Serial numbers on bullets?

[GtoRA2]

Vulcan
 This is nothing new. Cali politicoes do this **** all the time.

[Toad]

I never did see any explanation on how bullet serial numbers were going to prevent crime BEFORE it happens, but is this the post-crime scenario?

Liquor store clerk catches one between the eyes. They dig the bullet out and it is F340583076334, a Federal 9mm solid.

They call Federal and learn Federal sold that bullet (in a box of 50) to Western Firearms Distributors. They call WFD and find out the rounds went to Joe's Gun Store. They call Joe's and they tell him the box was purchased by Jack Rabbit.

The squad cars pull up around Jack Rabbit's house and they cuff him, stuff him and sweat him downtown. Jack says he sold all his spare 9mm ammo at a garage sale. Doesn't remember who bought that box.
The cops check Jack's 9mm and the ballistics don't match. Then what?


OR.. Jack claims that after stopping at Joe's, he went to the hardware store, leaving the ammo in a plain brown bag in the car. He came back, the bag was gone. He didn't report it because it was only $20 worth of goods.


The concept is totally flawed.

[Skydancer]

As you point out constantly mr Jackal its an American BBs

Inevitably we discuss American issues! not rocket science is it?

Want to discuss British issues? Feel free.

Jealousy? Pah.

Ouch that lump on my head never did go away:rofl

[lazs2]

man...

so raider... soviet russia was very safe for children and people (except from their government).  Would you accept that level of control to achive that level of safety.

nashwan.  traking every bullet puirchased with the users ID is indeed the same as having to regtester to buy gas and having a device that tells how fast and where you are going would solve crime.

motorcycles do indeed kill about 3000 people a year and not all of them are the rider.   they are useless and pretty much unregulated compared to guns.

you admit that taking cars out of the hands of people would make for less crime and death but say that we can't do that because it would inconvience people and make us less productive and be a hardship.  I agree.

firearms prevent from 1-3 million crimes a year(FBI stats).   who knows how many lives saved.   I would venture that someone killed or raped or burgled or beaten because the new laws prevented him from having an effective weapon.... I would venture to say that would be a "hardship".

And skyprancer.... the point of the motorcyle example (yes I own and one and fight to keep  themand fight regulation)  the point of it was to show you how narrowminded you are..

your brand of death and destruction is your gawd given right but you become a pissy church lady when it comes to things that you don't care about.   Height of hypocracy and.... just plain stupid... the expression "hoisted on his own petard" was custom made for you.   You are too narrowminded to see that agreeing to restrict others makes you vulnerable to the next little pissant that doesn't like what you are doing (motorcycles) and the government laughs because the get more and more control.

lazs

[moot]

forget it lazs, he's too old to reverse the brainwash.

[lazs2]

and... to answer nashwans question...  I am against making it mandatory to laser etch bullets and to have to sign for em.

If it is not mandatory then it is simply useless.  If I can still buy cheap russian or surplus ammo and I can still buy or make cheap reload componenhts then.... I have no problem with voluntary etching.

I fail to see how the more expensive laser etched ammo would ever get sold tho.   I can't believe that you wouldn't see it as something that would eventually be mandatory.

I guess my answer is... if it is the choice of the manufacturer then it really is none of my bussines.   If he want's to charge me for it or sign for it... well... I won't be doing bussines with him.

lazs

[Skydancer]

I gues as we live in different countries Lazs the comparisons don't work.

Motorcycles are pretty heavily regulated here. You have to go through three tests before you can even ride one. Then when you've passed if you are 21 or under you can only ride something with 33hp for two years. Add to that the fact  you have to wear a helmet, and our roads are festooned with a remote speed camera system ( thanks holland! )

You can see regulations to stop you topping yourself are pretty tight. Now I know you guys won't give up your guns and it'd be damn near impossible to institue a gun ban in USA now. But that don't stop me from thinking that somewhere down the line you guys got it a bit wrong on that issue. ( granted you have many things right and some much better than us ) But Guns no thanks.

Its called the freedom to have an opinion!

Besides, should I be dranged enough to use  my motorcycle as a weapon to harm others I'd most likely end up dead myself or in another form of wheeled transport! If I used a gun to do that I'm not sure the same would happen. So thats why I think there is a difference. Motorcycles and guns are not the same thing at all. A dangerous fool with a motorcycle is firstly a danger to him or herself. A dangerous fool with a gun is a potential mass murderer.

Quite a different thing huh?

[Seeker]

Originally posted by Skydancer
I gues as we live in different countries Lazs the comparisons don't work.

Motorcycles are pretty heavily regulated here. You have to go through three tests before you can even ride one. Then when you've passed if you are 21 or under you can only ride something with 33hp for two years. Add to that the fact  you have to wear a helmet, and our roads are festooned with a remote speed camera system ( thanks holland! )

You can see regulations to stop you topping yourself are pretty tight. Now I know you guys won't give up your guns and it'd be damn near impossible to institue a gun ban in USA now. But that don't stop me from thinking that somewhere down the line you guys got it a bit wrong on that issue. ( granted you have many things right and some much better than us ) But Guns no thanks.

Its called the freedom to have an opinion!

Besides, should I be dranged enough to use  my motorcycle as a weapon to harm others I'd most likely end up dead myself or in another form of wheeled transport! If I used a gun to do that I'm not sure the same would happen. So thats why I think there is a difference. Motorcycles and guns are not the same thing at all. A dangerous fool with a motorcycle is firstly a danger to him or herself. A dangerous fool with a gun is a potential mass murderer.

Quite a different thing huh?

I've been arguing pro drugs and anti guns on the 'net for years.

And over the years; I've learnt that the arguments for the two are pretty much the same.

_IF_ guns don't kill people; but people kill people; _THEN_ drugs don't kill people; people kill people.


In the end; both come down to personal responsibility; which is something that most law makers are uncomfortable with.

Because if you judge people personaly responsible for their action; then there's a whole middle tier of civil servants out of a job; and a whole swath of lobbyists fresh out of ideas on how to control other people's lives.

As a motorcyclist; what do you think of the helmet law??

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
I never did see any explanation on how bullet serial numbers were going to prevent crime BEFORE it happens, but is this the post-crime scenario?

Liquor store clerk catches one between the eyes. They dig the bullet out and it is F340583076334, a Federal 9mm solid.

They call Federal and learn Federal sold that bullet (in a box of 50) to Western Firearms Distributors. They call WFD and find out the rounds went to Joe's Gun Store. They call Joe's and they tell him the box was purchased by Jack Rabbit.

The squad cars pull up around Jack Rabbit's house and they cuff him, stuff him and sweat him downtown. Jack says he sold all his spare 9mm ammo at a garage sale. Doesn't remember who bought that box.
The cops check Jack's 9mm and the ballistics don't match. Then what?


OR.. Jack claims that after stopping at Joe's, he went to the hardware store, leaving the ammo in a plain brown bag in the car. He came back, the bag was gone. He didn't report it because it was only $20 worth of goods.


The concept is totally flawed.

Your right. the program would never work unless it was a nationally instituted mandatory policy.

prevention would take the form of the ******* criminal who is too stupid or dumb and go to use his own I.D. to buy the bullets. Realizing they want his I.D. he says forget it and leaves. You gave an example where the owner did not show personal responsibility. If he sold his ammo he would have to report it. If it got stolen he would have to report it. Yeah it probably wouldnt be some wide-reaching crime-stopping/solving idea, but I will say that it might be better than absolutely nothing.

So to finish out your right. It won't do anything as long as its just in California but at least they are trying to do something about all the murders they have.

Lazs I believe that would be extreme. But if you want to say we would turn into the USSR because of a little privacy loss I suggest you take another look at the bill of rights. Did the USSR have one of those?

[lazs2]

raider... my point is that you are willing to give up freedom and choice (at least someoneelses freedom) for the chance of security... Where does it end?   I am sure that there is something that you like to do that could be taken away in the interest of security.

skyprancer... I have no problem with you having an opinion.  I have all the problem in the world tho when you feel that you are right in taking away peoples rights.  I think that your example of the the heavy regulation for motorcyles is wrong..  you can't kill yourself on one with 33 hp?  or someone else.... so what if it is illegal to carry a passengter.... If you own the bike then there is the POTENTIAL for you to do so and ki8ll them... or kill a child... that is what you are talking about with guns... the POTENTIAL.   There are allready laws against abusing or harming innocent people with firearms...  

Firearms deaths are a big deal.... fully investigated and punished whereas motorcycle accidents are just.... accidents.. even if someone dies.

My point is that I am willing to see 3000 people here a year die and many more thousands maimed in order for people to enjoy the absolutely useless sport of motorcycling.  I call it freedom..

You, hypocritically, are not willing to see a few thousand people here killed by firearms even tho they are far from useless and probly prevent more deaths than cause.

so what makes you feel that your brand of death and destruction is your right and that people wishing to enjoy shooting or defend themselves should not have any rights?

do you really think the government is the entity to determine who or who shouldn't have firearms rights?   even tho more people have been killed by their own  governments than have ever been killed by private citizens.   Our founders realized this and made the right to keep and bear arms the second most important amendment.

lazs

[midnight Target]

I checked the constitution... which of those amendments says "right to cheap bullets"?

[Pooh21]

No where, thats a cool idea MT first we can tax bullets at $1 each, and then later we can expand it to the printed page!!

Comrade Lenin would be proud of you

[lazs2]

yeppers.... if every word of your free speech was a buck then would you have free speech?     I would say that prohibitively expensive bullets would fall under "infringed".

lazs

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Pooh21
No where, thats a cool idea MT first we can tax bullets at $1 each, and then later we can expand it to the printed page!!

Comrade Lenin would be proud of you

What exactly is a cool idea cuz?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
Your right. the program would never work unless it was a nationally instituted mandatory policy.

[/b]

It won't work even if it is a nationally instituted mandatory policy.

The nationally instituted mandatory policy of ID'ing firearms buyers and tracking GUN serial numbers doesn't work. I gave you just one example above. Did you read it?

prevention would take the form of the ******* criminal who is too stupid or dumb and go to use his own I.D. to buy the bullets.

[/b]

You do realize the stats right now say that the vast majority of GUNS used in crimes are stolen right? You somehow think ammo will be different?

Do you know any teens that use fake ID to buy booze or get into nightclubs? Do you really think the criminal class is not as creative as young college kids?

Lastly, you do understand that homemade, professional quality  bullets are extremely easy to cast from tire wheel weights? That one can do a few hundred in an hour or so?


 

You gave an example where the owner did not show personal responsibility.

[/b]

This country does not require personal responsibility. Not in drunk driving, not in on-demand abortion, not in anything really. There is always a concocted reason and a lawyer who will defend the right to be irresponsible.

If he sold his ammo he would have to report it. If it got stolen he would have to report it.

[/b]

OK, he reports it stolen. Then what? How does that STOP a crime from happening? The ammo is GONE. Further, who does he report it to? As I pointed out BATF doesn't even know where the GUN REGISTRATION records are.

Yeah it probably wouldnt be some wide-reaching crime-stopping/solving idea, but I will say that it might be better than absolutely nothing.

[/b]

Yes, let's waste BILLIONS on an idea that at the very, very, very best might be better than nothing.

There are ideas that work. They punish criminals. Project Exile for one; you might want to check that out.

So to finish out your right. It won't do anything as long as its just in California but at least they are trying to do something about all the murders they have.

[/b]

Actually I'm right that it won't do anything on a national scale either. What California is doing is as effective in stopping crime as repainting the California legislative buildings mauve.


You want to actually DO something? Then target and punish the criminals.

The Kansas City Gun Experiment used intensive police patrols directed to an 80-block hotspot area where the homicide rate was 20 times the national average. Patrol officers seized guns by frisking individuals who were arrested and by making plain view sightings of firearms during routine traffic violation or safety stops. Traffic stops were most effective in locating illegal guns, with 1 gun found per 28 stops.

Gun crimes, including drive-by shootings and homicides, declined significantly during the 29-week experimental period between July 1992 and January 1993. Drive-by shootings dropped from 7 to 1 in the target area, while increasing from 6 to 12 in a comparison area. Overall gun crimes dropped 49 percent (169 to 86) and criminal homicide declined 67 percent (30 to 10) from the 29 weeks before the patrols to the 29-week experiment period.

However, there was no effect on other crime indicators, including calls for police service, calls about violence, property or disorder crimes, and total offense reports within the target area.

Significantly, there did not appear to be a displacement effect (i.e., gun crimes did not increase in any of the seven surrounding patrol beats).

You might also want to Google up the Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire and Project Exile which involves a number of different cities.

These programs all have one thing in common. A person is held directly responsible for his decision to break gun laws that are already on the books. He ends up in jail very quickly.

Personal irresponsiblity with firearms lands one in jail.

That is probably considered "too tough" by many but it works.... unlike an unworkable and foolish bullet serial number program.