Ammunition Accountability Act

Great Debates
101

Bolding mine

Haaa. My god. These people obviously have NO clue.

Assualt Rifles? Do they really mean Assault Weapons? Linking it up to the badly defined and failed AWB?

Handgun ammunition? :serk: I can buy a rifle that shoots .45, 9mm, 44mag…… What about .22? I shoot it in both handguns and rifles. Same box. Different firearm.

It’s silly bullshit legislation proposed by people that know absolutely nothing about firearms designed to prey (and get voted in by) other people that know nothing about firearms.

102

Yes. Yes, it does. Because the motivation isn’t to reduce “gun crime.” The motivation is to ban things the OP finds scary. “Gun crime” is just the rationalization for this paranoia.

103

Oh come on, you’re being deliberately obtuse.

Kalhoun has admitted to trying to backdoor a punishing ammo tax that will target everyone but criminals, Scumpup is pointing out that agenda. Nothing else.

Just because someone wants it to reduce violence doesn’t mean it will. Passing random laws that make people feel good (but don’t do good) is not something to be proud of.

I propose nationwide grade school firearms instruction. Anyone that disagrees with this idea is in favor of gun violence.

104

So if there was no gun crime, you think people would still want it banned? I think gun crime is the motivation.

105

  1. If the negative effects outweigh the benefits, why do anti-gun folks still push for it?

  2. The motivation behind the idea is not trusted. The idea is not well thought out or proven other than ‘If we build it (legislate it) they will come’.

‘pro’ gun folks don’t trust ‘anti’ gun folks for good reason. See number one above.

106

There is a reason I put “gun crime” in quotes. Mainly because there is no such thing. There hasn’t been a single instance of such in history. Period.

107

Obviously people disagree on either what the drawbacks are, what the benefits are, or which one outweighs the other. It’s not like there’s some absolute Calculus of Benefit one can apply: Judgment calls are necessary.

EDIT:
Quoth silenus:

You’re obviously using a very different definition of “gun crime” than I am. To me, a “gun crime” would be any criminal act involving the use of a firearm. What does it mean to you?

108

I could get on board with that. We do it with driving instruction.

Make it an elective, with parents permision, and have parents monitor the class.

109

A gun has never committed a crime in history. Crimes are committed by people. These crimes would likely be committed with another weapon were guns suddenly vanished from the earth. Punish the criminal, not the tool. Or the innocent.

110

There is no need for judgement calls when the ant-gun folks try to ban something they know little to nothing about. They only fear an abstract idea. That is – “Guns are bad”.

If the anti-gun folks would like to suggest or produce some legislation that might reduce criminal acts with guns, then they need to learn at least a little about guns and the people that own them.

111

I’ve said it on here and other websites…

I wonder how many “anti-gun” people have had any actual experience with a gun, or are they simply parroting a tired old line hammered into their skulls

the only potentially valid reason I could see for someone having an anti-gun stance is if they were directly negatively affected by someone who happened to have a firearm at the time (being held up, robbed, assaulted, etc…) if someone had a gun pulled on them, I can understand why that particular person may have a negative opinion of guns, even though the gun is merely a tool, and it’s the perpitrator of the crime they really should be reacting to, not an inanimate object

I have a decent number of firearms, ranging from an antique double-barrel shotgun, and an old WWII Russian bolt-action rifle to a high capacity semiauto 9mm and a 1911 in .45 ACP, I have single shots, bolt actions, pumps, semiautos, and revolvers, and a decent amount of ammo for them all

and you know what?

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN USED IN A CRIME, I have never raised ANY of my firearms in anger against any living thing, I am a recreational target shooter, I punch paper and bust clay targets, it’s FUN

Let me put this simply…
Guns (and ammo) are inanimate objects, nothing more, I can place my Kimber .45 ACP on the kitchen counter in Condition One (hammer cocked, live round in the chamber, safety on) or even Condition Zero (same as the above, but with the safety off), ready to fire, and I can go about my day ignoring the gun, it will not “just go off”, it will not get a mind of it’s own and go around randomly discharging, it will not move from the kitchen counter, it will sit there, gathering dust if I leave it there long enough…

Antis are afraid of an inanimate object…

I also take offense at being told I have “shameful handling techniques”, in my 39 years on this planet (29 of those as a firearm owner), I have had ZERO negligent discharges, have committed NO crimes, and have never used my firearm against another person, I am a responsible firearm owner, and our kind greatly outnumber the morons/gangbangers/other idiots with guns

anyway, to get back on subject, I wonder how many “Antis” have ever even seen a real gun, let alone held it or fired it, I’ve dealt with a few Antis in my time in shooting sports, and I’ve found out that many of those who self-identify as an “Anti” have never actually fired a gun, they know nothing about guns, ammunition, how they work, how they operate, they’re operating from a basis of pure ignorance…

…and in order for me to fight that ignorance, I offer to take them out to my local Rod and Gun club to show them the basics of firearm operation and use, in a safe, controlled environment, the best part is, most of those self-described “Antis” completely change their stance on firearms once they learn the Four Rules of firearm safety that every responsible shooter takes as the Prime Directive, and have given them a try, when they finally understand how guns work, and the responsibility that goes with being a firearm owner, in fact, a good number of Antis I have dealt with end up as firearm fans after they see responsible gun ownership in action, those rare few that still dislike guns at least understand them better, and realize that it’s not the firearm or ammo that’s “bad”, it’s the person behind the trigger

So, I challenge my fellow shooters, take an Anti to your local range, show them how guns work, let them take some shots, you never know, you just might change their minds, and at the very least, you’ll fight some ignorance in the process

112

Well, let’s see here. We have numberless cases where crimes have been influenced or linked to printed material people have around their houses, or even their records or software. Therefore, all copies of these should immediately be encoded with unique identifiers. Furthermore, any existing copies must be disposed of within three years under penalty of law.

