Random musings on law and order. (please don't flounder this)

“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Man, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.

Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... E36 M3, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his azz.’
...And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars.

‘Man I would blow your effing head off…if I could afford it.’

‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’

So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”

― Chris Rock

In reply to bigdaddylee82 :

Just like we can't have small import pickup trucks because of the chicken tax. It is all quite insane. 

stuart in mn said:

barefootskater (Shaun) said:

Are all the folks he sold to being prosecuted? Serious q. 

I'm guessing this guy didn't keep detailed records with names and addresses of the people who bought them, so they may be hard to track down.

According to the article he did a lot of business through Paypal, and mailed things with a Stamps.com account.  They have names and addresses for roughly half his business?

Guy wasn't that bright

More seriously - if we more heavily restricted the sale of ammo, only die-hard gun nuts would buy all the reloading equipment. Some kid wanting to do something stupid wouldn't be able to afford it, and his parents likely wouldn't have a huge stash (unless they were reloaders). 

Track the sale of reloading equipment and powder, and you could quickly determine who's building an arsenal. Really, it's just powder. Powder is probably the hardest component to manufacturer. It's crazy how we can control lots of other substances, but gun powder? You can get at walmart. 

Nothing in the Constitution says the government couldn't control and tax the hell out of explosive powder. From the standpoint of "defense against tyrannical government" I just don't think this holds weight. We can't own grenades, rocket launchers, etc. Those are things that would be neccesary if we needed to fight back against the government. That whole premise is bunk. 

A $10 bullet to a hunter is worth it because he's only going to use one. A $10 bullet to mass shooter is an expensive proposition (although the guy in Vegas had plenty of money to blow when he wasn't gambling it away.) 

It'd also help clean up public shooting ranges and other spots were lazy shooters let casings lay. I've filled 5-gallon buckets in an hour around some campsites on public land.

I'll readily admit I feel this way because I do not view guns as toys. 

In reply to pheller :

In the interest of NOT floundering this thread, can we at least acknowledge that regulating/taxing/artificially overpricing ammo has MASSIVE Constitutional implications?  

It wouldn't. The Constitution does not specifically mention the control of drugs. And yet, it's been one of the most expensive policies in America's history. The last amendment to do so was that covering Prohibition (18th). Libertarians argue that the Federal Government should have no stance on elicit drugs aside from their transport across state lines, taxing their sale, and the violence that cartels and dealers engage in. Many Libertarians thinkers take the stance "amend or ignore" - basically, either the Constitution changes, or it's let up to states. 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has upheld that so long as people have access to one gun and one bullet, the 2nd Amendment isn't infringed. The 2nd Amendment has been debated by Constitutional Scholars on the topics of guns, knives, grenades, automatic weapons, nukes, chemical weapons, etc. The general consensus is that we've got the Constitutional Right to own a gun, but the debate over ammunition has never hit the courts. 

Taxing ammunition is in this grey area as well. Constitution protects the ability to tax whatever government wants to tax. Things that are good for us, things that are bad for us. 

I once read a piece by someone who had grown up overseas in a war torn area of Africa, Afghanistan, someplace like that. This was after one of the recent mass shooting, and he was opining about gun control. 

Similarly to Chris Rock's famous line, the author stated that in his home country, guns were quite common, especially AK47s. Ammunition, however, was not. He associated gun ownership with gangs, terrorists or militias, as they were the few who had access to ammunition. It was shocking to him that in the US, gun ownership was so common among men and women, rich and poor, good folks and bad folks, and that anyone could go to a store, buy some ammunition, go out into the woods and "play" all day. 

This reminded me of my counsin's experience in the Marines training Iraqi Border Patrol. He said that it was unreal how "the good guys" had so little experience, or even fear of weapons. The bad guys had tons of funding, and as a result, lots of access to ammo in order to practise. The good guys had never even held a gun before. 

I once had a brief discussion with a refugee from Bhutan about guns in America. He said "in my country, only the people who oppressed us had guns." Bhutan has extremely low gun ownership, fyi, so I assume this was a rare site for him. He was worried that racists might attack him because of his culture in America, but had hope that police would protect him and his family if it came to that. That if America had wanted him here out of the kindness of its collective heart, that it would protect him. That was in 2010, however, and he might feel differently today. 

In reply to pheller :

This kind of thinking and some other recent changes is why I just ordered another 1000 rounds of 5.56.

In reply to pheller :

I don't think the vast majority of even the most die hard gun enthusiasts view them as toys.
 

There are many recreational hobbies that involve "not toys". Cars for example. We see them being used as terrorist weapons in places where obtaining guns is more difficult. Anyone can rent a truck. 
Or alcohol. Alcohol related deaths are huge. Yet we see pretty disastrous results when the evil juice was outlawed. 
 

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to point out two facts.
1- Bad folks will find a way. 
2- every "fix" has unintended consequences. 
 

*edit. The best "fix" I can imagine for gun related violence, is something like Switzerland, where IIRC, everyone serves in the military for a short time and receives weapons training. If you teach people, the fear will be gone and folks will be able to better understand the dangers and implications of wielding a weapon. This would be good for folks on both sides of the gun argument. I know too many "enthusiasts" with no training who think they know more than they really do. And even out here in the Wild West I know folks who are scared to even hold an unloaded gun because scary death machine.  Education is step one. 

One thing I always thought was interesting about the "gun hobby" was that there are so many different little sub-groups of gun ownership.

I know liberals who own guns for personal protection, but are vegetarian and would never hunt. 

I know guys who hunt, but whom share a family rifle and take multiple deer a season. They own no other firearms. 

I know guns who never hunt, but own quite a few guns, and go target shooting (or just randomly blasting stuff) regularly. 

It's typically the last group who is most concerned about access and affordability of guns and ammo. They are also the only group who I ever heard complain about the automatic bans. I suspect, too, that these would be the folks looking for auto sear parts. Not because they want to commit murder, but because they want a cool range trick. 

barefootskater (Shaun) said:

In reply to pheller :

I don't think the vast majority of even the most die hard gun enthusiasts view them as toys.

The culture surrounding people I know who have multiple weapons not used for hunting, and whom go shooting regularly, and whom I've personally had to pick up their shells because he wanted to let them lay, had formed my opinion about a specific sub-group of gun owners. Bad apples, perhaps. I too, have spent a few days unloading lead into post-harvest farm fields shooting clay birds, or old quarries shooting random targets. I think these were good learning lessons of my abilities, and reminders in safety protocol, but they happened maybe once a year. 

I have friends who for years did competitive shootings. With BB guns or 22s. They too admitted "I couldn't see doing this more than a few times a year." 

My former girlfriend's parents had tons of guns throughout their house, and despite her dad being an avid gun restorer, he would only shoot maybe once a year. 

We all know a guy who's seemingly shooting every other weekend, and all too willing to show off an addition to his gun closet (even though he's already got similar models, this new one is tacticool.)

To me, at least, an ammo tax only really targets one type of gun owner, but benefits society as a whole. 

Banning gun types, and even home-made 3D printed guns just seems like a losing battle. 

Snowdoggie said:

Couldn't a really good gunsmith with access to a machine shop do the same thing by hand? 

Yes, and by the letter of the law, if you have the appropriate tools, and dimensional drawings or otherwise a "how-to", legally you have an auto-sear.  If you have all three, even if all three are never in the same building, you're assumed to be manufacturing illegal arms.

I expect that owning a metal-capable 3D printer and the appropriate file will be analogous. 

Mr_Asa said:

In reply to thatsnowinnebago (Forum Supporter) :

It was "you wouldn't download a car"

Which, at the time, was berking stupid cause you couldn't.  Now however, I would 100% download a car.

Haha, my bad. Downloading a car does sound rad...

kazoospec said:

In reply to pheller :

In the interest of NOT floundering this thread, can we at least acknowledge that regulating/taxing/artificially overpricing ammo has MASSIVE Constitutional implications?  

I don't think it's a floundering thing.  I disagree that taxing or price-controlling it has any constitutional implications.  It says we have the right to bear arms.  It doesn't say we have the right to affordable prices when shopping for arms.  Regulating the actual sale (as in prevention or limits) of firearms certainly could have constitutional implications depending on who is interpreting the law.  An anti-gun person might interpret the amendment as you have the right to bear (i.e. carry, hold, or use) but not own.  A moderate might say you have the right to own, so pick one and only one to own.  Charleton Heston might say that it's carte blanche to own nuclear missiles AND attach 50-cals to the fuselage and use it for a coffee table.

This is one of the reasons I'm not scared about liberals (myself included) taking away my guns.  They have tried for years and, guess what, we still have guns.  Until they amend the constitution, I'm not worried a bit.

bigdaddylee82 said:

Snowdoggie said:

Why do they have weight and size limits? What about those little Derringers that girls keep in their purses? 

Right!  Why, indeed.

The limits only apply to imported pistols, so all of the domestically manufactured Derringers are legal.  Also why Interarms and Smith & Wesson were licensed to manufacture the PPK domestically.  After a few year hiatus, Umarex/Walther is currently making them in Ft. Smith Arkansas, so they're still a domestic product, avoiding the import regulations.

I own a mid '80s Interarms stainless PPK/S and as an Arkansas native, Walther and Bond fan, I really want a Ft. Smith 1st edition PPK/S.

Ah, so it's pro-business legislation, like 10 round magazine limits that just happen to benefit Ruger...

As someone who both hunts and shoots recreationally at times these suggestions are frightening and likely too come true. I'm glad I'm a hoarder 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Ah, so it's pro-business legislation, like 10 round magazine limits that just happen to benefit Ruger...

Old man Bill is rolling in his grave at the BX-25 magazines I have for my 10/22 with his name prominently cast in the side of them.

While the '68 GCA may have resulted in a few foreign manufacturers bringing their production state side, that for sure wasn't the goal.  Proponents had the ill-informed notion that inexpensive foreign made pistols were unsafe, and applied the capricious "sporting purposes" stipulation to limit their importability.  If the pistol doesn't meet length and weight requirements, have a "sporting purpose," and total at least 75 points on the arbitrary, bureaucratic, point system for various firearm features it's not eligible to import.

pheller said:

More seriously - if we more heavily restricted the sale of ammo, only die-hard gun nuts would buy all the reloading equipment. Some kid wanting to do something stupid wouldn't be able to afford it, and his parents likely wouldn't have a huge stash (unless they were reloaders). 

Track the sale of reloading equipment and powder, and you could quickly determine who's building an arsenal. Really, it's just powder. Powder is probably the hardest component to manufacturer. It's crazy how we can control lots of other substances, but gun powder? You can get at walmart. 

Nothing in the Constitution says the government couldn't control and tax the hell out of explosive powder. From the standpoint of "defense against tyrannical government" I just don't think this holds weight. We can't own grenades, rocket launchers, etc. Those are things that would be neccesary if we needed to fight back against the government. That whole premise is bunk. 

A $10 bullet to a hunter is worth it because he's only going to use one. A $10 bullet to mass shooter is an expensive proposition (although the guy in Vegas had plenty of money to blow when he wasn't gambling it away.) 

It'd also help clean up public shooting ranges and other spots were lazy shooters let casings lay. I've filled 5-gallon buckets in an hour around some campsites on public land.

I'll readily admit I feel this way because I do not view guns as toys. 

Your point about citizens needing bombs to reclaim the usa makes a lot of assumptions.

It is extremely hard to stop guerrilla fighters. Vietnam, south america, middle east... With 300+million guns, and people. If even one percent of people took up arms, they could be pretty formidable.  We also have 17 million plus veterans in this country. Many of whom are still quite capable.

 
This argument is also predicated on a binary win/loss against whatever goliath being the only outcome. What if there is no revolution, because people are armed? 

It's also much easier to source grenades and rockets when you have guns.

After having read this topic, I will be purchasing another 1000 rds of 9mm in the following days.

E_NinjA said:

After having read this topic, I will be purchasing another 1000 rds of 9mm in the following days.

One day I came in to work and found a plastic Folger's can full on 9mm on my stool.  Was told there was 2000 rounds in it, and he made them in one night with a really awesome reloader press.  Just watch a movie or something while you keep pulling the lever, he said.

I still have the picture somewhere.

I forget how much he went through on a weekly basis, but that did not last very long.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I need these kinds of co-workers. We have a small shop but the two guys I work closely with either a) dont care about guns or b) want all guns taken away, immediately.

Another question

If folks are free to arm themselves, would we not want that part of the population to be as proficient as possible? I would think a cheap supply of ammo helps train folks to hit what they aim at when one bullet counts, whether it's that deer to feed a family through the winter or to stop the bad guy who came into your home in the middle of the night. 
 

If we're talking about adding taxes, let's tack a bill or two on each firearm sold to cover 100 rounds and a mandatory training session or three. I'd be open to that discussion. 

In reply to barefootskater (Shaun) :

The only thing scarier than a fundamentalist-patio whackjob with an arsenal is someone with Barney Fife grade firearms safety skills.  (The reason he was only allowed to have one bullet, and had to keep it in his pocket)  

There seems to be a lot of crossover.

The problem with mandatory training/etc is that it requires a registry, and that sort of thing is railed against hard, for a variety of reasons probably not fit for discussing, because it invariably gets ugly.  In theory it's a good idea, but the secondary things needed for it to happen are not politically palatable.

Mind you, we don't even have mandatory driver training/testing aside from a pop quiz and see if you can park a car, in most states.

barefootskater (Shaun) said:

If we're talking about adding taxes, let's tack a bill or two on each firearm sold to cover 100 rounds and a mandatory training session or three. I'd be open to that discussion. 

I'm open to any logical discussion.  Seems as though many legislators miss the logic part.  No silencers because TV, no high-round mags because they think it must take 5 minutes to swap mags, no full auto because they think only 5 highly accurate rounds per second is so much better than 8 or 10 sprayed all over the place.... I just haven't seen anything really logical.  I think the only logical thing they have proposed (in my opinion, others will disagree) is the waiting period.  If I have to wait a week to get a hunting rifle, I'm cool with that.  If [insert mass murderer] had to wait a week and during that time he had a calmer discussion with himself and a bunch of people didn't die because he had instant access to procuring a gun, I can wait a week to get a .308 for hunting.

Taxing a right might get sketchy because that skews it toward it being a privilege.  Some justices might call that a violation of the wording "infringed."  Some states tried to do a voting tax back in the day which more or less was a means of suppressing poor/black votes.  Didn't go so well.  I have the means to pay a tax on purchases, but my nephew (who also hunts) doesn't.