General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFuck 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)
Initech
(100,079 posts)No Compromise
(373 posts)it just might work, most of us peons wouldn't be worth killing
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)god, that routine was hysterical...
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)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)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.
I know someone who does and he is a psycho loser.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Also, black powder weapons are really easy to make...
srican69
(1,426 posts)will they be reliable enough to discharge at 20/minute?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)For that matter, they'll sell you the plans for bombs, grenades, and the "how-to" for running a revolution.
srican69
(1,426 posts)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)a multi-level (fed/state/local) responsive mental health program, with a differentiation on violent/non-violent crazies
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Mental health is paramount, starting with the mental illness that causes people to crave guns.
pop topcan
(124 posts)How sad.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Reserve that word for people who think they need assault rifles, near-assault rifles, thousands of rounds of ammo, magazines, etc etc etc.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)You add nothing to the conversation
bongbong
(5,436 posts)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.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)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)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)> 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)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)> 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.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Please try again.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> 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)"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)> 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)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)and short sighted.
Saying something like that implies that the speaker is somehow more mentally stable than the spoken about.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)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)to stop speaking on things you don't understand.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)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)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)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)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)> 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)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)ammo is considered part and parcel of "arms'.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)to introduce such bills as we speak.
hack89
(39,171 posts)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)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)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)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.
hack89
(39,171 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)one had 15 round mag, the other a 10 round mag.
He carried 17 mags in total and reload several times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#Attacks
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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]
hack89
(39,171 posts)only provides an illusion of safety.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)that a shooting will be interrupted. Interrupting a shooting reduces the number of deaths.
hack89
(39,171 posts)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)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.
pop topcan
(124 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)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)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.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)But it keeps out a significant number of amateurs.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)geomon666
(7,512 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)but it would be a political problem - not a policy problem
pop topcan
(124 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)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)We are on a tear today ....
srican69
(1,426 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)Yippee
Lets ban possession of a kilo of cocaine.
srican69
(1,426 posts)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)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)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)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)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)Complete authority to do so, with no 2nd amendment issues.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)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)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)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.
srican69
(1,426 posts)to the bill.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Yesterday as far as smart weapons.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)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.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Using the Glock frame.
News to me, they have enacted legislation too
http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/smart-gun/
former-republican
(2,163 posts)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)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)And stop the back of the pickup truck sales, you get background checks.
That is what closing the loophole means.
llmart
(15,540 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)No private sales of any firearm unless it goes through a dealer...period
former-republican
(2,163 posts)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?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)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)such by members on this board.
Shame on them
srican69
(1,426 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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
...
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)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).. 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)and what is this "majority" you speak of?
pop topcan
(124 posts)riffraff from polluting the electoral system. Fer sure.
aristocles
(594 posts)Gun collectors can keep their preciouses to clean and fondle.
Hunters can use crossbows.
srican69
(1,426 posts)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.
aristocles
(594 posts)If you've been sitting in a tree stand for hours drinking beer.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)in this country?
aristocles
(594 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)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)Not bad
But it would be very hard to control something like that if not impossible
Missouri Lad
(8 posts)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)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)I'm sure the low information voters would be relatively rare after all the education they should receive.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)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)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)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
Brigid
(17,621 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)"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)...but it DOESN'T protect the right to bear LOADED arms...
Bullet(and shell)control might actually work.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)What use is a gun if you don't have bullets?
conservativeindisgui
(1 post)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)to mow down a classroom full of kids.
Bake
(21,977 posts)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
doc03
(35,340 posts)I did not ask for the bullets to be expensive .. they should be cheap - but you can only hold so many at a time.
doc03
(35,340 posts)5 rounds.
srican69
(1,426 posts)discharged within the facility. Cant take them out.
doc03
(35,340 posts)we go to a unattended state forest range or out in an old strip mine.
srican69
(1,426 posts)New York City...other than for work or holiday..So I guessed every one went to a shooting range..
Duh!!