Bullet control?

Discuss

124 Responses to “Bullet control?”

  1. Alex Johnson says:

    Some cartridges can be made at home.

    • oasisob1 says:

      Just what I was gonna say.

    • AnthonyC says:

       So can guns. The goal is not to make it impossible to have or use guns, it’s to force people to think harder about it and work harder to do it. Raising the barrier that’s a way to reduce impulsive mass slaughters.

      If you’re hunting or defending your home you don’t need hundreds of rounds. If you’re overthrowing an oppressive gov’t then you’re gonna need to make your own before it’s over anyway.

      •  If you want to be *effective* at hunting or defending your home, you have to practice. Practice requires a great deal of ammunition. It is not unreasonable to go through a few hundred rounds in a day at the range.
        Buying bulk ammo is something that hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners do because it is economical. Cost per round on a case of 1,000 is much lower than if you buy a box of 25…and if stored properly, it will be good for years and years (at which point, the cost will have probably doubled, so you made a wise investment).
        We aren’t all gun-crazy maniacs or apocalypse-prepping loons… we just like to save money.
        If you tax the hell out of ammo, you’ll simply restrict the right to be *good* at using your self-defense weapon to the rich… and criminals will still be able to get it on the black market.
        Just my opinion as a law-following and safe gun owner.

        • AnthonyC says:

          Then make an exception for ammo bought at a range and used there the same day.

          You make a reasonable point, but there are also reasonable solutions that don’t involve having thousands of rounds in your home.

          • traalfaz says:

            I practice in my back yard. Lots of people live in areas where that’s not a problem. I just go to the store and buy hundreds of rounds at a time. I have never used a gun to kill anything in my life and don’t really intend to, I just enjoy shooting.

          •  When I say “the range” I don’t mean “a place that is run by a business that sells stuff”… I’ve never in my life gone to a place like that. They tend to only exist in cities (where that’s your only option because of a lack of open countryside).
            I’m talking about public ranges or, try not to be shocked, private property that is set up safely as a range. I could be wrong, but I believe that most people in the US shoot at “ranges” like this vs. the variety run as a business.

          • Then make an exception for ammo bought at a range and used there the same day.

            Clever, but it grants a de facto monopoly to the range, which then over-charges for the ammo. So maybe something like was done with the telcos, where in exchange for rights-of-way, they were heavily regulated? Maybe regulate the price that ranges can charge for day-use ammo?

            Ah. Wait. But there’s still a problem. I don’t shoot at a range. I live in the country and shoot in my back yard. I can practice all I want without ever having to get in a car. What about me?

            The point is that all of these propositions make assumptions about gun owners (that they don’t practice; that if they do practice, they do so at a range) and have unintended consequences (such as granting monopoly on cheap ammo sales to ranges). I’m not opposed to laws regulating firearms ownership and use, but I am opposed to BAD laws–ill-considered, poorly-understood, vaguely-worded laws with unintended consequences–no matter whether they pertain to firearms or not.

          • AnthonyC says:

            I’m happy to admit I can’t anticipate all the details, important and otherwise, so thank you for pointing them out.

            Nevertheless, I’d be willing to live in a world that says: if you want to get better at shooting things, you need to do so in a controlled environment. I’m sure there is a way to work private property in rural areas into that, but yes, it will be less convenient for you. That’s part of the point.

        • millie fink says:

          and criminals will still be able to get it on the black market.

          Actually, many potential mass shooters won’t, because they don’t even know where the black market is, let alone how to access it. 

          •  Unless you are talking about not selling ammo AT ALL, then a typical mass-shooter (no criminal record) will not *need* to find the black market… they can just stockpile it. I believe it is fairly well known that these folks tend to plan this stuff well in advance. Plenty of time to stockpile 100 rounds or steal it from somebody.

        • I resent your “law-following and safe gun owner” tag line, when you’re advocating for the kind of arsenal that committed mass murder at Newtown.

          There are safe users of heroin, safe cocaine addicts all around us. Doesn’t mean those drugs should be readily available to all. You seem to think they should. 

          If gun control inconveniences you, Mr. “law-following and safe gun owner,” tough.

          •  If the current laws (and the constitution) inconvenience you, tough.
            A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47% of US households own guns. Generalizations based on relatively few psychopaths accomplish nothing, even if it feels good at the moment.

          • jimmoffet says:

            I hate to break it to you, but unless you are part of a “well-regulated militia”, you don’t have a constitutional right to own a gun. No matter what definition you use, it must involve being part of a group that regularly practices military maneuvers.

            Also, the very statement that “a well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state”, is now demonstrably false. You would literally need to argue that random groups of accountants and burger flippers with small arms could effectively fight off the US military. It’s insane. 

            Anyway, there’s no reason to believe that the constitution grants you, as an unaffiliated individual, the right to own a weapon.

    •  ditto: anyone who grows up in even the least remote branch of a creek knows someone who has both a bullet mold, press, and a keg of ready powder. In fact, many of us hillbillies make them at home because 1. it’s vastly cheaper and 2. you can make more powerful bullets than off-the-shelf products.Also, this is extremely, eXTREmELY low-tech, cheap equipment. One would have expected even a modicum of research from the Atlantic. Makes me so mad I could just…behave in an entirely rational way.

      • Matt Popke says:

        Ummm… if they regulate ammo, that “keg of ready powder” is going to be a lot harder to come by too. You’ll have to start making your own gunpowder. It’s not impossible, but it’s a higher barrier to entry than just owning a lathe (you’ll be making your own cartridges too) and a mold.

        And you’d better believe that anyone who buys their bullet-making materials with anything other than cash is going to wind up in a database somewhere.

        • Shane Simmons says:

          I can only imagine the mess that banning gunpowder would cause–all those hillbilly chemists making meth will be stocking up on cotton, nitric acid and sulphuric acid…

        •  It would help – eventually – but that would be a very long eventually. We’re not talking about a liter of powder here, and during the interim before any regulation that went into effect would cause the biggest equipment and stockpiling exercise in history. The databases don’t help much either – unless we begin to prosecute FutureCrime. The other issue is that the licenses to purchase are insanely ridiculously easy to obtain – currently. CAC permits as well. The background and cool-down periods are a joke; they have next to zero effect. Piecemeal efforts do help, but only so much. i think that you can definitely get an absolute ban on assault weapons through fairly soon – if weapons in circulation are grandfathered in. The problem is getting rid of those 4million weapons, and – probably – the best way to do that is to give people an offer they can’t refuse – buy them, at a very high price. It would cause some smuggling, but not much i think, and get rid of a lot of them for say, 10-15 billion. that’s not chump change; a week’s worth of weapons smuggled to Syrian rebels maybe

        • Jangocat says:

          Gunpowder is also very easy to make. The recipe can be found online and in old military field manuals. It would take more effort for sure, but these shooters generally go to great lengths planing these attacks.

      • Dlo Burns says:

        That’s the thing that’s been bugging me about this whole debate too; a bunch of people who have no idea what they’re talking about shooting their mouths off and being smug about it because ‘they’re not one of the crazies’.

    • Dlo Burns says:

      My dad used to load his own; he’d melt down lead, gather old brass, measure gunpowder, etc. The key thing I could see being regulated/taxed in that equation is the primer (the thing the gun hammer hits to ignite the gunpowder), that’s the thing that really needs a professional manufacture. 

      • jandrese says:

        Right, I was going to mention this.  Reloaders generally buy primers because they’re too hard to make yourself.  Of course if they got expensive then maybe people would start figuring it out.  Necessity is the mother of invention after all. 

        I don’t expect we’ll ever see a story about a mass shooting involving muzzle loaded flintlocks. 

    • Preston Sturges says:

       I have about 2000 rounds of 8 mm Mauser because it was Romanian surplus and I go it for about $200 and I wanted a heavy rifle i could go plinking with, the Yugo 24/47 Mauser.

      Supplies of those guns and ammo were on the market for a couple years.  They come and go, you buy when you can.

  2. crustyjusty says:

    Honestly, I think taxing bullets and guns purchased in the United States on a sliding scale, per homocide, would align interests.  So, $1M per death, and 10,000 annual deaths in the US = $10B in taxes.  This would pay for healthcare and benefits for families of victims.  And the manufacturers would be very interested in getting the death rate to go down.

  3. txhoudini says:

    Chris Rock had the idea first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGRQF_sETY

  4. Keith Blodgett says:

    IIRC, the Supreme Court already shot this one down.

  5. Matt Popke says:

    Isn’t this more or less what Switzerland does now? Don’t they heavily regulate the possession of ammo more so than firearms?

    • scav says:

      IMO Switzerland has a “well regulated militia” in that citizens who get training as part of national service are then armed and ready to defend the country should the need arise.

      The USA does not. It just doesn’t. Crazy and ignorant people with ready access to automatic weapons does not a well-regulated militia make, whether the NRA or even the supreme court may think so.

  6. Funk Daddy says:

    Bullet Control. 

    A fine name for a song, album novel or novella. Sweetly evocative.

  7. franko says:

    i like the idea that stems from one thing that even gun owners prize more: money. have a massive buyback program, and make the money paid out worth more than the guns were originally. it would at least reduce the number out there. it could be a start.

  8. Grahamers2002 says:

    Chris Rock should claim prior art on the idea:

    http://youtu.be/OuX-nFmL0II

  9. Bullet limits is something Israel does as well. I think James Brady (of Brady Bill fame) was the original bullet-control proponent.

    Is it just me or do other people want to treat gun control as a design challenge instead of an absolutist constitutional issue? Design requirements: craft law that 1) maintains general right to own firearms, 2) affords for shooting practice, hunting, and personal defense in the face of imminent harm, and 3) significantly diminishes likelihood of death. Seems like taking that approach would lead to reasonable regulations like bullet control, assault weapons bans, licensure with annual safety/marksmanship tests, less-lethal bullets.

    I mean, we know we won’t bring gun deaths to zero. But we Americans average about 10,000 firearms homicides a year. Can’t we at least commit to bring that down?

  10. wrwetzel says:

    Let me suggest another option – a bullet propellant that degrades over time to the point it will no longer fire. Fresh bullets purchased for hunting or at a range for target practice will be fine for a week or month. But, they could not be accumulated and stockpiled for long periods of time.

    • traalfaz says:

      So you’re saying that people will no longer be allowed to use firearms for self defense, correct?
      And you’re also saying that the supply chain will have to be quite short and retailers will not be able to have anything on the shelf for more than a few days?

      Brilliant.

    • jandrese says:

      That wouldn’t have stopped this massacre, since the assailant had recently purchased his ammunition. 

    • My “defense” ammo is high-quality and expensive. I almost never fire it, and practice with “cheap” ammo. This law would require me to either buy a lot of expensive ammo, or to use lower-quality, less-effective ammunition for defense.

      None of that matters if one does not recognize defensive use of firearms as valid.

  11. Navin_Johnson says:

    Cars are not used by mentally ill people to massacre large groups of innocent people on a regular basis. Deaths by car are nearly all accidents. Gun rampages are not accidents.  Stop with this.  Enough.

  12. SedanChair says:

    Come on, you aren’t even trying. “GOLDURN MA THEY TOOK MY BULLETS! I CAN’T EVEN THINK WHAT TO DO. I WOULD HAVE WROTE MY CONGRESSMAN ABOUT TAKING MY GUNS BUT THIS HAS OUTFOXED ME”

  13. The NRA gun addicts on this thread, claiming gun control is impossible, illegal, or just inconvenient to them, are enemies of public safety, and need to be treated as such by truly law-abiding people. They are setting themselves up as enemies of civil order, and need to be rolled over. 

    They are excusing mass murder. 

    • truly law-abiding people

      I’m not sure what your definition of “law-abiding” is, but there’s no gray area there. Either you’re law-abiding or you’re not. It’s not like there are some of us who are “technically” obeying the law, but “not really,” and others of us who are “truly law-abiding.” You can’t split that hair; it’s indivisible.

  14. adam says:

    this is an old idea. Aside from Chris Rock suggesting bullet control, An un-attributed Harvard Law Review note made the same point in 1995, albeit more verbosely @ Note: Absolute Liability for Ammunition Manufacturers, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1679 (1995).

  15. ikegently says:

    To all who defend having guns because they like to shoot in their backyards or because they are sport shooting enthusiasts or whatever:

    Your right to have fun with guns does not trump our right to not have people shoot our children. STFU. 

  16. Preston Sturges says:

    How about we get rid of drivers licenses by making gas cost $40 a gallon?

    Oh right, because that would be a stupid idea.

    • millie fink says:

      Indeed it would, since no one’s advocating getting rid of drivers. 

      • Preston Sturges says:

        That gets back to the question of “who” is advocating “what” and whether they are able to articulate it in a straightforward manner.  It’s not raising the bar that high.

        • millie fink says:

          A lot of concerned, sane people are simply advocating stricter gun and ammo control to help avert future massacres.

          What bar is it you think you’re raising?

  17. Mister44 says:

    The guns or ammo don’t need to be regulated – the people do. Crazy people need to be labeled as such, so they can’t  pass a background check that all gun buyers from FFLs must go through.

    The VAST majority of guns are used for sport or defense and ends up hurting NO ONE. Just because there are a few crazies with guns doesn’t mean we should penalized the millions of sane, safe users. How logical is that?

    • ikegently says:

       Who is hurt if we do everything in our power to reduce the number of guns out in the world?

      Who is hurt if we allow guns to be purchased? Adam Lanza’s mother bought her guns legally. He took them and killed children. If his mom hadn’t had the guns, those kids might be alive. Yeah, he might have stabbed people or done something else, but there would have been a less direct path to easily killing 6 year old children.

      If his mom hadn’t been allowed to buy her guns, she would have had to come up with a different hobby or find another way to entertain herself. That is too bad. But not as too bad as a bunch of dead children.

    • millie fink says:

      Exactly the kind of blinkered perspective I’d expect from someone with your profile name and pic.

      How about we put it this way — the VAST majority of guns and ammo purchased by mass murderers are purchased legally, killing MANY. Just because a lot of people want easy access to guns doesn’t mean we should continue making it easy for insane people to murder of dozens of innocent people on a regular basis.

      • Mister44 says:

        It should be hard for insane people to buy guns. The Conn. shooter stole his, last I read.  If we had something resembling mental health care in America, we could flag people who are unstable, thus failing any back ground checks.

        ETA: “Exactly the kind of blinkered perspective I’d expect from someone with your profile name and pic.”

        It is an issue I am passionate about. Most attacks on guns stems from fear and ignorance, not rational logic. I hope to help some people see that.

        • millie fink says:

          What is it, exactly, that makes you cling so “passionately” to your guns? Where does all that emotion comes from?

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       “defense”

      Contrary to any widespread evidence of that.

  18. Preston Sturges says:

    Bullet control is like Prop 37 in California where nothing is made explicit.

    Until someone is willing to spend more than 5 minutes fleshing out the idea and then defend the specifics, they need to let the grownups talk. 

  19. artbyjcm says:

    Hmmm. This would also calm some nervous about 3D printed guns, as yes, you can print a plastic gun and shoot off a few REAL rounds. Plastic bullets? Wouldn’t do anywhere near as much damage.

  20. millie fink says:

    Your freedom comes at the expense of huge numbers of dead bodies.

  21. ifriit says:

    As you are statistically less safe owning a firearm than not, I’d suggest this is factually incorrect.

  22. millie fink says:

    Yeah, so? 

    I do think “everyone here” knows how to read. Even the Constitution.

    Are you saying we should all have the “freedom” to own any form of “arms” we like?
    .
    I don’t get what you think is important about your point.

  23. You Americans and your constitution, it’s no better than a Bible. Laws need to adapt to account for changes in society, culture and technology – what was relevant then isn’t necessarily relevant now, and I think this is a perfect example of it (obviously this isn’t my fight, but that’s my opinion as an outsider).

    Thank the founding fathers that cannibalism isn’t in the constitution.

  24. ifriit says:

     “Cars kill 100 times as many people but we don’t ban cars — we go after drunk drivers.”

    Actually, at current rates, deaths due to guns will exceed deaths due to cars within a year or two, if they don’t already.

  25. Navin_Johnson says:

    I can imagine “city folk” that have only seen guns used on TV, mostly by bad guys to kill people.

    I have seen them used on my block to attempt to kill people. All these guns were originally purchased legally by straw purchasers who were allowed to buy multiple times and with little oversight.

    Also, I grew up with guns before I became ‘city folk’. You don’t need the assault weapons these killers are using to hunt or have fun shooting for recreation, which I still do now and then. There is a reason these massacres rarely happen with hunting weapons.

    Stop with the ridiculous car fallacy too.  Enough.

  26. jackbird says:

    Oh yes, city folk like me get our information about guns from TV.  Specifically, the local news.  Where they talk about how people are getting shot just about every day.

    That is, when we’re not actually hearing the shots being fired.

  27. And you need to take a test and own a license to drive a car. Americas barrier to entry to drive a car is actually pretty low, but it’s still higher than what you need to own a gun. Does that sound right to you?

  28. lafave says:

    “a different mode of attack”

    And likely be far less efficient and effective at killing.

  29. AnthonyC says:

    Some of them would. Some wouldn’t. And that adds up to fewer tragedies.

  30. @boingboing-67f19fd0431cac0ac7f8ea986bbf8b9b:disqus But for some people it’s all about gunning down a room full of people. You can’t gun down a room full of people with a gallon of gasoline.

  31. Itsumishi says:

    @boingboing-67f19fd0431cac0ac7f8ea986bbf8b9b:disqus You’re blaming hollywood now? 

    Gasoline does have a high energy potential, its also difficult to control in a way that a firearm isn’t, which makes it much harder to kill as many people.

  32. Itsumishi says:

    @boingboing-67f19fd0431cac0ac7f8ea986bbf8b9b:disqus Perhaps I will answer my own question? What question?

    I’m not going to deny that Hollywood doesn’t glorify violence, but those same Hollywood movies that you watch in America, they’re also popular all over the world. I’ll use the Australia example again, because I’m most familiar with it and its highly relevant:

    Since the introduction of gun control laws there has been a huge drop in gun violence in Australia. There has been no restriction on Hollywood violence in Australia that shows any correlation.

    I’m not going to argue about Hollywood any further because it is a diversionary argument that is irrelevant to the debate.

  33. nemomen says:

    Right now crazy people are overwhelmingly using guns as their tool of choice for murders since they are a tool specifically designed to quickly and efficiently murder people with minimal effort.  If they had to resort to less efficient tools it’d be a big help.

  34. Matt Flamini says:

    With that mindset, why have any laws at all?

  35. traalfaz says:

    Both alcohol and cars kill far more people per year.  Cars at least have a legitimate use.  Alcohol is strictly used as entertainment, as are the vast majority of firearms.  Making alcohol illegal has about as much to say for it as making firearms illegal.

  36. traalfaz says:

    Very unlikely.  Just in the US that’s about 43,000 deaths per year.  If they two meet, I hope it’s because we’ve rolled out self-driving cars and stopped letting complete idiots drive death machines.

  37. Navin_Johnson says:

    It’s crazy how people are always going on rampages with plastic bags and stepladders…..

  38. mccrum says:

    Cars are certainly regulated a lot more than firearms…

  39. Navin_Johnson says:

    When mentally ill people start massacring large numbers of people with cars with regularity every few months/weeks you can make this ridiculous and frankly offensive comparison.

  40. jackbird says:

     We sure regulate their manufacture, ownership, and use a hell of a lot more than we do guns. 

    I think mandatory liability insurance (as we have with cars) for gun owners that has a per-bullet-purchased copay will go a long way towards incentivizing gun owners to be safe and responsible.  If that cheapass pistol you keep loaded in the sock drawer for home defense costs you more than a quality pistol in a safe at your local range, or if your CCW insurance doesn’t pay for itself through professional necessity, then let the market sort it out.

  41. Navin_Johnson says:

     Let me know when somebody uses a bottle of whiskey to massacre large groups of innocent people on a regular basis.

  42. Except that alcohol isn’t designed to kill people. A better comparison would be arsenic.

    The vast majority of firearms are used for entertainment? Give me a big fat citation, stat.

  43. jandrese says:

    Ladders are more dangerous than loaded guns. That’s why I keep 10 guns. In case some maniac tries to bring in a ladder…– Grunkle Stan

  44. jandrese says:

    Pedestrians being hit and killed by cars is so common it is not even news.

  45. Navin_Johnson says:

     @boingboing-d169aba4714e8e2b31778bd1f1fa9cd3:disqus

    How many groups of random pedestrians have been purposely run down by mentally ill drivers vs. how many gun rampages we see with regularity?

    Stop these disingenuous, fallacious comparisons of accidents vs. murder. There are also a lot of people very much do want to make policy that reduces the number of cars as well as makes things safer for pedestrians. Not that your comparison deserves a serious response.

  46. millie fink says:

    @boingboing-67f19fd0431cac0ac7f8ea986bbf8b9b:disqus Owning slaves used to be a “right” too. That insanity was stopped; why not this one?

  47. Itsumishi says:

    @boingboing-67f19fd0431cac0ac7f8ea986bbf8b9b:disqus Gun ownership may be a “right” in the USA at the moment, but this entire debate is about whether that right makes sense given the tragic consequences it leads to.

  48. Punchcard says:

    The point is that if you are using regulating bullets as a work around for the SCOTUS decision that you have a constitutional right to “guns”, it is barking up the same constitutional tree.

  49. Navin_Johnson says:

    Disinformation is indeed rampant. Especially by gun fanatics trying to use irrelevant gun ‘tech talk’ to shut down arguments about gun control policy.

    Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

    The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

    Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

  50. JonS says:

     Great! Now there’s THREE guns off the market!

    And you know, if you just kept doing that, soon there’d be no guns and one hell of a stimulus! WIN WIN!

  51. Itsumishi says:

    Even the stupidest government will ban sales on whatever they’re buying back, so your argument would imply that a lot of illegally sold guns would start disappearing from the market, or jump in price dramatically. Both outcomes are good.

    Also, this isn’t a new idea. Australia did exactly this following the Port Arthur Massacre. Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shot guns were banned for civilian use. The government offered a buy-back period where a bit over the market value was paid for each firearm. The buy back resulted in huge numbers of guns being turned in. 

    Tellingly, in the 10 years before the buy-back program/ban there were 7 mass shootings in Australia that used semi-automatics and various shotguns now illegal in Australia. There were 73 deaths as a result of these shootings. In the 16 years since there has been one mass shooting, which was a student at a university, this resulted in only two deaths and five injuries, this student was using handguns.

    You can read more here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

  52. Every single problem in society can be fixed by addressing behavior problems – that doesn’t mean we don’t need laws to help while we work on it.

  53. Let’s put it this way. The vast majority of firearms are not used to murder people. Do you need a cite for that, or can we take it as granted?

  54. Oh get off your high horse. The point is not that the Constitution is sacrosanct. It is that changing the Constitution requires an incredibly high degree of commitment that is difficult to achieve. When someone says, “The 2A guarantees the right to bear arms,” they are not saying, “and so shall it be forever more.” They are saying, “and any attempt to modify that will require a Constitutional Amendment, and nothing less, so stop trying to do an end-run around that.”

  55. Well probably not no, you could probably say the same about the militaries arsenal – what significance does that have?

  56. CLamb says:

     That depends on which state you live in.  In some states the barrier to entry to buy a gun is much higher than to drive a car.

  57. millie fink says:

    Murder rate? With guns? In developed/first world countries?

    Stats plz. 

    As I understand it, we’re not only in the top 100, we’re number one.

  58. Itsumishi says:

    Did you also happen to notice that the majority of countries above the USA in that list are home to widespread political instability, poverty and/or corruption? What are the gun control laws in these other countries listed higher?

    Where is the USA compared to Europe, Australasia, developed Asia and Canada?

  59. Navin_Johnson says:

    @google-69016220a766faf3db9eb6c785723901:disqus ,Did your really expect to get away with that?

    A perfect example is us vs. our neighbors to the North:

    Canada 1.6
    U.S. 4.2

    Most all Western 1st world countries fall under the 0-2 range.

    #1 per capita of first world Western countries:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

  60. True, I learnt this just the other day, should have applied that caveat.

  61. Itsumishi says:

    I wonder how much gun crime contributes to those neighbourhoods being “bad”?

  62. Itsumishi says:

    Nuclear weapons are arms too. I’d like to see you argue in court you had the right to own one.

    *Reply to below as comments were closed*

    Exaggeration isn’t straw-man. Your argument was that the right to ammunition as “arms”, are protected. I pointed out the right to arms does not cover all arms for quite obvious reasons.

  63. Well ye, but there are countries other than Russia, some of which are doing just dandy. :)

  64. millie fink says:

    @google-69016220a766faf3db9eb6c785723901:disqus Who cares? This is a discussion about guns and ammo, not the various ways of killing people.

    As I initially said, your precious freedom to easily own guns and to delude yourself into thinking that makes you and your family more safe instead of more endangered comes at the expense of thousands of dead bodies. Many, many of which would not be dead if guns hadn’t been involved.

    Why do gun advocates like you refuse to own that fact?

  65. Jerril says:

     Sounds to me like you’re accepting bad data because you like that it agrees with your personal biases.

  66. Jerril says:

     People will find other ways to harm each other that are less harmful in volume. You can kill people with knives, or even a stick with a rock tied to the end. It’s not like we’re particularly hardy animals for our size…

    But, and I appologize for the wording on this but I can’t find a more delicate way to put it: it’d be one hell of a challenge to pin down 20 children and 6 adults and stab them all to death without being beaten unconcious by a single adult wielding a chair, or two adults wielding chairs, or three adults willing to take you down in exchange for some stab wounds.

    One gun gives one person the ability to overpower MANY people.

  67. Depends which bible you’re talking about ;)

  68. ikegently says:

     not completely. but it isn’t going to hurt.

  69. ikegently says:

    The Handmaid’s Tale was a little more involved than that….

    And, come on, plenty of people would be hurt if we completely eliminated abortion. The question is who is hurt if we don’t eliminate abortion?

    But seriously, I can’t believe people would rather preserve their rights to use guns for legal reasons when so many guns are used to kill people. Why do you want your guns so badly? Is your right to have fun hunting and shooting worth the deaths? Or maybe we could try to have fewer guns.

  70. millie fink says:

    FREEEEDOMMM! SELF-DEFENSE!!! THE WORLD IS SO SCARY!!!

    etc.

  71. Preston Sturges says:

    I pretty much assume anyone’s one-step-plan-to-deliver-us-all-to-the-utopia-that-exists-in-the-back-of-their-head is at best a brain fart.

  72. Benjamin Terry says:

    Dead is dead.  If I am killed by a guy with a gun or a drunk with a car, I have equally had everything taken from me due to reasons that were not my fault, and without my consent.  It would be nice if all of those reasons can be addressed, in whichever order has the most effect or is the most politically possible.

  73. ikegently says:

     “You hurt the millions who legally use guns for one reason or another.”

    I don’t care, and I can’t believe you would honestly say that those legal uses are worth the deaths. Just not a priority in my opinion. I don’t really think that your so called freedoms – your rights to use guns legally – are worth it.

    And come on. You are saying we should have guns so that we can overthrow the government. OK. Bathe the streets of Washington with blood and all that. Nice. I am so glad that you are well armed. (And that use doesn’t fall into your “millions who legally use guns for one reason or another.” That one is pretty illegal.)

  74. Navin_Johnson says:

    You hurt the millions who legally use guns for one reason or another.

    Everyone uses guns legally until they snap and go on a rampage. The guns in these rampages were almost always required legally.

  75. Preston Sturges says:

    Anger does not make you a good person.  I’m pretty sure I’ve said this to you before on other topics.

  76. ikegently says:

     re: Preston Sturges:

    millie’s caricature of your mentality makes about as much sense as your formulation….

  77. millie fink says:

    What makes you think I’m angry?

    And come to think of it, yes, I am angry. Angry that the corporate-funded, iron-clad grip of the NRA on our politicians has made it so much easier for crazies to shoot so many people.

    I’m also angry when gun advocates keep coming up with justifications for their hobby and/or ironically dangerous mode of self-defense in these discussions, instead of owning their complicity in the senseless murder of many, many innocents.

    And for shit’s sake, this isn’t about whether or not I’m a “good person.” What are you even talking about?

  78. ikegently says:

     not saying it will get us to utopia, but it will reduce the number of guns, and that will be fewer guns that can be used by people to kill other people. And the drawbacks are so small.

    but if you want to dismiss it as a brain fart, then go ahead. i know that i’ll never convince you.

  79. Preston Sturges says:

    Well you’ve given the whole matter a good ten or twelve seconds of thought, so this would be a good time to call it a day. .

  80. Navin_Johnson says:

    If facts or reason were bullets, you’d be outta ammo…

  81. Navin_Johnson says:

     #1

Leave a Reply