Taxation of ammunition is oddly regressive. The heaviest purchasers/users of ammunition are target shooters who slaughter masses of paper targets and clay pigeons (clay disks). As a competitive pistol shooter, I used to shoot 100+ rounds a day from my heavy bulky pistols. At the local trap range, a bunch of retirees spend the day shooting 200 plus cartridges when shooting 8 rounds of trap from their four foot long 9 pound shotguns. I doubt that these old geezers pose any danger.
In contrast, the average gangbanger shoots only at people (target practice in the city attracts the cops). Further, they are concentrated in a very few concentrated neighborhoods. We should concentrate on those areas, not the entire nation.
7
(Last post)
Is there a nation in the world that has a good degree of gun rights while maintaining public safety? Yes, and it's called Switzerland.
Here are Swiss gun laws summed up and the process you need to go through to own a gun: https://i.imgur.com/Fz3kGIJ.jpg
Bolt action rifles and hunting shotguns require a background check and a copy of your ID. You go online then submit a request for a copy of your criminal records, recieve this paper in three days and take it to a gun shop with your ID. Buy all the hunting guns and ammo you want. You can even order it online.
Semi-auto weapons require a permit which you can request online (or in person) as well by mailing your criminal record and ID. This permit is shall-issue which means the police CANNOT deny you if you fulfill the requirements. There is no evaluations, inspections, and mandatory safes required to obtain this permit. It is issued within a week. There are no "assault weapon ban" magazine limits, SBR bans or any of that nonsense in Switzerland. You can buy as much ammo as you want with just a background check paper and keep it at home.
Swiss laws are laxer than CA, CT, MD, HI, NY, NJ, MA, and MD.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3303.0
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfsstatic/dam/assets/4842629/master
As of 2016, the gun homicide rate in Australia was 0.18 while it was 0.16 in Switzerland.
In a just world, we'd have Swiss gun laws, nothing more, nothing less, however the gun grabbers will never stop.
8
Honestly I can’t figure out why people think they have a right to bear arms. All that means is we’re allowed to have a standing army. That’s it. It doesn’t mean you get to have an AR15 to defend yourself.
I also like how that guy Keane thought that a tax on bullets is a bad idea, because it’s like putting a tax on drugs because of heroin addicts. Actually not a bad idea... the money could be used to treat their addictions.... but only people with high annual incomes should pay the extra tax (>$500k/year)... or maybe have no drug tax and just tax their income... now there’s a thought... regardless bullets totally need to be taxed. I don’t need my little girl being shot up at her school because of gun-rights yahoos... I also personally like being bullet-hole free..
6
@J - It's quite simple, really. It's because we are not slaves, nor do we wish to be.
If one is unable to defend himself, he is not free. He is subject to any person or entity bent on forcing him to his will or to take his life.
You should read some history, J. While the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the war started on April 19, 1775 when the government attempted to confiscate the lawfully-held arms (including cannon) held by The People.
I have a right to far more than an AR-15, and look forward to the days when the people of this country are respected as free individuals, and not serfs.
If you don't like the Second Amendment, that's fine. Be honest and work to have it repealed via Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Another option would be to work toward California's secession. Your politics and backward economic practices won't be missed.
7
So in spite of all these regulations, California still possesses a homicide rate on par with Texas: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/...
A rate of 4.8 compared to 4.8. The tiebreaker being that California has a slightly higher violent crime rate than Texas.
Let me showcase another example of the slippery slope that is gun control. In 2015, Islamic terrorists attacked Paris with illegally smuggled guns from Eastern Europe that is outside the schengen zone. In response the EU passed a new "firearms directive": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Directive#Amending_Direc...
To sum it up, this directive bans certain types of semiautomatics and imposed magazine limits. This affects the legal licensed gun owners in the EU.
So here you have a union of nations in which nearly all require licenses, background checks and registration to own guns having their rights severely curtailed because terrorists shot up a concert with illegally smuggled guns; disregarding the fact that licensed owners in EU seldom commit crime and a legal gun has never been used or stolen to commit a terrorist attack. These people WILL NEVER BE HAPPY. You give up an inch and they will take a lightyear from you in the end. The ultimate goal is to make owning guns so burdensome to the population. It's a slow but steady erosion of rights. No matter what you feel in principle, this is how it ultimately operates in practice.
8
(continued from next post)
Now onto registration. There is absolutely no evidence it reduces crime. In 2012 Canada scrapped its gun registration and destroyed all records (yes, liberal canada!) because it was proven to have had no effect on crime and the cost to maintain it was mindboggling. Even the RCMP admitted this. In a couple of respects, Canada has better gun laws than California with no waiting periods, no sbr laws, the fact that you can buy ammo and guns and have them shipped to your house with a valid PAL.
So Canada has licensing, yet true to form the gun grab agenda never, ever ends. Trudeau is looking to ban all handguns and (assault weapons) motivated primarily by crimes committed with illegally smuggled guns. Not legal ones.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-handguns-firears-1.4801700
I see frequent posters claiming that the second amendment is not unlimited and thus all these regulations are perfectly fine (just look at limitations on the first amendment!). Here's the thing: There are ALREADY LIMITATIONS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT. The NFA, GCA, Brady, and the Reagan laws. The limitations on the first amendment are extremely narrow, speech is protected in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. No, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is not banned. That case was overturned decades ago. The reason why the limitations on the 2a are not stringent to you is because IT'S A RIGHT. Exercising protected rights has always been liberal in any democracy.
6
"Straw-buyers" are the most common source of handguns for criminals in America. Almost nothing is done to prosecute the straw-buyers. Locating a straw-buyer in the ghetto or barrio is effortless.
Imagine how much more common "straw-buying" of ammunition will be and, because it is impossible to trace criminally used ammunition to the buyer, prosecutions will be even more unlikely.
Ah yes, the neverending slippery slope of gun restrictions continue. Microstamping does not currently exist as a technology, as a result of this law, newer handguns are not allowed to be sold in California thanks to the roster. Background check every time you buy ammo? Completely onerous and a huge infringement on rights. California remains one of the worst places for constitutional rights in the US.
"Nobody is coming for your guns!"
California banned the most commonly owned rifle (the AR15) and the magazines owned by tens of millions of people in this nation. It tried to confiscate both of them completely even if they were registered but it was struck down.
During that time, California also tried to ban all semiautomatic rifles with a detachable magazine (the majority of rifles) TWICE before it was vetoed by Brown (suprisingly because even he thought it was too harsh). These people call for Australian and the UK gun laws where the vast majority of guns were confiscated.
People keep comparing guns to cars and miss the point. Licensing, registration and insurance is only required to operate a car on PUBLIC ROADS. You do not need any of that to privately buy a car for private property use. Treating guns like cars would make gun laws laxer (no more awb, mag limits, sbrs, etc) just like there's no horsepower or governor mandated for every car. Registration for cars is used for taxation, registration for guns has always without exception used for confiscation. cont
4
I remember many years ago when Chris Rock, in one of his standup routines, included a line that said bullets should cost $5000 each (am unsure of his exact amount). Thought it was brilliant then and still think so today.
5
@JAL
So, you're a fan of poll taxes too? I'm not, and I bet Chris Rock wouldn't be either.
Failing to see the clear analogy (i.e. make exercising a right unaffordable because I can't get away with explicitly banning it) is pure ignorance, and likely willful.
5
It is telling that Mr Figueroa, the gun store owner, is perfectly fine with the ban of online ammo sales because it drives customers to his business, but he is against all other laws that he perceives to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights. The issue is with the background checks and the ridiculous regulatory schemes. One can buy an AR-15 "Pistol" that is identical in every meaningful way to a "short-barreled rifle" or "SBR" under federal law, but the "pistol" is cash and carry in many states while the SBR requires a $200 federal tax stamp and around 8 months of waiting for an FBI background check - the same check many of us undergo to become concealed-carry Permit holders. A law-abiding gun owner endures the headache and expense while the murderer simply buys the equally deadly tool of least resistance. The AR-15 is cash and carry but the sound suppressor, which does not increase lethality in any way, requires the $200 stamp and the many months of waiting for an outdated screening. Meanwhile, if one of my former interns wants a job with a state agency, I get a phone call from a Sheriff's deputy to ask detailed questions about the person's mental and moral fitness - a prime chance for me to call out someone about whom I have concerns. We need laws that make sense and a background check system that actually checks references and provides law-abiding citizens with timely service. Some of this is common sense if we drop the partizan bloodsport.
1
@Evan
Rent seeking at the expense of civil rights in California?
Say it ain't so.
1
I see no point; as well meaning as it may be; in this attempt to curb the insane gun violence in the U.S.. By now it must be crystal clear the gun culture of America will never accept even the tiniest amount of restrictions on their precious and fanatical right to their muskets (if only) as "interpreted" from 1776. No the N.R.A. will always find some way around the attempt to "take their guns away"; and God help anyone who gets in their way. No amount of mass school shootings; mass nightclub/concert shootings or any other mass shootings are going to ever convince the bullet heads that "guns do indeed kill people!"
I do think that the need for a well regulated militia has not existed since the beginning of the twentieth century. If there was such a need, I imagine it should be managed as Switzerland does. That aside, the current fear driven controversy is the worst way of achieving practical gun control.
Gun advocates and gun abolishers are equally paranoid and it prevents reasonable measures to reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, the statements that are expressed in the public discourse does back up the fear on both sides.
There are so many people who commit violent acts with guns that insisting that gun ownership must be a right is wrong. People should prove that they use and keep guns responsibly and safely and if not they will lose the guns and be held liable and even subject to criminal prosecution. Purchases of ammunition should be recorded.
Only a tiny proportion of gun owners ever misuse them, even those with handguns and civilian versions of military weapons. Those who do not and will never own nor use are not at risk from people just because those others guns. While guns and bullets are required for gun violence, they are not sufficient for gun violence. Unless their are good reasons to fear a person gun ownership is not a reason to mistrust that person.
1
Strict nationwide regulation of the purchase of ammunition is a concept that is long overdue. It largely avoids conflict with the 2nd Amendment - which firearm advocates like the NRA cite to oppose firearms regulation.
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about restricting the availability of bullets - only protecting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. I commend the State of California in this effort, and strongly hope that the conversation regarding ammunition regulation spreads quickly throughout the nation!
1
@pete1951
+1 for the Constitutional end-around, Pete.
Stalin and his ilk would be proud.
2
On September 14, 2014, an armed robber (never caught) sent a .22 round through my first-born child's head. Miraculously my child lived, even though that round entered next to his nose and exited at the base of his skull. The perp was never caught, although a spent and an unspent round were found at the scene (down the street from a restaurant where my kid had just eaten; my kid was walking back to his vehicle when he was robbed, and then shot).
Had there been serial numbers on the ammunition, the perp may well have been caught, or the perp may not have shot him at all.
We don't have a problem requiring cars to have a VIN stamped on the engine and chassis and requiring cars to carry a license plate and to be registered to the person who owns/uses them. Why can't the same be said for guns, everywhere?
2
"slowly chip away at our right to bear arms" is the only way left to get rid of gun violence for the near future. Hope California succeeds and we can get rid of all automatic weapons.
1
@mike
It's not a gun problem, Mike.
Our culture has been degraded in many ways since the sixties, when far more types of weapons (including 20 mm anti-tank guns and all of the eeeevil black guns that are demonized today) were available, via mail, with no background check, some even as surplus direct from Uncle Sam.
Shootings were far less numerous (per capita) at the time.
The guns are barely different since then, functionally speaking.
The culture has changed.
The use of psychiatric meds is, however drastically different. These have been a part of the lives of almost every single mass shooter since (and including) Coumbine and even before.
Combined with this, there have been sea changes in U.S. culture that have led to the devaluation of human life by many.
Whistle past the graveyard and blame guns if you like, Mike, but you're only fooling yourself.
4
What ever happened to going after the perp??? Why is it that lawful gun owners have to be punished for the crimes of an idiot? Why is it that only the 2nd amendment is infringed upon almost to being banned? How about we place the same infringements on all of the other rights? The criminals have more rights then lawful gun owners. They can carry any type of gun they want, all the ammo they want, WITHOUT a permit. How is that right? People who are posting here and agreeing with this type of tyranny have a brain freeze and think criminals will follow the laws. LOL!!!
3
It is a great workaround as the NRA hasn't legislated in this area nor threatened their corrupt politicians about it yet ...
Gun owners lost their opportunity to have a voice in this discussion when they failed to rein in their "associations" and decided that their desire to own a gun somehow is of greater importance than the non-gun owning majority of people in this Country that want to be safe from constant gun violence or the threat of it (especially in our schools, places of worship, concerts, airports, etc.). We are constantly screened for guns not to allow them in airplanes, concerts, schools, retail stores, shows or plays, political events, courthouses, etc etc. Constant screening to make sure no guns because, gee that protects our safety and welfare. We need REAL and permanent gun regulation including the banning of ALL assault weapons and nuclear bombs; why are those weapons on this earth?? Those with a death wish should grab their guns and bombs and all go at it on an island far far away from the rest of us that desire a humane, peaceful and civil society where we can live a long, happy and rewarding life!
GUNS ARE HERE FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY -- TO KILL! We really need to use our monies and resources to stop gun violence and the killing -- ammunition and gun regulation! Common sense and civility/common decency need to prevail in this extremely violent Country. VOTE! RESIST!!!!
1
@Bonnie. It is rare that I read comments so thoroughly cut and pasted from one or all of the anti-2d amendment, anti-gun organization literature. Do you even know what constitutes an “assault weapon?”
Correction: Gun owners lost our opportunity to have a voice in the discussion not when we “failed to rein in our organizations,” but rather when gun control proponents like yourself labeled, and continue to label, all gun owners as criminals equal to those who commit violent acts with guns. At least you seem to acknowledge that there are lawful gun owners and then those who disregard all the current laws to commit atrocious deadly crimes. We have to thank the NRA and other organizations for keeping that distinction alive.
Clearly, you have imbibed the gun control Koolade and are dutifully spewing it’s irrational rhetoric in forums such as this.
7
As usual , CA leads , and when the Republicans are history the rest of the states will follow.
The mayor of Toronto wants a total ban on hand guns.
2
California law requires that gun models introduced after 2012 or so must micro stamp. There are no guns commercially available that micro stamp. Police do not use guns that micro stamp because among other reasons such guns do not exist.
CCW holders can no longer be armed when going on to school campuses. This prohibition applies to a person even if they are just dropping their kid off in the parking lot. The number of CCW holders who have shot up a school campus in California is equal to zero.
Gun control advocates want to have back ground checks at gun shows. It sounds like a good idea. The lead researcher for the recently established center for gun violence research at the University of California at Davis has concluded that gun show background checks would have a negligible effect on gun violence.
All of this feel good legislation in California is just that. Quit foisting bad laws unsupported by evidence on law abiding citizens for political gain.
5
Unless the ATF has changed its rules, purchases of three or more handguns in a five-day period by one individual is what triggers a report by federally licensed dealers, not more than one handgun purchase as the writer states. The writer has this wrong in the article, along with several other statements that incorrectly characterize federal regulations on firearms sales. It is not true that "generally" people must undergo background checks to purchase a firearm. The background check is only required when an individual seeks to purchase a gun from a federally licensed dealer. Unregulated sales by private sellers do not require a background check and comprise more than 25% of all sales. This is one way prohibited people find it easy to arm themselves. It's important to get the facts right since there is so much ignorance about firearms sales in our country. I applaud California for its efforts to track ammunition sales. It poses no burden on those who are law-abiding.
3
@L. O’Neill There is no private party (gun show) sales in the state of California. Its a one handgun purchase per thirty days in the state of CA about to be applied to all guns. All of this is ineffective when it involves a criminal enterprise.
3
@Sense Offender Thanks for the information on California law versus federal law. The writer did not specify this and, like many journalists who write about firearms policy, he got it wrong, or created an incorrect impression.
Cal will do almost anything to undermine the 2nd amendment. This is why gun owners cannot compromise with those people.
7
@James
You guys have been crying wolf over that for so long. Pretending like someones going to steal your guns away as an excuse to refuse even the slightest bit of regulation to keep guns and ammo out of the hands of criminals. Don't you ever have any shame?
2
@Details
I don't see why my rights should be infringed b/c criminals violate the law. Cal needs to control criminals not guns.
@James
Your rights aren't being infringed. You can still buy guns, you can still buy ammunition - unless you're a felon or such. You're just selling lies that allowing them to !gasp! see your ID as you buy the ammo is somehow magically going to take your gun away.
Again - where is your shame? Read this article - sex offenders, gang members, convicted felons are caught and taken off the street and stopped from using their guns on innocent people - and you want to say "No" out of a vague and unrealistic fear that this means guns go away.
2
If one considers how prevalent is the availability of all kinds of illegal drugs, does anyone with a brain think that ammunition which is easily bought and brought across state lines will not be at least as easy, no easier to acquire as illegal drugs?
Get real. Further, ammunition if properly stored will last at least decades.
These restrictions do a few things, all negative, including making it harder and especially more expensive for shooters, and make criminals of those who want to save money by buying on line, mail order or out of state. Of course, now outlaws will toss in a couple of boxes of ammo with the next shipment of no tax cigarettes or cocaine or grass.
Now lets talk about how easy (and cheap) it is to reload any and every center-fire caliber of handgun, rifle and shotgun ammo. All the equipment and components are readily available in CA, mail order and the internet. The more one considers the issue and this stupid attempt at a solution, the dumber the idea and those who support it really appear. This is not about crime control it is intended to surely deny the public access to firearms and ammo. Good luck.
9
@Dale
And now let's talk about the facts.
Which is that where these regulations exist, they catch dozens of criminals illegally buying ammo - in one singular city! Across the entire state, tons more, and it gets harder and harder - and more expensive for criminals to get their bullets, and that is a good thing.
While the law abiding public has no problem - they walk in, show their license, buy their ammo. All done.
2
So what is your alternative?
Progressive states should pass a law limiting the number of establishments allowed to sell ammunition to be no more than the number of abortion clinics in Mississippi.
7
Sounds more like Lord Darmouth's (Sec State for the Colonies) prohibition on importation of powder supplies to control citizenry than concern for curbing "gun violence." Instead, such infringement(s) have zero impact on criminals and/or criminal activities. However, it does strengthen hand of government against citizenry when the state decides it needs to seize firearms. >39% of vehicular homicide in N.H. involve impaired drivers. If 'controls' eliminate crime, then we'ed have zero impaired driver highway deaths.
2
@Mark Smith
Nothing eliminates any crime. So your solution is to get rid of all laws?
Regulation reduces crime. Not eliminates. For evidence, compare our gun death rate with any other country in the world that has stronger regulations than we do.
@Details
Not laws contravene U.S. Constitution. N.H. ties 13th (in U.S.) firearm ownership. We have 11 firearm homicides (4 were justified) last year we. We had 80+ vehicle homicides. Over 39% were impaired operators. We have laws against illegal drug use. Laws against operating vehicle impaired. Yet criminals are criminals.
It's about time!
There's no way to get the billions of guns out of the hands of criminals - who can always steal some more from a law abiding gun owner. It just takes one gun for a gang member to kill dozens of people over time.
But - the violent criminal uses a lot of ammo - they have to buy it constantly, where a gun can last them years and years. Controlling the ammo is a good way to go. A law abiding gun owner looking to self defense will not need the hundreds or thousands of rounds that a criminal does. A person training for shooting competitions does not need hollow point ammo that is designed for only one thing - killing people.
2
@Details There is not billions of guns but there is billions of rounds of ammo and most of it is used by recreational shooters. Criminals hardly use any as they don't train with it and even if it was banned and all gone reloading is not exactly a new thing.
4
@Sense Offender
There are multiple guns per citizen. And rounds of ammo are expended and then done with. One gun can shoot thousands of rounds of ammo, easily.
Criminals don't train - they just shoot indiscriminately without training and hit innocent bystanders, children sleeping in their beds. Having to register, not being able to cheaply buy hollow point bullets, etc. - how is this some massive bar to the recreational shooter - and even if it was a bit of an inconvenience, how is your hobby more important than other people's lives?
@Details Do you even know how many shooter actually shoot a thousand rounds through one gun let alone a thousand rounds all year?!?!? Its very few and I would know as one of the few that goes through a few hundred in a single weekend and its all ball ammo anyway. You know very little about this it seems and any round can kill with ball rounds being better for a crowd as it can go through multiple people. Its wasted money and manpower to enforce which not only wont save a life but lead to more deaths from untraceable criminal reloads.
This is one of the many reasons why, despite the higher tax burden, I fully intend to move to California once the time comes to sell my business in Kansas and retire.
1
@Calvin Downing If you don't get killed or injured from a drive by or home invasion.
2
Anyone that believes microstamping to be a useful tool has clearly never heard of sandpaper or files. Takes about a minute to remove the markings from the tip of a firing pin rendering the stamping useless. Sooner or later the gun manufacturers are just going to stop selling guns in California, and while that may make the gun grabbers there happy, they may think differently when law enforcement agencies aren't able to purchase them either (though I'm sure many Cali residents would like to the see the police disarmed as well). And on a side note, the author may want to mention that his father is the judge whose decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in Heller. Seems like the whole family is anti gun.
6
As one who has both handguns as well as hunting rifles, I don't find the laws of California regarding gun safety onerous. I have never had difficulty in purchasing either or purchasing ammunition. As a result of these gun safety laws California has one of the lowest gun death rates in the nation. Compare us with our neighboring states of Nevada and Arizona.
Gun groups that do not support sane safety laws ask the falsely labeled question about "law abiding citizens" being hampered in their constitutional rights. My response is how are truly "law abiding citizens" rights being infringed upon? Why does someone really need a 30 round magazine? What's wrong with a ten day waiting period? And finally this "slippery slope" fallacy. If these safety laws are okay then next the government will come and confiscate our guns. Come on! There are over 300,000,000 in America. That's not going to happen!
As a "law abiding" citizen of California I feel safer as the results of these safety laws.
17
@Forrest One of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation... you must be kidding.
3
@R E Thornton
Do you have any facts - or is mockery the only data you actually have?
Yes, one of the lowest. These laws work.
1
Pennsylvania has a moderate amount of guns laws (less than CA, more than Utah) and I (as a law abiding citizen) have never felt my constitutional rights were being infringed. PA already has a low rate of homicide deaths but if the state wants to add some regulations like they have in CA I would not mind. Most of the resistance to these regulations are registered by the small ideological extreme of gun owners. Most gun owners will comply with any reasonable gun law and I wish there were more of them.
"Raising taxes on bullets to offset the cost of gun violence is akin to putting a levy on prescription drugs to pay for the price of heroin addiction"
That sounds like a great idea also!
1
Chris Rock already covered this here
https://youtu.be/VZrFVtmRXrw
1
@Kunal
Yes, Chris Rock should guide us on politics like Charlie Manson should drive the bus for our family vacations
can we get an eye-roll smiley up in here?
1
“Raising taxes on bullets to offset the cost of gun violence is akin to putting a levy on prescription drugs to pay for the price of heroin addiction,” Mr. Keane said.
Uh, does this guy read a newspaper? Opioids?
2
I will continue to obey and follow all rules, however inane, surrounding the purchase of firearms and ammunition. Like another poster here commented, legal gun owners demonstrate continuously that they are (overwhelmingly on the balance, and I would submit more than the general population) rule-followers.
I only ask that the public at large remember that legal gun owners are not generally "stockpiling" when they buy large lots of ammunition all at once. Cartridges, like any other commodity, occasionally go on sale, and/or are cheaper to purchase in bulk. Plus the price always goes up over time, like anything else; If I had the room and the $, it would make more sense to buy a lifetime supply today. Why not?
Buying 500 rounds of 12ga shotgun shells for my trap gun makes so much more sense (both economically and time-wise) then heading out to a vendor for a box of 25 each time I visit the range.
6
Anyone who trains regularly for self defense or competition will shoot many thousands of rounds per year. Harassing and vilifying us is no solution to the violence perpetrated by criminals. We are not criminals, we pose no threat to society.
42
@btb How do we know? Are you immune to emotional trauma that might cause you to become enraged and spontaneously shoot your own son, like Marvin Gaye's father?
And do you need a large magazine to train or compete?
I don't think this is one of the greatest ideas for curbing gun violence, but you have to know that most gun violence is not caused by criminals - or at least, not by people who were criminals before the point of committing the violence. If we keep focusing on mass shooters and hardened criminals, we will never address the societal sickness that makes the US exponentially the per capita leader in gun violence in the world.
It's not "Wagon Train", "Wyatt Earp", or "The Lone Ranger" people. It's 2018, not the 1800s.
9
@btb Until intent at the point of purchase can be confirmed through a crystal ball, you should have no issue participating in an extra step in the sales process that requires minimal time and limited intrusion. Time to get off your high horse about protecting freedoms no one is looking to take away from you -- law abiding citizens can squeeze the trigger until their fingers go numb -- and contribute to a safer society by handing over your ID, unless of course you have something to hide.
8
@btb
Why does keeping records of all that ammo you’re buying constitute harassment and vilification?
7
User pay. There are approximately 70,000 firearms injuries and 30,000 firearms deaths each year. Each injury and fatality incurs publicly-borne medical, policing, judicial and incarceration costs. Charge those costs back against the manufacturers, retailers and purchasers of firearms and ammunition. Why should non-owners and victims of guns subsidize through their taxes and insurance premiums the owners, sellers and manufacturers of firearms?
1
@Stephen Hume Cause almost all of these are suicides and criminals engaged in black market turf wars from "the war on drugs" that the government chooses to spend billions a year fighting.
2
The Constitution is a living document. The bar for changing it is justifiably high, but it can be done when conditions warrant. That is what the Amendments to the Constitution are all about. Even Amendments can be changed when it becomes obvious that a mistake was made or society has changed, witness the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and the 21st Amendment (Repeal).
I would submit that our society has changed and that the 2nd Amendment is now a danger to our society. It is time to change the 2nd Amendment. Let us discuss how that could happen.
1
@Bruce1253 No it saves lives not takes them, if you don't like it you can go to London which has rising crime and perfect gun control.
1
@Sense Offender
London's rising crime still involves a death rate from violent crime that any city or state in America would consider a dream come true!
England & Wales have about 50-60 gun deaths per year. The US has 30,000 per year. Your statement is ludicrous.
1
Chris Rock introduced the idea of bullet control in "Bigger & Blacker" dated 1999. Pat Moynihan is a little behind the times.
The idea is pretty simple. Americans have a right to bear arms but that doesn't mean we need to sell them any bullets. By all means, carry the gun. The weapon is effectively an expensive club if you don't have any ammo.
Banning ammunition sales entirely is actually in keeping with the Constitution. Revolutionary era militias were making their own munitions. Of course, their guns were no more sophisticated than a smooth bore musket so the task was relatively simple. Melt some pewter and form a ball. I don't see why we can't put the same burden on modern "militias."
It's sort of like decriminalized marijuana. You can own it, you can smoke it, but we're not selling it to you. If you want to get stoned, you need to go grow your own. Selling marijuana to others is still illegal too by the way. Why not ammo?
1
@Andy Because you can make your own ammo and this will create a black market for it. It is why CA has more "ghost guns" because of strict gun laws.
The NRA was successful in its campaign against adding microscopic “ tagents” with lot numbers and other identifying information into gunpowder and commercial explosives even though a brief trial of adding tagents to dynamite solved at least one murder. I am not against having to sign for ammunition or even having a background check to get a buyer’s ID or some such... but making ammunition prohibitively expensive for the legitimate use of guns by legitimate gun owners is un-American and only ensures more decent people also no with the trump voters and republicans and militia types will be motivated to vote for pro gun candidates which is to say... pro trump republicans. This is just plain stupid.
@Wisconsonian I don't get this leftist obsession with tracing and registering everything but illegal immigrants. If its stolen its only traceable to the theft of it and criminals even exchange guns or all out avoid "dirty" ones used in a homicide so how would this work at all?
5
Everyone who reads the comment section of the Times knows that I am a progressive (member of the ACLU & Vietnam Veterans Against War) BUT, like someone who criticizes Israel & is therefore cast as Anti Semitic,liberals who criticize the never ending "feel good" gun control legislation that sounds great but has no effect on the problem, are left open to a critique that we are toothless, inbred, truck owning, redneck, Bambi killing instigators of the favorite sport of right wingers, namely "shooting kids in school". OK folks it's time for a reality check. First of all illegal drugs are - well - "illegal". Yet we can't stop them.Booze was illegal during prohibition, yet it could not be stopped. When abortions are no longer safe medical procedures, they will be relegated back to the alleys. There are some things that need to be controlled but sensational schemes do little to have any decent consequences. First of all, it's "ammunition" not "bullets". Bullets are the projectiles emanating from fired ammo.Authors who use the word "bullets" when referring to "ammo" automatically identify themselves as "know nothings" who never fired a gun, thus minimizing their status as a worthy exponent on the subject heaping ridicule on themselves from gun owners.Secondly, what's to stop one going to another state? Thirdly what about "self loaders"? These guys make their own "ammo" buying powder, shells, caps, & "bullets". I too hate gun violence.But it ain't gonna stop soon in the USA !
7
Ammunition. Tax it, tax it, tax it, until it is not affordable. You will be able to bear your AR 15 but not be able to pay for the ammo.
4
@Bruce Northwood Its called reloading and a black market. Why don't you pass this up in Oregon as see the crime rate jump like in the UK?
2
@Bruce Northwood
Another poll tax advocate, I see.
1
Glad to see California moving towards what I call “The Barney Fife Rule”! Have as many guns as you want but you only get one bullet...which you can only carry in your pocket. Progress!
@Steve Hendren Yes just what America needs another crime filed black market this time for ammo! People would just horde it or make more in secret while more people die in the mean time.
A simple ID marking on ammo (bullets and casings) is a great idea. Something that has been discussed and "shot down" by the NRA. Tracing a bullet used in a crime is a plus. What does ammo have to do with "bearing arms"? "Arms" are guns, not the ammo. No argument.
2
When I read an article whose author uses incorrect terminology, I assume that his ignorance goes further than the terminology.
Bullets are the lead tapered spherical castings that are fired in ammunition.
Ammunition is the complete primer, shell casing and bullet, assembled with gunpowder.
3
America the Cowardly. America the Fearful. America the Helpless. We hold in the pit of our collective souls a dark secret; we can not, will not face our unreasoned fears about a America that no longer looks like the one we knew, can never be that place we created in our imagination, in our memories. Massacre of our children is common, we cry our anguish, we Pray, we shout about who is to blame and then, nothing, nothing at all.
If the massacre of 20 children at a elementary school was unable to change this fundamental truth then what possibly could?
No collection of evidence will convince us that we must control weapons of war, of death. No slaughter will stop our insatiable need for more and more weapons, in more and more places.
America the Brave, the Land of the Free. Maybe I grow too old, to understand. Maybe those with a clearer vision can tell me how this can change.
Their limits so painfully to us are badges of honor to their eyes. I would guess that the legacy of that opaque vision is passed generation by generation forward in time.
Bullets controlled? Certainly it makes sense but not to those who fear, and huddle in dark places where the guns offer the sole source of safety.
This text was shared before it seems as true as it was then and hence I shall repeat it and repeat it until someone can answer why we are so fearful, why we are so deeply afraid now?
How is this a punishment for buyers? Sellers are required to keep a log. Ammunition used at a gun range is excluded.Many safe drivers drive cars, yet they still have to register them and each car has to have a VIN#. Yes, most gun owners are reputable and trustworthy, but a substantial number aren't, as can be seen daily when one watches the news.
2
@Zoned -- No, ammo *bought* and used at a range is excluded. Big difference.
@Zoned Criminal that steal weapons and used them to protect drug turf are not gun owners, how many thugs are members of the NRA? Gun owners are the ones that engage and shoot these criminals when the threaten the lives of innocent bystanders.
Regulation of firearms and their ammo will never be the way to effective gun control, tho measures like the stamping technology and point-of-purchase background checks for ammo seem less burdensome and more promising than other measures. If we want to legislate our way out of this morass of violence, we'd have to remove the vast expanse of guns from regular use.
Mandating gun buybacks is indeed one decent approach (as per Australia's solution). But we'll never solve such a problem as currently exists with niggly regulations, and Dems who support gun control efforts do themselves political harm to advocate only for them. The problem--in as simplest form possible--is gun proliferation and cultural acceptance of guns in everyday life, and until that major oceanliner is turned around, the icebergs ahead will yield more mass shootings and suicides, the biggest negative consequences.
It's not just ammo that kills people, as Sen Moynahan said; guns that use the ammo also kill people, as well as the people themselves. It's never an either or, but an inclusive all. The best way to win the "war" (to use an inept but common metaphor) on guns & ammo (if not people disposed to use them) is to make it socially unacceptable to brandish and otherwise use them outside of sporting arenas--a big, big task. Let's start with a "war" on the NRA and its propaganda, America's public enemy #1 on gun use.
When a driver goes off the road and hits a tree and dies, do we blame the tree?...no, we look for the cause of the driver going off the road. So why do we try to regulate the guns and ammo when a person get killed by a gun?...is it the gun and ammo's fault?...or is it the immoral person who is at fault?...and why...
California is one of the most liberal states in the union, and one of the most regulated states also...with liberalization comes amorality...the "Pledge of Allegiance" states "one nation, under God" but are we a God fearing nation?...now probably less than one third go the nation goes to church regularly...so where do most of us and our children get our moral values...from the TV, the internet, and video games...so now we are a liberal nation for the most part but also a more amoral nation.
How can we expect our nation to act morally when most of the nation is liberal and amoral?...we can't, so we regulate guns and ammo such as California is doing to try to solve the problem...
What California could be doing instead of trying to regulate the problem is to teach morality in the elementary school grades...if the parents aren't doing it, or the churches aren't doing it, then the schools should do it...Kids need to learn morality to be good citizens...
California should stop trying to regulate guns and ammo, which do little to stop criminals from committing acts of violence, and start teaching morality in their grade schools...that is the only real solution...
4
Looking at the main picture, do they really sell fragmentation rounds and dum-dum’s?
I’ve long given up trying to understand the gun culture wars, but selling rounds like those to the public? Sigh.
2
@Mat Fragmenting rounds are safer for shooting steel targets and hollow point are safer for homes and public shootings as ball rounds tend not to go through people and walls hurting other bystanders.
Actually, taxing prescription opioids to help support treatment for addiction sounds like a good idea to me.
1
Even to this day the right to keep and bear was never absolute. The recent S.Ct. decisions affirmed the right to keep and bear in the home for self defense. Beyond that, the states have always had -- and exercised -- the authority to regulate transportation, storage and use. Nothing is being "chipped away" so long as the keeper/bearer complies with the legal scheme. The common law right is self defense, not ownership.
1
@Chris Kule
So, the founders were wrong to use arms to secede as it wasn't strictly self defense, as you choose to define it?
Do you enjoy tea at 4:00?
Seriously, is defense against a tyrannical government any different than defense against a tweaker looking to steal your jewelry for his next hit?
Is death at the hand of either any less unjust?
The poll tax didn't chip away at voting rights, so long as the voter complied with the "legal scheme".
Ask some folks who actually lived under, or had parents who lived under tyranny (socialist, fascist, or otherwise) and saw or heard their loved ones and friends shot in the streets for being dissidents and you might get a different perspective on the value of gun ownership.
Non-sequitur alert: @EddieVedder - do you not see the incredible irony in following "Glorified G" with "Dissident" on "Vs."? I actually enjoy both songs, but have been shaking my head over that one for decades.
It's interesting that at the state (and at the federal level), politicians can put such burdensome restrictions such as background checks, waiting periods, thumb prints on the purchase of (a constitutional right) to purchase a firearm or ammunition. But when it comes to voter ID, the left cry "racism" or "voter suppression" for minorities and the elderly.
I suppose those same groups are also at a disadvantage when it comes to purchasing a firearm or ammunition, too, right?
5
On the other side of the debate, Jesse Figueroa, a manager at M & J gun store in downtown Sacramento, said that he was glad the ban on home deliveries of online ammunition purchases would drive more customers to his store. But he dismissed other rules, like microstamping and ammunition record-keeping, as futile in stopping criminals from using guns.
“These measures,” he said, “are all just a way to slowly chip away at our right to bear arms.”
Seems Mr. Figueroa conveniently forgot the "well regulated" part of those rights.
1
It is amazing to me that many of the protections granted under the bill of rights can and have been modified over time. Freedom of speech does not allow a person to yell fire in a crowed theater. Search and seizure protections have been limited at times by conservative judges in order to allow law enforcement to do their job. But the second amendment for some reason is the holy of holies. There can be no restriction or else it will be the downfall of democracy. The proposed law in California is a good start. There is no reason not to modernize gun sale records that are currently on paper and in boxes held by the ATF. There is no reason to close the gun show loophole, there is no reason to prohibit mail order sales. The bill should also include a registration on the sale of black powder and ammo loading equipment. All of these measures are common sense measures that in no way limit anyone's ability to own a firearm. In fact true sportsmen have supported these measures for years. It is the NRA that fights every piece of legislation scaring their members into believing that if they give in on anything the end result will be the government taking away your guns and that is clearly a lie. Sensible regulations protect everyone and will not being an end to the second amendment.
1
@Manuel Lucero You're also not allowed to shoot people, in a theater or elsewhere, or sell illegal drugs so your analogy is hardly fitting. The UK has perfect gun control laws and yet for two years gun and violent crime has risen by double digits. CA will soon follow this trend.
1
The number of gun deaths in Texas each year is about 50 times greater than the number of gun deaths in England.
In reply to Mr. Figueroa:
"But he dismissed other rules, like microstamping and ammunition record-keeping, as futile in stopping criminals from using guns.
“These measures,” he said, “are all just a way to slowly chip away at our right to bear arms.”
I think you missed the point, Sir: I doubt too many people in California or elsewhere think that the rules being implemented by California to regulate the sale of ammunition will stop criminals from using guns. What these rules can do is help law enforcement find and convict persons who use guns for illegal violent purposes.
1
Fire Departments are the ones that find illegal hoards of guns and ammunition not to mention hand grenades and bazookas. It needs to be mentioned how much danger these hoards represent when there is a fire and no known ammunition is in the house. Buying online or over time at gun stores needs to be tracked.
@poslug: Not really. Burning cases of ammunition are no more dangerous than a bunch of firecrackers. Yes, they will pop loudly, but you are in more danger from the brass (because it is sharper) than from the bullet.
Applaud CA for trying every tack to curb gun violence. The whining about supposed hardship to lawful gun owners would be laughable, were it not for deadly consequences.
3
@PT Well why don't you move to CA then? Most of these dead are gang bangers engaged in an illegal black market. If these laws worked then gun crime should be going down not up in the UK.
2
Bullets don’t kill people; violent prone people do. Unfortuntely, violence inevitably begets more violence. Government is a violent construct. It survives on taxes, which are collected by means of threatened violence. It’s vaunted rule of law depends on the enforcement of laws by all the violence the enforcement agents deem necessary. The pervasive violence of government bleeds into the population at large and is primarily responsible for the violence that produces school shootings. Gun control requires violent enforcement. It cannot reduce violence. It can only perpetuate and increase it. Get government out of the business of violence and the incident of violence, including school shootings, will decrease dramatically. Violence begets violence. Government gun control is violence. 2+ 2 = 4.
1
Opponents of gun related regulations like Brett Kavanaugh can argue that owning assault weapons is a form of free speech protected by the First Ammendment in addition to the ownership rights granted under the Second Amendment.
Sure, that’s one way to look at things.
A hillbilly mentality about guns and ammunition may seem reasonable and patriotic in some parts of this country but in California and New York there is respect among voters for civility and social common sense even if it comes with inconvenience and a bit of overreach.
4
I shoot nearly every week and expend between 7,000 and 12,000 rounds of ammo a year. When I buy ammunition I get it in bulk because it's cheaper and more convenient in the long run. I'm one of the people directly affected by this type of law.
New Jersey also requires sellers record all sales of ammunition that can be used in handguns. I have no problem with this approach and California's version seems to help police do their job more effectively.
The idea of serial numbering either cases or bullets is absurd. When you include .22 cal rimfire there are literally billions of rounds of ammunition manufactured in the US every year. Requiring that every case or bullet be numbered would effectively stop ammunition sales altogether and trigger endless legal challenges about the death of the second amendment.
What California does now seems to be yielding valuable results and should be considered on a national level. Suggesting a process to track every unit of ammunition just distracts people from practical approaches to reducing gun violence and sends them down a rabbit hole into an implausible fantasy land. We should try to keep things real so something effective may be achieved. Reasonable ideas get support from reasonable gun owners.
I also have to point out that a bullet is just the projectile that's fired from a gun. What you load in a modern firearm is a cartridge or shell. NYT reporters are the best. Words are your medium, use the right ones.
6
I heard this recommendation several years ago as an antidote to the vast cache of guns already in possession of Americans.
It's Difficult to get the guns back, so why not put tight control over the ammunition these guns require.
Why not?
1
@Mkla It is called the black market for trafficking and criminals will also make their own ammo at home illegally.
It might be time to re-introduce splitting California into three states... before they do it in spite of ruling decisions.
"“It is wrong to treat California’s law-abiding gun owners like criminals,” said Chris W. Cox..."
What type of criminal is he talking about? Murderer? Convenience store thief? Child molester? Industrial espionage spy? No one is treated like a criminal who hasn't been convicted in a court of law. What a ridiculous statement.
“Raising taxes on bullets to offset the cost of gun violence is akin to putting a levy on prescription drugs to pay for the price of heroin addiction,” Mr. Keane said."
So Mr. Keane wouldn't put a levy on Fentanyl proscriptions or ammunition - the two single products most responsible for opioid and gun deaths? One is aghast at Mr. Keane's thought process here.
Mr. Keane further states, "...the new ammunition rules were burdensome to law-abiding gun owners..."
And the rest of us are feeling a little burdened by the high cost of emergency room, school and suicide gunshot victims.
Law abiding gun owners are not criminals and the rest of us shouldn't subsidize gun ownership or shooters hobbies or past-times. Disclosure: I'm a gun owner and active shooting competitor. I applaud California.
1
I would be in favor of a total ban on the sale of ammunition, reloading supplies and tools. I wouldn't be perfect, but in a few years guns would become expensive bricks. If this does not pass court muster, then let's have the Barney Fife rule: You get one bullet.
Banning ammunition would not solve our violence problem, but it would make it a lot less lethal. It would also lessen the amount of violence. It is easy to kill someone with a gun from far away. When you have to get with in arm's reach of your victim, it is a whole different story.
BTW, so far this year there have been 10,083 deaths by gun in the US, 2,457 children killed or injured, and 252 mass shootings. It is time, it is past time, to solve this problem.
1
@Bruce1253 Your stats are entirely falsified and exaggerated. Children are ruled as 0-19 year olds and almost all of those are gang bangers on the city streets of Democratic Mayors and City Councils.
2
Door dash now delivering bullets from Nevada.
1
I own several handguns, have concealed carry permits from several states (I'm carrying right now while having coffee in a local hangout), and enjoy my weekly visits to the gun range for practice and training. If that makes me a gun nut to some people, so be it.
But I also believe in thorough background checks, gun registration/tracking, ownership restrictions, mandatory/meaningful training, mandatory insurance, and periodic recertification with live fire and safety exercises. If that makes me a gun grabber to some people, well, so be that, too.
There are no absolute rights. Free speech, gun ownership, free press, freedom of assembly -- regulating these by content or point of view is impermissible, but all are properly subject to time, place and manner controls. That's what we have to work out, together, without shouting so loudly at the "other side" that civil discourse is drowned out altogether. There are many sides to the "gun debate", more than most people suspect, but right now we seem to be hearing from only two opposing extremes. Truly to address the complexities involved, we need to do better than that.
6
I have a suggestion. Limit fuel tanks on all automobiles to two gallons capacity. This will have multiple benefits.
First, it will limit the range of getaway cars from bank and convenience store robberies, making those criminals easier to find and discouraging the use of cars in robberies.
Second, it will encourage drivers to drive more conservatively, thereby shrinking their fossil fuel footprint.
Third, it will encourage better driving habits for fuel economy, and reduce the range bias consumers have against electric cars.
Fourth, it will cut back on fiery accidents, as there will be less fuel to burn or explode.
Fifth, it will discourage customers from filling their tanks out of state, thereby bypassing and avoiding local highway taxes.
So why won't it happen? Because the majority of legislators drive cars, and don't want their privileges infringed. But most legislators have never even touched a firearm, so any infringements they cause to firearms users, they couldn't care less.
7
I support California's basic actions. However, I'm not at all sure that they will stick because they've made no real effort to co-opt the support of law-abiding gun owners.
One thing's for sure: selling ammo in Nevada soon will become EXTREMELY profitable.
3
Deaths by firearms is a public health problem just like the mortality caused by car crashes, smoking and narcotics.
We accept that drivers/passengers without seatbelts should be penalized with traffic fines. Tobacco products are taxed to disincentivize smoking. Addictive drugs are “controlled” to restrict both legal distribution and illicit use.
It only makes sense, ammunition should be taxed and controlled to disincentivize stockpiling.
Keep your guns, but don’t support the one-man suicide squads in our midst.
74
Anyone who becomes proficient8 and maintains proficiency with firearms may shoot thousands of rounds every year. How do you tell a reasonable and conscientious gun owner from one who is intending to harm a lot of people?
1
@MGU
Stockpiling? I am a Cowboy Action shooter, a shooting sport using guns of the old West: single-action revolvers, lever-action pistol caliber rifles.
A single match uses over 100 rounds of ammo. To keep in practice requires much more. If you don't reload your own, you buy in quantity. A couple thousand rounds on hand is common, even minimal to some dedicated sport shooters.
2
@MGU: Where is the evidence for your implied link between “ammunition stockpiling” and gun deaths?
It would be wonderful if we could force any person contemplating mass murder to carry 10 thousand rounds physically. It would make it almost impossible for them to move. The only real danger from “ammunition stockpiling” is possibly fire (actually fairly low danger) and your neighbor having a hissy fit coronary.
1
I appreciate the intent of these restrictions. However, they seem to be designed not to practically impact irresponsible actions or irresponsible gun owners as much as they are made because the restriction has a simple (although flawed) correlation to gun use.
It's the same as limiting the size of magazines for pistols. Anyone who actually knows much about semi-automatic pistols knows that an empty mag can be ejected and a full one inserted and the gun be made ready to fire in under three seconds. Not much of an added element of safety.
I buy ammo online, but in order to do so I have to provide my LTC details to the vendor. As I do a fair amount of target shooting I buy in case quantities (1000 rounds per each). This isn't really a lot, as a couple of hours at the range will use about 300 rounds. Besides, buying by the case means free shipping!
Seriously, if we want to consider actions that can impact the incidence of gun deaths, the focus needs to be on more substantive (and more difficult to implement) approaches - primarily increasing their demonstrated abilities of gun owners to store and use firearms safely and competently, as well as to require first aid education for licensure. Different levels of certification for different levels of firearms. Similar to what we do for motor vehicles.
But, of course, that is a lot more effort than simply applying arbitrary limits on buying ammo, etc.
45
@MassBear Well it's a start, of course if such a regulation were to have any serious impact it would need to be a federal and not a state regulation.
I fully appreciate your argument, but at this point society is so saturated with guns held by all sorts of people that the term "gun owner" is about as specific as the term American. I don't know how you are supposed to enforce education standards on all those guns already in private hands.
Honestly I think the biggest thing that needs to be done is to defuse the gun issue. The sheer amount of attention focused on it by both gun control advocates and gun owners fuels a fixation on them that attributes to their popularity and use by people acting out in crimes of passion or vindictiveness.
4
@MassBear Reload the brass. I target shoot weekly and the only expense is the powder, bullets and primers. About 1/3 the cost of factory ammo.
1
Pat Moynihan was right, like cigarettes, "bullets kill." And like cigarettes those used to kill people should be taxed. Gun violence, again like cigarettes, is a public health menace. Every parent and, in my case, grandparent who has a child in public school now has to worry about their safety from gun violence. California is working to save the lives of young children by taxing bullets and banning ammunition clips that threaten their lives. Public safety should be Job 1 for every elected official. California Democrats are doing what Congressional Republicans have refused to do--protect the lives of their most vulnerable citizens, our children. #NeverAgain
98
@Paul Wortman No I'm not worried about my kids they're not in a gun free zone in dangerous CA and criminals will just steal or make their own ammo and probably lead to more deaths on the street.
@Paul Wortman Banning private automobiles would save more lives.Why should there be any limits on govt power?
2
@Paul Wortman: There are a few MAJOR flaws in your analogy.
There is a link between cigarette consumption and cancer (death), but that link does NOT exist between ammunition and gun deaths.
Who are you “targeting” with your solution? The law-abiding owner or the criminal/potential murderer? Do you really believe that criminals do a lot of target practice? I run through a LOT of ammo target shooting. Yet, somehow despite firing thousands of rounds, I have not killed anything (with a firearm) in years.
Every year, hundreds of millions of rounds are fired at non-living targets.
Simplistic statements by people that have no concept of the subject matter only increase the communication problem on this topic.
It amazes me that the “Gun Control” groups never get tired of making the same disproven predictions of horror if trained citizens are allowed to “concealed carry”. Do they realize that the US has around 16 million Concealed Carry Permit holders? Once again how do they explain the DECREASE in gun related murder over the last several decades? Where are the examples of “blood running in the streets” or “OK Corral Shootouts” between Concealed Carry Owners? They prefer the example of Chicago with its strict handgun ban and HUGE gun-related murder rate (blood running in the streets) or the failed safety of “Gun-Free-Zones”.
1
Some of us are old enough to remember when the Federal Government had a requirement that a record be kept of any ammunition that could be used in a handgun, including .22’s. You had to produce a photo ID and fill in all of the information, including address and telephone number. It was quietly discontinued when a review of 15 years of data revealed that the record system had not led to a single arrest or conviction nationwide.
I have owned firearms all of my adult life, and never broken a single firearms law. I am appalled by gun violence, but I am also appalled by being treated like a criminal simply for obeying the law. And I will obey any new firearms law that comes out, because that is what people like me do; we respect and obey the law. Those individuals who have made a decision to shoot someone have already demonstrated their disregard for the law.
It is unfortunate that the debate has been moved away from the individual, who breaks the law, to the inanimate “thing” that is used as a tool to break the law. If the debate was about the person and not the thing, we would all be on the same side.
54
@Jim
A criminal cannot shoot a person using a firearm and ammunition said criminal does not possess. That is not a difficult concept to process. If you are so law abiding, you will not be off put by laws that stop criminals from buying or possessing the means of death, since you are not a criminal.
3
But the criminals will have the guns, and ammunition (or bullets, as the article calls them) and the law abiding citizen will not.
Seconds count when the cops are minutes away.
More people saved by a gun than killed in non gang related homicides, every year.
@Jim
Sometimes there's no record of any arrest because people planning to break the law don't buy tracked ammo. Interesting how few of these massive shootings there were, how much less gang violence there was, when criminals had to count their bullets and figure out where to go to buy them.
1
In a state where the use of marijuana is legal, illegal immigration is rampant, law enforcement is moving away from gang injunctions, sanctuary cities abound, no identification is required to vote and criminals are protected by refined interpretations of laws and statutes, it is strange that undue burdens and aspersions are cast upon law abiding citizens who legally own and shoot firearms. There seems to be a bias against gun owners, or something even more nefarious in terms of a culture war. This is very troubling.
72
@Paradox, Wha?? Marijuana has never been linked to any violence let alone gun violence. Why bring it up in this discussion? The rampant illegal imigration you mention are mostly migrant farm workers from Central America. These workers have been coming for generations. Gang crime has been steadily decreasing since the mid 1990s in California. Aside from the claim that the injunctions are no longer needed the gang injuctions cast too wide net and often affected those not in a gang. No identification required after registering the first time to vote with a legal state or federal issued ID and recent utillity bills for proof of address. After that your social security number or drivers licence number is all one needs to vote. Criminals aren't protected by refined interpretations of the laws and statutes - The Bill of Rights are. Gun regulations protects law abiding citizens. Showing an ID to buy ammunition is hardly a burden. Neither is restricting the amount of ammunition one can purchase within a given time period especially since the amount of ammo is unrestricted at a gun range. Your claimed unrestricted freedoms are killing children. Yet you want even less restrictions on guns and ammunition. This is very troubling
7
@Paradox Nothing you said is true except that people don’t need ID to vote. That’s because voter fraud is nonexistent.
7
@Paradox, the only thing nefarious is that someone with your attitude should be allowed to own anything other than a BB gun.
3
Most encouraging article I've read on this topic in quite a while. Switzerland has an interesting way of achieving extremely low gun violence: almost every citizen is expected to, and does, own one or more guns, for sport or safety, and ammunition is regulated. Can we continue to learn from other countries about the best ways to do this? Obviously we are large and diverse while Switzerland is small and homogeneous. What about other democratic countries?
It seems that some people balk at any "inconvenience" that comes along with regulation. The second amendment doesn't guarantee that owning a gun and unlimited ammo should be convenient, just that it be legal. Owning, registering, insuring and storing a car are all inconvenient too, not to mention visiting the DMV!
I wish we'd stop saying "gun control" and start saying, more accurately, " gun regulation." It might lower everyone's blood pressure a bit.
119
@Suzenn Most gun enthusiasts shoot hundreds of rounds in a single outing and thousand per year. This is the reason they buy in bulk or just reload which is what criminals will do but illegally at that making ammo even more untraceable and possibly deathly due to the "good intentions."
3
Nobody is required to own a gun as a private person in switzerland, apart from military personell. Being a militia, i.e. not a professional army, citizens who are in active service or in reserve own a military issue assault rifle which they take home, yet are not issued any ammunition. There is also the option to have your gun locked away at a logistics center and pick it up everytime one returns to a "repetition course", a 3 week yearly military training, and many people do this for safety reasons. Hardly anybody owns a gun for "protection", the reason crime is so low here is mainly socio-economic and has nothing to do with gun ownership, which among non-military and non-sports shooting people is very low. Also, civilian weapons are mostly bolt action kar11/32 rifles and the modern sg550 converted to semiautomatic, all being current or former army issue. The only mentionable exeption are hunting rifles, not or only partly being military issue (converted kar 11 or 31). So again, low crime rate is due to socio-economic reasons and mentality, not gun ownership.
12
@Suzenn
"Switzerland is small and homogeneous."
Switzerland has four languages: German, Italian, French and Romansh. Not as homogeneous as you might think. Yet they manage to get along better than us.
2
The history of California gun control laws is filled with so many bright spots and successes. Who can argue against such reasonable people and laws? (sarc)
5
Actually, they have one of the lowest homicide rates in the country. Maybe something is working?
Folks that like to shoot for fun will now have to cross the border and buy what they want in large quantities. Just like we do to purchase legal cannibis products in three of our adjoining states because our laws here don’t allow it. Good luck California because you need it. Mike
9
@Mike
Interesting point. The political dances in the states move on.
Pot and ammunition - it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on!
1
@Anthony La Macchia
Some of us want both to be legal and easily accessible. Which end of the spectrum is that?
Neither, because the linear (aka left/right) paradigm is incomplete and completely inadequate.
Google "nolan chart quiz" and take a few minutes to take the quiz.
It could be very eye opening.
Wasn't this part of a comedy routine by Chris Rock?
4
@Justathot I guess the state is running out of pointless gun laws to pass....
2
@Justahot
Yes it was!!
I thought I was the only one who remembered. It was a circa 1996-98 HBO standup show. Bullet control. $5,000.00 a bullet, etc. Good routine.
There was also some now politically incorrect child sexual abuse routines (walk off your strange Uncle's advances) that certainly would not fly today.
So wouldn'y Gary Puckett and the Union Gap (Young Girl).
Yet another attempt by anti-gunners to circumvent the Second Amendment and deprive you of your Constitutional rights.
10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
1
It's a neat way around the 2nd amendment. That's for sure.
@John. Only for the few remaining law abiding residents of this State. No bail no problem. Heck I can buy opioids, heroin, all the pot you can carry, other drugs too numerous to list in s few minutes. Why worry. If you really think this is going to stop gun violence vote for Mr Slick Newsome.
@John If it would work but its just a new black market for the production and trafficking of ammo maybe even some armor penetrating ones that you can't buy but can illegally make.
Just a nit: The correct terminology for the objects being discussed in this informative article is “cartridge.” The bullet is one component of a cartridge, the others being the case, primer, and propellant.
7
I don’t care. The street term for cartridges is “bullets” and I am all about being cool.
Hey, the fat lady says: Guns don't kill people, bullets do!
So, where's the beef?
Well, logic says, if guns don't do it, then bullets must do it.
Is that not a necessary and sufficient condition to validate the premise that ammo is not shrouded in the American myth of 1st Amendment protection?
Recommended reading re gun violence and youth: Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun by Geoffrey Canada. Still relevant.
1
Our Olympic shooters, and those trying to make the team, shoot about 20,000 rounds a year, per discipline. I’m sure sports shooters in other disciplines also practice a LOT! These tend to be the hardest working, most disciplined ... and nicest folks around. The kids shooting in these programs are the opposite of your sullen, shut-in, impolite, video game addicts. Why should we be punished?
3
Illinois has a card called teh FOID card (firearm owners identity card) which is matched against various database everyday to ensure that non-eligible persons do not purchase ammo or guns. It must be present to purchase ammo. I think that is the way to go.
@A A
Not for residents of other states. Just show your ID (nothing recorded) to prove you are not from the Peoples Democratic Republic of Illinois, and you are good to buy up to the store's limit.
Been there, done that.
I think treating free individuals as free is the way to go.
If a person is released from prison, that person's full slate of rights (from voting to carrying a gun) should be restored.
If the person can't be trusted to be free, then maybe they shouldn't be.
btw - Kudos to CA for realizing sending minor drug offenders to prison (aka Criminal University) is not a path to success at reducing use or eliminating crime. It's just baffling to see the same group have their heads so far up their wazoos when it comes to other freedoms.
Place minimum price on each bullet, bullet prices goes up the more bullets bought, tracted in real time by database.
@bull moose People will just reload and criminals will do the same or just steal it.
1
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan discussed this at length long ago. The theory, or reality is that bullets will run out whereas arms may last forever, while they are useless without the ammunition.
1
@Swabby Ammo is cheep and disposable and also very easy to make at home. The unforeseen consequence is you'll have more free and black market ammo that is totally untraceable. The best part of this is only CA will pay the price for there silly "ghost ammo" laws serving as a warning to other states.
2
California setting the bar, leading by example. I'm not mad. And before folks start raging thinking it won't work, it does for many countries across the Atlantic.
8
Some CA laws are a little goofy, like the buttonless magazine release required in ARs in that state. Some are pointless like the ten round magazine limit that is easy to get around. But I understand where these laws are coming from and that is the desire to lower gun related deaths and make society a safer place. Like most gun owners I will comply but I wish they would figure out better ways to accomplish their goals.
Well...bullets aren’t the proximal cause of death, either. Put a bullet on a table in the busiest part of the city and calculate the chances of it spontaneously killing someone. People kill people and they use all sorts of instruments and devices and methods. People are the proximal cause. We need to do something about the people who use bullets (and guns and knives and pipe wrenches and so on).
7
@System Lord
But many of those shooters are subsequently portrayed - often by the very same people championing these restrictions - as victims, whether of poor childhoods, racism, poverty, mental illness, etc. Thus accountability is lessened and solutions rely on impacting those who do not harm others. A bizarre world.
And what should we do about these people who are the proximal cause? Please share.
A "bullet" is the projectile (the tip) of a cartridge that leaves the gun when fired, leaving the remaining shell casing behind or ejecting it. Bullets, in and of themselves, are harmless pieces of lead, polymer, etc. They are combined with a propellant (gunpowder) and primer and joined with a case to make a "cartridge" or "round", which is what individual pieces of ammunition should be corrected called.
Using "bullet" instead of "cartridge" is like using "tip" to describe a whole "arrow".
There are many other errors of this type found in most reporting on firearms, like writing that "AR" stands for "assault rifle"- it does not, it stands for Armalite rifle (Armalite is the company that invented this design- for the civilian market, by the way), calling a "magazine" a "clip", or using "automatic weapon" (a gun that fires multiple rounds by holding the trigger down) to describe a gun that is "semi-automatic" (each round requires a pull of the trigger to fire a round).
10
I am one of those liberal types who owns firearms and shoots regularly.
Many of my more conservative friends have said one reason they own firearms is as a way to counter an overreaching government. In their minds, it has always been a liberal government that they feared. I understand their concern and shared it to a degree.
I wonder if we should fear more a government that speaks as if they are conservative, elected constitutionally but by a minority of voters, and now includes people who speak without names and asking us to trust them.
I wonder if my fellow liberals would be better served by learning the safe use and storage of firearms than by measures described in this article.
15
Half of all firearms are owned by liberals, they just don’t make as much noise as the conservatives in Texas. Liberals tend to shoot because of their interest in shooting itself rather than for the paranoid reasons that conservatives describe. The average liberal with a gun is probably a good shot. This is not news but it is something that may have to be relearned as the confederates did when they met the liberals at Gettysburg.
1
@Bobotheclown - Are you assuming Pennsylvania is liberal? Trump carried 56 counties and Clinton carried 11, it is considered a red state per the last election. Even the 'deep bue state' of New York is almost all red except for the counties of some major urban areas.
I say pass federal legislation which requires that all guns be issued Certificates of Title like with cars and that gun owners be required to maintain liability insurance with high deductibles to indemnify people harmed by their guns.
Like with cars, impose strict vicarious liability upon gun owners for their direct or otherwise negligent conduct.
As far a bullets go, the eggs I buy are imprinted with a traceable code. Do that with bullets.
This will not eliminate all gun violence but it will cut it back and provide at least some remuneration for victims.
As far as I can see, none of this in any way conflicts with that pesky 2d Amendment.
7
@MIKEinNYC
Oh, so you think the 2nd Amendment is pesky?
Maybe the 1st is also, with that requirement for political free speech and all that, even if it makes your blood boil.
Hay, why don't you work on the 4th and 5th while you're at it?
1
@MIKEinNYC Ammo also has lot numbers on production boxes but not every shell as its mostly a disposable item. What good will this do anyway with stolen ammo or revolvers? Who is to say a criminal doesn't steal casings from say a police chief kill someone and replace the shell to incriminate the chief?
The issue is the “rights” thing. You can require insurance on a car because it is a privilege. You can’t impose insurance on a hun because that would infringe on the right to bear arms. Now that you see the problem, do you have any other ideas?
“Raising taxes on bullets to offset the cost of gun violence is akin to putting a levy on prescription drugs to pay for the price of heroin addiction.” -Lawrence Keane
This person can't be serious. Heroin isn't prescribed by physicians like bullets are available to the public. This comparison is so flawed. Also, the taxes aren't offsetting any costs, they are offsetting the loss of life.
These taxes "imposed unfair costs on gun sellers and makers." - Lawrence Keane
This isn't about fair vs unfair. No one cares what's fair and what's not when people's lives are on the line.
1
@Nish How will this save lives if it encourages more trafficking of ammo, as a new black market, which criminals will still use to kill each other?
2
@Sense Offender
Not to mention make it harder for those who would use ammunition in lawful self defense to get that means of defense.
These people won't like the world where only criminals, the police, and soldiers have access to firearms.
CA will likely get there soon, if they keep up these shenanigans. It's such a utopia now, I can't believe they are still trying to "improve" it.
:?|
If I were going to write an article on firearm ammunition, I would take a few minutes to understand the proper terminology involved.
A "round" or "cartridge" is the unit of ammunition inserted into the chamber of a gun, and is composed of the "case", the "propellant" (usually but somewhat inaccurately called "gunpowder"), the primer, and the "bullet." The bullet is the projectile component of the cartridge, but, obviously, "bullet" is not synonymous with "cartridge."
It ain't rocket science.
Sloppy terminology breeds sloppy thinking, and the article suffers in some respects for this. One can go into a store or online and buy cartridges, but one can also buy bullets. Is a "bullet ban" truly a ban on bullets or a ban on cartridges? It makes a difference. It also makes it easy for 2A proponents to dismiss the opinions of gun haters as ignorant an uninformed, since most gun haters probably really DON'T understand the difference between "bullet" and "cartridge."
As for California's attempt to regulate guns through regulating ammunition, it isn't going to work. It isn't legally defensible and it isn't practical with Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona all being within a couple hour drive from nearly everyone living in California. It won't prevent one single death. Its only use is political and therapeutic.
6
You cannot buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer without tracers;so why not go ahead and print numbers on ammo?
1
Actually, you can buy ammonium nitrate prills in bulk off the internet or at sports equipment stores that sell gun supplies- in that case it comes with aluminum powder sensitizer and is sold as a binary exploding target to anyone over the age of 21, no questions asked...
How about this: the federal government issues a muzzleloading flintlock musket--the very gun that the Framers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution--to every single citizen when (s)he turns 19 and registers to vote. Every other firearm banned.
11
@Betsy J Miller How about a Pucket Gun or cannons and mortars which were also around at the time. And this isn't even working in London where now even gun crime is going up by double digits.
1
@Betsy J Miller
lol, well okay, but then we should say freedom of the press only applies if you write with a quill pen and print with a hand press.
3
@Betsy J Miller
Sarcasm will really get you everywhere. You're just seriously addressing the issue and winning over converts.
Now make some proposals in compromise. Sorry, advocating for banning all private ownership of firearms in the United States is worse than a pipe dream.
1
I believe in sensible, reasonable gun control laws. Sensible means using sense, and reasonable means using reason. Neither workss with imprecise language. Remember how shocked we were by Kavanaugh equating birth control pills and abortion-inducing pills?
Ammunition are not "bullets". Bullets are purchased either by reloaders or for black-powder firearms, the latter of which usually are less or unrestricted in most states. The bullet is what comes out of the gun, but what goes into the gun is a cartridge, or, for short, a round. The bullet is only part of the round.
There are 36,000 gun deaths /year (37,000 by some counts) of which 22,000 are suicides. AFAIK, very few gun suicides required more than one round. The rest are accidental or homicides, and the vast majority are committed with handguns. Less than 400 are committed with long guns but those get the big press because of the awfulness of them--school shootings, particularly. Were an assault weapons ban to work perfectly, the number of gun deaths would, sadly, be reduced only slightly.
California's micro-stamping law is a dismal failure. They might as well require that no gun has an open barrel and use a Star Trek sci-fi future tech to fire it. The technology simply doesn't work.
Sensible gun control means controlling ACCESS to guns, early detection of suicides, and root cause mediation, a PROVEN technique to lower gun violence in inner cities.
"Feel good" laws don't work and just lose Democrats elections.
12
And how do you suggest we implement any of your “sensible” gun laws? They all sound vague and impracticable to me.
@Bobotheclown
Not enough characters--Root cause mediation is a well-defined and EFFECTIVE technique. Cities that cut funding to it saw gun violence rise. It's a form of conflict resolution before it gets to guns.
As for "sensible" it means keeping crackpots like Nikolas Cruz, Devin Kelley, and Adam Lanza with HISTORY of problems from being allowed near firearms, just for example.
I'm not familiar with suicide-tending detection and intervention, but I know it exists. We need to pay attention, particularly, to our veterans who may be suffering from PTSD and depression.
YOU know what we can do to end gun violence. Like everything, you cannot be 100% successful, but in 1990, New York City had 7 million people and 2400+ murders. In 2017, with 8.5 million people it had less than 400. How many lives were spared in that 27 years that would have been lost?
There ARE ways to reduce fatalities without repealing 2A.
Boy, have things changed in California. When I was there during my Naval stint in the early '80s, I could have laid down my cash and driver's license and walked out with a 44 magnum that very minute. I knew myself better, but so, so many don't.
Kudos, California.
10
In Pennsylvania I can still lay down my cash and a drivers license and walk out with a 44 magnum. But it takes five minutes, we aren’t savages you know.
@WillyD, when you said "I could have...." does it mean that you had? I had purchased handgun in early 80's in California, there were a waiting period already. Although it was less than 10 days like now. There might be an exception for active military personal in Navy. Your statements regarding purchasing firearms, particularly on handguns for the general public is wrong!
1
There are sensible ways to manage who owns a legal weapon:
1. Anyone who can legally buy a weapon should be required to take a gun/weapon safety course at a legal gun-range. The cost of this weapon safety course, of course, should be born by the buyer.
2. A weapon owner who has passed or taken the gun/weapon safety course, should only be allowed to buy 25 rounds of ammunition, and only be allowed to buy a second 25 rounds of ammunition with the return of the original spent 25 cartridge casings.
This seems reasonable and workable and I would think that the NRA could easily support such a law.
7
@André Lopez Are these laws in effect in Belize with a murder rate of over 30 per 100,000? How about Venezula the "Richest" nation in South America of 120? Pointless laws that don't change the root problem of violence.
3
@André Lopez Uuuuuhhhhhh no that is very inconvenient as I shot 200 rounds alone yesterday and some ammo is just for home defense and not range practice. Plus the second this law comes into effect I'm hoarding a lot of ammo and cases as will million's more so what will you do then and real criminal's will care even less. What do you know anyway in south America Brazil has far more gun deaths then any other civilized nations with great "gun control" and why they will have new leadership soon.
5
@André Lopez
That is absolutely ridiculous. I'm a fairly fervent tree hugging liberal and when I shoot out on State land I expend maximum effort in policing my brass. It is simply not possible to always locate every shell casing ejected.
4
Amazing to read all these comments about how these laws just won't work while, in most advanced countries throughout the world, laws just like these work exceptionally well.
52
@P. Jennings These laws won't work well at state level because it's uniquely easy in the US to travel to another state where the laws are different. Californians will just stock up on ammunition in Nevada, Arizona, or Oregon.
1
@P. Jennings Exactly which is why the top five mass shooting are in the US territories of -
Garissa, Kenya-2015 148
Peshawar, Pakistan-2014 149
Paris, France-2015 130
Oslo, Norway-2011 77
Nairobi, Kenya-2013 67
2
Sensible gun control not in conflict with the 2nd Amendment:
http://greigolivier.com/sensible-gun-control.html.
Read all; don't skip.
3
@Greig Olivier Practical suggestions, and attainable in time. The real problem is revealed on the last line which offers a solution; "Fanatics and extremists on both sides must not be allowed to commandeer the debate."
1
Actually Connecticut has a fairly restrictive ammunition law now. All buyers must have a permit for rifle, pistol, or shotgun ammo. Even out of state retailers know this and require copies of the permit for their records. It's silly to say record keeping is a burden, as the ammo you buy is listed on most receipts. The permit system is a revenue stream for the states, and the states can't keep up.
3
My first thought was that they're taking a page out of the pro-life handbook re abortion. If you can’t outright abolish abortion just pass legislation that makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to get one. Good for the goose, good for the gander?
13
Interesting! A gun is only purchased once, but bullets are purchased frequently. This does not impinge on the right to carry arms, but it does give the public and law enforcement more opportunity to see what's going on.
I hope my state representatives keep an eye on California's new approach.
19
@S Baldwin You can reload ammo and criminals are just doing that along with trafficking it! If these laws were so great both MD and NY wouldn't have ended their ballistic fingerprinting program just recently after spending 15 million.
Moynihan was on the right track. Unfortunately, we live a militaristic nation, where 'might makes right' appears to be the behavioral standard, both in government policy and in everyday social interaction.
1
Someone please give me one example of an activity whose bad actors have been made into good ones by raising the cost of the activity. If you're tempted to say that bad drivers are made better when their insurance cost goes up, please don't type anything. It's been a good day so far and I'm not in the mood to be nauseated by sloppy thinking.
7
We need a national conceal carry law. Every person with a clean record , who passes an exhaustive background check, a psych evaluation and fire arm safety training curse should be allowed to conceal carry. Crime would go down. People would be polite. That model has worked in Florida and Texas.It would work in NY.
12
Applause to California for attempting to do something to stem the tide of gun violence.
The gun fetishists will squeal as usual. But Im hoping California will lead the way to stem gun use.
7
@Charles McCullough If this worked then then London would not be seeing gun crime jump by double digits two years in a row along with violent crime. Even the UK's "perfect gun control" is not working and its an island.
1
@Charles McCullough - Kavanaugh seated on the SCOTUS. Ginsburg or Breyer will kick the bucket or retire sooner or later. We'll see who has the last laugh regarding enforcing the Second Amendment. 6-3 or 7-2 Constitutional Conservative SCOTUS for at least a generation!
1
VENDING machines? Now who is going to admit to governing Pennsylvania?
2
Ok, gang, let's go over it again, what history has taught us about this topic, ie vices, dangerous objects.
The cure is legality, regulation, responsibility and non promotion.
Regulation is crucial but only a part of it. If we get to the point where we ban all guns and ammo, it will still be a violent country since only the people who break the law will have guns since we would not have addressed the other three factors.
The formula worked near miracles for cig smoking and drunk driving.
It has been a miserable failure for gun deaths and drugs.
1
Good morning. I am a new subscriber to the NY Times. I will be honest, I am a Trump supporter and I happen to be black. I get a lot of flack from some of my family and friends for my conservative viewpoints. I hope that I can have a respectable dialogue with other subscribers to this legendary news outlet.
I grew up in Chicago and now I live in Texas. My upbringing was typical of many poor, black kids on the West Side of Chicago. My mom was a single parent trying to raise four children on her own. We had very little and she worked long hours to support us. I can say that for a long time, I was sort of raised in the streets.
Fortunately I was able to graduate high school (on time) and I joined the military. I believed what I was suppose to believe for most of my life. Republicans are racist and I was told that we were poor because too many people (particularly white people) were rich. It was quite typical.
This leads me to guns. After I grew up (I am not 31) I started to ask questions about politics, particularly guns. Here in Texas guns are away of life. Most people have them. However, many communities and cities in Texas are quite safe. Dallas has about the same demographics as a percentage as my hometown. The percentage of White, Black, and Hispanics in Dallas and Chicago are roughly the same, yet Dallas is probably 85% safer (and that is being conservative) compared to Chicago.
Long story short, guns are not the issue. If they were, Dallas would be worse off.
20
@Dub Junior Reasonable gun regulation is simply sensible and has been shown to reduce gun violence--particularly suicide and accidental shootings.
That "most people in Texas have guns" is a questionable assertion, but even if only half do, or a third, it's another good reason not to ever go there.
9
@Dub Junior Honestly, your anecdotal “evidence” is basically worthless. There are mountains of real statistics showing that guns indeed are the issue. In a sane country, we’d regulate them appropriately.
19
@Orange Nightmare Thanks for the reply. Where is the evidence that explains why a place like Texas that has far more "legal" guns than Chicago and Detroit, for example, is a lot safer? If a gun + human being equals excessive violence involving guns then why are places like Ft Worth, Texas or Salt Lake City, Utah not far more dangerous per capita than places like Chicago and Baltimore, which have far more restrictions on guns? I know the answer, I just want to hear the answer from the left.
This is yet another attempt to shred the Second Amendment. Liberals don't want or think people should be able to defend themselves.
15
So what would you suggest? because there are those of us who would prefer to not buy guns to protect ourselves.
3
Record keeping and rational regulation of an inherently dangerous instrumentality do not impinge on anyone’s right to bear arms. As for all those originalists who demand a blindly literal reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, bullets are not mentioned anywhere.
7
I don't need a gun, never have, never will.
2
Once again the Pols in CA fail to understand unintended consequences. The Rancho Tehama Shooting is a great example of how every Fascist law in the state was implemented but still the shooter built his own “Ghost Gun” and killed a bunch of people with an “Evil AR.” The reason this happened is there is a market for homemade AR's BECAUSE of CA laws where it is illegal to buy one but it is perfectly legal to build it at home. Bullet control is now only months away from the full ammo purchase background check which is a new black market made by CA. But why just cross the border in to free America and buy bulk street ammo when you can make it at home in your drug den for bigger profits?!?!? And if your going to do it illegally why not do it illegally better and make some “Cop Killaz” AP rounds for the street too. You will soon see a dead cop killed with from a handgun with a hand loaded AP bullet that is only on the street because they cant get ammo from the store but from an entrepreneurial dealer! The Ghostgun is a product of stringent laws in the state and the free market catering to these people. Criminals also benefit from such innovations and even banning making bullets at home will make it worse as re-loaders will be forces to sale their equipment of the cheap to interested criminal buys who never cared about your laws to begin with.
@Sense Offender Governments are forced to try workarounds because there is no sensible regulation of guns nationwide. Responsible gun owners are unfairly maligned because of this and should help solve the problem.
4
AR15s are not illegal to buy in CA.
1
@Orange Nightmare Maybe prosecuting straw buyers with jail time instead of probation and not letting illegals get away with murder for killing a woman walking down the street will have more effect then unenforceable laws.
Government regulation and intervention isn’t the answer. It’s time for this country to again find its moral compass. Those honest sportsman and target enthusiasts should not bear the price of those individuals that will violate the laws in any case.
14
@J F Dulles Government regulation is the answer. Just as I have to pass a driving test, have insurance and a yearly car inspection, obey traffic rules, and be susceptible to police intervention, the same should be for gun ownership. That the same number of people die from guns as car accidents is insane. People collectively drive for billions of hours per year; it is the regulations which keep people alive, and somehow we all still have cars.
8
@J F Dulles : That's the irrational equivalent of saying that drivers shouldn't be burdened with licensing, registration, insurance and speed limits just because a small number of drivers are irresponsible or have accidents.
@Orange Nightmare And when do criminals follow the law before stealing guns, ammo and selling drugs illegally on the street?
Finally someone gets it.......
I have to show my driver's license and sign to buy Sudafed and can only buy a designated amount in a given period of time, but I can go to Walmart and buy as much ammo as I could afford.
Now if they can just close the "gun show" loophole and make it so guns can only be sold by licensed dealers with brick and mortar business, we might be able get the start of some meaningful regulation started.
85
@Doug R. There is no "gun show loophole" in the state of California and most straw purchasers never get charged or just get probation at most even if they buy a gun for their felon BF who then kills a cop.
1
@Doug R. You can't make Sudafed at home. You can make all the ammo you want for an investment of less than $1,000 in reloading equipment. All that a ban or increased taxation will do is create a new black market and penalize the law abiding citizen. The problem isn't the gun. The problem isn't the bullet. The problem is the person. I suggest a minimum 10 year sentence for anyone caught carrying an unlicensed firearm. Twenty if it's used in a crime. A second offence would earn you a life sentence. Bans and confiscation schemes are unworkable in a country with 300 million firearms and a border that allows the importation of millions of tons of illegal drugs each year.
2
@Doug R.
Do you have a right to cold medication, Doug?
Is its possession and use specifically called out as a protected activity in the U.S. constitution?
No. Well, your analogy is rendered weak, at best.
The call to regulate and reduce access would be analogous to claiming a free press while adding egregious taxes or access restrictions to ink, typewriter ribbons, printer cartridges or internet access.
It is quite clear that infringing on any of the elements necessary to exercise a right is tantamount to infringing on any of the others so required.
Ammunition is gun control by another name.
1
You can purchase "reloading" equipment and make all the rounds you want for about $500. the most obsessive gun enthusiasts enjoy making their own bullets (though they will go nuts and tell you it's a round or a cartridge).
This is just not a realistic.
16
Sure it is. It is an incremental step that will help law enforcement solve some crimes, more than they are solving now. In the end we will need a lot of small steps that will eventually add up to a lower homicide rate.
2
@diverx99
"the most obsessive gun enthusiasts enjoy making their own bullets"
No law ever devised is perfect. The idea here is to make it very inconvenient to circumvent the law. Yes, the "obsessive" ones will make their own bullets - but the great majority of citizens will obey the law and register. We have to register to drive a car, and most people do that to remain "legal"!
1
A small number of violent repeat offenders commit a majority of violent crimes. If they can't get guns and ammo they will use knives, tools, bludgeons, or fists.
How about some criminal control. Commit one violent felony, or one crime while in possession of a firearm, prison for life without possibility of parole. Commit two violent misdemeanors, same. Take violent criminals out of society. We don't have too many people in prison if we have violent repeat offenders running around free committing violent crimes.
The feckless officials running our criminal systems should focus on the impact their policies have on society other than the dirtbags they seem intent on allowing to prey on the populace.
11
Regulating elements that contribute to gun violence do not get to the root causes and despite the anecdotal evidence for some of the measures they are easily subverted. Frankly you have to be an idiot to kill someone with idiosyncratic ammunition, wear gloves when loading and no prints. As for microstamping the hammer of the gun stamps the codes and can be easily altered and if bent on criminal intent there is always the revolver, emmiently reliable and the shell casings stay in the gun. Politicians hawk these legislative measures as solutions solving the problem of gun violence to avoid getting to the root causes of it.
17
So what are the root causes of violence? Please share.
1
Their gun control restrictions have worked so well, as have those in Chicago, I wonder what would cause them to think ammunition control will work any better? Strictly political efforts that assume voters are stupid enough to think "motion" equates to "action". On this strain of a parody of logic, pencils make spelling mistakes, not people.
21
@CHN 1. Gun trafficking from Indiana into Chicago. That’s what needs to stop. 2. The “guns are just a tool” argument is facile. Everything humans use is a tool. We regulate the most dangerous. Pencils don’t make spelling mistakes, but they don’t kill anyone when we indiscriminately allow anyone to have one.
Past history has shown that California is always about 10 years ahead of the mid-western conservative states that always yell a lot long before there is any pain real or imagined.
36
“Raising taxes on bullets to offset the cost of gun violence is akin to putting a levy on prescription drugs to pay for the price of heroin addiction.” HUH???!!!! Twisted logic.
I love what California is doing.
30
I would consider it more like the taxes on cigarettes going to offset some of the cost to society.
1
@Independent
You should move there. I'll take your place in MI.
You'd probably be happier, and understanding of basic logic would also increase notably.
1
I believe this theory originated with famed constitutional law scholar Chris Rock. Funny in the 1990s, true now: “if bullets cost $5000, no innocent bystanders would get shot.”
60
@AJ And even funnier is the fact criminals can just reload ammo and save the 5k.
1
@AJ In Canada an ammunition purchaser needs to have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate which shows that he/she is allowed to own firearms. A consequence of this restriction is that the owner of an illegal handgun cannot easily purchase ammunition. This makes target practice awkward. The end result is that the innocent bystander is more likely to be hit because the illegal handgun was badly aimed.
1
@AJ I remember that comment and thought it was brilliant....he is being proven correct
Guns do not kill people(except when used as bludgeoning weapons), bullets kill people. Let 'em, polish, protect, caress, even fondle their guns.
If ammunition control by the state is challenged by a gun owner, calmly explain: There is no, nor was there ever, a 2.b Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear ball and powder, shall not be infringed." Today, of course, "ball and powder" is widely interpreted by origionalists as the generic legal term for ammunition.
4
@Dr. Bob Thats when goes to the rights of the states or the people which is why CA can get away with it but it will do no good as they just made another black market.
The Foxnews and NRA gangs are up in arms about MS-13 violence and shootings in Detroit yet they detest every reasonable regulation on what they and their Supreme Court believe are various 'militia' rights. I am curious if the NRA family members of gunshot victims have any insight themselves as to a better way to preserve 2nd Amendment rights while keeping lethal weapons out of the hands and closets and basements and arsenals of creeps and thugs. Or are multiple deaths, disfigurement maiming simply a fact of life, less serious than a rainy day?
It would be a breath of fresh air if the gun toting cowboys and cowgirls out there in shoot-em-up land would --- every once in a while -- applaud a sensible approach to limiting the constant carnage instead of howling 'bloody murder'.
7
@Rabble Sport shooters can shoot 100’s of rounds visiting the range. (If you can find a parking spot!) Olympic shooters and those training for a position on the team, shoot around 20,000 rounds, Per discipline, Per year. Once on the team you often get free ammo. For the rest of us it is a considerable expense. I was hoping to not have to do my own reloading anymore (arthritis). (Not even possible with the popular 22 caliber.) For those of us mainly interested in precision shooting, precision reloading is arduous. Buying Match ammo is extra expensive already. We haven’t done anything wrong but are expected to shoulder this additional expense and/or inconvenience.
1
There will never be a breath of fresh air in a country controlled the capitalist war on the people.
Chris Rock had a genius (who knew HOW genius) bit about making guns accessible but bullets really expensive. How life imitates art.
6
@vintagetova
Life imitates art when tv-watching kids want to kill people, as in cops and robbers - and often use their parents loaded guns to do it.
@vintagetova You can make your own ammo very easily and even cast rounds from lead at home should you be a very entrepreneurial criminal.
This approach damages law abiding gun owners much more than criminals, and will do next to nothing to stop crime, suicide, or mass shootings. Ammunition, once purchased, lasts 50 years or more. This will cause stockpiling by those who shoot legitimately, and create a flourishing black market currency for criminals. Criminals only need a handful of ammo to perpetrate their nefarious acts. This reveals the true intent of gun control--it has nothing to do with common sense laws, and everything to do with harassing ALL gun owners and subverting the Second Amendment. I used to be a supporter of new gun safety laws. I feel suckered. I can't believe I'm saying this. I'm headed back to the NRA.
19
@Agilemind How about becoming part of the solution rather than hunkering down in a defensive posture and playing victim? Without knowledgeable gun owners advocating common sense gun regulations, we will be saddled with ineffective laws which try to plug holes and do so inadequately.
2
Not posting comments until Monday, when nobody reads the Sunday paper. I always want to add a big of statistical truth to this argument: 65% of all gun deaths are owners turning the guns on themselves. Thee are large large studies, where they look at every gun death in the US over 5 years, and come up with this same number. I never hear it thrown in to the mx, yet it is always a relevant point, by my line of thinking.
6
A gun is the ultimate euthanasia pill. Maybe if we make end of death decisions easier people would not feel the need to use a gun to do it.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed this years ago, it was quickly destroyed.
3
Because a rifle bullet can go a mile, for instance, I think it would be reasonable for a city to require that ammunition sold in the city limit firepower so that bullets can got a much shorter distance. Or at least reduce the speed of the bullet itself. I think a lot of injury and death is due to bullets missing their target and hitting others.
1
@John Stewart Uuuhhhh no and its illegal to discharge a weapon in almost every city within city limits. Do you even have any case studies of negligent discharges of rifle round in a city?
2
This as always my thought. If there ever was a national wish to rein in the current situation, then controlling ammunition sales is the only way to combat the current ocean of guns. Every bullet *should* have a tracer on it to show who bought it. Changing the caliber of new firearms sold, and then banning the old caliber ammo would be even more extreme but effective in eventually making the old guns harder for the wrong people to use.
3
The war on guns seems to be going along about as well as the war on drugs. Haven't we learned anything yet? When the drug of choice is a gun, people will go the great lengths to get their "fix." Laws have stopped almost nobody from abusing drugs if they choose to do so, and laws will not stop people from owning guns and ammo.
The only way to make a real difference is to change the culture.
15
@Scott What culture? Do you mean the one of poverty that leaders like 45 only make worse? There is nothing wrong with us super law obeying citizens owning guns and visiting the range. Parking is getting to be a problem at ranges. Here in Urban Progessive CA most folks own guns, but won’t necessarily admit it to their neighbors. I consider many of them dangerous in that they don’t practice with their firearms, but those of use who do practice and actually know gun safety rules are being punished.
1
@Scott How do we "change the culture"?
And how do you propose to do that? Guns and drugs are fundamental aspects of our culture because we have created a system of economic injustice that drives people to pursue many ways to cope. If you want to cure these problems you will need to change the fundamental structure of our economic system. There are better systems out there and there are ways to begin that change. But few are brave enough to even consider these solutions. Are you?
“guns don’t kill people; bullets do.”
Wait, that's my line!
I've been writing this in dozens of different ways in this forum for years. Total cricketts.
Now that guns can be printed at home & there's already 338 Million of them out there, not much use trying to regulate guns.
But manufacturing deep-drawn shell casings, or even reloading them? Not so easy.
By all means register & database every ammo purchase & limit the quantity. You want target practice? Go to a range, use their ammo.
Just look at the hurdles people go through to get asthma medicine over-counter to keep it away from meth-labs.
Why should bullets be easier to procure?
But what you really need in order to mark bullets & shell casings, is some sort of molecular signature, a microalloy or radiological marker to track where the ammo came from, which would be detectable in every fragment. Like bullet DNA.
32
@Tldr Reloading isn't difficult at all. I was taught how to do it when I was 15. It took about 5 minutes of instruction.
2
@Tldr Ranges don’t carry the high end precision ammo I need. I was hoping to retire from doing my own reloading ... arthritis ... but will have to soldier on. Well I CAN just drive over to Nevada ...
1
Why do legalize gun owners fight the police who are trying to stop the bad guys, if they are registered and legal why don’t they help the police, so that they truly help stop Crime?
6
@Carol
They are totally arrogant is why.
Microstamping of cartridge cases when the gun is fired is deceptive technological nonsense. The way the law is written it's impossible to comply and the real goal was never to have something workable, but to simply make it impossible to offer any newly designed handguns in the state.
11
@WindyPoint we already can’t buy a lot of the new models in CA
I’m afraid I had to stop reading this article, I was beginning to become very angry and frustrated with the appalling state of affairs regarding the firearms laws in America. How many corpses will it take to get things changed for a safer America, I’m starting to think that money is the only thing of real importance to the people who have the power to make the necessary changes to the law. I am sure that the federal government and gun lobby will carry on as they have with their cold hearted hypocrisy. Perhaps when enough of the survivors of gun violence get a little older they may be able to make a difference. We must hope so.
3
@Allan docherty Well I haven't seen any bodies around the nation or rivers of blood but I am not a criminal and one involve in selling illegal drugs.
1
@Allan docherty Do you feel the same way about illegal immigration? How many peoples deaths need to be attributed to someone here illegally before Liberals want to outlaw all illegal immigration?
1
Bravo. As usual California leads the nation in taking action when it is needed.
42
Once Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, this will be struck down as an illegal violation of the 2nd amendment. It is also just another feel-good measure that will have zero affect on gun violence.
15
And what will have an effect on gun violence?
1
@Bobotheclown: How about enforcing the EXISTING over 20,000 gun laws for a start? How about keeping criminals in prison instead of early release? Do you realize that 2/3 of the gun deaths in the USA are suicides. In addition, the vast majority of non-suicide gun deaths are gang and drug related. How EXACTLY do you expect a law increasing the cost of ammunition to effect criminals enough to stop gun violence. These laws are designed to hurt LEGAL gun owners, while they are LEGALLY shooting at a gun range. Nothing more.
I like the idea behind regulation of ammunition. I could if implimented wisely, produce the same results as gun registration.
3
@Mark Lindsey Guns and ammo are stolen often and both can easily be made a home but I'm sure criminals wouldn't violate these laws.
1
My reply to the statement "Guns don't kill people - people do":
Actually, guns don’t kill people, and people don't kill people either.
Bullets kill people.
Bullets coming out of guns held by people.
So both people and guns are part of the problem of bullets killing people. So both guns and people need to be part of the solution.
And, I’d like to see every gun covered by an insurance policy, which is cheaper if it is stored properly and the owner has a clear criminal record. And if the gun is used in a crime or to kill a cop (or anyone else), the insurance company pays the victim or their estate.
28
@Robert Dahl But what about thugs who kill each other illegally and get guns and ammo illegally and the only insurance they have is Medicaid? This is the real issue as so far no mass shooters have even been members or the NRA or GOA.
1
Sounds like common sense. Track ammo sales to catch the bad guys. My 2nd amendment rights are fully intact. I want someone asking questions when 10,000 rounds are sold to the same person in a short period of time.
46
@Todd Howell Because its cheaper to buy in bulk and criminals will just make or steal ammo to avoid buying it or have straw buyers which is already happening with guns.
1
My understanding is that the ATF already flags large orders of ammunition for investigation, especially in the border states. Volume orders of ammunition are not illegal but there is a thresh hold over which it triggers an investigation.
@Todd Howell No shooting has ever occurred relying on 10k rounds of ammunition.
2
Interesting. I had the thought a while ago that the 2nd Amendment did not mention the right to keep and bear ammunition. We ought to be able to require a license to buy, sell, trade or possess ammunition. The 2nd amendment fundamentalists have always railed against any "implied" interpretation of the amendment. If they want the literal truth, let's give it to them
76
@Rob Porter
Great thinking!
Additionally, in the 18th century when the constitution was written there were no guns that used bullets only muskets. A law that allows only musket loading of a firearm would be what the writers of the constitution were referring to.
3
@Independent Following that reasoning, should First Amendment rights be allowed only to what town criers and newspapers, printed manually one at at time, can communicate?
If so, does that mean the government can shut down radio, TV, internet, and folks assembling peaceably but with loudspeakers to voice their protest?
2
@Rob Porter Alright, time to lay down a little history. So remember that thing called the Revolutionary War? The British crown having heard rumblings of a revolution, ordered his soldiers to perform raids on colonial powder and ammunition supplies. Why is this important, you ask? Well since the American colonies were just mercantile stops to the British, there were no facilities to make black powder. Steal the ammo; prevent the colonists from mounting a successful revolution before it even begins. Well that didn't work because on April 19th, 1775 (the Battles of Lexington and Concord), while the British were on a mission to seek and destroy a large powder cache, shots were fired and the rest, as they say, is history.
So believe me when I say this, when the founders say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," they most definitely were talking about ammunition as well.
1