Serial numbers on bullets?

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Surely these 2 statements are contradictory?

If the cost to law abiding citizens goes up, the number of law abiding citizens with guns will probably go down, which means the junkie burgular will have less guns to steal, which means the supply will go down, which means the price to the criminal goes up.

 

So basically your goal is to make firearms ownership economically prohibitive for all but the wealthy?

[lazs2]

the automobile comparrison breaks down tho nashwan.

guns and cars both have serial numbers that they carry around.  

Both operators are expected to obey laws that might endanger others even tho some operators have more skill than others.  but...

car owners are not expected to regester their gas consumption nor to have a monitoring device in the vehicle that reports the way it is used.

To do so whould make cars prohibitively expensive for a lot of people....

less cars on the road would mean less accidents however.

less people visiting porn sites would mean less porn sites and less chance for child molesters..

more restrictions on motorcycles and recreational water use would mean less people being able to afford to injure or kill themselves..

It seems your attitude is extremely selfish and you wish to restrict only those activities that you have little or no interest in.

You are the kind of person that I fear the most...  The church lady of voters.

skyprancer is another perfect example... banning motorcycles or doubling or trippling the cost to operate them would  outrage him even tho they are simply a leathal toy that the rest of us pay for in higher insurance rates.... but.... he is too busy to see his own ox is in danger of being gored.

lazs

[GtoRA2]

Suprise suprise suprise.

Skydancer is posting to a thread and spouting nothing but his typical inane mindless, BS.

[lazs2]

people tend to fear powerful things that they know nothing about.

lazs

[Skydancer]

"banning motorcycles or doubling or trippling the cost to operate them would outrage him"

Yep it would Lazs. During the eighties bikers in the UK had more new laws and barriers to getting a licence put on us by the gov than any other road user. In addition whilst the Eurocrats thought it perfectly acceptable to tear round the autobahns in 300hp cars they tried to limit motorcycles to only 100bhp. Thankfully due to Triumph building the 147bhp monster I currently ride, the UK gov told em to bog off. It did p*** me off at the time. Add to that the bigger insurance premiums we pay and you have at least the attempt to do just what you say.

Whats this got to do with gun laws? bugger all !:lol

I think you lot are mad having the level of gun ownership you do, you think I'm mad seemingly to ride a bike ( a bit odd since you do too but hey!)

[GtoRA2]

Why do you participate in gun threads when you clearly disdain them and or know nothing about guns or gun laws in the US?

[john9001]

Florida law:

use a gun in a crime=10 years

shoot the gun during a crime=20 years

if you hit someone when you shoot the gun during a crime=25 to life, depending on how good your aim is.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Gunslinger


For once I disagree with you!

You are not going to file off a laser etched round, not without some real work.  We laser etch all our tools and they are a pain to de-etch.

I'M JUST GOING OFF THE INFO THE ARTICLE GIVES:

this doesnt look like it costs much

There isn't any new laws to ban non-etched ammo

if you guys are this avid about not helping law enforcement enforce current gun laws and/or finding people who use guns for crimes (they are the reason liberals want to take your guns away in the first place) then why do you even buy guns with serial numbers on them?

Sure there's going to be a lot of rounds that are fired in crimes that arent going to have this on it but that doesnt mean that some criminal isnt' going to get careless and use one that does.

     I'm guessing you don't regularly fire your tools out of a cannon
into solid objects though...just a thought.

[Nashwan]

So basically your goal is to make firearms ownership economically prohibitive for all but the wealthy?

No, I don't have a goal. I'm just posting on a BBS, that's all. Just discussing effects.

All I did was point out that if you reduce guns in circulation, by whatever means, less guns get stolen, which means less get supplied to the market by that route.

We can argue all you like whether new supply routes will take over, but I don't think even lazs would argue with the premise that more expensive guns = less gun owners = less stolen guns.

As to my "goal", if I were trying to advance one it would be for gun registration and safe storage laws, which are the 2 best methods of stopping guns getting into the hands of criminals.

car owners are not expected to regester their gas consumption nor to have a monitoring device in the vehicle that reports the way it is used.

Is there a suggestion that guns have such a device? Of what sort? Sounds a bit science fiction, to me.

less cars on the road would mean less accidents however.

A a cost of less people going places. Like work, the doctor's, shopping etc. All of which contribute to reducing life expectancy and standard of living.

less people visiting porn sites would mean less porn sites and less chance for child molesters..

I don't see anything wrong with porn sites, and I don't see any connection between porn and child molesters. (And neither does anyone else, apart from a few nutters on the far left/womens rights wing, or on the far right/God bothering wing.

more restrictions on motorcycles and recreational water use would mean less people being able to afford to injure or kill themselves..

Adults should be free to risk their lives with whatever sports they like.

It seems your attitude is extremely selfish and you wish to restrict only those activities that you have little or no interest in.

Not at all.

I believe people should be free to do what they want. I also believe in placing reasonable restrictions on dangerous objects, to try to increase public safety.

As examples, in the US there are laws governing crash testing of cars, including pedestrian safety. Why should a "law abiding" safe driver have to pay extra for a car that is less likely to injure a pedestrian? Why should he be "punished" like that? Why should law abiding people be required to pay for VINs to be stamped on major car parts?

Life is full of such restrictions, exempting guns is a bit silly.

You are the kind of person that I fear the most... The church lady of voters.

No need to be afraid of me. I don't have the power to take anybody's gun, have no intention of trying to get any power to take people's guns, and wouldn't take people's guns even if I did have the power.

skyprancer is another perfect example... banning motorcycles or doubling or trippling the cost to operate them would outrage him even tho they are simply a leathal toy that the rest of us pay for in higher insurance rates.... but.... he is too busy to see his own ox is in danger of being gored.

