Right to bear ammunition

[TellyKNeasuss]

As I like to point out, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about guns or firearms at all. It uses the word "arms". We all recognize that Congress has the authority to prohibit individual ownership of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The individual right to own guns that the court recognizes is not an unlimited one. It can be weighed against safety concerns.

I agree that the amendment doesn't prohibit Congress from restricting how much ammo a person can buy (or without a waiting period for some quantities), but not because the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover ammunition (surely it does)--rather because the right laid out in the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right (same as with First Amendment rights).

If the SCOTUS was to be consistent with their "logic" in DC v Heller, they would rule that a person has the right to own whatever the amount of ammunition that is commonly owned by gun owners. But I agree with those who say that limiting the amount of ammunition wouldn't be terribly effective, since most mass murderers don't shoot a really impressive number of rounds. I wouldn't be surprised if the killer in Aurora fired off around 200 rounds and that he shot more rounds than any of the other mass shooters. There have been no reports that the Aurora killer reloaded either the AR15 or the Glocks, which would have limited him to, what, 180 rounds from those 3 weapons.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

Since the preponderance of mass murders are accomplished with guns, it is a valid argument that guns provide the easiest way of committing mass murder.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the SCOTUS was to be consistent with their "logic" in DC v Heller, they would rule that a person has the right to own whatever the amount of ammunition that is commonly owned by gun owners.

I agree that the court would recognize that right, but it also says it's not an unlimited right. Again, you'd have to weigh the right against the alleged public interest being proffered. (And again, I agree with the way Roger did that weighing which concluded that the public interest would not be achieved, so such a law would only be an infringement of the right and would not pass constitutional muster.)

However, I think "destroyed" is hyperbole for the same reason the measure would be ineffective against gun deaths: you can buy a box of 50, then buy another box of 50, etc. It would likely change the sport without destroying it. And an institution that's been around 100 years has already experienced a great many changes without being destroyed.

 

[BStrong]

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.

Fair enough.

PS - I've not forgotten our discussion of gunshots, real or memorex.

I've spoken with some RKI's on sound and volume and sound reproduction, as well as my friends from group that see these types of movies (violent) I'll start a thread so as not to derail the current discussion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since the preponderance of mass murders are accomplished with guns, it is a valid argument that guns provide the easiest way of committing mass murder.

And again I think the issue of non-mass murders is really the one any new gun laws should and would focus on. There's some overlap (such as with the "Assault Weapons Ban").

But I would add that the issue of other weapons (gas, bombs, etc.) is the same issue (the 2nd Amendment uses the word "arms" not "guns" or "firearms") and we'd weigh the rights the same way.

Until we have significant numbers of people being killed with these other weapons, I'm not so worried about them.

 

[BenBurch]

...

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.

...

http://www.inksure.com/

They have a technology for coin authentication where the taggants are incorporated in the metal of the coin. And there are a few other similar things in varying stages of development.

 

[BStrong]

And again I think the issue of non-mass murders is really the one any new gun laws should and would focus on. There's some overlap (such as with the "Assault Weapons Ban").

But I would add that the issue of other weapons (gas, bombs, etc.) is the same issue (the 2nd Amendment uses the word "arms" not "guns" or "firearms") and we'd weigh the rights the same way.

Until we have significant numbers of people being killed with these other weapons, I'm not so worried about them.

Good paper out of Penn. State on the effectivness of the AWB:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

 

[roger]

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.

At what price? For how much benefit? Could we use that money more effectively for, say, alcohol awareness (a random example)?

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.

I made no such argument. The point was a vast amount of safe, lawful, daily exercise of second amendment rights, for a century, vs one death is perhaps not an area ripe for stripping people of their rights (or regulating). I'm drawing a contrast between amounts of lawful behavior occurs vs lawless behavior. It's not entirely representative of the country as a whole as you would expect members of such a club to be more law abiding than a few members of society, but it isn't so far off either. 31,000 sounds scary. 1 per century of an active club? Not so much (IMO). In other words I am arguing for looking at things based on per capita use, not totals. We have far fewer private pools in the US than guns, but between 1000-2000 deaths a year in them. Percentage wise, we are better off regulating pools. ATVs take another 1000 or so lives. I suggest we have bigger fish to fry than guns,

31000 also clouds the issue. Most of those are suicides and accidents. It's more like 11K for homicide, which is what I believe this thread is trying to address.

 

[mhaze]

And again I think the issue of non-mass murders is really the one any new gun laws should and would focus on. There's some overlap (such as with the "Assault Weapons Ban").

But I would add that the issue of other weapons (gas, bombs, etc.) is the same issue (the 2nd Amendment uses the word "arms" not "guns" or "firearms") and we'd weigh the rights the same way.

Until we have significant numbers of people being killed with these other weapons, I'm not so worried about them.

Interesting article, but he uses the term "automatic weapon" wrongly.

Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...it_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html

 

[casebro]

I know you all will say I'm "blaming the victim" but after casting out the huge numbers of old white males committing suicide, how many of the corpses show drug use?

I think "Murder" is a drug/gang problem. With lots of black/black acts. It's a society problem, NOT an arms problem.

 

[casebro]

Interesting article, but he uses the term "automatic weapon" wrongly.

Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...it_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html

I bet most of us put don't arsonist in the "mass murder' classification. It does belong there. I wonder if the all the crime statistics do?

 

[BStrong]

I bet most of us put don't arsonist in the "mass murder' classification. It does belong there. I wonder if the all the crime statistics do?

The deadliest non-terrorist mass murder was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

Plastic container, two dollars of gasoline, 87 deaths.

 

[BenBurch]

I bet most of us put don't arsonist in the "mass murder' classification. It does belong there. I wonder if the all the crime statistics do?

Most don't succeed in becoming mass murderers, though.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Interesting article, but he uses the term "automatic weapon" wrongly.

Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...it_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html

If one mass murderer kills 20 people using one kind of weapon and 20 other mass murderers kill 10 people each using another kind of weapon, the average for the first kind of weapon will be twice that of the second kind of weapon. Which kind of weapon is the most dangerous, the one that was used to kill 20 people or the one that was used to kill 200 people?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

It usually is...there are people that buy plinking ammo by the semi-trailer load!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The deadliest non-terrorist mass murder was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

Plastic container, two dollars of gasoline, 87 deaths.

Still pales in comparison to 31000 gun deaths per year.

Again, IMO, any attempt to limit 2nd Amendment rights should be justified by having a realistic chance of having a significant effect on the most typical kinds of gun deaths (suicides, then single homicides) and not so much on the atypical types.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

31000 also clouds the issue. Most of those are suicides and accidents. It's more like 11K for homicide, which is what I believe this thread is trying to address.

Suicides are consistently slightly more than half. That sort of belies the argument that gun deaths are a drug/gang problem.

It's a difficult problem and I don't have any solutions. I do think all too often the debate runs into completely wrong directions.

And I'm not arguing for any particular proposal. (I think a database of ownership would help tracing guns from the legitimate to the black market, and probably would also help solve some crimes, but as I said earlier, I doubt it would have any preventive effect.)

My point continues to be to explicate what the constitutional issues are. Just saying there is an individual right to keep and bear arms doesn't and shouldn't end the discussion of what policies would be best. (I hope no one here thinks that same individual right means it's unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit individual ownership of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.)

And, my main point in this thread has been that the OP is wrong to consider ammunition as not part of "arms" under the 2nd Amendment. The questions are the same, and--as I pointed out--your analysis of the benefit vs. cost of the ammunition limit is exactly the one that ought be done. (And I further agreed with your conclusion. That is, zero likely benefit can't possibly outweigh any rights infringement.)

 

[mhaze]

If one mass murderer kills 20 people using one kind of weapon and 20 other mass murderers kill 10 people each using another kind of weapon, the average for the first kind of weapon will be twice that of the second kind of weapon. Which kind of weapon is the most dangerous, the one that was used to kill 20 people or the one that was used to kill 200 people?

None of the above. The most dangerous weapon is the human mind, when devoted to evil and criminal acts. The other statistics and arguments are nothing compared to it. Such a mind would take the reality of a situation, and device means and methods.

This should be obvious but I guess it is not. People kill people, not guns, knives or other things.

 

[dc1971]

Yes, it covers Ammunition. Like it would cover arrows for a bow. A gun is not an arm without the ammo.

Arms is a very broad term.

 

[mhaze]

Still pales in comparison to 31000 gun deaths per year.

Again, IMO, any attempt to limit 2nd Amendment rights should be justified by having a realistic chance of having a significant effect on the most typical kinds of gun deaths (suicides, then single homicides) and not so much on the atypical types.

From Wikipedia, subject gun violence. If the CAUSE of the increase in gun violence is crack cocaine, please explain how some version of your totalitarian top down control theories would lower violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States



The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[12][18] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.[23][24][25]

Looks to me like side effects of the "Drug War", rearing their ugly head yet again. But we'd fix the problem with more controls on the general population, eh?

Tell you what. Let's not just have "Security Theater" at the airports. We could have "Gun Control and Violence Prevention Theater", too.

That'd be a step forward (NOT!).