Right to bear ammunition

[JoeTheJuggler]

A specific type of ammo could be prohibited -but all types of ammo could not.

De acuerdo.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, Chicago has tried strict control and illegal repression of gun ownership, and it's failed miserably.

Um. . "illegal"?

Anyway, it could as well argue that strict gun control in such a small area is ineffective.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It bugs me rather a lot how few murders ever get closed.

Yeah, but all suicides are solved cases (as far as whodunit), and that doesn't reduce their number (which is greater than that of gun-homicides and gun-accidental deaths).

Sadly the TV cop shows that make it seem like most murders are solved are wildly inaccurate.

 

[truethat]

I can't get behind the rationale for gun control laws by limiting the guns. James Holmes would have found another way to have accomplished his goal if he hadn't gotten guns. He may have even killed more people by using a fatal gas and barring the doors. Burning the theater down, or bombing the place. He would have found a way to do it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can't get behind the rationale for gun control laws by limiting the guns. James Holmes would have found another way to have accomplished his goal if he hadn't gotten guns. He may have even killed more people by using a fatal gas and barring the doors. Burning the theater down, or bombing the place. He would have found a way to do it.

There were 31,000 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2010.

When the number of fatal gas killings or burning or bombing deaths gets somewhere close to that figure, we can take on those issues.

ETA: Isn't your argument rather like saying we ought not fight wildfires because forests can similarly be damaged by large meteorites?

 

[casebro]

Note (also might fall into the "random trivia" thread): Reagan was shot with an explosive bullet. Hinckley's gun was loaded with exploding-head Devastator rounds. None functioned as designed, except the one that hit a building across the street.

Here's a link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770159/ directly regarding safety of medical examiners, but goes into depth on some of the "Scarey Bullets".

But skeptic that I am, I just may try to fins actual tests done on flesh, and see if there is any real improvement to "Exploding Small Arms Ammo". I suspect that a Devastator style bullet with a primer in the nose will merely propel the primer forward into soft flesh rather than explode the mush harder bullet. Hinckly's only successfully exploded projectile hit a brick wall, not nearly liquid flesh.

 

[truethat]

There were 31,000 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2010.

When the number of fatal gas killings or burning or bombing deaths gets somewhere close to that figure, we can take on those issues.

ETA: Isn't your argument rather like saying we ought not fight wildfires because forests can similarly be damaged by large meteorites?

If we were fighting wildfires in places that were repeatedly getting hit with meteorites I'd consider that stupid and illogical.

The point I'm making is that gun control can be tightened but that isn't going to stop a lot of these mass killings. The perpetrators will just find new ways to do it.

 

[roger]

I don't understand what problem the OP is trying to solve. 50 rounds, which is a single box, is enough to commit atrocities.

Meanwhile, I buy in lots in multiples of 1000, and I am a very modest consumer in my circle (competitive shooting). Any proposed solution would destroy my sport and do nothing to prevent mass murder.

 

[R.Mackey]

Oliver, It would also be fairly easy to require taggants in the bullet metal. Then you could know which case-lot the bullets came from, for example.

I had some gun collector try to tell me that taggants would make bullets less safe, but I couldn't get a understandable answer as to why.

Anybody here heard a reason for that?

As others have noted, the proposal for taggants is usually in the propellant, not the metal of the bullet. And this is potentially hazardous because it increases the chance of detonation.

Smokeless powder is not just a random, dust-like substance; it is actually carefully engineered to have a particular size, shape, and surface condition. It also does not explode -- hopefully. Instead it burns at a very rapid but carefully controlled rate. Different powders burn at different speeds depending on the application. Notably, pistol gunpowder burns more quickly than rifle gunpowder, as the bullet has a shorter distance and thus a shorter time to accelerate. If you load a rifle cartridge with pistol gunpowder, you'd better know what you're doing or else you're likely to blow your rifle to pieces.

The taggants mixed in create the potential for different burning rates, for a variety of reasons. One is that they actually abrade the powder grains as the charge compresses. Another is that their "inert" edges can have interesting microchemical effects, acting as a catalyst. Flame chemistry is counter-intuitive stuff.

In a bad enough situation the powder charge will actually detonate, i.e., instead of burning over the course of a microsecond, it self-triggers with its own pressure rise and completes the reaction in approximately 10 nanoseconds. This means a much sharper and higher pressure spike than normal, this will cause a case head separation and probably fracture the gun's chamber, and the resulting fragmentation can injure or kill the shooter. This is known in shooting circles as a kaBOOM! (kB!)

This is bad enough if you make up a fresh batch and then try it out, but it gets worse if the ammunition is heat-cycled a few hundred times, chambered and unchambered leading to minute bullet setback and compaction of the charge, and so on.

Bottom line, in general it's a bad idea to add extraneous things to a low explosive. When you compare the risk, the cost of making these modifications, and the absurdly small number of crimes that would benefit from such technology, it's a no brainer. The shooting community generally views such proposals as wishful thinking at best, and pointless harassment at worst.


I know of no possible risks to "tagging" the bullet core instead of the propellant. However, I've never heard this proposal before. I suspect getting the taggants out intact from a bullet is much more difficult than it seems.

It bugs me rather a lot how few murders ever get closed. The death rate on the streets of Chicago is hideous.

30% only!

Yep, it's a crying shame. But it isn't because of too-few clues. Here in LA we've steadily cut back funding for our crime labs, to the point that we are now rationing fingerprint analyses.

If you want to catch more criminals -- a worthy goal -- the optimal solution is to improve staffing and quality of workforce in law enforcement. More policing means more jobs, better policing builds trust in the community and reduces crime. Win-win. Messing with my ammo ain't gonna cut it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don't understand what problem the OP is trying to solve. 50 rounds, which is a single box, is enough to commit atrocities.

Meanwhile, I buy in lots in multiples of 1000, and I am a very modest consumer in my circle (competitive shooting). Any proposed solution would destroy my sport and do nothing to prevent mass murder.

I suspect that is the actual goal for many. They WANT to make people like...well, us (recreational shooters) into criminals and/or simply make it impossible for us to shoot.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If we were fighting wildfires in places that were repeatedly getting hit with meteorites I'd consider that stupid and illogical.

But there are no such places, just as there aren't a significant number of deaths by fatal gas attacks, bombings or fires--at least not significant compared to the 31,000 gun deaths.

The point I'm making is that gun control can be tightened but that isn't going to stop a lot of these mass killings. The perpetrators will just find new ways to do it.

The point I'm making is that there is no evidence to support that claim in the real world.

ETA: If we could do something to significantly reduce the 31,000 gun deaths, I would be in favor of it. If perpetrators then switch to another method and we end up with 31,000 deaths by gas attacks or whatever (something I find very difficult to believe would happen), then we can deal with that issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't understand what problem the OP is trying to solve. 50 rounds, which is a single box, is enough to commit atrocities.

I think the primary thing the OP is doing is based on a misunderstanding of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. He thinks somehow regulating ammunition wouldn't face the same legal considerations as regulating guns themselves.

Your point is well taken, though. Probably the reason gun control proponents haven't pursued serious ammunition limits is that there is little evidence they would be effective. Limiting Holmes to 50 rounds might have made a difference (his rifle could fire 70 rounds in a minute), but the number of people killed by Holmes (12) happens less than every 4 hours with "normal" gun deaths. And in the vast majority of those cases, the shooter having easy access to only 50 rounds would make no difference at all.

If we're setting public policy, it should be to get at the typical gun deaths more than focusing on strange (but horribly tragic) aberrations like this Holmes shooting.

Meanwhile, I buy in lots in multiples of 1000, and I am a very modest consumer in my circle (competitive shooting). Any proposed solution would destroy my sport and do nothing to prevent mass murder.

That's exactly the type of analysis that ought be done, as I've been saying all along. Weigh the benefit wrt to public safety against the individual right. You make a good case that limiting ammo sales is not the way to do it.

FWIW, I would not hesitate to destroy someone's sport if it could prevent a significant number of those 31000 deaths, but since the benefit is not at all likely, there's no justification for destroying your sport.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I suspect that is the actual goal for many. They WANT to make people like...well, us (recreational shooters) into criminals and/or simply make it impossible for us to shoot.

That's not intellectually honest. I think the 31,000 deaths statistic presents a legitimate and very serious public safety concern. No one's goal is to turn recreational shooters into criminals. Plenty of us would be willing to inconvenience or even destroy your sport if it would seriously reduce the incidence of gun deaths.

I accept Roger's argument that draconian limits on ammunition would only have the cost of messing up the sport without the benefit of much (if any) reduction in gun deaths.

But there's no need to attribute crazy motives to your opponents in this debate.

 

[casebro]

I suspect that is the actual goal for many. They WANT to make people like...well, us (recreational shooters) into criminals and/or simply make it impossible for us to shoot.

Yes but recreation has little to do with the 2nd Amendment right.

Protection of self and country does. Recreation is just to keep in practise.

Is there a trade off? Sure. Both ways.

A friend just sent me an email with a couple stats comparing U.S. and U.K. Our death rate from "intentional homicide" is 4x theirs. But their reported violent crime rate is 5x ours. ( I checked minimally. Looks true) So now the UK wants to ban kitchen knives and walking sticks. What they really need is a Castle Doctrine.

 

[roger]

I think the primary thing the OP is doing is based on a misunderstanding of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. He thinks somehow regulating ammunition wouldn't face the same legal considerations as regulating guns themselves.

I get that, I was just addressing how s/he thought it would actually work in practice.

Your point is well taken, though. Probably the reason gun control proponents haven't pursued serious ammunition limits is that there is little evidence they would be effective. Limiting Holmes to 50 rounds might have made a difference (his rifle could fire 70 rounds in a minute), but the number of people killed by Holmes (12) happens less than every 4 hours with "normal" gun deaths. And in the vast majority of those cases, the shooter having easy access to only 50 rounds would make no difference at all.

And how would we limit somebody to only owning 50 rounds? I go buy a box, next week I buy another box, next week another one, meanwhile I mention to my buddy that I'm going shooting up in the hills and ask him to pick some up for me ... a bit of pre-planning, like Holmes did anyways, and I can amass more ammo than I can carry and use.

FWIW, I would not hesitate to destroy someone's sport if it could prevent a significant number of those 31000 deaths, but since the benefit is not at all likely, there's no justification for destroying your sport.

Well, it's more than a sport. I think I have the right to self defense. The club I belonged to had a strong youth program and we generated something like 30MM in scholarships over the years (I don't recall the exact number, but it was modest 10s of millions). This club has been in existence since the 50s, has people in it every day, competitive shooting most days, and not one person ever shot another person, accidentally or on purpose. I guess it's probably that will eventually change, so lets say 100 years of peaceful activity outlawed over one incident? That does not seem proportional to me. Guns are extremely safe compared to things like owning a private swimming pool. It's just there are a lot out there, and we are a "kill-y" nation. We blithely accept far higher rates of death (relative to frequency of use or existence).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And how would we limit somebody to only owning 50 rounds? I go buy a box, next week I buy another box, next week another one, meanwhile I mention to my buddy that I'm going shooting up in the hills and ask him to pick some up for me ... a bit of pre-planning, like Holmes did anyways, and I can amass more ammo than I can carry and use.

Yep. A regulation I would support is keeping a nationwide database of gun owners and ammo purchasers. This could help law enforcement solve murders. I'm not sure it would do any good for prevention though. Maybe raising a red flag for unusual purchases like Holmes' series of purchases would trigger a visit from police just to ask what's up. I dunno.

We blithely accept far higher rates of death (relative to frequency of use or existence).

We do?

The auto industry has accepted increasingly strict regulations to help reduce traffic fatalities. And they have drastically decreased the vehicle death rate. (Deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

ETA:

I guess it's probably that will eventually change, so lets say 100 years of peaceful activity outlawed over one incident?

First, I see no valid argument that because an institution has been around for more than 100 years that we can't pass regulations that might hurt that institution, if the regulations achieve a legitimate public interest that outweighs the individual right in question. Second, we've had an extremely high rate of gun deaths in the U.S. for a long time. And finally, I've clearly said that our regulations should not be passed with an eye to aberrant events like the Holmes shooting, but to reducing the chronic ongoing gun death rate (it works out to something like the number of people Holmes killed happening in our country every 4 hours--I think it's actually a shorter time span than that--I just did very sloppy rounding off calculations).

 

[BStrong]

That's not intellectually honest. I think the 31,000 deaths statistic presents a legitimate and very serious public safety concern. No one's goal is to turn recreational shooters into criminals. Plenty of us would be willing to inconvenience or even destroy your sport if it would seriously reduce the incidence of gun deaths.

I accept Roger's argument that draconian limits on ammunition would only have the cost of messing up the sport without the benefit of much (if any) reduction in gun deaths.

But there's no need to attribute crazy motives to your opponents in this debate.

Unless my mistaken, from one of your earlier posts, aren't you a law professor or instructor?

How would destroying a sport* fit in with Heller:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

*It isn't.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Much is made of the "vast supply of ammunition" the lad had accumulated, but as more responsible news outlets have noted, that's hardly an unusual amount for active competitive shooters.
I used to burn through several thousand rounds per week, myself; reloaded most of it.

I assume that it must be a LOT cheaper when purchased in large quantities. The prices that I found on the Internet worked out to $0.60 or higher per round.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How would destroying a sport* fit in with Heller:

Heller said gun ownership was an individual right, but that that right, same as many others, is not unlimited. Just as with constitutionality tests for laws that restrict First Amendment free speech and expression rights: if there is a legitimate public interest that outweighs the individual right, such laws should pass constitutional muster.

Please note that my statement was conditional: if a regulation would significantly reduce the number of gun deaths (the public interest), then the fact that it might also inconvenience or "destroy" a sport would be reasonable. Of course, that's a big if, and I also agreed with Roger that the measure someone suggested (limiting ammo purchases to one box of 50) would not achieve any public interest and would only infringe the individual right. Such a measure would likely not pass a constitutional challenge.

 

[BStrong]

Yep. A regulation I would support is keeping a nationwide database of gun owners and ammo purchasers. This could help law enforcement solve murders. I'm not sure it would do any good for prevention though. Maybe raising a red flag for unusual purchases like Holmes' series of purchases would trigger a visit from police just to ask what's up. I dunno.


We do?

The auto industry has accepted increasingly strict regulations to help reduce traffic fatalities. And they have drastically decreased the vehicle death rate. (Deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

ETA:
First, I see no valid argument that because an institution has been around for more than 100 years that we can't pass regulations that might hurt that institution, if the regulations achieve a legitimate public interest that outweighs the individual right in question. Second, we've had an extremely high rate of gun deaths in the U.S. for a long time. And finally, I've clearly said that our regulations should not be passed with an eye to aberrant events like the Holmes shooting, but to reducing the chronic ongoing gun death rate (it works out to something like the number of people Holmes killed happening in our country every 4 hours--I think it's actually a shorter time span than that--I just did very sloppy rounding off calculations).

Joe, we've got handgun registration in California, we'll soon have long gun registration as well, and during my time in the department we never solved a crime through registration records.

It does happen though. I know of one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(group)