# Ammunition Accountability Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513 "2008-12-03T16:09:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/41 "2008-12-03T19:30:44Z")
It’s just another back-door effort to make life as miserable as possible for gun owners, dealers, and manufacturers. It doesn’t have anything to do with solving crimes, just like the ballistic fingerprint requirement that was enacted in Maryland for handguns. Why sell or distribute weapons in a state that makes you jump through stupid and arbitrary hoops? The weasels who push these laws are really just interested in banning all guns. Every year, they push for a little more and call it “reasonable and common sense gun control”. Bullets are the things that fly through the air. A cartridge is the thing you buy at a store and load in a firearm, composed of a case, primer, gunpowder and bullet. ---
**Author:** ![Dag\_Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@Dag\_Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dag_Otto)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/42 "2008-12-03T19:32:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Diamonds in your crankshaft do not have any discernible cost/benefit ratio at all so a non-starter. Do you really think there is no benefit in bling? Everyone’s ride is now just a little bit classier. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/43 "2008-12-03T19:32:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ok…I see a lot of anecdotal info of 60+ year old ammo working. Fine…I don’t doubt it can. But honestly, when the zombie hordes attack will you be comfortable loading your clips with 60 year old ammo? Firing old ammo at the range for a laugh is one thing. Relying on it to kill your enemies when they break into your house to axe murder your family and that fleeting moment to get them before they get you is another. Are you saying it is just as reliable? > > As for stashing away some ammo “just in case” is neither here nor there. If no changes were ever made unless they were 100% foolproof and no one could beat the system then literally nothing would ever get done. What does reliability have to do with it? Does the law only apply to zombie-horde approved ammo? Lots of us shoot routinely because it’s fun, and it’s challenging. We buy surplus ammo, often in large quantities, because it’s a lot cheaper than newly manufactured commercial ammo. Why should we be required to dispose of all our old ammo that we bought in good faith? (Anyway, to answer your question, I’ve shot over a thousand rounds of ammo manufactured in the 60’s in the past 3 years. No misfires. So yeah, it’s pretty reliable) Sure, no changes would ever get done if it had to be 100% foolproof. But you have to take the difficulty in fooling the system into account when deciding whether it’s worth it. In this case, it’s trivial to keep/hide ammo that isn’t ID’d, so that has to be taken into account as to whether it’s worth the cost. ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/44 "2008-12-03T19:32:50Z")
I shoot competitions with Korea/Vietnam era ammo. I need better ammo for that than I do repelling zombies, so 40 or so years really makes no difference to me. Taking the .5 cents per round cost (which I doubt, but we have to start somewhere) and extrapolating - easily $10,000 additional costs per day for a company like Winchester. One half of one penny multiplied by the billions of rounds of ammo that are made in this country every year … a million here, a million there, pretty soon you’re talking real money The additional half cent is negligible to me as a consumer on my $3/round high precision stuff, but adds up quick on a 550 rd box of .22. And again, these companies have to come up with millions of dollars in advance to pay for their equipment. Winchester and Remington might survive, but I doubt any of the small companies will. Unless… Will they get a bailout? And police in California said it wouldn’t help. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/45 "2008-12-03T19:33:43Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Actually, that was **Whack-a-mole** ; not me. > > However, what makes you think this a difficult task to pull off? The technology is already being used. From [How ammunition is made - material, manufacture, history, used, parts, components, dimensions, machine](http://www.madehow.com/Volume-2/Ammunition.html:) Once again you are showing your ignorance when it comes the manufacture of ammo. The quote you chose is speaking of STAMPING, not lasing, a few numbers, etc, on millions of cases at a time. This is an extremely small area and has nothing to do with the bullet that is eventually loaded into the case. This is not a sequential serial number or something. Looking at a 7.62x39 round that I am holding, the back of the case is stamped with the following: 7.62x39mm R-P That’s it and it takes the entire bottom of the case to do so. This technology is centuries old, the technology involved in stamping metal. I see no way possible to modify this tech to meet the demands of the legislation. [Here is one example of what you linked to](http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb66/TheBall12804/257SuperSpeed2.jpg) A .257 Roberts casing. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/46 "2008-12-03T19:41:19Z")
> [@Dag\_Otto](#): > > I have no problem with costs going up, but for what benefit? > > Setting aside the idea that this proposal is a method for driving the price of ammunition sky high, what is the positive outcome of this? > > It doesn’t save a single life. Not one. A laser etched number on a bullet does nothing to reduce lethality. > > It may help to catch criminals. We catch criminals all the time and let them go for a variety of reasons. The chain of custody of the ammunition after the sale will be questionable. Gang member A shoots someone with a bullet bought by gang member B. B says the ammo was stolen and has an airtight alibi when A is shooting. > > I think this is an idea that sounds good at first, but is a poor idea when you take a closer look. Well, gun registration doesn’t save lives either, but we still do that. I don’t think anyone said that ammo accountability would save lives. But if it does anything to make gun crime easier and more accurate to prosecute, or if it even makes it more likely that people will keep better track of their stuff, I don’t see why anyone would complain. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/47 "2008-12-03T19:43:17Z")
[Here’s](http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=311&issue=100) a nice piece on the coded bullet thing that mentions one very important point - the patent on the tech to actually pull this off is owned by one single company, Nano-Mark Technologies. The only benefit real or imagined to doing this is that Nano-Mark Technologies becomes fantastically wealthy and do so by pushing through legislature that does no real benefit to citizens or law enforcement. In other words, by lobbying and stuffing pockets of gullible firearm ignorant rabble they stand to make an incredible sum of money for providing a service that isn’t beneficial or needed. I’m surprised they’re not based in Chicago with a plan like that. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/48 "2008-12-03T19:45:43Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Well, gun registration doesn’t save lives either, but we still do that. Do you really want to go there? You might be surprised to find that most gun owners aren’t big fans of gun registration either. Most states do not require guns to be registered FWIW. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone said that ammo accountability would save lives. But if it does anything to make gun crime easier and more accurate to prosecute, or if it even makes it more likely that people will keep better track of their stuff, I don’t see why anyone would complain. I don’t need the Feds to intrude in my life yet again to tell me how to mange my ammunition collection any more than I need them to tell me how to manage my socks. Both will end with the same result, non compliance and tax payer monies wasted. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/49 "2008-12-03T19:56:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ok…I see a lot of anecdotal info of 60+ year old ammo working. Fine…I don’t doubt it can. But honestly, when the zombie hordes attack will you be comfortable loading your clips with 60 year old ammo? Firing old ammo at the range for a laugh is one thing. Relying on it to kill your enemies when they break into your house to axe murder your family and that fleeting moment to get them before they get you is another. Are you saying it is just as reliable? I don’t see what your scenario has to do with this. I don’t have data, but I’d suspect that milsurp ammo from the WW2 era on past has above a 99% reliability rate. Even if it was only 50%, you’d still be a pretty effective criminal with it. My point was that ammo lasts a very long time - it’s not like it has a 2 year shelf life so that we could reasonably expect that with this change, after a few years all the ammo available will be serialized. > [@](#): > > As for stashing away some ammo “just in case” is neither here nor there. If no changes were ever made unless they were 100% foolproof and no one could beat the system then literally nothing would ever get done. No, but it does put doubts in a system that could easily be bypassed. In the cost/benefit analysis, a system like that reduces the benefit. > [@](#): > > Well, it is all about the cost/benefit in the end which I think (or wish) this thread was driving at. I agree, but Kalhoun seemed to be saying ‘things change, sometimes prices increases, therefore no one here can make a cost-based objection’. > [@](#): > > First question is would etching bullets be useful to law enforcement and catch more bad guys? If yes go to second question, if no stop here. > > Second question is the cost of implementing the system reasonable? We could make cars into veritable tanks so it would be a lot harder to die in an accident. But the cost/benefit ratio is far too out-of-whack to do it. So too with this. If cost/bullet is a penny or less then do it. If it is a few dollars then don’t bother. I would make your second criteria the third one, and add as a second criteria: Does this infringe upon the rights of those who would be targetted by this legislation? Anyway, to flesh out the economic aspect of this more. We’re looking at the .5 cents a round cost as the only cost increase. It’s not the biggest component, even if that number is true, which is unlikely. We would be limited to buying newly made US commercial ammo (or foreign ammo that complied with these laws, I guess. This alone is a huge factor. US-made commercial ammo is the most expensive ammo to buy. If there was a law forcing you to buy US-made commercal ammo, it alone would dramatically increase the cost of ammunition. Not only would you be unable to buy military surplus ammo, non-compliant foreign ammo, or any ammunition manufactured before the implementation directly, which tend to be the cheapest available, it will reduce the supply of ammo available and hence drive up the prices of what’s legal even further. Smaller ammo manufacturers might not have the capital to retool and go out of business, further reducing supply. The lack of competition from foreign and milsurp markets would allow commercial manufacturers to charge even more. And you have the cost to implement a complex system of registration of this ammunition. And then, after all that, you finally get around to what the serialization itself costs. Edit: As I was writing this, someone mentioned another cost - licensing fees from the company who designed this technique. The net effect will be a massive increase in the cost and reduction in the variety of ammunition available. Criminals who may have a few dozen rounds won’t bear the impact of that cost, recreational shooters or people who shoot frequently to maintain their skills will. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/50 "2008-12-03T20:06:48Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Do you really want to go there? You might be surprised to find that most gun owners aren’t big fans of gun registration either. Most states do not require guns to be registered FWIW. That doesn’t surprise me in the least. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. > [@](#): > > I don’t need the Feds to intrude in my life yet again to tell me how to mange my ammunition collection any more than I need them to tell me how to manage my socks. Both will end with the same result, non compliance and tax payer monies wasted. It’s too bad the whole world isn’t as careful with their dangerous shit as you are. We wouldn’t have the horrific problem we have in this country. The way the gun-owning population _on the whole_ handles their deadly weapons is despicable. They’re _begging_ for more regulation. Or at least some financial hardship. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/51 "2008-12-03T20:11:18Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > . The way the gun-owning population _on the whole_ handles their deadly weapons is despicable. They’re _begging_ for more regulation. Or at least some financial hardship. Ah, and we get to the core of your motivations. Those bastards, so flagrant in their assholery as to own GUNS, of all things! Of course they deserve to suffer financial hardship! I think I was right about your motivations - you’d advocate anything that gave hardship to gun owners, regardless of its practical value. I do wonder - you say the way gun-owning population as a whole handles their weapons is despicable. There are 80 or 90 million of us - and for us, on the whole, to use our weapons despicably, I’d imagine there were at least 50 million armed robberies last year and 20 million firearms murders last year, right? Something like that? After all - we’re despicable as a whole, so that must mean that it’s not a tiny fringe that’s using guns for harm, but a significant portion of us. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/52 "2008-12-03T20:19:45Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > That doesn’t surprise me in the least. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. That ax swings both ways. It doesn’t mean is IS a good idea either. > [@](#): > > It’s too bad the whole world isn’t as careful with their dangerous shit as you are. We wouldn’t have the horrific problem we have in this country. The way the gun-owning population _on the whole_ handles their deadly weapons is despicable. They’re _begging_ for more regulation. Or at least some financial hardship. Cite? I can tell you that even the FBI says that most available guns are not used in crimes. _On the whole_ I’d say that is pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/53 "2008-12-03T20:21:53Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > It’s too bad the whole world isn’t as careful with their dangerous shit as you are. We wouldn’t have the horrific problem we have in this country. The way the gun-owning population _on the whole_ handles their deadly weapons is despicable. They’re _begging_ for more regulation. Or at least some financial hardship. What horrific problem do we have in this country? The vast majority of guns are used by law-abiding citizens and never harmed anyone. Yes, you hear about accidents and crimes on the news, but that’s how the news works. There are no reports that John Smith aged 87 died and owned 15 guns, shot over 3,000 rounds in his lifetime, and never harmed a fly. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/54 "2008-12-03T20:26:49Z")
In addition to the technical probelm of marking either bullets or cartridge cases, another big problem I see is this: How are these millions, if not billions, of bullets going to be tracked? From manufacturer to distributor/wholesaler, to retailer, to John. Q. Public, a paper-trail (or data-trail) has to be created, and accurately maintained. What agency will maintain/supervise the “bullet database?” How will that cost be recouped? Adding a $1 tax to each bullet? Jesus. Obama hasn’t even taken office, and The War on Guns is back in full swing. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/55 "2008-12-03T20:30:36Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > I…Jesus. Obama hasn’t even taken office, and The War on Guns is back in full swing. But he will be too busy to do anything about it, right? :rolleyes: If that is truly the case, there are going to be a lot of pissed of anti-gun Obama supporters out there. ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/56 "2008-12-03T20:32:17Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] The way the gun-owning population _on the whole_ handles their deadly weapons is despicable. They’re _begging_ for more regulation. Or at least some financial hardship. [/QUOTE] The gun-owning population _on the whole_ handles our deadly weapons in such a safe manner that over 200,000,000 firearms in this country are never used in a way that harms anyone, except maybe our own hearing. That number might be closer to 300 million, one for every man, woman, and child. A fraction of a percent of which are used in crimes. 70-90 million gun owners are being slandered by the ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/57 "2008-12-03T20:38:15Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s just another back-door effort to make life as miserable as possible for gun owners, dealers, and manufacturers. It doesn’t have anything to do with solving crimes, just like the ballistic fingerprint requirement that was enacted in Maryland for handguns. This argument is just as silly as the oft-quoted argument that the only reason for opposing abortion is to oppress women. People support things like this because they think it’ll reduce some kinds of crime. Now, they may be wrong, and the regulations may have negative consequences that outweigh the effect on on crime, and those are reasonable things to debate. But nobody has as their goal making things harder for legitimate folks. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/58 "2008-12-03T20:42:18Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Edit: As I was writing this, someone mentioned another cost - licensing fees from the company who designed this technique. I’m kind of surprised at this one. I mean who can license laser etching? Lots of manufacturers of such machines out there. Is writing a number on each type of item in existence a separate, patentable thing? FFS it is writing a unique number on something…companies have been doing that for ages and laser etchers are nothing particularly new either. And I am curious about all this milsup ammo. If it is so much cheaper, exceptionally reliable (or even better that people opt for it in competition as mentioned earlier here) and most people here seemingly still have piles of 60 year old ammo about and American made new ammo is the most expensive there is why does _anyone_ buy new American ammo (barring some special new type that only the US makes for a specific weapon)? How do the manufacturers possibly stay in business? Selling to the military (and even so why bother at all with the retail market)? And if there are still piles of 60 year old milsup ammo in the sales pipe it boggles the mind to think of the piles of newer ammo being warerhoused since then. Something does not seem to add up in all that. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/59 "2008-12-03T20:43:58Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Ah, and we get to the core of your motivations. Those bastards, so flagrant in their assholery as to own GUNS, of all things! Of course they deserve to suffer financial hardship! It’s not the gun ownership of these assholes that I’m worried about. It’s their inability to keep track of their fucking guns. But then my statement was clear on that point. But if you want to make shit up to make me look like the bad guy here, have at it. You only serve to prove my point that some gun proponents’ sense of reality is skewed. > [@](#): > > I think I was right about your motivations - you’d advocate anything that gave hardship to gun owners, regardless of its practical value. No, my motivation is to come up with something that will somehow benefit those that are harmed by gun owners who don’t handle their guns and ammunition properly. If the guns and ammo weren’t being stolen at such a rate that it is a genuine menace to society, we wouldn’t have to try to think up ways to make convictions stick or hold the owners responsible. > [@](#): > > I do wonder - you say the way gun-owning population as a whole handles their weapons is despicable. There are 80 or 90 million of us - and for us, on the whole, to use our weapons despicably, I’d imagine there were at least 50 million armed robberies last year and 20 million firearms murders last year, right? Something like that? Listen…all I ever hear is how most crimes are committed by criminals who stole the guns and stole the ammo. And that we have enough legislation and checks and balances so that the criminals can’t buy guns from gun shops. Well they’re getting the guns from somewhere! I agree, most are probably stolen. That means that people aren’t adequately locking them up so that the chance of them falling into the hands of the bad guys is next to nil. That’s obviously not happening. > [@](#): > > After all - we’re despicable as a whole, so that must mean that it’s not a tiny fringe that’s using guns for harm, but a significant portion of us. Well, that’s not what I said but here…let me give you a leg up on that cross. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513/60 "2008-12-03T20:48:30Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > This argument is just as silly as the oft-quoted argument that the only reason for opposing abortion is to oppress women. People support things like this because they think it’ll reduce some kinds of crime. Now, they may be wrong, and the regulations may have negative consequences that outweigh the effect on on crime, and those are reasonable things to debate. But nobody has as their goal making things harder for legitimate folks. You don’t know these people. They’ve said that their ultimate goal is to ban all guns, but being good politicians, they know that it’s better to get 10% of what you want than 0%. You can always come back next year and ask for the next 10%. It’s the same tactic used by many pro-life groups. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ammunition-accountability-act/475513.md?page=4)