Charge a $10 per round ammo tax. Gun collectors can’t complain. Legal hunters can’t complain. Crazies living on a budget will have to borrow from the same banks that funded Hitler’s War.
Eryx, you are assuming I would agree to an increase in cost for ammunition. It would not impede the illegal activity of criminals; they don’t exactly use the “traditional channels of commerce.” But, let’s for argument’s sake say that I agree that in-premise, we need to increase the cost of bullets to an amount that is cost-prohibitive to law-abiding citizens. Let’s further, for argument’s sake, say that I agree that the shooting range ammo be cheaper. That creates a logistics nightmare that inserts government even more into our lives. Don’t think so? Here’s how:- First, you will need to likely register with the ATF, take a government-sponsored educational seminar, and quack like a duck three times to become a “certified shooting range.” - Second, you will need to keep exceptionally close tabs on ammunition spent, and there like likely be a goofy regulation that comes out that says all brass must be accounted for. That ammunition likely will need to be sent to some unknown agency somewhere for verification that all ammunition with whatever stock number was expended.- Third, the IRS will have a field day, trying to impose the taxes as appropriate given the above-mentioned assumptions, and will probably try to create various brackets of taxation based on ammunition spent in the shooting range activity. - Fourth, the ATF will likely require you to purchase only their certified safes in which to store said ammunition.And so on. It also invites theft, and exposes those shooting ranges to robbery. Once the cost of any one particular item (not picking on just ammunition here) becomes cost-prohibitive to the general public, the bottom elements of that general public (aka criminals) will be more willing to commit a crime to obtain said item instead of legal and morally sound channels. I would call that a morale hazard. I’m not saying I have all the answers, but making ammunition more expensive is not the answer for the above reasons. I can tell you this, though. You can take all the firearms out of this country, and there will still be firearms in this country. The only difference is the only ones to have them will then be the criminals and the police.I can also tell you that firearms are not the only way you can commit mass murder. You can use pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs, an automobile, a VBIED, a PBIED, fire bombs, arson, a machete… the list goes on. Our species has spent the last 10,000 years perfecting ways to kill each other. Taking away firearms is not going to reverse that.
Uh, first post, missed typo, as in “huge”, but it’s really hard to kill many folks using a gun, rifle, pistol, cannon, as a blunt instrument, ammunition helps a LOT!
And what I’m saying (like Bruce said) is that where there’s a will, there’s a way. Criminals will still be criminals. They will still commit crimes. Increasing the legal cost of something will not prevent the illegal use of that something. It will actually increase the illegal acquisition, internet or otherwise. The thrust of my argument is that we, as a species have a wierd knack of finding ways to kill one another. You clamp down on way, a new way will sprout up. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I’m saying that what you are suggesting simply won’t have any impact at preventing illegal activities. It will only criminalize otherwise-innocent activities. The problem is most lunatics or mass murderers think that if the death penalty is the worst they have to endure, that’s fine. Many of them kill themselves anyway. The deterrant isn’t enough. They get 3 meals and a cot every day, sometimes in solitary confinement. A possibly effective solution is to strip convicted murderers of their protections from inhumane treatment and make their deaths take weeks or months. Take violent criminals’ rights away and make them endure what their victims endured. You have something that horrifying that you know will be excessively unpleasant, you might think twice about it. Because now the worst they have to endure is an alcohol swab and a needle poke. And for people like that… that’s not a deterrant.
You obviously didn’t read both of my posts; you skipped the second one to try to use a meme to make a point. Y’know, the one where I said I was being sarcastic? Yeah. That one. I would never violate the Constitution, being one of its biggest fans (and sworn defender of it). I know the 8th Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment.My point is that the intent of the death penalty was supposed to be one of absolute deterrance, and it’s falling well short because people don’t fear the death penalty today. The definition of “cruel and unusual” is shifting. It used to be that firing squad and hangings were acceptable. Then it was the electric chair. Now it’s death by injection. Basically putting them to sleep. Next thing you know, some bleeding-heart liberal is going to say that these monsters deserve rehabilitation and reintegration into society because putting them to death(sleep) is inhumane.One truism applies, however. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Dictators prefer unarmed citizens. Just cogitate that a bit and let me know if you still believe in restricting legal citizens’ ownership of legal firearms.
Oh, and after reading the last part of your second post, who are you to decide that? Why is your decision-making process superior to anyone else’s? If I am protecting my home, I want to have an M4 AR15 (.308 chamber) not because I want to unload and show clear 25 rounds at him, but it’s because that’s what I’m proficient with and it’s great for CQB. Forcing me to keep only a hunting rifle exposes me to increased danger because I am a) not nearly as proficient in it and b) because it’s not nearly as good in CQB for home defense as an M4 is. But who are you to dictate what the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is and what I’m permitted to purchase for my own perspective of safety?
What type of magical fairy land must you live in to think that limiting guns/ammo for law abiding citizens will prevent criminals from using the same? If I have the choice of defending my family with a pistol or a baseball bat against an intruder, why in the world would I choose, or be forced to use, the bat?
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member almost 12 years ago
Charge a $10 per round ammo tax. Gun collectors can’t complain. Legal hunters can’t complain. Crazies living on a budget will have to borrow from the same banks that funded Hitler’s War.
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
Actually, the U.S. IS hugh in the ammo market, as is Israel with rebuilt weapons, they get from Russia, like those Hinds we didn’t want Syria to get.
veronicam379 Premium Member almost 12 years ago
Dana, you were good one day and then you had to blow it away with something stupid.
Wraithkin almost 12 years ago
Eryx, you are assuming I would agree to an increase in cost for ammunition. It would not impede the illegal activity of criminals; they don’t exactly use the “traditional channels of commerce.” But, let’s for argument’s sake say that I agree that in-premise, we need to increase the cost of bullets to an amount that is cost-prohibitive to law-abiding citizens. Let’s further, for argument’s sake, say that I agree that the shooting range ammo be cheaper. That creates a logistics nightmare that inserts government even more into our lives. Don’t think so? Here’s how:- First, you will need to likely register with the ATF, take a government-sponsored educational seminar, and quack like a duck three times to become a “certified shooting range.” - Second, you will need to keep exceptionally close tabs on ammunition spent, and there like likely be a goofy regulation that comes out that says all brass must be accounted for. That ammunition likely will need to be sent to some unknown agency somewhere for verification that all ammunition with whatever stock number was expended.- Third, the IRS will have a field day, trying to impose the taxes as appropriate given the above-mentioned assumptions, and will probably try to create various brackets of taxation based on ammunition spent in the shooting range activity. - Fourth, the ATF will likely require you to purchase only their certified safes in which to store said ammunition.And so on. It also invites theft, and exposes those shooting ranges to robbery. Once the cost of any one particular item (not picking on just ammunition here) becomes cost-prohibitive to the general public, the bottom elements of that general public (aka criminals) will be more willing to commit a crime to obtain said item instead of legal and morally sound channels. I would call that a morale hazard. I’m not saying I have all the answers, but making ammunition more expensive is not the answer for the above reasons. I can tell you this, though. You can take all the firearms out of this country, and there will still be firearms in this country. The only difference is the only ones to have them will then be the criminals and the police.I can also tell you that firearms are not the only way you can commit mass murder. You can use pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs, an automobile, a VBIED, a PBIED, fire bombs, arson, a machete… the list goes on. Our species has spent the last 10,000 years perfecting ways to kill each other. Taking away firearms is not going to reverse that.
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
Uh, first post, missed typo, as in “huge”, but it’s really hard to kill many folks using a gun, rifle, pistol, cannon, as a blunt instrument, ammunition helps a LOT!
remrafdn almost 12 years ago
These monsters should be hanged, drawn, and quartered or maybe guillotined.
Wraithkin almost 12 years ago
And what I’m saying (like Bruce said) is that where there’s a will, there’s a way. Criminals will still be criminals. They will still commit crimes. Increasing the legal cost of something will not prevent the illegal use of that something. It will actually increase the illegal acquisition, internet or otherwise. The thrust of my argument is that we, as a species have a wierd knack of finding ways to kill one another. You clamp down on way, a new way will sprout up. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I’m saying that what you are suggesting simply won’t have any impact at preventing illegal activities. It will only criminalize otherwise-innocent activities. The problem is most lunatics or mass murderers think that if the death penalty is the worst they have to endure, that’s fine. Many of them kill themselves anyway. The deterrant isn’t enough. They get 3 meals and a cot every day, sometimes in solitary confinement. A possibly effective solution is to strip convicted murderers of their protections from inhumane treatment and make their deaths take weeks or months. Take violent criminals’ rights away and make them endure what their victims endured. You have something that horrifying that you know will be excessively unpleasant, you might think twice about it. Because now the worst they have to endure is an alcohol swab and a needle poke. And for people like that… that’s not a deterrant.
Wraithkin almost 12 years ago
I was being sarcastic. But my point is valid: The Deterrants aren’t deterring.
Wraithkin almost 12 years ago
You obviously didn’t read both of my posts; you skipped the second one to try to use a meme to make a point. Y’know, the one where I said I was being sarcastic? Yeah. That one. I would never violate the Constitution, being one of its biggest fans (and sworn defender of it). I know the 8th Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment.My point is that the intent of the death penalty was supposed to be one of absolute deterrance, and it’s falling well short because people don’t fear the death penalty today. The definition of “cruel and unusual” is shifting. It used to be that firing squad and hangings were acceptable. Then it was the electric chair. Now it’s death by injection. Basically putting them to sleep. Next thing you know, some bleeding-heart liberal is going to say that these monsters deserve rehabilitation and reintegration into society because putting them to death(sleep) is inhumane.One truism applies, however. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Dictators prefer unarmed citizens. Just cogitate that a bit and let me know if you still believe in restricting legal citizens’ ownership of legal firearms.
Wraithkin almost 12 years ago
Oh, and after reading the last part of your second post, who are you to decide that? Why is your decision-making process superior to anyone else’s? If I am protecting my home, I want to have an M4 AR15 (.308 chamber) not because I want to unload and show clear 25 rounds at him, but it’s because that’s what I’m proficient with and it’s great for CQB. Forcing me to keep only a hunting rifle exposes me to increased danger because I am a) not nearly as proficient in it and b) because it’s not nearly as good in CQB for home defense as an M4 is. But who are you to dictate what the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is and what I’m permitted to purchase for my own perspective of safety?
warriorwaynorth almost 12 years ago
What type of magical fairy land must you live in to think that limiting guns/ammo for law abiding citizens will prevent criminals from using the same? If I have the choice of defending my family with a pistol or a baseball bat against an intruder, why in the world would I choose, or be forced to use, the bat?