321 replies to this topic

[TakeAStepBack]

People can make their own bullets.

[concert andy]

Disagree. Hunters want bullets that will put a deer on the ground. Fragmenting bullets do that much better than jacketed bullets. If your shot placement is where it should be, there is no damage to consumable meat.

Ok, may be I am wrong. Since I never hunted before, but you do agree they do cause the most damage?

Then if not banning these bullets, why not implement a tax and regulation of the ammo?

[concert andy]

People can make their own bullets.

But most are two lazy to do so.

[MeOmYo]

People can make their own bullets.

with far better quality and usually cheaper than store bought ammo.

[Tim the Beek]

And NO, having this tax is not going to stop people from shooting someone else. And did I state that it would?

Logistically, it is the easiest thing to implement.

To what end? I'm really asking, because I don't understand. Are you saying that if ammunition were more expensive, then fewer people would own guns, and there would be fewer accidental or heat of the moment violent acts? That's the only way I can envision a bullet tax might be viewed as reducing violence, and I don't think it has much of a chance of helping.

No one wants deer that has been shot with a hollow point bullet, because of the damage to the deer.

This isn't so. In fact, if I recall correctly, some, if not many states don't allow hunting with full metal jacket ammunition.

I just feel these bullets are designed for military purposes, not hunting or recreational use. Disagree?

No military. Yes hunting. Yes self defense (I know you didn't list that one, but it's true). They can be used for recreational use, but many people who shoot recreationally probably don't for reasons of cost.

[TakeAStepBack]

They wont be too lazy to do so if you put a tax on bullets. Plus, casings can be re-used a couple of times (shotty shells not included here).

If you put a tax on buillets, they will make their own. If you try to tax and limit bullet sales, you will fail. A black market will emerge and once again, only law abiding citizens will be at the disadvantage. Criminals will still have bullets. They will make them and probably sell them in this particular scheme.

[Tim the Beek]

with far better quality and usually cheaper than store bought ammo.

Yup. Back when I had several guns chambered in .41 Rem Mag, it was very advantageous for me to roll my own.

[TakeAStepBack]

[MeOmYo]

Ok, may be I am wrong. Since I never hunted before, but you do agree they do cause the most damage?

Then if not banning these bullets, why not implement a tax and regulation of the ammo?

I'm not trying to get into semantics but they can cause the most damage depending on where your shot placement is. For instance, if you shoot a deer and hit it in the front shoulder, a jacketed bullet would cause more damage as it does not fragment and lose energy. If you hit a deer on a broadside shot and hit it in the vitals, a fragmenting bullet would cause much more damage than a jacketed bullet. When fragments hit bone, they stop. Bone does not stop jacketed bullets.

Do you think these loonies out there on these shooting sprees are taking the time for proper shot placement?

What is taxing them going to do? Is that a deterrent? These people doing this shit are on a death mission. Do you think a financial decision of how much money is left in their savings account after they do whatever is really going to factor into their decision making?

[Tim the Beek]

Ok, may be I am wrong. Since I never hunted before, but you do agree they do cause the most damage?

I agree. But if I ever find myself in a situation so bad that I'm using deadly force, then a round which will do the most damage to the person I'm shooting, with the least risk to others is what I'll want.

[concert andy]

To what end? I'm really asking, because I don't understand. Are you saying that if ammunition were more expensive, then fewer people would own guns, and there would be fewer accidental or heat of the moment violent acts? That's the only way I can envision a bullet tax might be viewed as reducing violence, and I don't think it has much of a chance of helping.

NO, I am not saying "then fewer people would own guns, and there would be fewer accidental or heat of the moment violent acts".

Have as many guns as you would like. The ammo should cost more, and not be as easy to get or stock pile.

I am saying bullets should cost a lot more. And a 100% tax is the easiest thing to implement. Each bullet costs between 20 cents and a little more than a dollar. But basically they cost less than a dollar in general (I think, I did google this, and saw lots of 29 cents bullets).


For example, I think each person should be allowed a full guns worth of ammo, and one for back up. Why would you need more than this?

I am for not allowing people to stock pile ammo.

I think taxing and regulating would help this. This would help in this case of Adam Lanza because he would not have been able to have so much ammo at his disposal.


As for making bullets or a black market? Really? Are you telling me there would be a black market for people to save 30 cents on each bullet?

And while yes, some people would make their own bullets, I do not see it the tax as a deterrent to this. I mean it is only 30 cent tax. buy a 100, and now it costs 60 instead of 30.

[MeOmYo]

I still don't see how a tax changes anything except makes the law abiding people pay more. when people are shot with higher taxed bullets, how does that change anything?

[TakeAStepBack]

For example, I think each person should be allowed a full guns worth of ammo, and one for back up. Why would you need more than this?


How do you regulate this if people can make their own ammo.

I would need more than that for a day of target or skeet shooting.

[concert andy]

For example, I think each person should be allowed a full guns worth of ammo, and one for back up. Why would you need more than this?


How do you regulate this if people can make their own ammo.

I would need more than that for a day of target or skeet shooting.

If you have a stock pile now. You can keep it, sell it, whatever. No regulation on existing, grandfather them in. Going forward you relegate the amount of ammo one can purchase.

You can always purchase more, with some info about hunting season, or something like that.

And if you go to a range, you must purchase their bullets, at a discount without taxes.

You want to take ammo home, tax the buyer.

As for making your own ammo, let them have fun.

[Tim the Beek]

I am for not allowing people to stock pile ammo.

I think taxing and regulating would help this. This would help in this case of Adam Lanza because he would not have been able to have so much ammo at his disposal.

While I disagree with the notion, I can see where laws limiting how much you can own fit into that idea, but I fail to see how a tax would help.

As for making bullets or a black market? Really? Are you telling me there would be a black market for people to save 30 cents on each bullet?

And while yes, some people would make their own bullets, I do not see it the tax as a deterrent to this. I mean it is only 30 cent tax. buy a 100, and now it costs 60 instead of 30.

If this tax isn't going to be enough to stop people from avoiding it, how is it going to dissuade lunatics from buying large amounts of ammunition with which to murder people?

For example, I think each person should be allowed a full guns worth of ammo, and one for back up. Why would you need more than this?

I hope it never comes to pass, but if you need guns for the reasons the Second Amendment envisioned, then you could conceivably need a lot more.

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm completely confused by what we're accomplishing here.

And as far as going to a range, let's have story time. I recently purchased a 10/22 ruger and a 3 by 9 scope for it. When I bought the scope (onsale at Bass Pro for $39.99 down from 79.99 ) I also purchased a 525 box of 22 LR ammo. I took my new purchases home and installed the scope using a barrel end bore sight. I then took my new firearm to a friends house where I finished sighting in the scope. This chore costs me roughly 90 rounds of ammo. About 10 times the amount of capaicty plus 1 capacity. I did not go to a firing range for this.

Under your outlined conditions, what would I have had to do in order to buy the bulk box of ammo?

[MeOmYo]

limiting what people can own is not feasible unless you can track what they use. Limiting what can be purchased is feasible.

[TakeAStepBack]

Just pay the tax?

[concert andy]

While I disagree with the notion, I can see where laws limiting how much you can own fit into that idea, but I fail to see how a tax would help.

The tax is for the person who owns the gun, and says, do I really need this much ammo? Do I need to spend X more of my discretionary budget on more ammo.

This would also make the gun owner more responsible with their ammo.

If this tax isn't going to be enough to stop people from avoiding it, how is it going to dissuade lunatics from buying large amounts of ammunition with which to murder people?

More responsibility on the gun owner. Crazies will still be crazy.

I hope it never comes to pass, but if you need guns for the reasons the Second Amendment envisioned, then you could conceivably need a lot more.

I do no think we will ever need a militia, our 4 defense departments have this covered (army, Navy, Marines and Air Force). We sure spend enough on them.

[concert andy]

limiting what people can own is not feasible unless you can track what they use. Limiting what can be purchased is feasible.

There would be tracking numbers on each bullet fired. Making it easier for police to tie your gun to a scene.

Each bullet will be assigned to your gun.

Someone takes your ammo, you are responsible. Making the gun owner, more responsible, in theory.

[TakeAStepBack]

So we're just punishing gun owners with a tax?

Militias are made up of citizens. Let us never hope that we have to take up arms against our own government. That was the original point of amendment two.

[concert andy]

I'm completely confused by what we're accomplishing here.

And as far as going to a range, let's have story time. I recently purchased a 10/22 ruger and a 3 by 9 scope for it. When I bought the scope (onsale at Bass Pro for $39.99 down from 79.99 ) I also purchased a 525 box of 22 LR ammo. I took my new purchases home and installed the scope using a barrel end bore sight. I then took my new firearm to a friends house where I finished sighting in the scope. This chore costs me roughly 90 rounds of ammo. About 10 times the amount of capaicty plus 1 capacity. I did not go to a firing range for this.

Under your outlined conditions, what would I have had to do in order to buy the bulk box of ammo?

At the range, you would pay whatever price, buy as much as you like. But you can not take any ammo home.

You would have to give them your information. If the system shows you do not have any stored ammo already at home, you can buy them.

If it shows you have a bunch of ammo. More questions should be asked. like ... Why do you need this much ammo? What are your intentions with this much ammo.


Then after a waiting period, and your application for more ammo has been approved, you can get the ammo you requested.

[concert andy]

So we're just punishing gun owners with a tax?

Militias are made up of citizens. Let us never hope that we have to take up arms against our own government. That was the original point of amendment two.

So what is your plan?

You want everyone to have liberty?

And all I hear is, well that is stupid (without actually saying it), by pointing out the flaws.

Either it is a good idea or not. Period.

What is a better solution?

[MeOmYo]

So if someone breaks into my house, steals my locked up ammo and goes and kill someone with it, I am responsible?

Holy hell Batman? That doesn't even sound close to being reasonable.

[TakeAStepBack]

First, what are we trying to accomplish?

[concert andy]

So we're just punishing gun owners with a tax?

Militias are made up of citizens. Let us never hope that we have to take up arms against our own government. That was the original point of amendment two.

There were other points in the second amendment. Like the right to defend your self with deadly force in your own home, or on your property, but lets not talk about that.

[concert andy]

So if someone breaks into my house, steals my locked up ammo and goes and kill someone with it, I am responsible?

Holy hell Batman? That doesn't even sound close to being reasonable.

NO.

If you, have a police report showing that someone broke into your house, why would you be responsible.

Jees. Stop with the what ifs.

It is a good idea or not.

At least I had an idea.

[Tim the Beek]

So we're just punishing gun owners with a tax?

Militias are made up of citizens. Let us never hope that we have to take up arms against our own government. That was the original point of amendment two.

This.

Waiting to see if the response will be something like, "how you gonna take on the US Government when it has tanks and helicopters and stuff?"

[concert andy]

First, what are we trying to accomplish?

We are trying to regulate the ammo, not the guns. Period.

[MeOmYo]

So what is your plan?

You want everyone to have liberty?

And all I hear is, well that is stupid (without actually saying it), by pointing out the flaws.

Either it is a good idea or not. Period.

What is a better solution?

A better solution is to spend the time and money on the social issues causing people to crack. This is a people issue, a social issue.

Ban, tax, limit purchases all you want. People will still be cracking and innocent people will still pay the price even with the bans, taxes and purchase limitations in place.

[concert andy]

A better solution is to spend the time and money on the social issues causing people to crack. This is a people issue, a social issue.

Ban, tax, limit purchases all you want. People will still be cracking and innocent people will still pay the price even with the bans, taxes and purchase limitations in place.

More Entitlement spending is NOT the answer.

[TakeAStepBack]

We are trying to regulate the ammo, not the guns. Period.

Just for the sake of regulating? Without really any other point?
In that case you make a strong argument, I must concede.

[Tim the Beek]

There were other points in the second amendment. Like the right to defend your self with deadly force in your own home, or on your property, but lets not talk about that.

Why wouldn't we talk about it? Honestly, I don't really enjoy shooting. I practice from time to time because it's the responsible thing to do.

But the reasons I think civilian firearms ownership is important are self defense and defense of freedom.

I hope I never have to use them for either.

[Joker]

We are trying to regulate the ammo, not the guns. Period.

Why? It won't solve anything

[Tim the Beek]

More Entitlement spending is NOT the answer.

Maybe so, maybe not. But finding a way toward a less angry, violent society, and care for people who are fearful, broken and hurting is, IMO.

[concert andy]

Just for the sake of regulating? Without really any other point?
In that case you maek a strong argument, I must concede.

Read the thread. I answer every what ifs.


My point is track the bullets, may be the tax is stupid, but I think the more revenue, and having to pay more for ammo is just a deterrent and way for gun owners to be more responsible with their ammo.

For example, I stated earlier, if you were limited to the amount of ammo, then Adam Lanza would not have had enough ammo to kill every person in that school. May be he does not shoot the doors open, cause he has to save his ammo.


I am just for finding a loop hole in this gun crazy country. Have all the guns you want, the ammo should not be easier to purchase than a gun, it should be just as hard.

[concert andy]

Why wouldn't we talk about it? Honestly, I don't really enjoy shooting. I practice from time to time because it's the responsible thing to do.

But the reasons I think civilian firearms ownership is important are self defense and defense of freedom.

I hope I never have to use them for either.

I have no idea what "defense of freedom" has to do with this conversation. Who are we defending freedom from? You are already free, and so are the other 300+ million people of this country.

Self defense is a given.

[TakeAStepBack]

Alright. Then we've ran the course on it. Because if people can still make their own bullets, then people like Adam Lanza will not be limited by ammo quantity due to a purchasing tax. Tracking the builets may work in some instances, but in the case of a mad shoot like Adam, it's a moot point. We know he did it and with what, where from, etc...and all of those innocent folks are still dead.

[concert andy]

Why? It won't solve anything

That is your opinion. But at least my idea fostered conversation on a solution.

[Tim the Beek]

May be he does not shoot the doors open, cause he has to save his ammo.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me...maybe he killed fewer people in your scenario, but shooting the doors open was how he got in...

[Tim the Beek]

I have no idea what "defense of freedom" has to do with this conversation. Who are we defending freedom from? You are already free, and so are the other 300+ million people of this country.

Let us never hope that we have to take up arms against our own government. That was the original point of amendment two.

[concert andy]

You guys figure it out.

I come up with an idea, and everyone of you shit on it.

Good luck.

[concert andy]

Sorry, this makes no sense to me...maybe he killed fewer people in your scenario, but shooting the doors open was how he got in...

May be he shoots the window and reaches threw to open the door instead of just shooting it to the point of walking through.

Semantics. I was just stating that if you do not have ammo, your gun is useless.

That is the whole point of my idea.

[concert andy]

Maybe so, maybe not. But finding a way toward a less angry, violent society, and care for people who are fearful, broken and hurting is, IMO.

I agree that it is a social issue, but spending more of our money when we do not have it on a possible solution does not make sense to me either.

[TakeAStepBack]

You guys figure it out.

I come up with an idea, and everyone of you shit on it.

Good luck.

Yeah, man. We shit all over your idea.

[concert andy]

Yeah, man. We shit all over your idea.

And then that response adds nothing to the conversation, except to call me a derp.

That is how I felt when I saw your response.

[Joker]

Raising the cost isn't going to stop a criminal from doing what he intends to do, he'll simply steal to pay for the ammo he needs or he'll make it himself. All raising the cost would do is penalize the majority of gun owners.

[JBetty]

That is your opinion. But at least my idea fostered conversation on a solution.

And this, if nothing else, is a beginning.

Andy has repeatedly asked all you nay-sayers what your solution would be.
All he got was some weak "this isn't a gun issue, it's a social issue" responses.

[concert andy]

Raising the cost isn't going to stop a criminal from doing what he intends to do, he'll simply steal to pay for the ammo he needs or he'll make it himself. All raising the cost would do is penalize the majority of gun owners.

I can tell you did not read the entire thread, because I backed away from taxing the bullets. It is just a nice idea that bullets would be to costly for people to be wasting them on stupid crimes.

In the end I was for regulating the bullets, but TASB shit on that by saying people will just make their own bullets.

[concert andy]

And this, if nothing else, is a beginning.

Andy has repeatedly asked all you nay-sayers what your solution would be.
All he got was some weak "this isn't a gun issue, it's a social issue" responses.

Thank you. I feel like it is me against everyone here. Because I had a dumb idea. I changed the plan as the what ifs came in to account for each.

But no, lets go make bullets because then I can have all the bullets I want.