The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2013, 06:37 AM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2013 06:41 AM by Phaedrus.)
The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Due to the multifaceted nature of the gun control debate it can be difficult to adequately address a point before it becomes overwhelmed with new points. It's like debating YECs, who hop from topic to topic like ritalin-ridden rabbits. First evolution, then cosmology, then abiogenesis. Or background checks, to gun bans, to assault weapons...

I like to be able to address a single topic at a time, identify the root arguments, then pound them into the ground. Otherwise, a shallow revue of all topics leads to nothing more than surface argument without really addressing the actual rationale and beliefs behind those arguments.

But of course, who's interested in that? Hobo


Some people have argued for limiting the amount of ammunition a person can own. I have never understood the rationale for this, as the only argument I've seen put forward is "Well why should anyone need more than 50/100/500 rounds of ammunition? Only militia nutters and crazies need that much!"

I don't wish to imply that that is the whole extent of the argument. That might be a straw man. But that's all I've heard so far, amid the clamor of the gun debate in general. So if you do have more to this argument, I would like to hear it.

But limiting the amount of ammo I can own? Really?



In the locker over there I've got about 20,000 rounds of ammunition. We have another 5-10,000 rounds or so stored at my dad's ex's place. Is it because we're crazy militia nuts? Is it because we plan on starting a war? Is it because we plan to kill a bunch of people? No. It's because we own guns, so we own ammunition.

A single day on the range can eat hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Last time we went with a single shot, bolt action .22. That means you have to reload between every shot, it's the slowest method of fire possible. Still, in two hours we burned through around 200 rounds of ammunition. And the handgun we brought, we only shot for 30 minutes, and we still used almost 150 rounds of ammunition. We only stopped because we ran out. This at a slow-fire, benchrest range. If we had brought a 10/22 or something and been allowed to fire faster, we might have used up 400, 500 rounds of ammunition in a single day.

So that gives you a baseline on how much ammunition gun owners use. It's not a small amount. Hundreds of rounds in a single day shooting is not uncommon at all; and depending on one's budget and schedule, you might shoot once a month, or three times a week. Some competition shooters will shoot almost every day of the week, burning through thousands of rounds. Also as a sidenote, I have a sneaking suspicion some people don't fully read posts, so if you made it this far please put the word "crocoduck" somewhere in your reply; and if you're finding this by using control eff or skimming, shame on you. So to what level would you restrict their ammunition ownership? When even Canada allows competition shooters to bring ten thousand rounds with them when going to a single shooting competition in Canada.

What about non-competition shooters I hear you say? Why shouldn't we buy ammunition when going to the range, or when AT the range? Why buy a 500 round or 1000 round brick?

Three main reasons: cost, convenience, insurance.

In 2011 we bought 2000 rounds of .30-06. Today we have about 1100 rounds. This is actually a slower rate of depletion than I'd normally expect, but due to reasons we haven't been able to shoot the Garands as much as I'd like. Why did we buy 2000 rounds?

Cost: buying in bulk is cheaper. TBD laughed this one off without justification, but there really is no argument. A 1000 round brick of .30-06 in 2011 cost about $0.34/rd, while buying a 50 round box might cost $0.60/rd or thereabouts. It's much cheaper per bullet to buy in bulk. Convenience: I don't have to rely on the gun store being open if I want to shoot .30-06, I don't have to worry if they have my type in stock, I don't have to waste time going out of my way to buy ammo, it's just there, I grab 100 rounds, load the clips, and go. (For Garands, they are actually called clips, for the record)

And Insurance: you cannot buy .30-06 at the moment. Not unless you're lucky, or unless you like paying $1.20/rd. During times of ammo shortages like today, you sort of *need* to have ammo on hand if you want to shoot. And if, flying spaghetti monster forbid, there is some disaster or war, that ammunition might be useful. Before you jump on that and start making Mad Max or Fallout jokes or comparing me to nutjob survivalists, that is so minor and tertiary a reason that I could have left it out and the argument would not have been hurt. But I have to give some ammunition to my enemies, no?

Oh look, I made a funny. Smartass

And that 1100 rounds of .30-06 is just the start. We have around sixty cartridge fed firearms, firing twenty or thirty types of ammunition. Some we have almost no ammo, others we have way too much (I think we have like 5000 rounds of 7.62x54R, which we never shoot). But given the number of firearms we own, that these numbers are not unusual. In fact, it's kind of on the low side.




So, those of you who like ammunition bans, would you mind expanding on your rationale behind them? And please, go into detail on what you want the restrictions to be. Will it be a max amount of ammo per gun? Or a total cap? Or both? Is this per-person, or per-household? How will you keep track? Must each bullet bought, stored, and fired be traced to ensure no one is hoarding? Will you limit how much ammo can be bought in a given time frame? What about ammo on hand now? What will be the penalty for breaking these laws? Please, tell me so I can understand your argument, because right now it just seems Looney Toons.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 06:52 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Its another way of banning/controlling guns without actually banning/controlling them.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 09:28 AM
Re: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
I'm never really been sure why people derp about this, a normal range session for me is 130-300 rounds to train for what I need, and that's a quantity you can find and buy at Walmart(when people arnt stupidly panicking).

Yeah, you might be able to buy 6k rounds online (nice discount), but you can't carry all that and certainly can't shoot it all in some kind of sick mass shooter style, because both would physically wear you out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 06:28 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
No response from the intended audience, of course. That would involve engaging with people who disagree with you on a level above empty assertions.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 07:01 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Ok fine...I'm fine with gun control. I happen to think that background checks are a good idea....but it's doubtful they could cover private sales. They also won't stop theft.

I consider myself to be pragmatic where guns are concerned.

I know some countries limit the amount of ammunition one can buy...at one time. That doesn't mean you can't buy more the next day or somewhere else for that matter.

It's like when they out lawed sudefed here. Well, you have to have a script to get the stuff for allergies that actually works. For months and months before all we heard was how fucking awful the meth problem was. Once the law passed...not another word about it. In fact the news went out of their to avoid saing "meth"

Meth is still a serious problem here. Making certain medicines prescription only did nothing to change that. In California you have to show id and you're limited to how much you buy and you have to sign for it.

Doesn't mean you can't just buy more at the next store.

So the answer isn't making other people babysit the actions of others...I'd prefer they just enforce the laws that already exist.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 07:21 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(28-04-2013 06:28 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  No response from the intended audience, of course. That would involve engaging with people who disagree with you on a level above empty assertions.

Ok I'll bite. This particular aspect of the debate is not something I had really thought about before but I suppose I can try out a few thoughts.

First off the cost of the ammunition in bulk is more likely to make me support a max ban or at least a special license for buying bulk ammo. Here is my thinking behind this we require special licenses to drive commercial vehicles so if you are a competition shooter and require extra ammo then a simple license would allow you to order wholesale.

I am also not totally in favor of a cap on the amount of ammo you can own simply because of the logistics of enforcing it. However I do think that we should have a system in place for buy an amount of ammo at 1 time.

Lets call it a tiered license system where the bottom tier is your novice level first time gun owner (think like a learners permit for driving a car) say a minimum age for it would be 12. Younger children would require the presence of an adult at all times. This tier would be the most heavily restricted but the easiest to get. A simple co-signer and proof of ID (birth certificate) and you are licensed to use but not buy a firearm. This would be the tier that I would recommend a safety course be required.

The next tier would be where most hunters and part time shooters would fall into. Your standard License if you would. This requires a background check but afterwards allows you to purchase legally available guns (this is another discussion so I am intentionally leaving this vague) The restrictions on this tier are much less and it only requires you to renew your license every 2 years at which time you undergo a background check. Basically you are only restricted to purchasing a set amount of ammo at any one time (I'm leaning towards less than 100 rounds but am up for discussion, and remember this is not for professional or competition shooters just your regular hunters and gun owners) This tier removes the background check at time of purchase but still has the waiting period when buying a weapon.

The last tier would be where you, Phaedrus, would probably fall. This is kind of the gold club level. It requires a more thorough background check and needs to be renewed once a year. This is the professional tier so we remove not only the background check but the waiting period as well. It also allows bulk ammo purchases from wholesale sources. Now these licenses would be used to pay for the system itself.

Let me know what you do and do not agree with about this idea. I feel it is fair and would take some of the hassle off of law abiding gun owners while restricting the type of mass shooting that has happened with increasing regularity.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
28-04-2013, 07:22 PM
Re: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
I was going to reply oh wise crocoduck, but you have no respect for anyone's opinion counter to your own. So, why should I waste my time?

I'll ask a question instead. What is the opinion on guns of the people who raised you and the community in which you grew up?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 09:19 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
That's a weak excuse, and you know it.





My mother dislikes guns, as a friend of a friend was killed by a negligent discharge thirty years ago. My step-dad is indifferent. We had an old rifle in the house, but no ammunition; it was kept in a case under the bed and saw the light of day perhaps three times in ten years. My dad was indifferent to firearms until I was 10, when he bought an old 1842 musket (he was a Civil War buff); over the years that grew into an interest in guns in general. I started shooting with him when I was 13; I would shoot maybe 2-4 times a month, 2 months a year, for five or six years. The rest of my family varies, from an Uncle with a mild interest, to an Aunt who faints at the sight of a knife not made for cutting vegetables, let alone a rifle. Most are indifferent.

I mainly grew up in Ohio; people were indifferent to guns. My time at my dad's was in northern Virginia or central Maryland; people were indifferent to guns. I spent two years in Texas; people were indifferent to guns. I spent three years in Louisiana; people were indifferent to guns. Or at the very least, it rarely to never came up in conversation. I spent one year in California; I knew two guys who were into guns, most others were indifferent.


What would your psychoanalysis draw from that, oh Freudian mastermind?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 09:52 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(28-04-2013 07:01 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'd prefer they just enforce the laws that already exist.

In other words, whatever it is you're doing that doesn't work... just keep doing more of that. Wink

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2013, 09:57 PM
Re: RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(28-04-2013 07:21 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-04-2013 06:28 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  No response from the intended audience, of course. That would involve engaging with people who disagree with you on a level above empty assertions.

Ok I'll bite. This particular aspect of the debate is not something I had really thought about before but I suppose I can try out a few thoughts.

First off the cost of the ammunition in bulk is more likely to make me support a max ban or at least a special license for buying bulk ammo. Here is my thinking behind this we require special licenses to drive commercial vehicles so if you are a competition shooter and require extra ammo then a simple license would allow you to order wholesale.

I am also not totally in favor of a cap on the amount of ammo you can own simply because of the logistics of enforcing it. However I do think that we should have a system in place for buy an amount of ammo at 1 time.

Lets call it a tiered license system where the bottom tier is your novice level first time gun owner (think like a learners permit for driving a car) say a minimum age for it would be 12. Younger children would require the presence of an adult at all times. This tier would be the most heavily restricted but the easiest to get. A simple co-signer and proof of ID (birth certificate) and you are licensed to use but not buy a firearm. This would be the tier that I would recommend a safety course be required.

The next tier would be where most hunters and part time shooters would fall into. Your standard License if you would. This requires a background check but afterwards allows you to purchase legally available guns (this is another discussion so I am intentionally leaving this vague) The restrictions on this tier are much less and it only requires you to renew your license every 2 years at which time you undergo a background check. Basically you are only restricted to purchasing a set amount of ammo at any one time (I'm leaning towards less than 100 rounds but am up for discussion, and remember this is not for professional or competition shooters just your regular hunters and gun owners) This tier removes the background check at time of purchase but still has the waiting period when buying a weapon.

The last tier would be where you, Phaedrus, would probably fall. This is kind of the gold club level. It requires a more thorough background check and needs to be renewed once a year. This is the professional tier so we remove not only the background check but the waiting period as well. It also allows bulk ammo purchases from wholesale sources. Now these licenses would be used to pay for the system itself.

Let me know what you do and do not agree with about this idea. I feel it is fair and would take some of the hassle off of law abiding gun owners while restricting the type of mass shooting that has happened with increasing regularity.

What exactly dose a limit on number of rounds people can buy at one time do for any of us? Most "mass" shootings are over in the amount of rounds you can buy from Walmart/Kmart in ONE box, ie 50 and 100. .22 comes in 333 round bricks at the smallest.

All of your licences equal up to $$$$ to the government to waste my time and burning trees with more paperwork. Another reason why I make my own ammo.



For the record. All gun owners are for background checks that keep guns away from crazies and crooks, but that is not all that that Toomey bill was.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: