Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

srican69

(1,426 posts)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:00 PM Dec 2012

Fuck Gun Control - We need Bullet Control.

Gun control is going to achieve - diddly squat.

Its like locking the barn after the Horse has bolted to fuck the mare.

We should control the production and distribution of bullets - we'll have the problem by the scruff.

5 bullets per person ( backed by a national database) at any given time. If you want to restock - bring the used cartridges.


If a person wants 10 bullets - then he has to collude with atleast one other person - that increases the odds of being discovered.

I dont think a person needs more that 5 rounds to defend himself. ( remember - bullets will have widespead artificially induced scarcity- which will also increase their cost in the black market)

138 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fuck Gun Control - We need Bullet Control. (Original Post) srican69 Dec 2012 OP
I like Chris Rock's idea - keep the gun prices low, make bullets cost $5,000 a piece. Initech Dec 2012 #1
there would be no innocent bystanders No Compromise Dec 2012 #31
"Excuse me, I think you have my property!" CTyankee Dec 2012 #83
Here you go... Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #99
A brilliant piece of comedy! Thank you! CTyankee Dec 2012 #116
won't stop handloading, nor bullet forging a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #2
yes .. but think of the scale ... how many will go through the hassle ... srican69 Dec 2012 #5
If we are going to go that route... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #6
Wrong. llmart Dec 2012 #62
very small percentage. A conplete and immeadiate ban on ammunition would be very effective. bowens43 Dec 2012 #9
The books and plans for handloading are easily available, so are the parts... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #17
but will they fit an automatic weapon without blowing up on the shooters face? srican69 Dec 2012 #18
Paladin Press will gladly sell you the full shop plans for full auto weapons a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #21
I agree ... a determined whackjob will defeat every single thing we can dream of .. that is why the srican69 Dec 2012 #22
I've got a different take on it... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #25
YES! bongbong Dec 2012 #32
You started out fine and then wrecked a perfectly good sentence with an insane predicate. pop topcan Dec 2012 #58
Insane? bongbong Dec 2012 #69
You should stop posting in these threads former-republican Dec 2012 #60
Boo hoo bongbong Dec 2012 #68
and you're bombastic a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #77
Murders do that to people bongbong Dec 2012 #85
okay... you're just being mean-spirited... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #87
Defending ones self bongbong Dec 2012 #95
over the top rhetoric? Puhleeze! a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #97
LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #106
black/white fallacy on your part... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #108
LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #111
nope... you are - yet again - wrong a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #113
Sorry bongbong Dec 2012 #120
your snarky apology is rejected as being tacky and puerile a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #122
That's just mean spirited... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #71
Doesn't imply a thing bongbong Dec 2012 #86
Can you guarantee someone's safety? If not, then I ask you... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #88
Guarantee bongbong Dec 2012 #94
Here we Go! a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #96
Oh yeah! bongbong Dec 2012 #104
Sweet! a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #107
You bet you're starting to get funny! bongbong Dec 2012 #110
We seem to appreciate each other so much, we should get together over coffee/tea... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #112
And unconstitutional as hell hack89 Dec 2012 #48
We shall see. There are Congresspeople getting ready pnwmom Dec 2012 #92
Read Heller hack89 Dec 2012 #100
This wouldn't be banning all ammo. Just ammo in clips larger than 10 bullets. pnwmom Dec 2012 #114
The OP is calling for 5 bullets total that one can possess. hack89 Dec 2012 #117
Ten would make us safer than 30 or 100. pnwmom Dec 2012 #118
VT tells us otherwise. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #119
Do you have a link for that? pnwmom Dec 2012 #123
He had two pistols hack89 Dec 2012 #124
Well, Amy Bishop in Alabama "only" killed three people with her one gun. pnwmom Dec 2012 #125
The point is an arbitrary limit on magazines hack89 Dec 2012 #127
No, it doesn't. It doesn't eliminate shootings, but it increases the likelihood pnwmom Dec 2012 #128
Most mass shootings have fewer than 10 victims hack89 Dec 2012 #129
So? Why wouldn't we want to reduce mass shootings with more than 10 deaths? pnwmom Dec 2012 #132
Like the ban on alcohol after the Volstead act? Wanna talk about a major 'cottage' industry... pop topcan Dec 2012 #51
Which is why it would be unconstitutional. Bake Dec 2012 #137
That would never fully supply a black market Warpy Dec 2012 #63
Taking the violently mentally ill off the streets would have an impact... n/t a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #73
So? It's like locking your doors. That won't stop the most determined thieves. pnwmom Dec 2012 #89
I can go along with that. n/t a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #91
We need both. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #3
+1 n/t geomon666 Dec 2012 #4
I agree. banning the manufacture and sale of ammunition would solve the problem pretty damn quick bowens43 Dec 2012 #7
But it's never going to happen...I've had to concede that after many long years. libdem4life Dec 2012 #11
That I will agree to ... srican69 Dec 2012 #20
I guess you must be right...since it is impossible to get marijuana these days. pop topcan Dec 2012 #52
Most of us don't want any bullets, mostly because we don't have a gun. libdem4life Dec 2012 #8
I am loving the ideas I've seen on DU today srican69 Dec 2012 #12
we dont want too many colts srican69 Dec 2012 #14
OMG...it took a couple of seconds...not only new ideas, we're getting some laughs, as well. libdem4life Dec 2012 #19
We need both...gun and bullet control and less FOX noise pushing fear. Auntie Bush Dec 2012 #10
Black market for ammo former-republican Dec 2012 #13
yes there will be a thriving black market for ammo .... but guess what - it will be super expensive srican69 Dec 2012 #16
These are fantasy threads , no one is going to ban ammo former-republican Dec 2012 #23
sadly - I agree. srican69 Dec 2012 #28
Until we replace one of the RW justices on the Supreme Court, a bullet ban is a good idea. byeya Dec 2012 #15
Before you get all excited hack89 Dec 2012 #76
How about a $25/bullet tax for non-governmental sales? geek tragedy Dec 2012 #24
Devils advocate, based in reality nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #26
discussed in post #2 ... Short answer .... srican69 Dec 2012 #29
Well on the practical level nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #35
Dont be surprised - If we get a bill passed - a lot of what you posted above make it srican69 Dec 2012 #42
I planted the seed with a congress person nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #44
Smart gun is a damn good idea former-republican Dec 2012 #65
New Jersey has field tested them with the state police nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #72
pretty cool former-republican Dec 2012 #84
I like your suggestions..... llmart Dec 2012 #67
If you only allow dealers nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #74
If they're a dealer worth their salt.... llmart Dec 2012 #78
I have been to them too nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #81
But how does a background check.... llmart Dec 2012 #90
That is why the NCIS system has to be expanded nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #93
I thought HIPPA requires psychiatrists and doctors to protect their patients' privacy? llmart Dec 2012 #98
Regardless of the system in place nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #109
That is so paramount to this issue former-republican Dec 2012 #79
Remember I said you need a gun person to make common sense gun control? former-republican Dec 2012 #34
Oh I know. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #38
Lets see if anyone else gets it former-republican Dec 2012 #39
and a gun person will respect the gun ...will know its power and srican69 Dec 2012 #41
"I agree " we plenty of gun owners here that are not psychopaths but they seem to be treated as former-republican Dec 2012 #45
do you watch 'the good wife' srican69 Dec 2012 #102
Make gunpowder extremely expensive to buy Panasonic Dec 2012 #50
If the goal is to shoot a lot of rounds for close range former-republican Dec 2012 #59
Deprivation of rights under color of law X_Digger Dec 2012 #27
I am not for banning bullets - just restricting them. srican69 Dec 2012 #33
Try such a limit on another right.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #37
if you need more than you are reasonably expected to require then srican69 Dec 2012 #54
Rights don't work that way. You don't have to justify exercising them.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #64
except for those who skip your "legal" process, and make their own... a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #80
Good plan...and we can limit voting rights to once every 5 elections. Now, THAT will keep the pop topcan Dec 2012 #55
An interesting idea to explore. Ban bullets and reloading equipment and supplies? aristocles Dec 2012 #30
I have no clue - how many bullets will an average hunter require to kill a deer or moose srican69 Dec 2012 #36
Could be 100's aristocles Dec 2012 #40
You know there is a multi billion dollar industry that involves target shooting former-republican Dec 2012 #49
You can use crossbow quarrels to target shoot, or XBox. n/t aristocles Dec 2012 #57
I could use a rubber band also but lets stay on subject former-republican Dec 2012 #66
I had thought of that as well .. you can buy bullets at the range.. but have to exhaust them before srican69 Dec 2012 #70
There's actually a lot of ranges that only allow ammo bought there to be used. former-republican Dec 2012 #75
Make the bullets so expensive, Missouri Lad Dec 2012 #43
That was discussed in other threads today .. it will srican69 Dec 2012 #46
I propose a 98% tax, and it all goes to education. Panasonic Dec 2012 #47
That's the magic bullet solution!!! nt valerief Dec 2012 #53
If we can successfully limit fucking SUDAFED Nevernose Dec 2012 #56
Hmmm...let me see if I can think of a parallel... Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #61
See this thread, bakpakr Dec 2012 #82
I always thought Chris Rock was on to something with this. Brigid Dec 2012 #101
Let's be like Switzerland mainer Dec 2012 #103
The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms... Ken Burch Dec 2012 #105
The Second Amendment doesn't protect bullets, only guns AZ Progressive Dec 2012 #115
Hey Smart Guy, not far enough conservativeindisgui Dec 2012 #121
5 rounds is sufficient ammo for a man to defend himself - but insufficient srican69 Dec 2012 #126
In all likelihood that would be unconstitutional. Bake Dec 2012 #135
That is just plain stupid, make it so only the one percent can shoot their guns n/t doc03 Dec 2012 #130
no srican69 Dec 2012 #131
Did you ever here of target shooting? How the hell do you even sight in a gun with doc03 Dec 2012 #133
That was discussed in a subthread ...I said practice facilities would sell own rounds that are to be srican69 Dec 2012 #134
I don't even know of a practice facility I live in the middle of nowhere doc03 Dec 2012 #136
and I have never stepped far away from srican69 Dec 2012 #138
 

No Compromise

(373 posts)
31. there would be no innocent bystanders
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:41 PM
Dec 2012

it just might work, most of us peons wouldn't be worth killing

srican69

(1,426 posts)
5. yes .. but think of the scale ... how many will go through the hassle ...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:04 PM
Dec 2012

and If you are smart enough to make a bullet - chances are a cool dude and that you are not a psycho loser.

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
6. If we are going to go that route...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:10 PM
Dec 2012

I'm smart enough to cannabalize 25 DVD burners for the laser diodes, and make myself a laser "pistol..."

Handloading's a pretty simple system. You can buy the kits pretty much in any hunting store.

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
17. The books and plans for handloading are easily available, so are the parts...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:18 PM
Dec 2012

Also, black powder weapons are really easy to make...

srican69

(1,426 posts)
18. but will they fit an automatic weapon without blowing up on the shooters face?
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:20 PM
Dec 2012

will they be reliable enough to discharge at 20/minute?

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
21. Paladin Press will gladly sell you the full shop plans for full auto weapons
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:26 PM
Dec 2012
http://www.paladin-press.com/product/Homemade-Ammo

For that matter, they'll sell you the plans for bombs, grenades, and the "how-to" for running a revolution.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
22. I agree ... a determined whackjob will defeat every single thing we can dream of .. that is why the
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:30 PM
Dec 2012

final solution will consist of a silver gun shot rather than a silver bullet ( rather unfortunate pun , given the circumstances)
 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
25. I've got a different take on it...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:34 PM
Dec 2012

a multi-level (fed/state/local) responsive mental health program, with a differentiation on violent/non-violent crazies

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
69. Insane?
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:21 PM
Dec 2012

Reserve that word for people who think they need assault rifles, near-assault rifles, thousands of rounds of ammo, magazines, etc etc etc.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
68. Boo hoo
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:20 PM
Dec 2012

I'm almost as bad as those NRA-bots who perform the vital task of parroting the evil echoing around the empty cave (mind) of Wayne LaPierre.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
85. Murders do that to people
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:50 PM
Dec 2012

Tens of thousands of deaths yearly from guns, because of Delicate Flowers who are too scared to walk out of the house without a gun.

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
87. okay... you're just being mean-spirited...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:00 PM
Dec 2012

there are those out there with a reason to be scared. Like ethnic minority groups and battered women.

I won't take away their right to defend themselves.

If you have a problem with that, go see your therapist.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
95. Defending ones self
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:16 PM
Dec 2012

> there are those out there with a reason to be scared. Like ethnic minority groups and battered women.

Yeah, and all the stats prove that if you have a gun you're more likely to be injured or die.

Oh, wait, I bet some people think they're SPECIAL and will be the ones to defy the odds. They're Rambo-ready!

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
97. over the top rhetoric? Puhleeze!
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:22 PM
Dec 2012

1.) facts are not in evidence for your statement.
2.) "Rambo-ready?" Really? That's your idea of a reasoned conversation?

I know several people with firearms. None of them has killed a family member. I guess they are Rambo-ready. (For that matter, I know a bunch of people with swords. I guess - by your rhetorical structure - they are Conan-ready.)

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
106. LOL
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:19 PM
Dec 2012

> Really? That's your idea of a reasoned conversation?

Much, much better than the NRA Talking Points that the bots are subjecting Liberals to on DU these days.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
111. LOL
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:08 PM
Dec 2012

> black/white fallacy on your part...

No, actually my posts are, on the average, 85.4% better than NRA-bot Talking Point parrot posts.

If I was guilty of your claim, it would either be 0% or 100%.

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
113. nope... you are - yet again - wrong
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:15 PM
Dec 2012

"better than" isn't the Black/White fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

You seem to portray the situation as "you either agree with me, or you are spouting Right Wing talking points!"

It really sounds like you either live under a bridge, or are engaging in willful propaganda.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
120. Sorry
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:04 PM
Dec 2012

> You seem to portray the situation as "you either agree with me, or you are spouting Right Wing talking points!"

No, again, your love of your Precious blinds you. Gun Religion is a strange religion indeed.

When I see an NRA Talking Point parroted, I call it out. You can try to deflect & smear all you want, but that's all I'm doing. Sorry if it interferes with your religious practice.

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
122. your snarky apology is rejected as being tacky and puerile
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:18 PM
Dec 2012
No, again, your love of your Precious blinds you.


Really? That's what you've got? When did I go on about "My Precioussss..." ??

Gun Religion is a strange religion indeed.


I see you are attempting to engage in straw men. Nice try...
WHEN did I praise the glories of the gun? If you are going to engage in derailing conversations, at least stay in reality land.


When I see an NRA Talking Point parroted, I call it out.


"Parroted" usually is construed to mean verbatim repetition of a phrase. What phrase have I parroted?

You can try to deflect & smear all you want, but that's all I'm doing.


Projection and attempted heroic self portraiture on your part.

Sorry if it interferes with your religious practice.


Projection and strawman argument, cobbled with an attempt at being snarky.

You really need to get better at this...
 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
71. That's just mean spirited...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:23 PM
Dec 2012

and short sighted.

Saying something like that implies that the speaker is somehow more mentally stable than the spoken about.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
86. Doesn't imply a thing
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:52 PM
Dec 2012

Other than the vague suspicions that are already lingering in one's mind.

Kinda like the fantasyworld that Delicate Flowers have - a world filled with dangerous "thugs".

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
88. Can you guarantee someone's safety? If not, then I ask you...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:02 PM
Dec 2012

to stop speaking on things you don't understand.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
94. Guarantee
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:14 PM
Dec 2012

You never know when a fire could break out. Better carry a fire extinguisher all the time. A big one in case the fire is big.

You never know when it'll rain. Better carry an umbrella all the time. A big one in case it rains a lot.

You never know when somebody will try to gas you. Better carry a gas mask.

Should I continue?



The flowers are Delicate indeed!

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
96. Here we Go!
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:19 PM
Dec 2012
You never know when a fire could break out. Better carry a fire extinguisher all the time. A big one in case the fire is big.


I have 4 fire extinguishers in my house. I also have a home built foam generator. In my car, I have an integral fire bottle, and two mini extinguishers

You never know when it'll rain. Better carry an umbrella all the time. A big one in case it rains a lot.


I have two umbrellas and a pouched rain poncho in your work bag.

You never know when somebody will try to gas you. Better carry a gas mask.


I work with chemicals and HV equipment. I have a gas mask (repurposed) and an OBA rig.

Talk to me about preparations...

Should I continue?

Be my guest... you're starting to become amusing.

Personally, I think what bothers people like you, is that you can't push everybody around.
 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
104. Oh yeah!
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:18 PM
Dec 2012

OK, you never know when you will have a guy attack you with acid - better carry 10 gallon bottles of base around, just in case.

You never know when a car might mow you down, better carry (wait, it's too heavy to carry, you'll have to drag it on a cart) car-proof barrier to surround yourself with.

Want me to go on, Delicate Flower? Or am I inflaming the terror you have of the world outside your house a little too much?

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
107. Sweet!
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:25 PM
Dec 2012

Let's see...

OK, you never know when you will have a guy attack you with acid - better carry 10 gallon bottles of base around, just in case.


As I've worked with RFNA, I have BUFFERS to stop the reaction. (Base materials can cause damaging amounts of heat.)

You never know when a car might mow you down, better carry (wait, it's too heavy to carry, you'll have to drag it on a cart) car-proof barrier to surround yourself with.


I practice Situational Awareness, so I tend to move from the lee-side of one barrier (fire hydrants work well) to the next lee-sided object.

Want me to go on, Delicate Flower? Or am I inflaming the terror you have of the world outside your house a little too much?


I have little terror of the world, oh supposed voice of the masses, just caution. When I DO have to have defensive measures on me, I carry chump change, aqua-net, a 5 amp stun stick, and some other equipment. Firearms are left at home.

Please, do go on. You're starting to get funny.
 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
110. You bet you're starting to get funny!
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:06 PM
Dec 2012

> When I DO have to have defensive measures on me, I carry chump change, aqua-net, a 5 amp stun stick, and some other equipment. Firearms are left at home.

Do you do Standup for the NRA? I blame your overactive imagination (common to Delicate Flowers). Are you prepared for ZOMBIES???

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
112. We seem to appreciate each other so much, we should get together over coffee/tea...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:12 PM
Dec 2012
Do you do Standup for the NRA?


Nope. Try again.

I blame your overactive imagination (common to Delicate Flowers).


And I blame your continued attempts to derail as a sign you know you haven't a leg to stand on...
As to my imagination... I'm an inventor and a -hopeful- SF writer. (I've only written about 120 pages. That's not really getting into the field...)

Are you prepared for ZOMBIES???


As I don't live in a cheap horror movie, I see no need. Instead, I prepare for REAL situations. Like Blizzards, Hurricanes, Heat Waves, Rain, and Riots.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
100. Read Heller
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:40 PM
Dec 2012

the SC said that mandated trigger locks for guns while in a home were unconstitutional because it prevented the owner from using his gun for self defense.

Get it? If it renders the gun useless for self.defense it is unconstitutional. Banning ammo falls in that category.

Additionally, the term "arms" has historically encompassed both weapons and their ammo.

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)
114. This wouldn't be banning all ammo. Just ammo in clips larger than 10 bullets.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:37 AM
Dec 2012

The gun wouldn't be rendered useless for defense -- but it wouldn't be such a useful offensive weapon.

The writers of the Constitution clearly never anticipated clips with 100 bullets.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
117. The OP is calling for 5 bullets total that one can possess.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:15 AM
Dec 2012

Are you aware that VT shooter had a gun with a 10 round mag?

10 is an arbitrary number that will not make you safer.

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)
118. Ten would make us safer than 30 or 100.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:40 PM
Dec 2012

Any time a shooter has to pause to reload is a moment for taking him down.

Half a dozen deaths is better than 26, though both are horrifying.

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)
125. Well, Amy Bishop in Alabama "only" killed three people with her one gun.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:55 PM
Dec 2012

She was the only female "mass murderer" I could find who used a gun.

She stopped, "perplexed," when she tried to shoot and there was only a "click." She only had the one gun, but if she had been able to shoot 30 bullets from it, there would have been more deaths.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting

After Bishop had fired several rounds, Moriarity said that Bishop pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger, but heard only a "click,"[7] as her gun "either jammed or ran out of ammunition."[8] She described Bishop as initially appearing "angry," and then following the apparent weapon malfunction, "perplexed."[7] Ng said Moriarity then attempted to stop Bishop[5][8] by approaching her and asking her to stop, and then helped the other survivors push Bishop from the room and block the door.[5] Ng said "Moriarity was probably the one that saved our lives. She was the one that initiated the rush."[5]

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)
128. No, it doesn't. It doesn't eliminate shootings, but it increases the likelihood
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:00 PM
Dec 2012

that a shooting will be interrupted. Interrupting a shooting reduces the number of deaths.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
129. Most mass shootings have fewer than 10 victims
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:03 PM
Dec 2012

remember the criteria is 4 victims.

Secondly, the interruption is in seconds - it does not take long to reload. And if I have more than one gun I don't need to reload at all.

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)
132. So? Why wouldn't we want to reduce mass shootings with more than 10 deaths?
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:05 PM
Dec 2012

It's a place to start.

Lanza had three guns, each with a capacity for 30 bullets. If he's only had 10 bullets per gun, he'd have to reload after 30 bullets -- not 90. He could pump dozens of bullets into his victims because of the high capacity clips. Without them, his spree would have been over sooner.

Seconds could be all that's needed to pile on a shooter -- or to get away.

Bake

(21,977 posts)
137. Which is why it would be unconstitutional.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:06 PM
Dec 2012

It's just going after the 2nd Amendment through the back door. SCOTUS would strike it down (as well it should) in a New York minute.

I'd like to see a "conplete and immeadiate ban" on lousy spelling, too, but I'm not holding my breath.

Bake

Warpy

(111,267 posts)
63. That would never fully supply a black market
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:14 PM
Dec 2012

not even if all the Appalachian moonshiners turned to doing it.

Nothing is going to stop gun violence in this country without the type of tyranny we'd all like to avoid. The best we can do is slow it down, and that should be the regulatory focus.

pnwmom

(108,978 posts)
89. So? It's like locking your doors. That won't stop the most determined thieves.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:03 PM
Dec 2012

But it keeps out a significant number of amateurs.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
8. Most of us don't want any bullets, mostly because we don't have a gun.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:11 PM
Dec 2012

I've lived in the cities in the country and inbetween for more decades than I'll admit, raised kids, involved in education, and I've never felt the need or had the occasion for which it would be necessary.

Nor do I want my share to go to anyone else...who knows when they might get drunk on a Saturday night or notice a 7-11 and help themselves to some free munchies.

But I do like your analogy...straight off the farm!!! And I also like how we're getting some really good ideas going. It's going to "Take a Village" to put this together.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
16. yes there will be a thriving black market for ammo .... but guess what - it will be super expensive
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:17 PM
Dec 2012

and dangerous to buy it ...


you will have to involve others in your plans .... and that is not the way most of these psycho killers operate.

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
23. These are fantasy threads , no one is going to ban ammo
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:31 PM
Dec 2012

sales like in this thread.

We can work on things that will actually pass both houses and SCOTUS or we can indulge in fantasy threads.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
28. sadly - I agree.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:36 PM
Dec 2012

But here is a cardinal rule of brain storming ( or ideation if you prefer )


Don't worry about feasibility in the initial stages - In my design meetings - some of the best work has come out of what many might have considered silly ideas ... I always ask everyone to withhold judgement.

you'll be surprised - how things work themselves out

 

byeya

(2,842 posts)
15. Until we replace one of the RW justices on the Supreme Court, a bullet ban is a good idea.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:16 PM
Dec 2012

After a new justice is sworn in, we can go back to 2007 when a town like Morton Grove, IL, was able to ban handguns(1981).

hack89

(39,171 posts)
76. Before you get all excited
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:27 PM
Dec 2012

ask your self why that RW court has not overturned Rowe v Wade?

Heller is the law of the land - every court in America will use it as precedent. The SC does not usually overturn recent precedent.

History is not on your side.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
24. How about a $25/bullet tax for non-governmental sales?
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:33 PM
Dec 2012

Complete authority to do so, with no 2nd amendment issues.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
26. Devils advocate, based in reality
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:35 PM
Dec 2012

How do you deal with home made bullets?

That said, accidentally you are onto something. Certain classes of ammo should not be available to civilians either.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
29. discussed in post #2 ... Short answer ....
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:39 PM
Dec 2012

we cannot ... but this approach will serve as a limiting factor just as anything else might ...

we will ultimately need a collection of approaches - not just one.

But I must say - I've seen some terrific ideas on DU today

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
35. Well on the practical level
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:46 PM
Dec 2012

1- Close gun show loopholes

2.- Extended background checks.

3.- smart gun technology

4.- No Internet sales

5.- very stringent licensing to ccw holders, including mandatory training and re licensing every three years, and a provable need.

To bullets, there are certain classes of ammo (hollow points for example) that do not belong in civilian hands.

In reality I cannot remove those guns, but a class three license to all current owners (What essentially happened to automatics in 1934) it will make harder to transfer and all that.



 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
65. Smart gun is a damn good idea
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:16 PM
Dec 2012

Has the firearm manufactures ever done a study on the cost?

"If they have " do you have a link on the reliability of technology like this.

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
84. pretty cool
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:41 PM
Dec 2012

I can see one day every firearm in the country being like that.

The one barrier I see is unless it becomes the law of the land.

No RD will spend enough money to really research it.
It stated it's 90% effective

Maybe make it a 5 year period ?


That way all manufactures can contribute money to research it enough.
If they don't then their out of business in 5 years.

Funny how a law will open up the purse strings on firearm manufatures.



llmart

(15,540 posts)
67. I like your suggestions.....
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:19 PM
Dec 2012

with the exception of the first one.

I want the gun shows shut down. All those idiots under one roof with all those weapons is scary.

On second thought, there were a couple incidents here in Michigan at a gun show where one of those idiots picked up a gun and pulled the trigger to "test" it and shot the seller. Sorry, I thought that was instant karma and enjoyed the irony of it.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
74. If you only allow dealers
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:25 PM
Dec 2012

And stop the back of the pickup truck sales, you get background checks.

That is what closing the loophole means.

llmart

(15,540 posts)
78. If they're a dealer worth their salt....
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:33 PM
Dec 2012

let them open up a shop of their own. A federally well regulated shop with lots of federal oversight.

I've seen the kind of crap they sell in addition to guns. I've seen full body targets of President Clinton and Hillary back when they were in the White House. I won't go back to one but I guarantee you there are now targets of President Obama and Michelle. They also sell all the thinly disguised anarchist literature.

It's a virtual hatefest.

What kind of country has "gun shows" every weekend? A gun-obsessed country and look where it's gotten us.







 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
81. I have been to them too
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:39 PM
Dec 2012

I know what they sell...but if you make it illegal to sell a gun without a background check. This is why the NRA hates the mere idea.

This, by extension means ATF regulation and agents.

llmart

(15,540 posts)
90. But how does a background check....
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:04 PM
Dec 2012

check for the mental stability of the buyer?

That's my problem. How does it check for the guy with "anger issues"? How does it check for the guy who's bipolar and won't take his meds because he thinks he's OK?

This is what scares me.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
93. That is why the NCIS system has to be expanded
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:11 PM
Dec 2012

To troll mental health databases. Aka you are in a database (that psychiatrists would have to file into) you fail.

That is an example of the expansion needed. For the record, this was actually required partially after VA tech...the program has not been funded.

I will add a reality check, we will not prevent all tragedies...we should reduce them. It will uptake a generation. We have 300+ guns out there.

llmart

(15,540 posts)
98. I thought HIPPA requires psychiatrists and doctors to protect their patients' privacy?
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:36 PM
Dec 2012

Plus what do you do about those who think they're perfectly fine and never seek professional help?

I was married to one.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
109. Regardless of the system in place
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:39 PM
Dec 2012

Some will fall through. And the mental health screen has been there since the system started. It relied on self reporting. After VA tech it was in theory expanded.

We cannot prevent this 100%. We can't throw hands in the air either.

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
79. That is so paramount to this issue
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:35 PM
Dec 2012

No private sales of any firearm unless it goes through a dealer...period

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
34. Remember I said you need a gun person to make common sense gun control?
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:45 PM
Dec 2012

I was called crazy in thread.

Bullets are nothing and round nose lead bullets or wad cutters are easy to cast, I use to cast my own .Also smokeless powder is fairly easy to manufacture with a bit of knowledge.

You know whats hard to make at home so it meets tolerances and reliability?

srican69

(1,426 posts)
41. and a gun person will respect the gun ...will know its power and
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:50 PM
Dec 2012

treat it with the respect it deserves.

unlikely to a psychopath. He might be crazy person like Ted Nugent. But trust me - Ted Nugent will not go killing people. He's too smart for that.

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
45. "I agree " we plenty of gun owners here that are not psychopaths but they seem to be treated as
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:56 PM
Dec 2012

such by members on this board.

Shame on them

srican69

(1,426 posts)
102. do you watch 'the good wife'
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:02 PM
Dec 2012

Diane Lockhart , a liberal, defends a ballistics expert with whom she is romantically involved...

Must see for all on this site

 

Panasonic

(2,921 posts)
50. Make gunpowder extremely expensive to buy
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:03 PM
Dec 2012

and also the chemicals involved to make the gunpowder extremely expensive.

If they want to make their own, then let them pay for the cost involved.

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
59. If the goal is to shoot a lot of rounds for close range
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:09 PM
Dec 2012

Someone could skip even making smokeless powder and load black powder in a cartridge case.

Even easier to make at home.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
27. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:35 PM
Dec 2012
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.




srican69

(1,426 posts)
33. I am not for banning bullets - just restricting them.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:42 PM
Dec 2012

A person should freely be able to buy 5 or 10 he needs to defend himself under the law. If he needs more than that - then he has a problem

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
37. Try such a limit on another right..
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:46 PM
Dec 2012

You can only send five faxes to your congressman. You can only participate in two marches per year. You can only go to your place of religious worship five times a year.

It wouldn't stand up in court. This case was about a tax on printer's ink and paper that was seen as nothing more than suppression of the first amendment. I would think the same would apply to the second.

You'd have to meet the 'strict scrutiny' standard of judicial review, and I doubt such a proposal would pass muster.

Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner

Differential treatment of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation.
...
By creating this special use tax, which, to our knowledge, is without parallel in the State's tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. We then must determine whether the First Amendment permits such special taxation. A tax that burdens rights protected by the First Amendment cannot stand unless the burden is necessary to achieve an overriding governmental interest.
...
When the State singles out the press, though, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from passing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government.
...
Further, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such a goal is presumptively unconstitutional.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
54. if you need more than you are reasonably expected to require then
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:05 PM
Dec 2012

you have the burden of proof as to why you need it .. and based on the law -you should be so granted.


You may have legal view all sewn up - but I am just advocating a common sense approach that the majority can agree on.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
64. Rights don't work that way. You don't have to justify exercising them..
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:15 PM
Dec 2012

.. congress (or a state, or a locality, etc) has to justify why they need to infringe it.

That's black letter law, going back *before* we were founded as a country. Locke, Rousseau, etc (Enlightenment stuff)

 

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)
80. except for those who skip your "legal" process, and make their own...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:35 PM
Dec 2012

and what is this "majority" you speak of?

 

pop topcan

(124 posts)
55. Good plan...and we can limit voting rights to once every 5 elections. Now, THAT will keep the
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:06 PM
Dec 2012

riffraff from polluting the electoral system. Fer sure.

 

aristocles

(594 posts)
30. An interesting idea to explore. Ban bullets and reloading equipment and supplies?
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:41 PM
Dec 2012

Gun collectors can keep their preciouses to clean and fondle.

Hunters can use crossbows.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
36. I have no clue - how many bullets will an average hunter require to kill a deer or moose
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:46 PM
Dec 2012

I realize its a stupid question - but the answer should be 10's and not 100's of bullets.

so can we then work out a resonable number of bullets a registered hunter can purchase.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
70. I had thought of that as well .. you can buy bullets at the range.. but have to exhaust them before
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:21 PM
Dec 2012

you step out.


No taking it with you. I am sure the target practice would love to exclusively sell bullets for use at their range ...

We have a new partner for the proposed legislation??

 

former-republican

(2,163 posts)
75. There's actually a lot of ranges that only allow ammo bought there to be used.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:26 PM
Dec 2012

Not bad

But it would be very hard to control something like that if not impossible

 

Missouri Lad

(8 posts)
43. Make the bullets so expensive,
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:55 PM
Dec 2012

that the gun owners will just look at the guns and not use them. The 1st bullet will be $400.00, and each additional bullet will be $100.00 ea. For those that reload the bullets, the gun powder and firing cal will be $1,000.00 per lb. and firing cap is $100.00 ea.
All bullets must be distributed by the Federal Gov.t andstrictk laws for those buying such.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
46. That was discussed in other threads today .. it will
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:58 PM
Dec 2012

run afoul of the law ( restricting liberties)

so the solution vis-a-vis bullets has to be -

1) keep them cheap in the legal market
2) Severely restrict the number of bullets a person can buy without harming his ability to defend/hunt

 

Panasonic

(2,921 posts)
47. I propose a 98% tax, and it all goes to education.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:00 PM
Dec 2012

I'm sure the low information voters would be relatively rare after all the education they should receive.

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
56. If we can successfully limit fucking SUDAFED
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:06 PM
Dec 2012

Then we can limit bullet purchases successfully. There will always be ways around things, granted, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
61. Hmmm...let me see if I can think of a parallel...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:12 PM
Dec 2012

Let's see...small, easily concealed contraband items, banned or heavily restricted. Produced in massive quantities in foreign countries. Produced domestically in covert operations. Millions of potential customers for the item that don't agree with its prohibition. Potential for illegal distribution of the product to be carried out in large part by heavily-armed gangs.

Gee...I wonder what that could possibly be?

bakpakr

(168 posts)
82. See this thread,
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:39 PM
Dec 2012

I made a proposal that does not infringe on anyone's right to own a gun. What it does is puts the accountability smack dab where it belongs, on the gun owner.

My proposal

mainer

(12,022 posts)
103. Let's be like Switzerland
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:05 PM
Dec 2012

"Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military ammunition at home. The rest of the militia can only get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.[9]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
105. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms...
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:19 PM
Dec 2012

...but it DOESN'T protect the right to bear LOADED arms...

Bullet(and shell)control might actually work.

 
121. Hey Smart Guy, not far enough
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:17 PM
Dec 2012

And tell me where is your Constitutional privilege to enact such a wonderful law? And why stop at 5, thats 5 people a person can kill with a gun?

srican69

(1,426 posts)
126. 5 rounds is sufficient ammo for a man to defend himself - but insufficient
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:58 PM
Dec 2012

to mow down a classroom full of kids.

Bake

(21,977 posts)
135. In all likelihood that would be unconstitutional.
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:03 PM
Dec 2012

Because it defeats the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted by the current SCOTUS.

In other words, that's a non-starter. But thanks for playing.

Bake

srican69

(1,426 posts)
131. no
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:39 PM
Dec 2012

I did not ask for the bullets to be expensive .. they should be cheap - but you can only hold so many at a time.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
134. That was discussed in a subthread ...I said practice facilities would sell own rounds that are to be
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:49 PM
Dec 2012

discharged within the facility. Cant take them out.

doc03

(35,340 posts)
136. I don't even know of a practice facility I live in the middle of nowhere
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:05 PM
Dec 2012

we go to a unattended state forest range or out in an old strip mine.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
138. and I have never stepped far away from
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:48 AM
Dec 2012

New York City...other than for work or holiday..So I guessed every one went to a shooting range..

Duh!!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fuck Gun Control - We nee...