NationStates Jolt Archive

Assume for the sake of argument that illegalising guns in a place where it is easy to aquire illegal guns will lead to an increase in gun crime and a decrease in violent crimes stopped before they occurred by armed law-abiding citizens.

One of the largest causes of murder and violent crimes successfully purpetrated in NO post-Katrina has been the ability of criminals to loot gun stores. Grant you, this is not the only cause, and many of the guns used to commit crimes were guns that were legally owned and then stolen from the owners, or even in rare cases used by the owners themselves. This has gone to the point of making it very difficult in places for relief to go in without armed escort, further complicating the aid attempts.

I propose the following method of limiting firearms use to the people who own them legally:

Illegalise the retail selling of ammunition and make all ammunition availiable only by mail-order.

Think about it--practically all your ammunition is purchased from one of the big gun companies, stocked by the store, and sold retail. If somebody steels a gun, it's a simple matter of looking at the writing on the weapon, figuring out what ammunition it takes, and filling his pockets with shells.

But if it has to be purchased from online dealers, it would be only possible to use shells that you stole from individual homes. Robbing a gun shop would give you nothing but a very expensive club.

Thoughts?

Assume for the sake of argument that illegalising guns in a place where it is easy to aquire illegal guns will lead to an increase in gun crime and a decrease in violent crimes stopped before they occurred by armed law-abiding citizens.

One of the largest causes of murder and violent crimes successfully purpetrated in NO post-Katrina has been the ability of criminals to loot gun stores. Grant you, this is not the only cause, and many of the guns used to commit crimes were guns that were legally owned and then stolen from the owners, or even in rare cases used by the owners themselves. This has gone to the point of making it very difficult in places for relief to go in without armed escort, further complicating the aid attempts.

I propose the following method of limiting firearms use to the people who own them legally:

Illegalise the retail selling of ammunition and make all ammunition availiable only by mail-order.

Think about it--practically all your ammunition is purchased from one of the big gun companies, stocked by the store, and sold retail. If somebody steels a gun, it's a simple matter of looking at the writing on the weapon, figuring out what ammunition it takes, and filling his pockets with shells.

But if it has to be purchased from online dealers, it would be only possible to use shells that you stole from individual homes. Robbing a gun shop would give you nothing but a very expensive club.

Thoughts?interesting, but then those that know how to make their own bullets would then be able to sell their bullets privately.

interesting, but then those that know how to make their own bullets would then be able to sell their bullets privately.
Most modern guns don't like homemade bullets though, do they?

interesting, but then those that know how to make their own bullets would then be able to sell their bullets privately.

I can't imagine the "selling bullets to snipers during times of chaos" market is very large... it wouldn't just be illegal, it would be illegal and would lose you lots of money.

EDIT: There's also the question of coming up with the chemicals needed for the propellant and ignition, and with the machinery needed to make precisely-even bullets that fit precisely into brass.

Anyone remember the "Bullet tax" joke Chris Rock made once? It's actually a pretty good idea. We could even link it to hunting licenses so that you get a certain amount of bullets "tax free" if all you're going to do is hunt.

Anyone remember the "Bullet tax" joke Chris Rock made once? It's actually a pretty good idea. We could even link it to hunting licenses so that you get a certain amount of bullets "tax free" if all you're going to do is hunt.

Ever gone to a shooting range, Laerod?
...
Didn't think so.

Ever gone to a shooting range, Laerod?
...
Didn't think so.To answer your question: No.
And please offer some constructive criticism. All I made was a short proposal, and not a party doctrine. Offer some advice how to make it better or deliver concrete support why it isn't a good idea please.

Most modern guns don't like homemade bullets though, do they?

Weren't there a few people on this forum that knew how to make homemade bullets that worked fine? I think they had the proper tools for it too.

But overall, the idea of limiting munitions themselves and not the arms sounds interesting. Although you might get an increase in empty gun type crimes where they fake it.

Most modern guns don't like homemade bullets though, do they?as long as the size is correct, it will, the barrell may need to be re-rifled but it's possible to do.

Homdemade bullets work fine. I think you're thinking of people that use +P rounds in non +P weapons. Guns with specialized rounds may be iffy but it can be done. No one's gonna to be making their own .224 BOZ rounds in the basement immediately but given enough time and testing it can be done. People in poor countries can make reliable AK-47's BY HAND so a person with the proper tools can do quite well. For an example try looking up Russian weapon clones made in the Khyber Pass. I believe they also press their own ammunition.

To answer your question: No.
And please offer some constructive criticism. All I made was a short proposal, and not a party doctrine. Offer some advice how to make it better or deliver concrete support why it isn't a good idea please.

Hunting out a licence requires about 10 bullets over the course of a month.

Going to a the range for an afternoon requires about 100 bullets.

Shooting your ex to death requires about 4 bullets.

It wouldn't solve any violent crimes, and would do nothing but arbetrarily increase the cost of operation of a sport or self-defence practice. It would be about as useful for preventing crimes as taxing time spent in a dojo.

Hunting out a licence requires about 10 bullets over the course of a month.

Going to a the range for an afternoon requires about 100 bullets.

Shooting your ex to death requires about 4 bullets.

It wouldn't solve any violent crimes, and would do nothing but arbetrarily increase the cost of operation of a sport or self-defence practice. It would be about as useful for preventing crimes as taxing time spent in a dojo.

While it wouldn't be useful in stopping one-time crimes, career criminals would be significantly impeded, and that was more the concept.

Homdemade bullets work fine. I think you're thinking of people that use +P rounds in non +P weapons. Guns with specialized rounds may be iffy but it can be done. No one's gonna to be making their own .224 BOZ rounds in the basement immediately but given enough time and testing it can be done. People in poor countries can make reliable AK-47's BY HAND so a person with the proper tools can do quite well. For an example try looking up Russian weapon clones made in the Khyber Pass. I believe they also press their own ammunition.true, but for standard 9mm rounds?

Assault Rifles are not the only guns used in crimes.

then there is the fact that if the police has access to the bullets, what's stopping one corrupt cop from supplying the crooks with the ammo they need. strict bookeeping regs will bog down the officers, loose regs will mean some bullets getting to the criminal's hands.

What about this solution for hunting:

You would get all of your ammo tax free from a shop. After a reasonable amount of hours you would have to give back for a refund all of the unused ones as well as the empty cartridges you fired.

It would even be better for the environment.

I think(yes I stole it from a comic, so whatcha gonna do?) that we should have the right to bear arms exactly as the Founding Fathers intended, right down to the arms themselves. Sure, you can own a gun... one of those old-timey guns that takes like a minute to load and is not guaranteed accurate. I'm sure if we all had guns - but they were old, required a lot of time to prepare, needed meticulous care and were rather innaccurate - we would reduce deaths from guns.

I don't think of it as insane per se... just as a riduclously strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I think(yes I stole it from a comic, so whatcha gonna do?) that we should have the right to bear arms exactly as the Founding Fathers intended, right down to the arms themselves. Sure, you can own a gun... one of those old-timey guns that takes like a minute to load and is not guaranteed accurate. I'm sure if we all had guns - but they were old, required a lot of time to prepare, needed meticulous care and were rather innaccurate - we would reduce deaths from guns.

I don't think of it as insane per se... just as a riduclously strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Then all the black powder gun enthusiests would PWN EVERYONE. Well, except for the people with modern arms.

That would put an undue burden on firearms owners. I like being able to decide I want to go to the firing range on a whim, I dont want to have to plan for it. I dont want to have to think about whether I should go to the firing range today or save the bullets because my friend may wanna go hunting this weekend and I may not be able to get my next shipment on time. I like having the ability to buy ammo when I want it and can afford it.

I think(yes I stole it from a comic, so whatcha gonna do?) that we should have the right to bear arms exactly as the Founding Fathers intended, right down to the arms themselves. Sure, you can own a gun... one of those old-timey guns that takes like a minute to load and is not guaranteed accurate. I'm sure if we all had guns - but they were old, required a lot of time to prepare, needed meticulous care and were rather innaccurate - we would reduce deaths from guns.

I don't think of it as insane per se... just as a riduclously strict interpretation of the Constitution.

You think having less safe, less reliable, and less accurate weapons would make people SAFER...umm...yeah...:rolleyes:

Assume for the sake of argument that illegalising guns in a place where it is easy to aquire illegal guns will lead to an increase in gun crime and a decrease in violent crimes stopped before they occurred by armed law-abiding citizens.

Okay, it's your thread and you can post whatever hypotheticals you like, but I find your premise hard to accept. Personally, if I was an armed criminal I think I would be much less likely to shoot people when I'm in a country where I'm positive the average Joe isn't armed. If I was robbing someone in England and he quickly reached into his jacket, I would assume he was in a hurry to give me his wallet. If I was robbing someone in America and he quickly reached into his jacket I would shoot him dead, just in case he was going for a gun.

You think having less safe, less reliable, and less accurate weapons would make people SAFER...umm...yeah...:rolleyes:well, there are the civil war enthusists...

and bows and crossbows... wanna see the ballistic reports on those. :D

Okay, it's your thread and you can post whatever hypotheticals you like, but I find your premise hard to accept. Personally, if I was an armed criminal I think I would be much less likely to shoot people when I'm in a country where I'm positive the average Joe isn't armed. If I was robbing someone in England and he quickly reach into his jacket, I would assume he was in a hurry to give me his wallet. If I was robbing someone in America and he quickly reached into his jacket I would shoot him dead, just in case he was going for a gun.
That places blame on the victim. The criminal intiated the exchange and therefore is guily of any consequences that result from it. This is not the moral absolutes thread. :(

You think having less safe, less reliable, and less accurate weapons would make people SAFER...umm...yeah...:rolleyes:

Well come on, drive bys would be impossible. You simply couldn't get the aim right from a car. You couldn't reload in a car either. Plus there would be less innocent bystander deaths, as less shots would be fired off. Plus if you have like a minute between getting pissed enough to shoot someone and actually doing the deed, you might reevaluate your decision. Plus it's hard to conceal a large circa-1776 rifle.

Or maybe I was trying to be amusing? You figure it out. :)

That places blame on the victim. The criminal intiated the exchange and therefore is guily of any consequences that result from it. This is not the moral absolutes thread.

But I'm a criminal. I not much interested in morality. I've placed my own desires over the welfare of others. I just want my next hit of my drug of choice (NS forums down at the internet cafe) without getting hurt myself. I don't want to shoot anyone cause the police don't care about muggers as much as they care about murderers, but as a purely practical matter I'm going to be a lot more jumpy in a place where citizens might be armed than in Cardiff.

But I'm a criminal. I not much interested in morality. I've placed my own desires over the welfare of others. I just want my next hit of my drug of choice (NS forums down at the internet cafe) without getting hurt myself. I don't want to shoot anyone cause the police don't care about muggers as much as they care about murderers, but as a purely practical matter I'm going to be a lot more jumpy in a place where citizens might be armed than in Cardiff.
So now we determine federal law under the premise of what criminals think? Odds are, I was going to be shot anyway if the mugger is that jumpy. Quickly making any threatening motion while under the barrel of a mugger or police officer is just not a good idea. Also, if I take my time explaining that I am not reaching for a firearm, you may shoot me for taking too long.

So now we determine federal law under the premise of what criminals think?

Umm... yeah? 'Cause like, if someone thinks they might get punished, then they may not commit a crime. Which is like a good thing.

Umm... yeah? 'Cause like, if someone thinks they might get punished, then they may not commit a crime. Which is like a good thing.


But I'm a criminal. I not much interested in morality. I've placed my own desires over the welfare of others.

So in this case, how exactly did the law stop you then? Frankly, in a situation where I already have a gun drawn on me, there really isn't much it can do in that split second. In this moment of time, law no longer exists. My POV is that I don't want to get shot. Your sole motivation is getting your sweet, sweet, sweet NS drug, how could law be possibly be on your mind at the time? If you we're able to think that far ahead, you wouldn't be without sweet, sweet, sweet NS! :D

So in this case, how exactly did the law stop you then? Frankly, in a situation where I already have a gun drawn on me, there really isn't much it can do in that split second. In this moment of time, law no longer exists. My POV is that I don't want to get shot. Your sole motivation is getting your sweet, sweet, sweet NS drug, how could law be possibly be on your mind at the time? If you we're able to think that far ahead, you wouldn't be without sweet, sweet, sweet NS!

I think you're just a little too fond of NS. I considered writing about how people often do respond to incentives and how addicts usually don't want to kill people and one of the reasons is because they are scared of being punished, but we could be here all day.

EDIT: I think I see the problem. Because I'm not interested in morality, you think there is nothing constraining my actions? I might never have heard of morality, but that doesn't mean that I'm not scared of going to jail.

Weren't there a few people on this forum that knew how to make homemade bullets that worked fine? I think they had the proper tools for it too.

But overall, the idea of limiting munitions themselves and not the arms sounds interesting. Although you might get an increase in empty gun type crimes where they fake it.
Fake it till you make it.... at least that's my girlfriend used to say :p