Motorbikes are very rarely lethal to anyone but the people who ride them. Certainly they kill less third parties than cars.

And I doubt they push up your insurance rates, that's not how a market economy works. Otherwise insurers who didn't susidise motorbike claims with car owner's premiums could charge the car owners less, and put the other insurers out of business.

[Nashwan]

BTW lazs, you didn't say whether you are opposed to registration numbers on bullets in principle, if a cheap safe and reliable system could be implemented.

[Toad]

More to the point, why implement registration numbers on bullets unless a useful system could be implemented?

Item one would be the experience of New York and Maryland.

But in the over four years that the systems have been in effect neither has solved a single crime. To put it bluntly, the program "does not aid in the mission statement of the Department of State Police."

Why waste time, effort and money on something that has no utility in solving the crimes?

Item two would be the very basics of gun serial numbers and registration.

In theory, if a gun is left at the crime scene, licensing and registration will allow the gun to be traced back to its owner. Police have probably spent hundreds of thousands of man-hours administering these laws in Hawaii. But despite this massive effort, there has not been a single case in which police claimed that licensing and registration have been instrumental in identifying a criminal.

The reason is simple. First, criminals very rarely leave their guns at a crime scene, and when they do, it is because the criminals have been killed or seriously wounded.

Second — and more important for ballistic fingerprinting — would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons. The guns that are recovered at the scene are not registered

[/b]

Put the effort and money where it will do some good. The one thing that has been effective in lowering gun crime has been -suprise- punishing gun using criminals. Project Exile is one example.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Yes the hassles. Come on now what?
You think this is accomplished by one person on a piece of notebook paper? Do you have any idea the cost, time and man hours this will take to shuffle this through umpteen hundred different processes? Do you know who will be paying the bill on this?
Noticed you avoided the question. I`ll ask it again. What benefit would come from a law that would only affect the allready law abiding citizen?
 

   

As far as I know there is nothing preventing the confiscating of illegal weapons used by gangs or anyone else , as far as that goes, as it stands now. How`s that working out?
The idea of taking away and the confiscating of weapons of any kind, ammo or whatever used in illegal activities is a pure joke. It will never happen.
  All this time and money would be more well spent in the prevention of crime BEFORE the facts and not AFTER the facts on some whimsical joke. Hiring and training of additional law enforcement comes to mind.

 

Yep and like I said, I avoid it in all cases possible. I`m not going to run out and get my social security number tattoed on my forehead either.

 

You aware of the proposal to put chips in handguns? Not nearly as far fetched as you seem to think bud.

I answered the question earlier but I guess you didnt read it. If it solves 1 homicide or prevents 1 its worth it. Hassle or not. BTW you are aware they have computers now right? Don't need paper for it.

Chips in handguns I have seen. From what I hear law enforcement is waiting until they work properly every time.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
raider... think about it... When a gangbanger is caught with a gun it is allways confiscated... one, it is probly stolen... two, he doesn't have a licence to carry anb three...  if he is a felon or convicted of domestic abuse(how likely is that ?)... he like, beet would have lost the right to have any firearm... none of these things would have anthing to do with the ammo.

but let's look at it this way... you seem to be saying that to solve even one crime... the expense and intrusiveness and potential for abuse is worth trying any sceme.

would you say that to stop one siime bag child molester it would be worth requiring everyone to show ID to get an internet connection and then pay say.... oh... half a cent or so (might cost a little more tho latter) for every internet site that you visit... the isp would charge this and be required to turn over those lists of sites visited to the  government.

lazs

You dont need a license to carry if you are in a car. All you have to do is not keep it concealed and tell the cops you have it.

comparing the internet to guns is a little bit of stretch but I will bite. No problems with the list. As I don't do anything I am worried bout the Government finding out I really dont give a rat's bellybutton if they check it out if it helps catch some molesters.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
That sir, is simple horse excreta.

First, Malvo stole the Bushmaster rifle from the Bull's Eye. So, IF they had ballistically fingerprinted the bullet from the Bushmaster and IF they got a match when they went to the Bull's Eye there would have been nothing to link the gun to Malvo whatsoever.

Second,  California Department of Justice study tested 800 guns and got incorrect matches 62 percent of the time. So it is HIGHLY doubtful that a correct match would have been made in any event.

So, go ahead, enlighten me. Explain your statement and show me how ballistic fingerprinting would have caught Malvo "from the start".

Bet  you can't.

He stole it huh? you sure about that? Sounds to me like he bought it under the counter.

According to an ATF search warrant affidavit, a June 2000 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms audit found that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply could not account for 160 of the firearms that had been in its inventory. Another inventory review, conducted shortly after the rifle used in the killings was traced to the same store, revealed 78 guns could not be accounted for.

The affidavit shows that the gun-sales paperwork, which under federal law must be maintained and kept in order, was disorganized and hundreds of records were missing.

An analysis of ATF records also showed that between 1997 and 2001, Bull's Eye sold guns used in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults.

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR02126.html

btw your right about ballistic fingerprinting not helping in the case. I must have misread something. I withdraw my remark.

[bustr]

Originally posted by Raider179
You dont need a license to carry if you are in a car. All you have to do is not keep it concealed and tell the cops you have it.

comparing the internet to guns is a little bit of stretch but I will bite. No problems with the list. As I don't do anything I am worried bout the Government finding out I really dont give a rat's bellybutton if they check it out if it helps catch some molesters.

You have no control over what the government thinks is illegal or legal during a fishing expidition. So when you give your right to privicy away so cavalierly, you are giving away your right to the assumption of innocent untill proven guilty. Every time one person gives away the right to privacy like you just did, you make it that much harder for the rest of "We the People" who understand what is fundimentaly at stake.