I cannot speak for Kalhoun but seems to me you did the Chicken Little bit earlier.
I am unconvinced (or on the fence if you prefer) that such a proposal is actually beneficial in any real way to law enforcement and to me that is the discussion worth having. Assuming it is then serializing bullets is rather trivial in the scheme of things. Laser etching systems are in very common use in industry. I seriously doubt the cost of bullets would rise in any noticeable fashion to the consumer unless you find $5/1000 bullets an intolerable price increase.
Have at it and try to turn the thread in any direction you like. Starting a thread doesn’t confer ownership in any meaningful way.
I can’t give you stats on cost since there is nobody, to my knowledge, currently serializing ammo. The only people offering price figures are the people manufacturing the equipment and the people pushing for serialization; like others, I don’t believe them.
I’ll be happy to discuss the value, or lack thereof, of serialization to law enforcement. What I refuse to get into is a discussion of whether or not it is desirable to drive the cost of ammo up and the availability down. The board has had a surfeit of antigun threads since Obama’s victory in the election, and I’m weary of going over that same ground in yet another thread.
I have useful WWII surplus ammo hanging around the house.
As for people complying, forget it. That part is just laughable. Door to door ammo searches? Guarantees that the gummit will start producing 7,35 x 51 Carcano?
I wouldn’t even consider complying and I’m not a radical survivalist type gun owner.
I personally doubt that this proposal is intended to solve crime. It’s just another attempt to inconvenience manufacturers and monitor gun owners.
My husband has bullets that have been laying around for decades. I doubt he’ll ever shoot them, so disposing of them won’t be a big deal. I agree that there will be some sort of trade-in deal. The can take those old bullets and scrap 'em for new ones.
And SO WHAT if the price goes up? It’s not like an army of monks is going to hand-engrave each little casing! This is such a “no big deal” that I can’t help but think only the whiniest of whiners would find fault with a law that may actually help the police and law abiding citizens without infringing on the right to bear arms.
You’re awfully free with other people’s money. That includes both the manufacturers and the consumers.
BTW, the bullet is the part that flies out the barrel. The entire assembly of case (which must be marked in this proposal), propellant, primer, and bullet is called a cartridge. Unless your husband is a muzzleloading enthusiast or a reloader, I doubt he has just bullets “laying around.”
It’s easier to take antis seriously if they at least sound like they understand what they want to ban.
The website says that a laser etching machine costs $300-500 k. They also say that each ammo manufacturer will only have to purchase “at least one, if not more”, which is preposterous. I really, really doubt that the assembly lines for all calibers of ammo pass through a single point. So you’re talking about one machine per caliber of ammo at the minimum. Probably more if they manufacture different types of the same caliber. And there are plenty of small manufacturers of high quality target ammo (Black Hills ammo for example) for whom a several million dollar investment would be problematic.
Why does point 1 bug you? If it’s not going to actually help in solving crimes, what’s the point?
Point 2, granted, except of course for that pesky “comply by 2011 or be prosecuted” clause.
I don’t have any stats, but I’d guess that most gun dealers have 100 times as many ammunition transactions per year as they do gun transactions. Just like you buy gas a lot more often than you buy a car. So that’s 100 times as much recordkeeping you have to keep for 3 years. And no, they don’t pick up the info from your credit card or drivers info when you buy a gun, so I can’t see how they’d legally be able to do so when you buy ammo, unless the law specifically states they can.
The last time I was at the range, I was shooting .3006 that was manufactured while Nixon was president. It fired perfectly. Properly stored ammo (dry, room temp) lasts a long time.
That’s funny. Turn in your old ammo for new. Never going to happen.
I’ve been in several sporting-goods stores of late. All of them, have the weapons for sale behind the counter and locked up tighter than a frog’s ass.
On the other hand, all of them, all of them, have all the ammunition readily available on the store shelves for anyone to grab, steal, hide, or even purchase. Irrespective of the arguments that bullets could be individually ID’ed, stores will have to retool their displays and add another level of paperwork just to track sales.
I was unaware you were intimately familiar with the ammunition manufacturing and laser engraving processes. My apologies.
Of course you know SAAMI and that they’ve seen this idea before - link and estimate it’ll cost hundreds of millions of dollars to tool up (which divided by the total count of ammo made for civilian and military might be .5 cents per round, but the money needs to be spent up front). Oh, and also that it won’t help police solve many crimes. That kind of money could be spent on far more important crime solving programs.
Well it is a price you aren’t paying, isn’t it? My questions are how much will the price go up, and how much help will this be to police?
The fear a lot of people have is the answers are a lot, and next to none. I would need a lot more than the website of people who seem to be linked to the technology itself in order to get on board.
A lot of the ammo that people use comes as military surplus, imports, or other sources than commercial manufacture by US sources. Those won’t get serialized. US-produced commercial ammunition is already the most expensive way to shoot - now we’re talking about reducing the supply of ammunition in general, forcing people to buy from the most expensive source, and increasing the actual manufacturing costs of the rounds people are still allowed to buy. The cost of ammunition would rise dramatically.
The cost of the registration system would also be passed down to the consumer, further increasing the price.
And it’s not the criminals who might need a handful of rounds that’ll pay the price, it’s people who shoot regularly for practice, sport, competition, etc.
I’d imagine you’d be okay with adding an arbitrary $5 tax on every bullet you could purchase, so your opinion on the impact of prices is somewhat suspect.
If that hypothetical $5/bullet tax came through, you could say this exact same thing and it’d be just as meaningless. As long as something is available in an absolute sense, no one should be concerned with its reduced availability?
Yes - not only the supply issue I mentioned above which will increase cost far behind the hypothetical (and questionable) half a cent per bullet, but this effectively amounts to de facto national gun registration, right? At least anyone who wants to buy ammo. All of the objections to national gun registration would then apply here.
Most ammo is some pretty durable stuff. I have 60 year old ammunition in my closet that will probably mostly still function in another 60 years. So no, I don’t consider the age of the ammo in the order I use it.
If this law did come down, people could just set aside a few rounds they have now as their “well, if I ever need to kill anyone in the next 50 years…” cache and completely bypass the whole system.
The bullets are laying around. They’re laying around in casings. Though he has done reloads at times.
Your stupid nitpik aside, this cost argument sounds as though you don’t think the price of anything should go up. Ever. Regardless of cost of manufacturing, the cost of materials, or the cost of technology. That’s just silly. Processes advance. Changes are made. Costs go up.
Okay. All cars should have a tiny diamond embedded in the crankshaft by arbitrary government decree. Object to the cost? Too bad. Processes advance. Changes are made. Costs go up.
That’s as silly as your argument sounds. Not arguing that the cost/benefit may be worthwhile, but simply “things change, costs go up, therefore you can’t make an argument that involves costs”.
I bet some of the less intelligent/careful criminals would get caught from serial numbers. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t get caught otherwise. And there would be very significant amounts of time, money, and inconvenience for law-abiding manufacturers, dealers, and consumers.
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.
Well, it is all about the cost/benefit in the end which I think (or wish) this thread was driving at.
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.
Diamonds in your crankshaft do not have any discernible cost/benefit ratio at all so a non-starter.
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.