Run on Ammunition?

[gdnp]

No Iraq shows that IED's are what need to be legalized for that justification for private ownership of weapons.

I often wonder when people start on about that especialy when they start quoteing founding fathers about the importance of civil insurection, if Timmothy McVeigh was really the greatest modern patriot by their definitions.

I was going to point out that people still speed even though we have laws against it, and people still murder even though we have laws against it, and people still spit on the sidewalk even though we have laws against it. You get the picture.

If you think about it, it's kind of pointless to pass a law regulating something that people otherwise wouldn't do.

 

[shadron]

The same thing has happened in at least two states in the U.S. In both New Jersey and California, certain firearms were defined fraudulently as “assault weapons”, and subject to registration requirements, with the promise that the records created by this registration were not going to be used to later confiscate them. In both these states, these “assault weapons” were later banned altogether, and registration records were, in fact, used to track down and confiscate these weapons.

"fraudulent definition"? What in the world can such a thing be? Misleading, perhaps, artfully deceitful maybe, but unless a definition can lie, I don't see how one can commit fraud.

In any case, please attach proof about the confiscation.

As pointed out above, it is "caveat emptor" regarding "promises into the future" given to you by a legislator. You should want it in writing with default security in escrow. Promises won't get you a cup of coffee from the cloak room canteen. See, for example, term limits and the "Contract with America".

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was going to point out that people still speed even though we have laws against it, and people still murder even though we have laws against it, and people still spit on the sidewalk even though we have laws against it. You get the picture.

If you think about it, it's kind of pointless to pass a law regulating something that people otherwise wouldn't do.

So you posit that people would drive at the same speeds that they do now with no speedlimit? Did removing the national speed limit of 55 mph change the speed people drive or not?

You seem to be makeing a arguement against all laws. If that is what you want then fine, but the issue is different.

Everyone who is not a totally loony libertarian is for a great ammount of limiting the arms that private citizens can own. It might be pointless passing a law to restrict RPG's but people still seem to be against private ownership of anti tank weapons.

This goes explicitly counter to the arguement "first they come for my guns, then they come for me. So I need this pistol to fight the goverment" arguements that you often see.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"fraudulent definition"? What in the world can such a thing be? Misleading, perhaps, artfully deceitful maybe, but unless a definition can lie, I don't see how one can commit fraud.

In any case, please attach proof about the confiscation.

As pointed out above, it is "caveat emptor" regarding "promises into the future" given to you by a legislator. You should want it in writing with default security in escrow. Promises won't get you a cup of coffee from the cloak room canteen. See, for example, term limits and the "Contract with America".

Did any of the "Contract with America" actualy get passed? They seemed to totaly ignore ballanced budgets real quick once they got the white house.

 

[GreNME]

It's a phenomenon that Oscar Wilde called, "The triumph of hope over experience."

I think that's a bit strong rhetoric there. As I pointed out in another thread, even (some in) the ATF in the SouthWest believes that cartels from across the border are coming into the US to buy guns from shops and shows to smuggle back into Mexico ^[linky]*. I think that assuming that an average criminal isn't going to get firearms because of restrictions is demonstrably mistaken, but I also think that assuming regulations or restrictions do nothing to make things harder for an armed criminal population is equally mistaken.

Now, don't mistake me pointing that out as me being anti-gun. I'm pointing out what I see is a flaw in the argument that regulations do nothing to deter criminal possession. Naturally, the counter to that argument is that regulations do more to block legal, non-criminal possession, but to that I'd only reply that this is true in the case where regulations are excessive (DC is a good example). I support regulations that require some sort of registration of the weapon's serial and a general restriction of inter-state transport (within reason) to fight trafficking. This gives the hobbyist and the responsible owner a way to acquire firearms and even bring their firearms to a hobby function, as long as it's legal in the state-- any activities or transport outside of the legally acceptable realm results in confiscation, possible citation or detention, and a court date. That's really not much different than what's out there already in many states, which is (one of the reasons) why the gun debate isn't something I'm very invested in.



_{* Obviously, I feel the article goes a bit too far in questioning whether the Second Amendment is to blame, since the problem seems more to do with state-level regulations in sales, not ownership.}

 

[Yjacket]

And as of today, no gun has been confiscated. So there was no lie. Meanwhile, since guns are registered, they are easier to track if used in the commission of a crime.

As to no firearm being confiscated. I guess that it would depend a little on where you live. In California the ulitmatum for certain types of firearms was turn them in or get them out of state, and remember you registerd it so we know who has them and where you live.

Regarding the tracking of a firearm used in a criminal action. The argument presented above is valid only when the firearm is left at the scene of the crime. And if that firearm has been sold on the black market forget it.

 

[gdnp]

As to no firearm being confiscated. I guess that it would depend a little on where you live. In California the ulitmatum for certain types of firearms was turn them in or get them out of state, and remember you registerd it so we know who has them and where you live.

the statement referred to an alleged promise by "the government" in Canada not to confiscate firearms, and the promise of a party that lost the provincial elections to do so.

Regarding the tracking of a firearm used in a criminal action. The argument presented above is valid only when the firearm is left at the scene of the crime. And if that firearm has been sold on the black market forget it.

Left at the scene of a crime, discovered on a drug bust or during a traffic stop, or any of the other ways a gun may come into possession by the police. Even if sold on the black market, it can still be tracked back to the last legal purchaser. Was he the one who sold it illegally, or was it stolen? It still gives the authorities a place to start.

 

[Yjacket]

A firearm located during a traffic stop or a drug bust must be tied back to a specific crime scene by some method. Perhaps it will be done by ballistic examination and perhaps not. However that assumes a few things such as at a specific crime scene the firearm was discharged and the projectile is recovered in good enough condition so that the striations can be matched. In the event that the firearm was stolen and the legal buyer did in fact report it as such some time ago you have a complete dead end. BTW a registration requirement is a duplication of paper work since the original buyer is logged on Fed Form 4473 - all firearms sold legally since 1968 are so logged. The paper trail exists without more file cabinets stuffed with paper.

 

[GreNME]

In the event that the firearm was stolen and the legal buyer did in fact report it as such some time ago you have a complete dead end.

Maybe so where you come from. In the real world, stolen guns aren't anywhere close to a common occurrence (5-15% depending on region), and guns that are stolen tend to be from gun shops ^[linky]. Guns stolen from legal buyers-- as opposed to shops, which should have detailed and traceable records-- is in this case a red herring. The problem is that there are laws already on the books that are not always enforced toward gun shops, or are lax-ly enforced.

Even then, however, stolen guns are typically less than a third (the PBS link above says a quarter) of the number of guns out there in criminal use. So where are they getting them? See my previous post for a likely culprit. This is why I'm okay with more pressure put on the seller end and not the owner end-- the legal owners aren't normally (part of) the problem.

 

[dudalb]

That just reminded me of something a CNN financial reporter said last year:
"when things get really bad the only stock that will be a safe bet is ammunitions"

[qimg]http://www.topsmileys.net/smilies/fighting0022.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.topsmileys.net/smilies/fighting0019.gif[/qimg]

Hey, he was swiping from Brains Gremlin in "Gremlins 2".
"I am advising all my clients to invest in canned foods and shotguns.".

 

[Yjacket]

Before going into a dissertation I wish to point out that in my post, number 28, I prefaced my example with the words "In the event" which was then quoted by GreNME who provided a link saying that most firearms used in crime are not stolen. Fact is that I did not say that they were, I only used one variety of criminally possessed firearms as an example.

I did find the link provided to be an interesting read but I also note that it is lacking in supporting data. According to the information that I have most firearms used in crime are indeed obtained illegally by the persons committing the crime. Whether it was a stolen firearm or one purchased illegally from an FFL the fact remains that most firearms used in criminal activity are obtained illegally.

My point in my first post of this day is that a separate system of registration will do little if anything that is not already accomplished through the use of the Fed Form 4473. It seems to me that GreNME may be somewhat in support of my comment when he says

The problem is that there are laws already on the books that are not always enforced toward gun shops, or are lax-ly enforced.

During my posts on this board and on other I have consistently maintained that we need enforcement of the exiting laws. If the use of the Form 4473, the Brady Act paperwork and the National Instant Check System are not working find out why and correct the problem - don't just add more paper work.

 

[GreNME]

Before going into a dissertation I wish to point out that in my post, number 28, I prefaced my example with the words "In the event" which was then quoted by GreNME who provided a link saying that most firearms used in crime are not stolen. Fact is that I did not say that they were, I only used one variety of criminally possessed firearms as an example.

You're shifting goalposts now.

I did find the link provided to be an interesting read but I also note that it is lacking in supporting data. According to the information that I have most firearms used in crime are indeed obtained illegally by the persons committing the crime. Whether it was a stolen firearm or one purchased illegally from an FFL the fact remains that most firearms used in criminal activity are obtained illegally.

Great, now all you have to do is quantify the statement with evidence. The ATF in Phoenix would disagree with you that most of the firearms are obtained illegally, except in the part where the people buying the firearms through the legal process are lying about their status as a legal owner. That, however, is much different than the insinuation that guns are stolen from individuals and used in crimes.

On top of that, you mistakenly generalize with your comment about stolen guns being a dead end. Retrieval of a stolen firearm may be difficult or not possible depending on the resources of the person from whom the weapon is stolen and the type of firearm we're talking about-- shotguns aren't normally bothered with while semi-auto rifles usually get more follow through by law enforcement, and handguns fall somewhere in-between-- but law enforcement finding a stolen weapon automatically has another felony that they can add on to their list of convictions when catching a criminal (or a would-be criminal). Not a dead end at all.

My point in my first post of this day is that a separate system of registration will do little if anything that is not already accomplished through the use of the Fed Form 4473. It seems to me that GreNME may be somewhat in support of my comment when he says

During my posts on this board and on other I have consistently maintained that we need enforcement of the exiting laws. If the use of the Form 4473, the Brady Act paperwork and the National Instant Check System are not working find out why and correct the problem - don't just add more paper work.

While I'd generally agree that current laws should be more widely enforced instead of adding more laws that don't get enforced, I also pointed out that it isn't the owners but the sellers that need more attention for regulation. One of the worst things about the whole gun debate is that as soon as it starts the argument goes all over the place except toward identifying and addressing the trouble areas, and gun shops and gun shows are a large part of that in many of the regions where acquiring firearms is relatively simple for criminals. The pro-gun side hates this because it means that they'll probably wind up dealing with longer waits or more paperwork to fill out when shopping for ammunition or new firearms, while the anti-gun side hates it because it means that people will still be able to buy firearms. So the extremes continue to duke it out over unrelated issues of the debate while the gun shops and shows continue to do business and take advantage of things like elections to foster a buying hysteria, which means moving product, and the responsible shop owners and show sellers are made to look bad thanks to the irresponsible ones who somehow manage to lose stock and not report it for weeks or months down the line, or who have enough unaccounted stock that they can sell crap off the back of their truck in the parking lot of s gun show. Those things are where the bulk of the weapons criminals have come from, but neither side of the "gun debate" ever get anywhere close to it because they're too busy arguing their respective side's arguments to the n^th degree.

So, what needs to happen is more moderation and reason in the entire debate, and more people who have some say in the direction things go to try to address the problems that exist instead of playing to the interest groups who have a stake in a more absolute version of each respective argument.

 

[Quad4_72]

I have no problem getting ammo. It is readily available and plenty in stock. There are also plenty of guns to choose from where I live.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have no problem getting ammo. It is readily available and plenty in stock. There are also plenty of guns to choose from where I live.

You suffer a relative lack of conspiracy minded gun owners in your area compared to many areas then. Or a higher level of supply.

 

[BPSCG]

You suffer a relative lack of conspiracy minded gun owners in your area compared to many areas then. Or a higher level of supply.

Anyone who thinks it's difficult to buy ammo needs to learn how to shop online. Really.

 

[gdnp]

Anyone who thinks it's difficult to buy ammo needs to learn how to shop online. Really.

[tin foil mode] Don't you know the FBI, NSA, and CIA track all internet ammunition purchases? [/tin foil mode]

 

[FlamingMoe]

Anyone who thinks it's difficult to buy ammo needs to learn how to shop online. Really.

Spoken like someone who hasn't tried to do it recently, at least in pursuit of 7.62x39 rounds. I searched last week and it took me three days to find a place that has that caliber in stock for a decent price ($259/1000 plus shipping). Sure, you could go to your local gun shop and pick up some Winchester or Remington brand rounds but you're going to pay almost a dollar per round if you go by the box. American Eagles are the best deal I've found yet for non-steel core rounds, and they're still fifty cents a shot. (Steel cores are mildly armor-piercing, from what I hear, and they're not allowed at the range I typically use.) The steel core rounds are the ones we're after because they're cheap cheap cheap. A box of twenty Wolf or Bear rounds used to be available for maybe three bucks a box, but they're now going for eight.

So yeah, they're "easy" to find online but at exorbitant prices because all that's typically left in stock are the American-made rounds.

 

[BPSCG]

Spoken like someone who hasn't tried to do it recently, at least in pursuit of 7.62x39 rounds. I searched last week and it took me three days to find a place that has that caliber in stock for a decent price ($259/1000 plus shipping). Sure, you could go to your local gun shop and pick up some Winchester or Remington brand rounds but you're going to pay almost a dollar per round if you go by the box. American Eagles are the best deal I've found yet for non-steel core rounds, and they're still fifty cents a shot. (Steel cores are mildly armor-piercing, from what I hear, and they're not allowed at the range I typically use.) The steel core rounds are the ones we're after because they're cheap cheap cheap. A box of twenty Wolf or Bear rounds used to be available for maybe three bucks a box, but they're now going for eight.

So yeah, they're "easy" to find online but at exorbitant prices because all that's typically left in stock are the American-made rounds.

I wouldn't know. I have a .38 Special, and can easily get a box of 50 rounds for about twelve bucks.

But in any case, I suspect that any scarcity right now is due more to panic buying by people who think Obama is gonna send his goons to pry their guns from their cold dead fingers, than from anything else.

 

[FlamingMoe]

I wouldn't know. I have a .38 Special, and can easily get a box of 50 rounds for about twelve bucks.

I hate you.

But in any case, I suspect that any scarcity right now is due more to panic buying by people who think Obama is gonna send his goons to pry their guns from their cold dead fingers, than from anything else.

For those of us with weapons that eat 7.62x39 rounds, this is not an unfounded fear. That round is used by AK47, AK74, RPK, RPD, Dragunov, and SKS, among others, and are generally the weapons used by politicians as examples of scary-looking guns that need to be heavily-regulated or outright banned.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

You may be pro gun but you are uninformed. Fully automaic weapons have been tightly controlled since 1934 with the passage of the National Firearms Act.

...I don't recall saying anything to the contrary?