# Gun control: Are you kidding me?

Gold Member

## Main Question or Discussion Point

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBF2XRX08E.html [Broken]

Ok now... do these assemblymen in my state even think about what they are talking about when they make these bills? What i gotta ask is this:

1) How in gods name do they think they can stop any crime if this is a california only thing? Can't you just go over a nearby border and stock up on ammo?

2) Arent there problems in engraving a serial number on every single bullet made that come from when the bullet is fired (expansion)

3) Using all we know about history and human logic, would this bill do absolutely anything?

4) What if you steal someones ammo? Wouldn't that person then have a few hundred bullets saying "I committed this crime" on them? (methaphorically of course.... but of course all the evidence has to point to him too for it to get by a jury hopefully)

I dont really like making a new jerk reaction... but i really really need someone to logically defend a bill like this for me...

Last edited by a moderator:

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Pengwuino said:
4) What if you steal someones ammo? Wouldn't that person then have a few hundred bullets saying "I committed this crime" on them? (methaphorically of course.... but of course all the evidence has to point to him too for it to get by a jury hopefully)
That's my biggest problem with it (along with wondering who's going to pay for the administration and upkeep of such a database). Either outright steal the ammo, buy it using a fake ID (or stolen credit card and D.L.), buy it from another state (I doubt criminals are worried about regulations about crossing state lines with firearms), make your own, or stockpile ammo without serial numbers before the rules go into effect and make a fortune selling it on the black market after the rules go into effect. It comes across to me as one of those "feel good" laws that doesn't actually do anything other than create the illusion that lawmakers are doing something to distract people from the real problems.

Gold Member
They say a half cent tax per bullet and $50 a year per vendor. And considering bullets are purchased at millions of bulelts per month i bet, they can probably afford it. Everything else is assanine though it seems, am i wrong? Moonbear Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Pengwuino said: They say a half cent tax per bullet and$50 a year per vendor. And considering bullets are purchased at millions of bulelts per month i bet, they can probably afford it. Everything else is assanine though it seems, am i wrong?
How many of those bullets are bought with taxpayer money for law enforcement? Are they going to have to lay off cops to afford the increased cost of the bullets? You know the manufacturers are going to need to charge more to make up their costs for adapting the manufacturing process to stamp every bullet with a unique serial number.

I have yet to hear any good arguments in favor of this plan. You don't need to stamp every bullet with an ID number to track who is buying ammo if that's the goal, and all that would do is track the law-abiding citizens buying ammo. It's not going to improve gun safety (when a law-abiding citizen has a gun accident, you don't need ballistics evidence to find out whose gun fired the shot, they're right there crying about it), and it's not going to do anything to track those who intend to use their guns for crimes because they won't purchase the bullets legally. Matching a serial number to a purchaser doesn't mean that's the person who fired the shot.

Gold Member
And would this mean that you'd have to be filling out forms every single time you want to purchase ammo? Pff, id use the bullet on myself after a while if i had to go through that crap. And ive seen some ammo production lines on Modern Marvels and my god, its practically a blur on the little conveyer systems. How would you imprint a unique laser'ed in number ot each of those bullets??? Wouldnt the laser have to be incredibly accurate and incredibly fast?

And what about the problems with putting the number in? I think the... ugh, the equivalency to the percussion cap area haha, that part, is the only place you can put a serial number right? Because wouldnt the number just be destroyed if it were put on the actual bullet when it expands and wouldnt it be destroyed during expansion if it were put on the sides of the casing?

Last edited:
brewnog
Gold Member
Pengwuino said:
They say a half cent tax per bullet

