The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

You are willing to trade other people's freedom for a perception of your own safety. Not very laudable.

Quote: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.

I have hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Am I stockpiling? I suppose.
If there is civil unrest, I want as much ammunition as possible.

Quote: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).

Catching the criminals after the fact does not save the lives lost. You are still not framing problems and solutions, you are firing broadsides hoping to hit something.
The bureaucracy and paperwork/databases involved would not be useful in preventing anything unless you are going to add a law limiting how much ammunition it is legal to possess, use the database for triggering inspections or searches. What kind of society are you willing to live in? That sounds like an awfully intrusive government to me. All for a marginal perception of safety.

Quote: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 was appalled by Newtown. My second reaction was that if someone in the school had been armed, it would have ended differently.

Quote: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."

Please define 'assault rifle' because I don't know what one is.

We have some states with rational and effective firearms regulations, some with very little regulation (Vermont, New Hampshire), some with odious, ineffective legislation (Massachusetts, Connecticut).

Let's stick to defining actual problems and effective solutions.
Much of what you have put forward are simply burdensome without addressing actual problems.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 09:55 AM
Re: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Actually no. Who here is disinterested in coversation? Who refused to answer points raised by the opposition? And then who was asking for clarifications of the other's position rather than assuming dishonest intentions?

Here I think we've found the root of our disagreements, and then who gets emotional and starts hurling insults and leaves the debate?

Stop taking things so personally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 09:57 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:47 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 08:37 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Still no.

How so?

I own three firearms quite legally a I do not support registration laws. I know one gun shop owner who does not support those laws and a number of my friends and family members do not support them.

Of course, it could also be argued that there's no such thing as a law abiding citizen. 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
29-04-2013, 10:01 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
And this is why I try and avoid gun debates on this forum. It always ends up in name calling and stupidity by both sides. TBD you need to think out your positions better, I'm by no means a gun nut, hell I'd love to do what Australia did, I just don't see it happening in this country. But you tend to get emotional about it because you haven't really thought it out. TheBlackKnight You're just as bad, you offer nothing constructive and simply try to derail any actual conversation.

To Chas and Phaedrus I find your views interesting and would enjoy hashing out ideas but this is never going to happen due to the epic derailments that always occur in gun threads.

(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
29-04-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 10:01 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  And this is why I try and avoid gun debates on this forum. It always ends up in name calling and stupidity by both sides. TBD you need to think out your positions better, I'm by no means a gun nut, hell I'd love to do what Australia did, I just don't see it happening in this country. But you tend to get emotional about it because you haven't really thought it out. TheBlackKnight You're just as bad, you offer nothing constructive and simply try to derail any actual conversation.

To Chas and Phaedrus I find your views interesting and would enjoy hashing out ideas but this is never going to happen due to the epic derailments that always occur in gun threads.

We can carry on and ignore derailing.
I think that TBK and TBD have a lot to offer, but let's all just dial it back a bit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 10:07 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 09:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

You are willing to trade other people's freedom for a perception of your own safety. Not very laudable.

Quote: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.

I have hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Am I stockpiling? I suppose.
If there is civil unrest, I want as much ammunition as possible.

Quote: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).

Catching the criminals after the fact does not save the lives lost. You are still not framing problems and solutions, you are firing broadsides hoping to hit something.
The bureaucracy and paperwork/databases involved would not be useful in preventing anything unless you are going to add a law limiting how much ammunition it is legal to possess, use the database for triggering inspections or searches. What kind of society are you willing to live in? That sounds like an awfully intrusive government to me. All for a marginal perception of safety.

Quote: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 was appalled by Newtown. My second reaction was that if someone in the school had been armed, it would have ended differently.

Quote: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."

Please define 'assault rifle' because I don't know what one is.

We have some states with rational and effective firearms regulations, some with very little regulation (Vermont, New Hampshire), some with odious, ineffective legislation (Massachusetts, Connecticut).

Let's stick to defining actual problems and effective solutions.
Much of what you have put forward are simply burdensome without addressing actual problems.

"You are willing to trade other people's freedom for a perception of your own safety. Not very laudable."

If the perception of my safety is real, then yes. Australia has had success. And even Switzerland with its military requirements, high gun ownership, and yearly training is an admirable system. Their perception of safety is very much real. I do indeed desire that. I desire not having to worry about my son when he is at school. Everyone deserves freedom from fear and worry.

"I have hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Am I stockpiling? I suppose.
If there is civil unrest, I want as much ammunition as possible. "


If you stockpiling because you anticipate civil unrest, then you are a fool. I know you are not a fool. If you use your ammunition in a responsible manner and frequently enough when you do use it, then it isn't what I would say is stockpiling. Just regular everyday stock. Why would it matter if there were a cap on it? If you were limited to 100 rounds in your personal stock at any one time, would that not be enough for self-defense? If being at a shooting range allowed for the amount you could have to shoot to be much higher, would that be a problem for you?

"Catching the criminals after the fact does not save the lives lost. You are still not framing problems and solutions, you are firing broadsides hoping to hit something.
The bureaucracy and paperwork/databases involved would not be useful in preventing anything unless you are going to add a law limiting how much ammunition it is legal to possess, use the database for triggering inspections or searches. What kind of society are you willing to live in? That sounds like an awfully intrusive government to me. All for a marginal perception of safety."


Catching criminals after the fact implies that they would never kill again. Catching a killer and taking them off the street does indeed prevent the loss of life. And I am not arguing for a Orwellian state to live in. I am well aware that freedom must necessarily come at the cost of being prone to being attacked. But the attacks that can be avoided and prevented, should be.

"I was appalled by Newtown. My second reaction was that if someone in the school had been armed, it would have ended differently."

