The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2013, 08:42 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 08:36 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I believe you're projecting your own disinterest in debate onto me. Not one question asked so far has been rhetorical.

(29-04-2013 07:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) It limits the capacity for someone to hole themselves up in their home and prevent capture (Waco)

Unlikely. Do you think that some guy in his basement will use up more than a couple hundred rounds before a sniper takes him out or the SWAT team comes in and flashbangs him? The guys at Waco didn't even get off many shots before all being killed. That's a naive argument.

Quote:2) It reduces the amount of damage that someone who does commit a mass shooting could do

Oh yes, because you can totally carry around 10,000 rounds of ammunition while committing a mass murder. That totally makes sense. It's not like Lanza was only carrying around 100 rounds or so...

Quote:3) It provides some measure of tracking on who buys ammunition as a regular user, and someone who buys it in bulk and appears to be storing it up.

Yes, and generates millions of false positives because buying in bulk is a common practice. And you won't be able to tell someone storing ammo vs. someone who just uses a lot. Not unless you plan on sitting at the range and counting bullets...

Quote:4) It tracks someone who may have no history with guns, suddenly using a lot of ammunition at once (as if training themselves).

Yes, like people who have become interested in self-defense, or people who have just gotten into guns as a hobby. Generating millions more false positives.

Quote:5) It cuts back on an industry that is pumping out substantial amounts of ammunition and is making a substantial amount of money, that appears to be entering the coffers of the NRA and then the coffers of the USA (senators).

So it's a handy way of quieting people whom you disagree with politically? How very machiavellian.

Quote:6) If someone does commit a series of terrible acts, these types of trackings and limitations may help id them and then find them.

If there were a "series of terrible acts" and it didn't immediately end in a deadly police shootout or a suicide, I doubt tracking by ammunition purchase would be very useful. You see, you've already set it up so as to throw flags on two or three million people every year, virtually all of whom will be law abiding citizens. It's a mass of useless information that is too large to sort through in time to catch a bad guy, and wouldn't even be useful in court, as it would be no more than circumstantial evidence.

Answer the question from my post preceding this one.

You have objections to each, and I say each of your objections are absurd. What you call "false positives" I call information. I am not saying that every person buying ammunition is doing so with ill intentions in mind, but those who are interested only in proper usage of ammunition, have nothing to fear about anyone knowing how much they buy. Knowing that they are being tracked, would deter would-be criminals from purchasing ammunition. Thereby making it possible to catch them in other avenues. Limiting ammunition and tracking ammunition does not solve the problem on its own, which is why singling it out and saying this is a pointless endeavor, is a straw-man argument. No one is saying that ammunition limits and monitoring solves the problem. It addresses the problem, and other ideas need be floated about as well. Of course, we could just sit back and do nothing and maintain the current system we have that obviously doesn't work.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
You were probably arguing pro-gun. The problem is, your idea of "pro-gun" is so ludicrous that you might as well make it entirely illegal. Get me right here; I don't entirely disagree with you. But your system? Constant government monitoring of all gun transactions and ammunition purchases? A YEARLY RENEWED license? Your system treats gun owners like criminals in wait. Explosives are less tightly regulated than your proposals... You may not realize it, but your system, as best I can determine, would make gun ownership so expensive and such a pain in the ass that an outright ban would not be much more effective.

I am actually planning to make a thread on each aspect of your system that you mentioned in that other thread: "background checks, ammo limits, magazine capacity limits, mental health evaluations, renewing licenses annually, required yearly training, etc. ". I started with this one because it is clearly your least-thought-out idea on this subject. Adding a gun license, universal background checks, and magazine caps does not make your ammunition limits any more sane.




And you have not answered my objections, other than to say that they are "absurd". Your ammunition purchase surveillance list or whatever you want to call it, would depending on your ammo limits, list 20-40% of all active gun owners as possible mass murderers. It will not prevent anything. In the event of a crime, it will do almost nothing to help track the perpetrator. When the perpetrator is caught, it will do almost nothing to help prosecute them. It is a useless system. Completely and totally.

If it doesn't help prevent anything, if it doesn't help mitigate the effects of anything, if it doesn't help catch anyone, if it doesn't help put anyone in jail, and it pisses off millions of people, what is the damn point?

And each of those is substantiated in my previous posts.





Do not presume to think that because I disagree with you that I think the current system is just peachy. But the system we replace it with should not treat virtually all gun owners as criminals without reason, which yours unequivocally does.

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
29-04-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 08:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Knowing that they are being tracked, would deter would-be criminals from purchasing ammunition. Thereby making it possible to catch them in other avenues.

Those other avenues being the houses or gun shops they've burglarized so as to acquire ammunition that didn't have their name attached. So essentially, you create other crimes that must be solved in order to stop three out of 300 million people from going on a shooting spree.

That's the same effect drug prohibition has. Making drugs illegal and particularly, making them hard to obtain (as in the case of presciption drugs) only serves to incentivize the black market, cause the cost to rise and raise the rates of other crimes.

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
29-04-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:07 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  You were probably arguing pro-gun. The problem is, your idea of "pro-gun" is so ludicrous that you might as well make it entirely illegal. Get me right here; I don't entirely disagree with you. But your system? Constant government monitoring of all gun transactions and ammunition purchases? A YEARLY RENEWED license? Your system treats gun owners like criminals in wait. Explosives are less tightly regulated than your proposals... You may not realize it, but your system, as best I can determine, would make gun ownership so expensive and such a pain in the ass that an outright ban would not be much more effective.

I am actually planning to make a thread on each aspect of your system that you mentioned in that other thread: "background checks, ammo limits, magazine capacity limits, mental health evaluations, renewing licenses annually, required yearly training, etc. ". I started with this one because it is clearly your least-thought-out idea on this subject. Adding a gun license, universal background checks, and magazine caps does not make your ammunition limits any more sane.




And you have not answered my objections, other than to say that they are "absurd". Your ammunition purchase surveillance list or whatever you want to call it, would depending on your ammo limits, list 20-40% of all active gun owners as possible mass murderers. It will not prevent anything. In the event of a crime, it will do almost nothing to help track the perpetrator. When the perpetrator is caught, it will do almost nothing to help prosecute them. It is a useless system. Completely and totally.

If it doesn't help prevent anything, if it doesn't help mitigate the effects of anything, if it doesn't help catch anyone, if it doesn't help put anyone in jail, and it pisses off millions of people, what is the damn point?

And each of those is substantiated in my previous posts.





Do not presume to think that because I disagree with you that I think the current system is just peachy. But the system we replace it with should not treat virtually all gun owners as criminals without reason, which yours unequivocally does.

I've no intentions of labeling anyone a criminal. How exactly does imposing a limit on the amount of ammunition do that? How does tracking what people buy do that?

I'll expound upon the comment that they are absurd. The weekend exploits of the average gun enthusiast on a target practice outing, is of no concern to me. I'll gladly admit that I will lose no sleep over you having to shoot about half as much as you do (I'm just throwing out a number, 90% less? 10% less?). If inconveniencing the average gun enthusiast helps prevent even one death, I am all for it. In the same way that inconveniencing me to have to go to the DMV regularly may help save lives too. I hate the DMV, but will gladly go and waste my time if it means that I am less likely to hurt someone or if someone else is removed from the road who should not be driving.

Once again, some will still stockpile ammunition even with restrictions in place. I am aware. Restrictions hold people accountable and in a world where the average person in the US is likely to not believe in evolution and may even be anti-vaccine, I like the idea of accountability.

You assert that a paper trail doesn't help catch anyone. I call bullshit. Every weapon on the streets right now illegally, was brought into this country legally and purchased (at some point legally). The black market guns are assuredly a minor component. If legally purchased ammunition and legally purchased firearms are better regulated and the people held accountable, then the illegal activities of those guns can be impacted too (I didn't say eliminated as gang violence and drug violence are issues that all obviously require different directions too).


As for the argument I had with a friend of mine, you are correct, I was arguing pro-gun. But not the pro-gun argument you assume I made. He said we should limit ammo and high-capacity magazines and ban assault weapons. I said no to each (I believe our only consensus was on background checks). I was for expanding the background checks and mental health ( I still am) but was unwilling to hear any argument about laws that directly address guns. This was the first time I had ever really conversed about gun laws with anyone, and we left that conversation with no real progress made in either case. Fast-forward several months and you have Aurora, CO and then about an hour away from me, Newtown. I sat in my office bewildered and in tears as I thought about my son. And became enraged when people started saying absurd things like "if only the teachers had guns" or "we need more guns in schools" or "we need more police in school." What the fuck? It never occurs to people who say these things that the issue is not about putting more guns in schools, but why anyone would ever need a gun at a school.

I quite literally pulled a 180 on this issue within months. A very similar timeline to my views on religion. You assert that those who consider themselves anti-gun are equivalent to creationists. I would agree that one side certainly is. But it is the side who considers the proposition that guns and legal gun-owners can do no harm.

You are quick to judge and assert that everyone who is for better regulations and better gun-control, give shitty ideas. How about this, why don't you tell us your proposal for helping resolve this issue? I have seen no such attempt by you, despite your constant demand that the anti-gun crowd put forth perfect ideas. I'm no policy maker (as I have said many times before) and I am not pretending to be. But I do know that defending inanimate objects is absurd. And throwing about the assertion that "gun laws only hurt legal gun owners" is both wrong and avoiding the issue. It accomplishes nothing other that to reassert that persons greed and narcissism. It says "my right to do as I please, own what I want, and do with it what I want, trumps your opinion. And damn you if you disagree with me. And I could care less if your intentions are to help prevent the loss of life. I might have to pay more money. I might have to shoot less. I may have to own less. I may have to be inconvenienced, and my time is worth more than someone else's life."

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:27 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 08:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Knowing that they are being tracked, would deter would-be criminals from purchasing ammunition. Thereby making it possible to catch them in other avenues.

Those other avenues being the houses or gun shops they've burglarized so as to acquire ammunition that didn't have their name attached. So essentially, you create other crimes that must be solved in order to stop three out of 300 million people from going on a shooting spree.

That's the same effect drug prohibition has. Making drugs illegal and particularly, making them hard to obtain (as in the case of presciption drugs) only serves to incentivize the black market, cause the cost to rise and raise the rates of other crimes.

Crime rates rise when new laws are made, because it makes that thing/action illegal. There would be no one speeding if there were no speed limits.

Are you really trying to assert that because someone else might steal the guns or ammunition, that we should just throw up our hands and say "well! Fuck me! This is too tough. These people just can't be stopped."

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 09:43 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:32 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Crime rates rise when new laws are made, because it makes that thing/action illegal. There would be no one speeding if there were no speed limits.

Are you really trying to assert that because someone else might steal the guns or ammunition, that we should just throw up our hands and say "well! Fuck me! This is too tough. These people just can't be stopped."

A person using marijuana or, even heroine, in the privacy of his own home is not committing a crime. Nor is a person who buys a thousand bullets. When you make marijuana and heroine illegal (not crimes), you raise the rate of burglary and you create a black market which, by the nature of its existence, necessarily brings forth violence and other unrelated, actual criminal activities. Thus, one can ignore the instances of the new "crime" and still there is an increase in actual criminal behavior.

And no, I'm not suggesting we throw our hands up. I'm suggesting we start educating people about how these criminals are created instead of pointing guns at everyone in hopes that we can stop one criminal.

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
29-04-2013, 09:47 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
If you really gave two shits about preventing "just one death" you would be doing almost anything else. Instead you sit in front of your computer arguing on the internet, while paying taxes to a government that kills millions of people every year for your safety, as tens of thousands die in car accidents, as hundreds of thousands die from cancer caused by carcinogens added to the food or the air or the water by rich sociopaths who don't give a shit.

You've chosen guns, though. Because a series of horrific events affected you emotionally. So you spun on a dime and try to rationalize your position by saying you're arguing for things that would save lives. As if that's what you actually care about.

And you try to say that I'm emotionally driven. Drinking Beverage

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
29-04-2013, 09:47 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 08:37 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 07:07 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  OK, all LEGAL law abiding gun owners.

Still no.

How so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 09:47 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:43 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 09:32 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Crime rates rise when new laws are made, because it makes that thing/action illegal. There would be no one speeding if there were no speed limits.

Are you really trying to assert that because someone else might steal the guns or ammunition, that we should just throw up our hands and say "well! Fuck me! This is too tough. These people just can't be stopped."

A person using marijuana or, even heroine, in the privacy of his own home is not committing a crime. Nor is a person who buys a thousand bullets. When you make marijuana and heroine illegal (not crimes), you raise the rate of burglary and you create a black market which, by the nature of its existence, necessarily brings forth violence and other unrelated, actual criminal activities. Thus, one can ignore the instances of the new "crime" and still there is an increase in actual criminal behavior.

And no, I'm not suggesting we throw our hands up. I'm suggesting we start educating people about how these criminals are created instead of pointing guns at everyone in hopes that we can stop one criminal.

Because the person using heroin (if it were legal) would never steal or hurt anyone to get more heroine?

I'm not saying that all currently illegal drugs should be illegal. But it certainly should not be that people can use them in whatever quantities whenever they want and wherever they want. I have no problem with weed (even though I don't smoke it) but I don't want someone who is stoned, driving a car, nor do I want it to be okay for them to be blitzed out of their mind in a public park where I take my kid (in the same way that I would avoid a drunk).

Comparing drugs to guns is a non-sequitor anyways. No one is arguing that the same types of laws and regulations used on drugs, would work for guns.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:47 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  If you really gave two shits about preventing "just one death" you would be doing almost anything else. Instead you sit in front of your computer arguing on the internet, while paying taxes to a government that kills millions of people every year for your safety, as tens of thousands die in car accidents, as hundreds of thousands die from cancer caused by carcinogens added to the food or the air or the water by rich sociopaths who don't give a shit.

You've chosen guns, though. Because a series of horrific events affected you emotionally. So you spun on a dime and try to rationalize your position by saying you're arguing for things that would save lives. As if that's what you actually care about.

And you try to say that I'm emotionally driven. Drinking Beverage

Alright, I'm done. You ignore everything else, assert you must be correct, and then spout off more hypocritical rhetoric. You are not interested in conversation and never were. Preach to someone else, I've wasted too much time on gundamentalists.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: