I'm coming out of the closet for Milo Yiannopoulos....

[Scal]

Milo strikes me as a cheap, funhouse mirror image of Gore Vidal. And before you think that means I like Vidal, I really liked Florence King's impression of the man in the form of a book review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-florence-king

And thirding/fourthing an ammo tax besides Pittman-Robertson being dumb as hell, since the folks who repeatedly buy ammo by the case don't really seem to be the same people committing street crime or mass shootings.

[Tamara]

Florence King is my spirit animal.

[DeathRay]

So, most of us practice. I don't shoot competitively, and I don't hunt. I shoot for self-defense and because I enjoy going shooting. I shoot a varying amount each year, but, to keep it simple, let's average it out and say that I shoot about 20,000 rounds a year. If a tax is placed on that ammo so that I can only afford to shoot 10,000 rounds, how does that save lives? If you mean an ammo restriction, rather than ammo tax, and you think I should only be able to own 10 rounds, then how is it safe for me to own that gun in the first place if I'm going to have a dangerous, negligent knowledge of how to use it?

A fair point, and I have always thought that an approach like mine should be crafted with the input of people who own guns. There are obviously many nuances that come with keeping the freedom to own guns but reigning in its excesses.

As for your particular situation, where you need to fire off 20,000 rounds to participate in your hobby, I don't know exactly what to say. If you shot your gun at a club, then perhaps the club would be responsible for tracking your ammo. Ammo could also be stamped with serial numbers to keep track of where it is going and who owns it (remember, I know there is no final solution to gun violence. The goal is minimization of crime).

In the final analysis, however, my bottom line would be this: guns are a weapon designed for killing. Recreational use for target shooting is secondary to the real public interest of making sure this weapon is used as infrequently as possible against the innocent. If that means you won't get to shoot your gun as frequently as you like, then that's the sacrifice you would be asked to make.

The other side of the coin would obviously be: what sacrifice would you ask of me?

[DeathRay]

So, you acknowledge that the public in this country seems to have a majority type of thinking that differs from your own. Do you only support democracy when you think the ideas are good and you agree with them?

Where in this conversation have I suggested anything but a democratic solution to the problem of gun violence?

[Josh Runkle]

...another avenue to making gun crime difficult must be found, one that does not offend the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Since the business part of a gun is actually the bullet, maybe thatare the feature we should be regulating better.

This is a notion that has been highly perpetuated by Hilary Clinton, which has been thought by many to be fairly false. "Well Regulated" in the Amendment does not mean "government regulation", it means "well armed and well trained". The Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Essentially:

"To have a free country, the people have to be well armed and well trained. Their individual right to keep and bear arms cannot be interfered with by the government."

That is why the government has never passed a law, so far, regulating weapons.

So, right now you might be thinking, "Hello, idiot! You can't buy a rocket launcher! And you have to pass a background check to buy a gun! Of course, some 'reasonable' restrictions are necessary!"

Well, in 1934, (when you could order a rocket launcher in the mail without a background check) the government got pissed about gangs carrying Thompson "Tommy Gun" Submachine Guns. So, they tried to ban them, but they realized that they couldn't ban them. It was, after all, illegal for the government to pass any laws restricting firearms (and/or ammunition). So, they came up with a clever idea: the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes as they wish. So, they passed a $200 tax on machine guns (and also silencers, destructive devices...which are things like rocket launchers, and so on). $200, according to my inflation calculator would be $3,507.09 today. A massive tax that made gangsters go to buying other types of guns. Eventually, Congress realized that they should track who has paid the tax for an item, and so, the ATF does a "tax paid transfer and registration of" those items. But, there's a fine line. They are allowed to keep a registration that a tax has been paid on that item. That is the reason they can track where that item is. Thy cannot just make people register all guns.

But what about a background check, isn't that a restriction? Well, no, actually. The background check only occurs on the person spending the money, not the person owning the gun. If you and I go to a gun shop and you give me money to buy a gun for you, that is illegal. That is called a straw purchase. But, if I choose to buy the gun for you as a gift, and we walk into the shop together, I do the background check because I am spending the money, and you never do a background check and you walk home with the gun. Why is it like this? Because Congress has the power of the purse. They can regulate things related to who spends money and how they spend it, but they can't regulate anything about having the gun. (Obviously, there are laws regarding special populations like prisoners, or minors, but they aren't extended all of the other rights of the constitution either)

So, Congress has found "work around" ways to restrict weapons, using their power of the purse. It would be completely legal for them to tax ammunition, as they have already done. But, it would be completely illegal for them to just make a blanket statement banning possession of ammunition.

[Tamara]

In the final analysis, however, my bottom line would be this: guns are a weapon designed for killing.

This presumes that there's never anybody who needs to be shot.

[chiral]

.... stamped with serial numbers to keep track of where it is going ....final solution....The goal is minimization...

#Godwin'd

[DeathRay]

At the risk of feeding the troll...

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/mor...ass-shootings/

I'm not sure what you think this minor stat proves. Are you saying that the killers are specifically choosing gun free zones for their crimes? I would like to see evidence of that.

Perhaps you are saying that where shootings take place in gun free zones they go from only attempted shootings or small numbers of victims to mass shootings, while in... let's call them "gun zones"... the "good guys" are all shooting back and the "mass" killing never happens. Again, I will want to see evidence of that.

Pie charts don't wow me. Good arguments do.

[Scal]

DR,

I would ask you to realize what you are doing is going to elicit a reaction that ends with "...and the horse you rode in on!"

Consider the ease of obtaining an abortion in Texas or Oklahoma. Consider that the many religious, socially conservative people consider abortion to be murder. Despite their protests to the contrary, what they, and politicians trying to court that voting bloc are doing is piecemeal trying to make abortion illegal, or at least as difficult as possible, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

Shooters, correctly in my opinion, see how many liberals and Democrat Party leaders have the same goals regarding gun ownership as pro-life people do regarding abortion. They see how things are are going in CA, NY, and NJ in regards to "reasonable" gun control at this point, which is much more restrictive than they are happy with. So, now whenever someone starts beating the gun control drum, the response from most shooters is extremely negative. There is a lot of well earned mistrust on both sides that stem from incompatible first principles. The likelihood of changing this is slim to none.

[Josh Runkle]

While this much is true, there is also the question of the abuse of freedom which has to be looked squarely in the eye. Weapons are, after all, a business. Gun makers want to sell guns and keep selling them. The more sold, the more used, and the more eventually used for crime. I think we have come to a point where the very saturation of guns is forcing a policy change.

You seem to think this is a new issue in the US. This was debated for quite some time by Congress in the 1930's, and it was debated for a VERY long time during the founding of the US. It was equally as contested by both the public and the politicians at both of those times. It is not a new issue. It is one thing that has always made America unique from the rest of the world.

This "good guy with a gun" theory is simply one I don't buy. I dunno... maybe I will have to see an attempted mass shooting in an open-carry state get thwarted by six vigilant citizens all shooting the killer in the head for me to see the virtue of getting rid of gun-free zones. It seems to me that most of these mass-shootings are glorified suicides, so the killers aren't worried about the effect of "a good guy with a gun" (they usually DO wind up shot dead, after all, either by cops or themselves). And frankly, it seems likely that when people all start pulling guns, they will quickly confuse each other with the killer and end up shooting one another.

Well, you have to remember that nothing is a "Mass Shooting" until 4 people die. That's the actual way it is tracked. So, if 600 people are shot, but only 1 person dies, it's not considered a mass shooting, despite the obvious. If the person is attempting a mass shooting and goes into a mall with a rifle, handgun and a bunch of grenades, and only kills one person and then is killed by someone with a concealed weapons permit, that is not considered a mass shooting. The NRA posts links to local news sources where people defended their life with a gun. Occasionally, like the mall shooting in Oregon, those events are "attempted" mass shootings that never make the definition for "mass shooting", and so, the president doesn't make speeches about them.

Here is a link to the Oregon example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clac...enter_shooting

There is a long thread on here with probably several hundred hours of potential reading with links to local shootings, good and bad, and commentary from many people on here who are current or former military, and local or federal law enforcement.

Fair enough, though on a mass level, this seems likely to have limited results. You can't easily change the human reaction to a panic situation, unless you start from kindergarten and implement it nationwide. But let's say we did that: the sensible public reaction to that curriculum would be:"Um, excuse me? What is going on in our nation that, rather than control guns, children must be trained from birth how to tackle a homicidal Rambo? Aren't we missing the forest for the trees here?"

You would say yes, I would say no. Why should we have to explain to a kindergartener that their friend was killed by a drunk driver? Statistically, it is far, far, far more likely that a kindergartener will have a friend killed by a drunk driver than a gun. So, when will we ever finally see the forest for the trees and ban alcohol?

Or...do we recognize that bad people will find access to things regardless of their legal status, like during Prohibition, and that those bad people will still hurt people regardless of the law? So, maybe, just maybe, we choose freedom for the citizens who are good people, and we start targeting only the bad people.