? Getting a brick of .22LR at the local sporting goods store should not require a lengthy check.

3. Ballistic fingerprinting of all newly manufactured firearms as well as any firearms seized as part of a criminal investigation.
Most if not all ballistics data from crimes already ends up in IBIS. Ballistic fingerprinting of new guns is fine with me. Be aware that such techniques are not foolproof and is increasingly being successfully challenged.

4. Mandatory minimum sentences for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm.
Already exists in the law, not always followed. Gun enhancement penalties are often dealt away.

5. Permanent forfeiture of all firearms and ammunition by anyone convicted of a crime involving the use or possession of a firearm
Already exists in the law and is broader in scope to what you have asked for

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:52 AM

27. Thanks

Regarding the ammunition purchases, I was thinking in terms of slowing down (or at least tracking) the supply, on the grounds that an unloaded A5-15 is subtantially less dangerous, but you make a good point.

I suppose that I'd be content if the requirements for purchasing ammunition were at least as strict as the requirements when I attempt to purchase Sudafed. That is, they check my license, log my purchase, and require my signature.

I was thinking of mandatory registration both as a means of tracing stolen weapons and also for enforcing forfeiture of firearms following criminal conviction.

I'm in favor of ballistic fingerprinting, even with its flaws, because it seems like another useful baseline for tracking firearms stolen and later used in crimes. Not enough to seal the deal on its own, perhaps, but possibly helpful as supplemental info.

Regarding those laws that you identify as already in place, I was indeed unaware that this was the case--thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:22 AM

31. I like the background checks for private sales too

It doesn't do anything about illegal sales, but that's kind of the nature of illegal sales.

I think that requiring a bill of sale or a proof of ownership for each firearm would be good to have, so we know the last known person who legally transferred the weapon was.

Yep, it would be a gun registry, but make it only available by search warrant, not to the general public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:18 PM

40. MOAR GUNSES!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:22 AM

20. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:44 AM

26. Shooting range control

You can have the gun, and the ammo, but unless you play by the rules, you can't shoot it anywhere.

Nothing guarantees a place to go to shoot your gun.

We regulate bars. We can regulate shooting ranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:09 PM

33. Are you proposing a ban on ammo storage at home?

I'm not clear what you're suggesting. The US Supreme Court has already ruled a citizen's legal right to own firearm for self-defense; it would be blatantly unconstitutional to ban ownership of ammo inside one's own dwelling because without ammo guns are useless for self-defense. And, the courts have also ruled against blanket ammo bans in the past, so that's out.

Shooting ranges are already heavily regulated and have to follow strict safely guidelines. Beyond that, it's legal to shoot on public lands during hunting season, and you can legally shoot on your own land so long as you are not in city limits. You could also shoot in a farmer's field if he give's you permission to use his land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:02 AM

28. You need an insurance policy on your automobile- why not your guns?

you can drive your car around all you want and anywhere you want- and until a death is caused with your car no one need be the wiser.

Just think of all the jobs created for the insurance industry and the bureaucrats!

Sure- there's snark in this post but still... just asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stlsaxman (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:11 PM

34. Except some states don't require an insurance policy

Wisconsin comes to mind.

Also, you don't need insurance, a license or registration if you don't take a car off your property. If I had a car delivered to my house, I could tear around in the backyard all I wanted with no legal obligation to purchase any forms of insurance or obtain a driver's license. It's only when I use public roads, paid for with public tax money, that I'm required to do all these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:25 PM

36. So we want people to have guns and not practice shooting?

 

Doesn't that make them more dangerous and possibly incompetent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread