Right to bear ammunition

[mhaze]

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

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

It's a good paper. In particular, it notes the tendency toward younger criminals and gang members to have assault style weapons, and the heavy preference for "assault pistols" instead of various forms of long rifles.
May be just as a display of ego or bravado, more than any serious attempt at tactical advantage. In other words, "when they went to commit a crime the used whatever firearms they had" rather than "their crimes were far worse because they had equipment xyz".

 

[BStrong]

It's a good paper. In particular, it notes the tendency toward younger criminals and gang members to have assault style weapons, and the heavy preference for "assault pistols" instead of various forms of long rifles.
May be just as a display of ego or bravado, more than any serious attempt at tactical advantage. In other words, "when they went to commit a crime the used whatever firearms they had" rather than "their crimes were far worse because they had equipment xyz".

They also note that juveniles could be more likely to exagerate their access to AR's or AP's.

In my experience, my department had very few incidents involving AR's or anytype of long gun, more with incidents with AP's but handguns and sawed off shotguns were the #1 and #2 crime weapons. I noted no change in weapons used during the AWB.

Available AP's are also notoriously unreliable, and a little known or discussed fact in the 101 California mass shooting was that the Tec-9 pistols used by the shooter failed early on in the incident, and he shot and killed most of his victims with a Norinco 1911A1 clone - a weapon not restricted in the 1994 AWB, but this is the incident credited with bringing the pressure that passed the AWB.

I'm thinking that when the final report is issued on the Aurora shooting, we'll discover that most victims were killed with the shotgun or handgun.

If that's the case, don't hold your breath for any of the political vultures to revise their public statements - factual or technical accuracy is collateral damage in every shooting when it comes to political speech.

 

[mhaze]

They also note that juveniles could be more likely to exagerate their access to AR's or AP's.

In my experience, my department had very few incidents involving AR's or anytype of long gun, more with incidents with AP's but handguns and sawed off shotguns were the #1 and #2 crime weapons. I noted no change in weapons used during the AWB.

Available AP's are also notoriously unreliable, and a little known or discussed fact in the 101 California mass shooting was that the Tec-9 pistols used by the shooter failed early on in the incident, and he shot and killed most of his victims with a Norinco 1911A1 clone - a weapon not restricted in the 1994 AWB, but this is the incident credited with bringing the pressure that passed the AWB.

I'm thinking that when the final report is issued on the Aurora shooting, we'll discover that most victims were killed with the shotgun or handgun.

If that's the case, don't hold your breath for any of the political vultures to revise their public statements - factual or technical accuracy is collateral damage in every shooting when it comes to political speech.

Dead on with every comment you just made, partner.

I read Aurora was largely shotgun, by the way.

To it's credit, the report cites the large problem of the "saturday night special" and the fact that it's use rather dwarfs the more sensational violent events that get attention.

For what it's worth, my opinion on how to stop these tragedies is to have more people with concealed carry in more places more of the time. Here's an idea I'll toss out. A guy thinking about pulling off one of these stunts usually picks a place where he figures there will be no armed opposition, by virtue of the law, the rules, or the sign by the door.

What if a random fraction of CHL holders were given a stamp to carry anywhere? Or if that was standard for returning veterans who applied for the CHL.

The bad guys would never, ever know where they might encounter armed resistance. That's a strong deterrent, that uncertainty.

I mention this not because I'm sure I'm right as to the effects - I'm not - but instead to indicate that they probably are creative and innovative ways to reduce the incidence of these tragedies.

 

[triforcharity]

I used to think that bearing arms refers to the weapons itself, not necessarily to the ammunition. But even if, what's the big deal in regulating the ammunition - or put safety measures in place so the executive branch actually learns whenever someone purchases a lot of ammunition. It should not be a problem to have some sort of database that lists all of the purchased ammunition and automatically alerts the authorities whenever someone buys an unusually high amount of ammunition. It's not even a big deal in terms of the second amendment. Just a control mechanism.

Because there are people like me, who would have conversations with the federal government every single weekend almost.

Just this past Sunday, I purchased 10 boxes (100 per box) 12 ga. shotgun shells. That is a LOT of shotgun shells. The week before last, I purchased a case (10 boxes of 500) of .22LR. A month ago, I purchased 1000 rds. of .223 for my M4.

And that was just me. Can you imagine maintaining a database that big? My family and friends alone would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to check us out.

Unless of course you up that limit. It would be impractical at the very least.

 

[triforcharity]

How would you feel about ballistics exemplars being on file?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think it would be a good idea, if implemented correctly.

It's maintained not by the government, but by the gun manufacturers, and only accessible via warrant. Only problem being that (in Florida anyway) is that private sales are allowed, and no record is required to be kept. No gun registration is required, except through registered dealers.

It COULD be implemented, but difficult, and the cost would be high.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Also, most arsonists' goal is not death, but destruction.

 

[BenBurch]

Suicides are consistently slightly more than half. ...

An ER doc I used to chat with online said that his opinion is that about half of all suicides would not be carried successfully out without access to firearms.

 

[BenBurch]

Also, most arsonists' goal is not death, but destruction.

I'd wager at least half are looking for insurance money.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by BenBurch
How would you feel about ballistics exemplars being on file?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think it would be a good idea, if implemented correctly.

It's maintained not by the government, but by the gun manufacturers, and only accessible via warrant. Only problem being that (in Florida anyway) is that private sales are allowed, and no record is required to be kept. No gun registration is required, except through registered dealers.

It COULD be implemented, but difficult, and the cost would be high.

And it'd be yet one more non solution that had all kinds of political feel good attributes and creeping control. It'd take bad guys about five minutes after the passage of such a law to figure out ways to neuter it.

 

[triforcharity]

I'd wager at least half are looking for insurance money.

I'd agree. If not maybe even 60% with a large majority of the remaining 40% being kids and people exacting revenge on an ex.

 

[triforcharity]

And it'd be yet one more non solution that had all kinds of political feel good attributes and creeping control. It'd take bad guys about five minutes after the passage of such a law to figure out ways to neuter it.

Good point about the ability to damage the rifling. But unless they really messed it up, it could still help solve homicides.

But I will agree that it wouldn't do much to prevent crime. Someone hell bent on using a firearm to kill someone is 't going to be stopped by much.

 

[BenBurch]

I'd agree. If not maybe even 60% with a large majority of the remaining 40% being kids and people exacting revenge on an ex.

My ex-brother-in-law is an arsonist of the kid sort.

They used to party in this abandoned farm house in far west Iowa. They would start a fire but they had a big piece of sheet metal under it to keep the house from catching fire. I guess they never figured out what happens to metal in a fire long enough, because the metal plate turned to scale under the fire pit and one day the floor caught fire and the abandoned house burned down.

My ex-brother-in-law was too stupid to lie about being there like all his friends did, so he was convicted of arson...

 

[R.Mackey]

If that's the case, don't hold your breath for any of the political vultures to revise their public statements - factual or technical accuracy is collateral damage in every shooting when it comes to political speech.

Of course we will... We're seeing it already with respect to "body armor."

News flash, this yahoo was not innovative. Perhaps the highest-profile case of mass shootings with body armor was the famous North Hollywood bank heist, back in 1997. Homemade body armor, by the way, so don't bother trying to outlaw it. Won't have any effect.

I also note they used "assault rifles" and drum magazines, yet failed to actually kill anyone other than themselves...