Another school shooting

[DQ12]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

[jmlynch1]

Look what happens without guns:

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story

Notice the body count.

What the eff is your point man?  Should we compare the number of people killed with knives in China to those killed with guns in America?  We have 700,000,000 less people in America than they do in China. I'm willing to bet you anything that we have more gun deaths than they have knife deaths.  Name the terms and take the bet.

Second spree killing this week, the only thing that prevented more deaths in Portland was a jammed gun.  Were there multiple spree stabbings in China this year?

Did anyone die in the knife attacks this morning?

[MakeItRain]

Would rubber bullets be a good compromise?  I really don't know a whole lot about guns or gun control, but it seems to me that there are a finite number of bullets in this country, and a bullet may be shot only once, then it's all used up. 

It seems that rubber bullets, though still dangerous, would be significantly less lethal than whatever ammunition is used now.  Gun people could still target practice and skeet shoot and defend themselves and what not.  Seems like rubber bullets could significantly limit a gun owner's ability to take life, while affording him all of the other advantages of owning a gun.  Exceptions could be given to police, military, etc.

Again, this might be totally stupid because I've never really cared to know much about guns.

There are plenty of guns that can be used as sporting weapons that are less lethal.  England, Canada, and Australia all have gun bans but legal hunting.

[hemmy]

The 2 kids at Columbine got their weapons illegally.

[HeinBallz]

Would rubber bullets be a good compromise?  I really don't know a whole lot about guns or gun control, but it seems to me that there are a finite number of bullets in this country, and a bullet may be shot only once, then it's all used up. 

It seems that rubber bullets, though still dangerous, would be significantly less lethal than whatever ammunition is used now.  Gun people could still target practice and skeet shoot and defend themselves and what not.  Seems like rubber bullets could significantly limit a gun owner's ability to take life, while affording him all of the other advantages of owning a gun.  Exceptions could be given to police, military, etc.

Again, this might be totally stupid because I've never really cared to know much about guns.

yeah... I wouldn't make that argument. 


And this is the problem at hand; not bashing you, but the people that are legislating laws to control violence have no idea how real life works.  They don't realize you can make a mold, melt lead (or any other type of metal) to make bullets, reload old casings, mix your own gun chowder, build your own gun (hell even 3d print your own gun now) build bombs with fertilizer, sell all this illegal crap on the deep web to lazy/stupid/ignorant people wanting to create chaos, etc etc etc.   Rubber bullets would do a damn good job at stopping me from shooting anyone.  Not because I'm lazy/stupid/ignorant - but because I'm not willing to break the law to go to the lengths to get real bullets.  Anyone that thinks laziness/ignorance is enough to stop people from doing crazy/stupid crap should spend a couple days on youtube.

[Gooch]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

People make their own ammo cheaper than they can buy it.

[HeinBallz]

Would rubber bullets be a good compromise?  I really don't know a whole lot about guns or gun control, but it seems to me that there are a finite number of bullets in this country, and a bullet may be shot only once, then it's all used up. 

It seems that rubber bullets, though still dangerous, would be significantly less lethal than whatever ammunition is used now.  Gun people could still target practice and skeet shoot and defend themselves and what not.  Seems like rubber bullets could significantly limit a gun owner's ability to take life, while affording him all of the other advantages of owning a gun.  Exceptions could be given to police, military, etc.

Again, this might be totally stupid because I've never really cared to know much about guns.

There are plenty of guns that can be used as sporting weapons that are less lethal.  England, Canada, and Australia all have gun bans but legal hunting.

It's also expensive as crap to own a gun in any of those countries - which means only the upper class are afforded such amazing opportunities - and if you're poor and a criminal - you can still get your hands on a gun by beating the crap out of some rich dude. 

But that probably isn't as prevalent there either; they probably have other social factors that could attribute to less violence.  I'd be willing to bet that our non-gun violence is equal or greater than each one of those countries non-gun violence rates.   Maybe it IS more of a social issue?

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

People make their own ammo cheaper than they can buy it.

95% of people are too lazy to make their own ammo I'd say. I know I wouldnt

[ChiComCat]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

People make their own ammo cheaper than they can buy it.

Would still limit the damage some.  Killing someone becomes less immediate if people have to spend the time stuffing chowder into bullets.

[Mr Bread]

shoot skeet

Happy holidays everybody.

[MakeItRain]

Would rubber bullets be a good compromise?  I really don't know a whole lot about guns or gun control, but it seems to me that there are a finite number of bullets in this country, and a bullet may be shot only once, then it's all used up. 

It seems that rubber bullets, though still dangerous, would be significantly less lethal than whatever ammunition is used now.  Gun people could still target practice and skeet shoot and defend themselves and what not.  Seems like rubber bullets could significantly limit a gun owner's ability to take life, while affording him all of the other advantages of owning a gun.  Exceptions could be given to police, military, etc.

Again, this might be totally stupid because I've never really cared to know much about guns.

yeah... I wouldn't make that argument. 


And this is the problem at hand; not bashing you, but the people that are legislating laws to control violence have no idea how real life works.  They don't realize you can make a mold, melt lead (or any other type of metal) to make bullets, reload old casings, mix your own gun chowder, build your own gun (hell even 3d print your own gun now) build bombs with fertilizer, sell all this illegal crap on the deep web to lazy/stupid/ignorant people wanting to create chaos, etc etc etc.   Rubber bullets would do a damn good job at stopping me from shooting anyone.  Not because I'm lazy/stupid/ignorant - but because I'm not willing to break the law to go to the lengths to get real bullets.  Anyone that thinks laziness/ignorance is enough to stop people from doing crazy/stupid crap should spend a couple days on youtube.

Can someone who doesn't think that a gun ban wouldn't significantly curb murder rates in this country please tell me how they rationalize decreases in murder rate in other 1st world, western countries that have instituted gun bans?  Do it without the "bad people would still kill" strawman.  I don't think anyone who favors a gun ban thinks that murder would suddenly disappear.

[DQ12]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

People make their own ammo cheaper than they can buy it.

But it's a more involved process than buying it, right?  Making "lethal bullets" would be more conspicuous than, say going to the store and picking it up, right?

For what reason would a current gun owner object to prohibiting the sale of lethal bullets, aside from guys who hunt?

[EMAWmeister]

It's a heartbreaking tragedy. Absolutely heartbreaking.  Something needs to change.

[HeinBallz]

Then what?  Does everyone put down their gun?  Cops, Military, Homeland Security, FBI, FDA, every person in any other country also put down their gun?  Do independent craftsman and/or machine shops stop producing springs, metal pipes, or fabricating and machining parts that could be used to build a gun to be sold on the black market? 

The thought is ridiculous.  This is why the "drugs are illegal and they're still prevalent" argument always comes up in such painful and annoying fashion - because the thought that getting rid of all guns is possible or even capable of producing some results is just as annoying and painful to hear. 

The silk road may get shut down, but the deep web will produce some other method of obtaining illegal contraband.  A "less gun-saturated america" is not possible or feasible without first addressing people's need and/or desire to have guns.  Stop violence, then get rid of guns.  Getting rid of guns, then stopping violence will not work.

Cops could mostly put down their guns. People who continue to make guns would get drastically higher penalties. This Newtown guy was not going to build a gun from black market pieces or be able to pay for a black market gun. Without drug wars, criminal enterprise doesn't have a lot of use for guns. Do they?

I think gun ownership is the result of fear, not a desire for violence. The violence is unplanned and comes later. Getting rid of guns, then stopping violence will work.

This is just naive. He doesn't need to build it, he can buy it.  Research bit-coins & the deep web.  You can buy any illegal thing you can think of for little investment.

[Gooch]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

People make their own ammo cheaper than they can buy it.

But it's a more involved process than buying it, right?  Making "lethal bullets" would be more conspicuous than, say going to the store and picking it up, right?

For what reason would a current gun owner object to prohibiting the sale of lethal bullets, aside from guys who hunt?

You make your own bullet. Are you suggesting they ban the sale of lead too?

[HeinBallz]

95% of people are too lazy to make their own ammo I'd say. I know I wouldnt

But it's a more involved process than buying it, right?  Making "lethal bullets" would be more conspicuous than, say going to the store and picking it up, right?

For what reason would a current gun owner object to prohibiting the sale of lethal bullets, aside from guys who hunt?

You could still buy it.  Do people ONLY make their own heroin?  Pot? DMT? Fully Automatic guns?  Where do they get this stuff?  It's illegal!

[ChiComCat]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

People make their own ammo cheaper than they can buy it.

But it's a more involved process than buying it, right?  Making "lethal bullets" would be more conspicuous than, say going to the store and picking it up, right?

For what reason would a current gun owner object to prohibiting the sale of lethal bullets, aside from guys who hunt for sport?

People that defend the 2nd ammendment fot the sake of defending it will be against it.  Also, any restrictions will be met with "slippery slope" arguments that are what Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) people use when wanting to be against something, but having no reason to actually be against it

[ChiComCat]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

People make their own ammo cheaper than they can buy it.

But it's a more involved process than buying it, right?  Making "lethal bullets" would be more conspicuous than, say going to the store and picking it up, right?

For what reason would a current gun owner object to prohibiting the sale of lethal bullets, aside from guys who hunt?

You could still buy it.  Do people ONLY make their own heroin?  Pot? DMT? Fully Automatic guns?  Where do they get this stuff?  It's illegal!

No, but if you see someone with heroin you know it is illegal/dangerous and their is a reason to lock them up.

[MakeItRain]

Would rubber bullets be a good compromise?  I really don't know a whole lot about guns or gun control, but it seems to me that there are a finite number of bullets in this country, and a bullet may be shot only once, then it's all used up. 

It seems that rubber bullets, though still dangerous, would be significantly less lethal than whatever ammunition is used now.  Gun people could still target practice and skeet shoot and defend themselves and what not.  Seems like rubber bullets could significantly limit a gun owner's ability to take life, while affording him all of the other advantages of owning a gun.  Exceptions could be given to police, military, etc.

Again, this might be totally stupid because I've never really cared to know much about guns.

There are plenty of guns that can be used as sporting weapons that are less lethal.  England, Canada, and Australia all have gun bans but legal hunting.

It's also expensive as crap to own a gun in any of those countries - which means only the upper class are afforded such amazing opportunities - and if you're poor and a criminal - you can still get your hands on a gun by beating the crap out of some rich dude. 

But that probably isn't as prevalent there either; they probably have other social factors that could attribute to less violence.  I'd be willing to bet that our non-gun violence is equal or greater than each one of those countries non-gun violence rates.   Maybe it IS more of a social issue?

yeah, its harder for people to get guns, that's the point.

I don't care about violence rates, I care about murder rates.  I may be off base here but I think most people would rather be beaten than shot to death and GMAFB about the social/violent nature crap.  Even if this was true, it isn't, that's a further argument to limit access to firearms, not an argument to arm more people.

[Domino]

Would rubber bullets be a good compromise?  I really don't know a whole lot about guns or gun control, but it seems to me that there are a finite number of bullets in this country, and a bullet may be shot only once, then it's all used up. 

It seems that rubber bullets, though still dangerous, would be significantly less lethal than whatever ammunition is used now.  Gun people could still target practice and skeet shoot and defend themselves and what not.  Seems like rubber bullets could significantly limit a gun owner's ability to take life, while affording him all of the other advantages of owning a gun.  Exceptions could be given to police, military, etc.

Again, this might be totally stupid because I've never really cared to know much about guns.

There are plenty of guns that can be used as sporting weapons that are less lethal.  England, Canada, and Australia all have gun bans but legal hunting.

It's also expensive as crap to own a gun in any of those countries - which means only the upper class are afforded such amazing opportunities - and if you're poor and a criminal - you can still get your hands on a gun by beating the crap out of some rich dude. 

But that probably isn't as prevalent there either; they probably have other social factors that could attribute to less violence.  I'd be willing to bet that our non-gun violence is equal or greater than each one of those countries non-gun violence rates.   Maybe it IS more of a social issue?

How does that make sense in your world? "Oh look, some rich dude, better beat him up and hope he's carrying his sporting rifle on him, otherwise this would be stupid."

As to your second point - wouldn't that be an argument for restricting guns? If rates of violence are similar, but those countries have fewer fatalities, seems to be a favorable argument for limiting access to firearms.

[HeinBallz]

No, but if you see someone with heroin you know it is illegal/dangerous and their is a reason to lock them up.

So now we're into the accountability realm of the argument.  We're going to go to these great lengths to stop violence so that when we see a crazy man shoot a bunch of kids up with "lethal bullets" we'll be able to prosecute him for not only killing kids but for owning lethal bullets.

[ChiComCat]

No, but if you see someone with heroin you know it is illegal/dangerous and their is a reason to lock them up.

So now we're into the accountability realm of the argument.  We're going to go to these great lengths to stop violence so that when we see a crazy man shoot a bunch of kids up with "lethal bullets" we'll be able to prosecute him for not only killing kids but for owning lethal bullets.

Also, we could potentially prosecute him before the shooting of the kids happens.

[HeinBallz]

Why is this conversation still happening?  Is it because getting rid of every gun/bullet/bomb is actually easier than being a good parent or social role model?

[hemmy]

What if we prohibited the production of ammunition (as we know it) for citizens, and only permit the production of less lethal rubber bullets?  Is this dumb?

People could still defend themselves and shoot skeet and target practice and their guns wouldn't be taken away, but their access to ammunition allowing them to easily kill whatever their gun is pointed at is strictly limited.  Seems like a good compromise to me?

In other words, maybe "gun control" is the wrong discussion, and "ammunition control" is the right one.

People make their own ammo cheaper than they can buy it.

But it's a more involved process than buying it, right?  Making "lethal bullets" would be more conspicuous than, say going to the store and picking it up, right?

For what reason would a current gun owner object to prohibiting the sale of lethal bullets, aside from guys who hunt?

You could still buy it.  Do people ONLY make their own heroin?  Pot? DMT? Fully Automatic guns?  Where do they get this stuff?  It's illegal!

No, but if you see someone with heroin you know it is illegal/dangerous and their is a reason to lock them up.

No.

[DQ12]

Why is this conversation still happening?  Is it because getting rid of every gun/bullet/bomb is actually easier than being a good parent or social role model?

What the hell is your point here?  What do you think the purposes of laws are?