This kind of reaction astounds me. The what-if argument of the lone cowboy in the school to protect kids from something that shouldn't be there. Nevermind having a shoot-out in a school where people can be injured be each shooter now. Also, nevermind the unstable kids in the schools who might gain access to these weapons. My wife works with kids (mainly middle to high schoolers) and their families. Those with either mental health issues or behavioral problems. Some of these kids are dangers to others and (more likely) themselves. Putting weapons around these kids, is a mistake waiting to happen. And some of these kids give no signs of being unstable until something happens. They hit puberty, a tragedy happens, they develop friends with unhealthy habits, etc. All the kids in the school, aren't little angels.

"Please define 'assault rifle' because I don't know what one is. "

That which was designed for, and explicitly used as a military and/or law enforcement weapon. The AR-15 being one example. It is truly a marvel of military engineering. And I don't want Joe-Blow doing with it as he pleases anymore than I want him to have access to military-grade grenades. I am fully aware that there exist hunting rifles that might be considered more dangerous in some ways, but there is a reason they are not used exclusively by the military any longer. They are not as dangerous.

"We have some states with rational and effective firearms regulations, some with very little regulation (Vermont, New Hampshire), some with odious, ineffective legislation (Massachusetts, Connecticut).

Let's stick to defining actual problems and effective solutions.
Much of what you have put forward are simply burdensome without addressing actual problems."


I think burdensome is not a problem. If the burden prevents death, then I don't see it as a burden. In the same way that it is a burden to go to the DMV. I fully agree that better solutions are needed and (as we have agreed upon many times) homogeneity among the states gun laws is a necessary first step. And a good one to boot. But what laws would you propose? I have failed to ask this I have realized. What does the pro-gun side propose?

“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, 10:11 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because the person using heroin (if it were legal) would never steal or hurt anyone to get more heroine?

There is no reason to believe nor evidence to support the notion that a user of legally obtainable heroine would be any more inclined toward theft to support his habit than are users of alcohol, which is legal. Severe addicts of legal drugs such as alcohol usually wind up pan handling or begging, while users of illicit drugs have no other choice than to obtain their drugs of choice through nefarious means.

Quote: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.

It doesn't matter how much control you seek over others, you're still asserting that you are best suited to tell others how they should conduct their lives.

Quote: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).[\quote]

That has nothing to do with the drug of choice, it has to do with the behavior of the individual. A man who has just caught his wife cheating can be far more dangerous behind the wheel than a good many drunks. Likewise, a teenager from an abusive household poses much more of a safety threat to you and your child in a park than does a stoner.

[quote]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.

Laws are opinions backed up with a gun. They seek to control human action through the threat of violence. It doesn't matter what the claimed target of the law is, all laws seek to control human action. Have you ever seen a cop arrest a bag of weed? Throw a drunk driver's car in jail?


Citing drunk drivers as a reason to prohibit some drugs but not others is non sequitur.

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, 10:12 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 10:01 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  And this is why I try and avoid gun debates on this forum. It always ends up in name calling and stupidity by both sides. TBD you need to think out your positions better, I'm by no means a gun nut, hell I'd love to do what Australia did, I just don't see it happening in this country. But you tend to get emotional about it because you haven't really thought it out. TheBlackKnight You're just as bad, you offer nothing constructive and simply try to derail any actual conversation.

To Chas and Phaedrus I find your views interesting and would enjoy hashing out ideas but this is never going to happen due to the epic derailments that always occur in gun threads.

Which points of mine do you think need to be thought out more clearly? I see no problem with looking at Australia's example as something to strive for. I am not disillusioned into thinking that their exact legislation will be enacted in the US, in the very same way that I doubt I will see a female atheist as the leader of my country as Australia has.

Emotions are hard to avoid in this debate, but when one side quite literally opens it up with personal attacks, what is the other side to do? I have requested numerous times for the personal attacks and insults to stop, but to no avail. I have no time for someone who has no interest in conversation and interest only in being an obtuse asshole. The very reason BlackKnight is on and will remain on my ignore list.

“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, 10:14 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 10:11 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 09:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because the person using heroin (if it were legal) would never steal or hurt anyone to get more heroine?

There is no reason to believe nor evidence to support the notion that a user of legally obtainable heroine would be any more inclined toward theft to support his habit than are users of alcohol, which is legal. Severe addicts of legal drugs such as alcohol usually wind up pan handling or begging, while users of illicit drugs have no other choice than to obtain their drugs of through nefarious means.

Quote: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.

It doesn't matter how much control you seek over others, you're still asserting that you are best suited to tell others how they should conduct their lives.

Quote: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).[\quote]

That has nothing to do with the drug of choice, it has to do with the behavior of the individual. A man who has just caught his wife cheating on him can be far more dangerous behind the wheel than a good many drunks. Likewise, a teenager from an abusive household poses much more of a safety threat to you and your child in a park than does a stoner.

[quote]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.

Laws are opinions backed up with a gun. They seek to control human action through the threat of violence. It doesn't matter what the target of the law is, all laws seek to control human action. Have you ever seen a cop arrest a bag of weed? Throw a drunk driver's car in jail?


Citing drunk drivers as a reason to prohibit some drugs but not others is non sequitur.

How exactly am I telling someone else how to live their life? If someone wants to use drugs, they are not hurting me. If someone wants to own a gun to shoot for recreation or own for collection purposes, they are not hurting me either. Laws protect the public from the individual trying to move their personal world into the public sphere.

“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, 10:16 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
It appears I am going to have to go the way many others on this forum have in regards to the gun debate and simply stop posting about it on the forum. I'll use my vote as a way of soliciting my opinion.

“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: