Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[OMG!WTF!]

I like the bullet ban/registration idea if for no other reason than it counters the argument that people can own all the vehicles they want without any background check or vetting. Don't even need a license to own a car. Don't need insurance, registration or anything. You just can't drive it anywhere. Seems like a fair argument. You can own all the guns you want, you just can't fire any of them.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Ownership of anything is always better. Serious bowlers have their own balls.

Damn straight we do!!! I have my own shoes as well...

[Violator]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I like the bullet ban/registration idea if for no other reason than it counters the argument that people can own all the vehicles they want without any background check or vetting. Don't even need a license to own a car. Don't need insurance, registration or anything. You just can't drive it anywhere. Seems like a fair argument. You can own all the guns you want, you just can't fire any of them.

Most people press there own ammunition.Bullet bans would just slow some people down until they found someone that will press ammo for them.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Violator

Most people press there own ammunition.Bullet bans would just slow some people down until they found someone that will press ammo for them.

I think criminals would for sure. Crazies probably wouldn't. Kids definitely wouldn't. It's like the same argument that goes criminals don't register their guns. Just having less ammo and laws against owning any would help.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Violator

Most people press there own ammunition.Bullet bans would just slow some people down until they found someone that will press ammo for them.

I think if you are limiting bullets you would also limit powder and blank casings,

cant see to many people scraping the salt peter off the side of a piss pit, the way they did when the constitution was written, to make black powder

[CaptainCrunch]

Except that the criminal gangs would just realize a huge market in Chinese made and Thailland and Russian made ammunition.

Unless you can effectively shut down smuggling you won't stop people from getting bullets. You can also bet with a looming trade war that the Chinese government would be interested in the hard currency made from selling bullets to criminals.

[Violator]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think criminals would for sure. Crazies probably wouldn't. Kids definitely wouldn't. It's like the same argument that goes criminals don't register their guns. Just having less ammo and laws against owning any would help.

From a few years ago but still kinda relevant i think

https://www.quora.com/How-many-bulle...here-in-the-us

Its hard to stop that bullet river that flows in the united states.

Also remington filed for bankruptcy.

[ernie]

It’s not about 100% “stopping”. It’s often about putting up extra hurdles to give the scary powers that be the means to act before it’s too late. It’s a far different proposition to buy gun shots and Ammon unfettered and then commit a crime versus having to commit a crime to acquire those things prior to the other crime. It’s a new layer that gets people caught.

[Wormius]

Still, it’s the people who would commit the mass shootings that you would have success stopping by limiting access to bullets. It’s kind of a self regulating in a way. Who would risk their criminal livelihood by making and selling bullets to a guy who’s going to commit a mass shooting? And if handmade bullets are costing an astronomical amount that’s also prohibitive to most people. I know some guy making and selling bullets isn’t going to be a psychologist, but they could probably tell the difference between guy going to commit a heist vs jilted lover who is not going to be a repeat customer.

[CaptainCrunch]

If someone is determined enough to kill people they'll find a way to get bullets, and I believe that the hardcore gun community will find a way to get bullets into the country.

Cutting off ammo is a good step, that's not likely to happen, but unless you're willing to spend a huge amount of money to inspect each and every crate and box and bag coming over the borders and into the ports this is all meaningless.

As well, you would need to really up the ante in terms of the ability to punish people that use guns illegally or ammo illegally, and that includes people like home owners who bought illegal ammo to "protect" themselves.

Something like 20 years in prison

[bob-loblaw]

Just tax the heck out of bullets like booze and cigarettes. Use the money to pay for health care of those injured by bullets.

Also make gun owners pay more for licenses or make them prove they insurance. Tie the gun registration to driver's licenses to reduce administration burden somehow. Just throwing out ideas but making guns/ammo harder and more expensive to get should help.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

Just tax the heck out of bullets like booze and cigarettes. Use the money to pay for health care of those injured by bullets.

Also make gun owners pay more for licenses or make them prove they insurance. Tie the gun registration to driver's licenses to reduce administration burden somehow. Just throwing out ideas but making guns/ammo harder and more expensive to get should help.

Hey, I'm all for that, but I doubt it will make that much of a difference. All you'll do is create bullet cartels who will bring in bullets from out of the country and make a huge profit.

I've said that insurance costs should be high for guns, and if you get caught with a un insured fire arm its two years in prison, and if you use it its 10 years.


But just saying, make bullets more expensive, you'll now be dealing with profit motivated cartels. Unless you can find a way to seal the borders and ports, it won't make a difference except maybe punishing the people that only use guns for hunting or target shooting.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Violator

Most people press there own ammunition.Bullet bans would just slow some people down until they found someone that will press ammo for them.

I think that is an inaccurate statement. Most people don't reload their own ammunition. Far from it. I remember reading a G&A article that stated even after the ammo shortage of 2013, and a spike in reloading, the number is still in single digits of gun owners. It takes way too much precision and patience to do it right, and the risk associated with it is too high for most shooters. It is safer and cheaper for most shooters to buy ammunition over reloading.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Hey, I'm all for that, but I doubt it will make that much of a difference. All you'll do is create bullet cartels who will bring in bullets from out of the country and make a huge profit.

I've said that insurance costs should be high for guns, and if you get caught with a un insured fire arm its two years in prison, and if you use it its 10 years.


But just saying, make bullets more expensive, you'll now be dealing with profit motivated cartels. Unless you can find a way to seal the borders and ports, it won't make a difference except maybe punishing the people that only use guns for hunting or target shooting.

Yeah, but I am trying I imagine Joe Blow who is mad and wants to shoot up his old workplace/school/whatever is going to be confronted by this obstacle. I guess it acts as a cooling off period in some respects. “Oh, it’s going to cost $50,000 to buy enough bullets to shoot up a school and don’t know how to get in contact with this bullet cartel”. The mass shooters don’t seem like the criminal masterminds that would know their way around these transactions. I think what really enables them works for them is how easy it is to buy a gun and a crapload or ammo from Walmart with no questions asked and fulfill their death-wish before having he time to reconsider what they set out to do.

As an aide, aren’t the chemicals used to make gunpowder controlled to a degree? I don’t think you can buy potassium nitrate or sulphur that easily anymore without being asked questions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Sure, but someone that's angry enough to shoot up a crowd of people, ok, let me step back, the one thing that seems common is that they seem to be done by people that plan things and make sure that they have the equipment they need.

To me, they'll find a way to get bullets.

Look, when I was in high school, and playing football, I would work out in the gym every day, but I wasn't getting big enough for my likes, so you start quietly asking around for advice, and one or two guys, would hook you up with what you needed, as long as you had the cash.

Not saying that I went that far, but you know what I mean.

Someone that's cold enough to kill people will find that link to bullets coming in from outside of the country for example, or some guy that's found a way to make some money by finding a way to press bullets.

So the question is, and you notice that I keep going to Chinese arms makers flooding markets with illegal fire arms and bullets. Its because they get paid in hard currency which basically worms its way up to the members of government, they get rich off of the misfortune of others, and turn a blind eye at the same time.

So lets say that the US puts a massive tax on bullets, some of the gangs down in the States and Mexico are going to see pure profit, they're going to buy guns and ammo from the Chinese, from Thailand from russia, and by that I mean mysterious boxes falling off of trucks into the hands of the various gangs int he States. They'll find a way to smuggle them in just like they did with drugs.

At some point, someone who wants bullets will go to a gun club and find someone that will hook them up for cheaper then they can buy bullets legally, and that will grow because of the gun culture in the States.

And as far as controlling active agents for bullet making, good luck enforcing that with other nations, or getting them to provide proof of their own complicity in the bullet trade if it happens.

I'm not saying its impossible, but if the war on drugs is an abject failure, the war on bullets will be worse if you try to constrict normal purchasing of guns and bullets, its got too much potential for huge profits vs risks.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that the criminal gangs would just realize a huge market in Chinese made and Thailland and Russian made ammunition.

Unless you can effectively shut down smuggling you won't stop people from getting bullets. You can also bet with a looming trade war that the Chinese government would be interested in the hard currency made from selling bullets to criminals.

Regular folks tend not to buy black market guns or ammo, which is why gun control works all over the world, on top of this most of the world production of non military guns and ammo is for the US market, if that is shut down the companies in both the US and the rest of the world will close down those production lines, a gun company in China isn't going to bother to make guns for the minimal illegal market that would remain in the US, a market that would mostly be filled by existing guns in the US.

Gun control would work I the US just easily as it has everywhere else, the shear volume of guns means it would take a few years longer.
Politically the US doesn't want it yet but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work

[Fuzz]

Then you make it the punishment for selling bullets used in a crime the same as the person committing it. How many people are going to sell a bunch of black market assault rifle bullets to some rando if they know they can go to prison for life if this person goes on a killing spree?

And ya, people will always find ways around laws, but you add barriers and you will reduce deaths.

[PsYcNeT]

I like how every gun control/bullet control debate devolves into "well criminals are always going to find a way around it, so why even bother?"

I mean, laws right? Why do we even have any when criminals are always just going to flagrantly ignore them?

[habernac]

I hate that as well. Doing nothing is not working.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by habernac

I hate that as well. Doing nothing is not working.

Well, doing something just for the sake of doing something isn't any good either. You may have little or no positive effect if you don't make the action calculated, and you run the risk of everyone - particularly opportunistic politicians - patting themselves on the back and hanging a big banner saying "WE DID IT" and treating the problem as if it's been solved. Then when it turns out there's still mass shootings and high levels of gun violence, opponents can say, "see? We tried it your way and it didn't do anything. Why do more?" Doing something can, in fact, be worse than doing nothing - it depends what the "something" is.

Right now there's a useful momentum and public will to hopefully accomplish positive change in this area, and there might only be one chance at least right now to make a dent and move things forward, which creates a case for the next time an opportunity like this emerges. So whatever happens, it needs to be something that we're all really, really confident will actually result in significantly fewer dead people. Nothing will solve the whole problem, but a measurable leap is what's called for.