Did no one read my post? The “he was a member of a racist group” reports appear to be wrong.
CBS News: White nationalist leader walks back comments that shooting suspect was group member
This shooting appears to have absolutely nothing to do with race / racism.
I think a poster upthread nailed the issue: It’s impossible to ban ammunition to the point of suppressing a massacre or school shooting from happening, unless you do it to the draconian extent that all amateur/hobby-ish shooting is also rendered impossible (the folks who shoot off hundreds of rounds over the weekend at a range.) It only takes one bullet to kill a person, and a few dozen or hundred to carry out a massacre.
That isnt my point at all.
Let’s take it as a hypothetical, then.
If you want to ban ammo, why can’t we ban white racist " militias"?
We can if they step over the line. It’s not illegal to have weaponry, it’s not illegal to have a racist club. It’s not illegal to say negative things about minorities while conducting club meetings. It would be illegal to actually plan specific attacks as part of a ‘race war’ that these militias are hoping to incite.
It would be illegal to even be part of the organization if you could prove the organization was more than just protesting while holding guns and talking shit. If you could trace murders of minorities to the organization and show the club’s membership actively aided and abetted the crimes, you could then shut it down and arrest everyone.
So, what you’re saying is that if they actually do something illegal, then we can ban them. Fair enough.
Then ipso facto, why ban guns or ammo until and if the owner does something illegal?
Why? I asked this in another thread but will repeat the question here. Why not increase the current ATF tax on ammo by 200% and ringfence those funds for guards, victim aid, or similar. If you’re just going to argue that these events can’t be prevented why not at least generate funds to mitigate the damage.
You could do this. I’m not sure it would achieve anything except generating more funds, but that seems to be your goal, and it certainly has worked in the US for tobacco and alcohol…and even sodas in some states. I’m a bit skeptical that, once the government ups the tax that the money would go where you think it would go, but it’s more viable than trying to ban sales.
Would you also put similar taxes on all of the various reloading equipment and materials? I think you’d have to, but not sure what the ramifications of that would be.
For the first part, it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to legislate that all revenue raised is paid into a fund that must be used purely for purposes that will either avoid or provide aid to the victims of such incidents.
For the second part, absolutely. Tax sales of propellant, cartridges, etc.
I wouldn’t be opposed. Of course, that’s easy for me to say as I don’t have a gun. However, I have been hit by both alcohol and tobacco tax increases, and I lived through both so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, especially if the money is used well.
A couple of years ago I inherited several hundred cartridges that my father had purchased in the 1970s: .22 Long Rifle, .38 Special, .357 Magnum. Only one .22 cartridge failed. One data point.
We fired clean ww2 rounds, 999 of 1000.
WW1 rounds, however, maybe 80% worked.