This sounds ridiculous. You Yanks need to get them to put a $500 tax on each bullet, that would start to sort things out. Gold Member ..... thats a joke right? brewnog Science Advisor Gold Member Pengwuino said: ..... thats a joke right? No. Deadly serious. Gold Member haha deadly serious, good one, so i guess that was a joke Either that or you brits are really welcome to having no freedom... brewnog Science Advisor Gold Member Pengwuino said: haha deadly serious, good one, so i guess that was a joke Either that or you brits are really welcome to having no freedom... No, I really was being serious. Everyone over here seems to live perfectly happily without bullets. I don't see where freedom fits into this. Gold Member ... you do realize that your violent crime statistics skyrocketed after you introduced heavy weapons limitations right? And i cant even begin to comprehend how you think making bullet purchasing illegal (might as well be if its$500 per bullet) isnt a freedom issue. Might as put a $2000 per gallon tax on cars. People can walk right? Christ its 4:30 am... and i gotta get up at 5:30 haha, ill get back to this topic later. Last edited: brewnog Science Advisor Gold Member Pengwuino said: i cant even begin to comprehend how you think making bullet purchasing illegal (might as well be if its$500 per bullet) isnt a freedom issue. Might as put a $2000 per gallon tax on cars. People can walk right? I didn't say anything about making the sale of bullets illegal. I mentioned taxing it. You must be aware that road fuel is already heavily taxed (around 350% here). This tax serves well to make people think twice before using their car unnecessarily. It works. I have absolutely no idea how much bullets cost, but if the argument is that they are used for self defence, then I would consider a$500 (or even £500) surcharge per bullet to be a pretty reasonable fee to have the means with which to protect my life.

Last edited:
jtbell
Mentor
Hey guys, we have a politics forum for this, you know...

brewnog
Gold Member
jtbell said:
Hey guys, we have a politics forum for this, you know...

He started it... :tongue2:

I could report my ammo missing/lost or stollen, kill someone a year later and probably get off.

Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Pengwuino said:
And would this mean that you'd have to be filling out forms every single time you want to purchase ammo? Pff, id use the bullet on myself after a while if i had to go through that crap. And ive seen some ammo production lines on Modern Marvels and my god, its practically a blur on the little conveyer systems. How would you imprint a unique laser'ed in number ot each of those bullets??? Wouldnt the laser have to be incredibly accurate and incredibly fast?
And would you need to report every time you used a bullet so they could cross that number off the list?

And what about the problems with putting the number in? I think the... ugh, the equivalency to the percussion cap area haha, that part, is the only place you can put a serial number right? Because wouldnt the number just be destroyed if it were put on the actual bullet when it expands and wouldnt it be destroyed during expansion if it were put on the sides of the casing?
That's something I'm really confused about. The part of the bullet that hits the target and is left behind as evidence would be pretty badly deformed, wouldn't it? How could you be sure you were reading the number right, if it could be read at all? If it's on the casing, then it's easy enough for the criminal to just collect the casings and take them with him, not leaving any evidence of the number on the scene. Toss the casings down the sewer or in a river, and they are never going to be traced.

And, what happens when there's a mix-up and the wrong bullets wind up in the wrong box and someone commits a crime with a bullet that should have been in your box and you get the blame for it? You wouldn't be able to confirm your serial numbers match the box label; presumably the numbers would be on the inside, otherwise all a criminal would have to do is scratch off the serial number the way they do on the guns themselves.

Maybe this is a ploy by the manufacturers of ammo to boost short term sales by convincing people to run out and stock up before the rules go into effect.

If I can think of so many ways to evade the rules on this one, I'm sure a criminal mind can come up with even more.

Bottom line, if we can't even manage to track the guns getting into criminal hands, how on earth do they expect to track the many-fold greater number of bullets?

brewnog
Gold Member
mapper said:
I could report my ammo missing/lost or stollen, kill someone a year later and probably get off.
It would take quite a lot of forward planning though, unless you just do it as a matter of course, just in case you have to kill someone in the future.

Gold Member
brewnog said:
I didn't say anything about making the sale of bullets illegal. I mentioned taxing it. You must be aware that road fuel is already heavily taxed (around 350% here). This tax serves well to make people think twice before using their car unnecessarily. It works. I have absolutely no idea how much bullets cost, but if the argument is that they are used for self defence, then I would consider a $500 (or even £500) surcharge per bullet to be a pretty reasonable fee to have the means with which to protect my life. Bullets cost at the absolute very most,$3 each, and a huge majority costs $.02-$.03 each. And no, your using the wrong logic. You cant compare gas to these bullets unless you start using comparable taxing figures. For gas, it would be about a 1,000,000% tax applied (thus, i dunno, $500,000 a gallon?) so your$5 a gallon cost is a horrible comparison. And i know you didnt say illegal but if your thinking $500 a bullet, it might as well be illegal since shooters will fire off a good 100 bullets at practice ranges at the minimum. So yah, put gas at$500,000 a gallon and then tell me "It works". And to add to that, lets pretend global warming and the emissions of cars were non-existant. Then could you tell me therse any logical reason to put a tax on gas other then to fill the pocket books of the government? Because if you do change your mind about that, then your arguemnt against bullets is completely backwards seeing as how bullets dont pollute the environment and the only people using bullets from crime will ignore hte law and make their own bullets (a LOT of people make their own bullets, nice hobby).

Gold Member
brewnog said:
It would take quite a lot of forward planning though, unless you just do it as a matter of course, just in case you have to kill someone in the future.
No you wouldn't, you could do it a week later. If your the person investigating the murder, you would actually assume the guys telling the truth because think of it this way... if your a murderer and you want a bullet, you would steal one and probably use it very soon afterwards. The investigator would know this and think "oh it makes sense that the bullet was stolen a week before, the criminal wanted to kill someone soon".

brewnog said:
Everyone over here seems to live perfectly happily without bullets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3750568.stm

--
Knife crime in the west of Scotland should be treated as a public health issue like heart disease or cancer, according to a leading doctor....

Last year Strathclyde Police found nearly 3,000 blades being carried illegally in a public place.

Rudy Crawford, an A&E consultant at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, said: "People carry all sorts of weapons, some of them quite horrific, ranging from small pocket knives that they think can't inflict a fatal injury, which is entirely wrong, up to machetes, bayonets, swords.
--

#### Attachments

• 11.8 KB Views: 309
Gold Member
lol a sword?

I can just see it now... so meone cuts in front of you and you whip out a huge 3 foot long sword

Gold Member
And i highly doubt this is the gun industry tryen to 'boost sales' real quick. This is classic California legislature at its finest, no doubt.

How to incubate an ammo black market

brewnog said:
I have absolutely no idea how much bullets cost, but if the argument is that they are used for self defence, then I would consider a $500 (or even £500) surcharge per bullet to be a pretty reasonable fee to have the means with which to protect my life. Generally, CCW courses require their students to fire hundreds of rounds at firing ranges. http://www.marksmanpistol.com/Pages/Marksman%20-%20Courses.html [Broken] -- Materials Needed - Handgun with a minimum of 650 rounds of ammunition -- 650 rounds would be$325,000 just for the tax. People with CCW licences tend to put in extra practice. 1000 rounds per year of target practice would cost $500,000 in tax. Carrying 22 rounds with your handgun (8 in the gun + 2 fully-loaded 7-round spare magazines) would mean you would be carrying at least$11,000 in merchandise on your person. Considering that the black market value of your rounds would be one or perhaps even many hundreds of dollars each, simply carrying a concealed weapon would make you a high-risk crime target if your weapon "printed" at all.

Last edited by a moderator:
jcsd
Gold Member
Actually the UK has a slightly hogher violent crime rate than the US, but it's murder rate is very, very low to compared to the US for one simple reason - tight gun control.

If USians prefer to have guns that is enitelry there business (to be honest I think gun owenershp and gun culture is far too widespread in the US currnetly that tightre gun control can solve much), but I think there is a lot of disninformation about guns in the US - they do cause social problems , not least of which is an inflated murder rate.

This bill could be helpful for law enforcement agencies. The current technology allows police to identify the gun that fired a bullet. There are difficulties to this. Barrell rifling can be scratched to alter the rotation of the bullet that gives it the characteristics used for ballistics matching. A barrell can also be easily replaced. Bullets that are greatly deformed, as from striking a bone or other hard object, are often unreadable.

I think this alphanumerical designation (to reduce space) that Pengwuino mentioned will be placed on the casing. It will help police solve crimes. In a typical crime the police have a bullet and no gun to match it to. They may have no suspects. If they have a casing that has a designation on it, then they have a place to begin looking for the weapon that fired that bullet. It is unlikely that a criminal will want to spend the time to collect any casings after firing a weapon.

There is already a system in use that is very similar, but much less efficient. There are tests that can be done on thechemical composition of the lead in a bullet to determine where it was made and sold. It is not accurate enough to convict a person in a criminal case imo.

Here is a site with a few details about the criminal conviction of a man named Michael Behn. It states that the lead composition was important to his conviction. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/031124/24forensic.htm
If there was a designation on the casing he might not be in prison.

Any time someone steals your ammunition you should contact the police anyway. It indicates a likelihood that the thief will commit a violent crime. If customers must pay another half cent to cover the cost of each bullet being labelled then that seems justified if the labelling helps solve violent crimes.

Will this law reduce violent crimes? Probably not. It may help somewhat to solve these cases. I just hope its not yet another step into taking away the rights of U.S. citizens by demonizing firearms.

Last edited by a moderator: