Constructing a particular scenario that doesn’t work, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work in any scenarios. It’s like arguing that we should stop fingerprinting because some guys will wear gloves.
That’s a stupid system. Microscopic tags or other systems might not be stupid.
The level of knee-jerk opposition you’re demonstrating isn’t what I’d call effective argument.
Again, like anything else, incarcerating prisoners costs money. Prisons and guards don’t grow on trees, so you, via the government, have to pay for that. If you want them in longer, you’ll have to pay more.
It takes money to incarcerate people.
I love how the left becomes fiscally conservative when it comes to making horrible “people” suffer real consequences for their actions. :rolleyes:
The reason hardened criminals don’t get sentenced to what they should has nothing to do with money.
I want you to address all the major gun laws that were passed over the years and explain why we need more. All of those laws were pushed as the magic bullet (pun intended) to fighting violent crime. Did those previous laws fail? What happened? Why is it always the next law that will be “the one” that will solve our problems?
There seems to be a consensus on these boards that there is a problem with gun related crimes. Please tell me why that is when we have all those gun laws that were supposed to end these kinds of problems. Why is another law that was thought up in 2016 going to work when all the laws passed in the last 80 years didn’t?
I am always fiscally conservative. I want money to be spent intelligently for the best value. So your attack is meaningless and weak.
You however, are unable, or unwilling to cogently argue your position. All you can do is utter nonsense like the above.
You need to ask yourself, if the only way you can advocate your position is by spitting out irrelevant outbursts, maybe you aren’t actually right.
Nonsense.
Tracking bullets is intelligent, assuming it can be done for reasonable cost. There are many reasons for gun violence. Including, I assume, proliferation of guns (after all, a huge supply of something makes getting it much easier), poverty, and the fetishization of guns by many in this country.
Rational people would say that gun violence hundreds of times higher than other first-world democracies is a problem.
Because tagging ammo is different? Why did all attempts at flight fail until Kittyhawk? By your logic, we should have given up. If no gun laws existed, tagging ammo would still be intelligent. Its intelligence has nothing to do with how many current laws there are.
Honestly, I don’t generally get in gun debates, because of the passions involved, and I’m actually fairly pro-gun, I shoot once in awhile with friends, but the arguments here are pretty silly.
I believe in penumbras. I feel an explicit right also covers all the rights implied by it. So an uninfringeable right to own a firearm covers an uninfringeable right to own ammunition.
Ammo doesn’t last forever in the absolute sense but it might as well in practical terms. Ammo already made will outlive anyone now alive. There isn’t an expiration date on it as long as it is stored somewhat well in any reasonable sense. You can still buy and shoot ammo from the Korean War era and even much earlier. It isn’t rare at all. If you introduced new ammo restrictions today, it wouldn’t have any effect on illegal use within any existing person’s lifetime. Most ammo doesn’t get ‘used up’ like other things do. It just stays around indefinitely until someone decides to use it. That could be next week or decades from now. The same is true with firearms themselves. You can load one, put it a drawer and forget about it but you better take care that your great-grandchildren don’t stumble across it in the distant future because it will work just the same 50 years from now as the day you put it there.
How does that extend(if it does) to the right when and where to use that firearm? Is that also uninfringeable?
I oppose this idea. I don’t believe victims of theft ought to be held accountable for what the thieves do with the stolen goods. I don’t think we treat any other stolen items this way, but I’m open to learning if there is a strain of judicial thought that holds the victims of theft responsible for what the thieves do with the stolen item(s).
I suspect the cost would be outrageous too, if it’s even technically feasible. Much more than a few cents around, so I’d oppose it because I think it would unduly burden the RKBA through massive price increases in ammunition too.
Well, the '94 federal AWB would be an easy one to pick on. It was quite ineffective, although I don’t think I can claim an absolute “nothing”. The '86 machine gun ban was a solution in search of a problem as well.
The one in CA that imposes a 10 day waiting period to purchase a new firearm for those that already have a legally owned firearm and have passed a background check.
The roster in CA that prohibits the sale of a firearm in a specific color when a different color of the same model is available for purchase.
The city laws that prohibit mail order ammunition so a resident in one city cannot purchase but his neighbor a block away can.
In CA the banning of .50 caliber rifles.
I’m not seeing the logic here … we can’t afford to lock up peoples for the laws we do have … so let’s pass some new laws so we can still not afford to lock peoples up … and let’s absolutely impose this on peoples who know better.
If your jurisdiction requires a license to own a gun, then it’s a very good idea to make the buyer have to show said license to buy ammo … however if your jurisdiction doesn’t require a license to own a gun, then it’s just plain silly.
If we want to restrict gun ownership, then restrict gun ownership … restricting bullet ownership is just weird. Something about a felon holding a gun being worried that the ammo is illegal, he better not shoot anyone because, you know, it’s a crime to have that bullet in the first place.
Yeah…at this point, I’m pretty certain that controlling crime through this-or-that new gun law is not a serious proposal. Inconveniencing law abiding people who want to own guns is the actual goal. Ideally, they should be inconvenienced enough to just give up on the idea of owning guns at all. It worked pretty well for them with machine guns, silencers, and other restricted items. Add enough paperwork, background checks, waiting periods, and fees (especially if you make them steep enough) and lots of folks will be put off by the process itself.
No. The goal is to keep people from getting killed.
I think you know that.
So for the purpose of this thread we’re ignoring both the political viability and the potential unconstitutionality, and the existing legislation that may prevent this scheme, right?
For any new proposal, the potential benefits must be weighed against the potential costs. Since you’ve excepted suicide, mass homicide, and accidental injury and death, it looks like we’re targeting somewhere in the neighborhood of 10K homicides per year and about 80K injuries - ish?
You’ve also defined making firearms and ammo accessible to children as negligent in itself which I don’t necessarily agree with. It could be in many cases, but not nearly all.
So to accomplish the goal of unsolved homicides and injuries with firearms, the proposal is a scheme that would be able to both track a round of ammunition from its manufacturer to it’s purchaser and be able to be detected after use somehow, and then connect it back via some sort of recordkeeping that is expected to be accurate. **So essentially, magic. ** Currently this type of technology does not exist at any reasonable cost.
The use of taggants was widely discussed following the Oklahoma City bombing. Afterwards, the NAS was engaged to study the tagging of smokeless and black powders:
That study by the NAS is here. (have to click through the sections) Some of the findings:
[ul]
[li]An effective taggant system with the associated record keeping would incur significant costs.[/li][li]No taggant system has been found that is technically feasible for use in black and smokeless powders.[/li][li]Detection markers in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.[/li][li]Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.[/li][/ul]
An excerpt on cost from Section 3 Identification:
The cost for the taggant addition process alone would be significant, nevermind the cost of accurate record keeping.
Consider the permutations needed to usefully link back to a particularized individual, the quantities and variety of ammo purchased, and this should make sense. For non-gun folks, when they hear a person has some number of rounds of ammo they may think that’s a lot. Maybe this number is 100, or 200. For some people this may be 1000. But if my practice is to have say, 10,000 rounds for every type of caliber weapon I keep, is that a lot? It certainly is heavy.
Just based on this alone, it’s a lot of costs, and not a lot of benefit because the tracking wouldn’t be effective.
Pull the other one. It has bells on it.
This brings to mind the old saw:
“Guns don’t kill people, bullets do.”
Yeah, I was just kidding when I said I thought you knew that.