Of course, this is not even remotely threatening to the First Amendment - as you can still have all the stuff you had before. :smiley: Assuming it was reproduced with the coding numbers, of course, and assuming that a registry containing all the media you own is itself constitutional.

Now, frankly, I doubt you’d welcome such monkeying around with the First Amendment for such a small (though present) law enforcement benefit. Similar concerns abound for the legislation you favor.

113

I invited a press director of the Iowan’s For the Prevention of Gun Violence to go shooting. She turned me down stating that she didn’t actually need to shoot a gun to know that they served no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians.

Go figure…

114

Then I’m sure you’ll have no problem providing us with lots of cites showing folks who’ve actually been killed by printed material, records or software?

I know I’d have no problem finding cites showing folks who’ve actually been killed by firearms.

CMC +fnord!
Who, as he types, is sitting by two loaded .38s, with three more in other parts of my home. Oh, and a number of swords, knives, and axes, weapons that nobody seems to object to banning the keeping and bearing of. The Second Amendment died the day the first non-firearm arm was made illegal.

115

The number of people killed because of The Communist Manifesto or the Bible is quite a long one. Indirect, of course, but so are those deaths caused by a firearm. They didn’t fire themselves.

silenus, who can see from his chair 4 axes, 3 swords, several daggers and an oosik.

116

Does it count if they were killed by devices constructed based on said printed material, records or software?

117

There’s yet another reason why this law won’t work. It’s been mentioned that it’s ridiculously easy to get rid of the stamp or get an unstamped bullet if you know you’re going to commit a crime.

Even admitting that, the argument is that at least you’d catch the people who commit accidental killings or kill in a crime of passion, or a careless robber.

Those people are caught anyway. The vast majority of unsolved murders were premeditated. Gang drivebys, assassinations of gang members, robberies gone bad, mob hits, husbands and wives who plot to murder each other, etc.

In none of those cases will be bullets be marked. I can guarantee that gang bangers will not have their guns loaded with ammunition they personally signed for at the gun shop. it will either be registered ammo that was stolen, or reloads, or surplus, or foreign ammo. Or one of the members will get a reloading kit and amuse himself pulling bullets out of cartridges and filing off the numbers.

So you want to seriously inconvenience millions of gun owners so that you can increase the chance of catching people who would be caught anyway. That’s great.

As for the cost per bullet, don’t forget that they’re playing fast with the numbers by just averaging the capital investment over the number of bullets made. If you could amortize the cost like that, that would be great. But you can’t. Some bullets are specialty bullets and sold in relatively small numbers. The cost per bullet will be significantly higher.

But the biggest cost increase to gun owners would come from the fact that reloading would have to be made illegal, and a large number of gun owners keep their costs in control by reloading their own ammo. Make that illegal, and it would be a significant financial burden on the gun owner if he wanted to maintain his same amount of practice.

What they aren’t also considering is that the entire supply chain would have its paperwork costs rise dramatically. If it takes 5 extra minutes for the store clerk to fill out the registration for your ammo, guess who’s paying for that guy’s 5 minutes of labor? You are. The industry doesn’t just aborb these costs, it passes them on. Especially since this law will be even more effective than tariffs at eliminating foreign competition for domestic ammo manufacturers. That alone would drive the price up, but coupled with the regulatory burden it would make ammunition significantly more expensive.

My guess is that the actual cost of laser etching the bullet is a small fraction of the real cost of this legislation.

118

How about “property crimes”, “white collar crimes”, “serial crime”, “sex crimes”, and “oranized crime”? I’ve never heard of a crime perpetrated ny a white-collat, a serial, or a sex either.

119

…when they commit crimes. Oh, wait.

How is this any different from serial numbers on guns themselves? or vehicle identification numbers? I suppose it could be precedent for outlawing the manufacturing of your own unmarked ammo, but that’s the only problem I see with it.

120

Ah, yes, because it’s completely unreasonable to be concerned when someone else gets shot. Because after all, it wasn’t me, so who cares about that poor stiff?

And yes, people can kill with other weapons, or with no weapon at all. That’s an unfortunate fact. But guns make killing easier, and since I think that killing, in general, is bad, I think it’s quite reasonable to think that it’s also bad for something to facilitate killing, hence the notion that the world would be a better place if all guns were to magically vanish. Of course, that’s impossible, so we just have to figure out the best way to deal with a world that does have guns in it.

Let me just add, by the way, that I find it extremely peculiar that folks who oppose guns are referred to simply as “antis”. There are, you know, other issues that one might support or oppose, and all of those are identified based on what the issue is. But just an “anti” could be opposed to any old thing.