Political Crossfire Forums

[britboy]

Howsabouts this for a compromise?

Couldn't we make home defense ammunition cost $500 a bullet - refundable if it is used legitimately for home defence?

That way, in exactly the same was as street drugs .. the 'street price' of illegal imported ammo would go up drastically. This will mean its harder for the criminals to pull the trigger (it'll cost them $500 per shot if bought legally, not much less 'off the street' -- hardly worth the grief of shooting the thing). Gang-bangers would find it bloody expensive to have their drive-by shootings. Yet the legitimate home owner has no extra problems at all (whenever he wants he can also trade his bullets back in to the shop for $500 a peice). If your home has to be legitimately defended .. every time you shoot a bullet you get the price of that bullet back, it doesn't cost you a cent until you start illegally discharging the weapon.

Hunting clubs/ranges would have strictly controlled, locked ammo which they sell at normal prices. So you can still enjoy hunting / shooting as normal.

Undoubtably this has been thought of before, but I can't off hand remember the arguments against ...

And yes ammo would still get stolen etc. but I reckon it would be harder for criminals, generally, to afford to discharge their gun.

[Knight]

It sounds like a workable idea on paper, but for me personally, I would despise it. Of course, there is the black market that would supply criminals with the same amount and type of ammunition for just a fraction. Just for me, I wouldn't want to have to pay $500 for home defense ammunition. I would just purchase another type. But, if that is not an option (I wasn't sure if you would like that as a response or not), that would make home defense with a firearm only an option for the people who could afford it. I feel that it would be unfair to the other people who need to defend themselves but cannot afford it (i.e., me :P ). I would say a no-go

[thefranzkafkafront]

Intervention in the free market is.. allways retarded.

No, theres no reason to restrict ammo, the availibily of said ammo will have nothing to do with people willingness to use a gun in sitatuations that warrant it.

[alclarkey]

And furthermore, what about practicing with said home defense gun?

[Boneman]

Or in the event of you needing more than one or two rounds at hand? OH NOES ZOMBIES!!!!!11!1

[britboy]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Intervention in the free market is.. allways retarded.

I hope you're joking! Otherwise you're advocating legal selling of all drugs (even untested new medication), allowing companies to pollute the environment, getting rid of sales tax/VAT/corporation tax, Small companies regularly getting stuffed by big companies (especially in getting their ideas nicked), price fixing, monopolys, unfair contracts, companies lying, stealing customers, unsafe goods, no consumer rights, water companies cutting off supply to houses that are too far out, power companies charging £300 a month (they'd instantly stop this 'virtual power' ****!), No Ofcom, Ofgas etc. Dogs and cats living happily together, MASS HYSTERIA!! :shock:

[britboy]

alclarkey wrote: And furthermore, what about practicing with said home defense gun?

Your practice range has ammo for sale at usual price -- not allowed to take it off site (yes I know people still might nick it -- not a perfect plan but better than 16 cents a bullet to anyone that wants it!)

[britboy]

thefranzkafkafront wrote:
No, theres no reason to restrict ammo, the availibily of said ammo will have nothing to do with people willingness to use a gun in sitatuations that warrant it.

er .. just this particular sentence .. I would suggest that if ammo wasn't available, people would be unwilling to attempt to use their gun as much. Therefore I disagree with this specific sentence.

Personally if I had an empty gun, with no ammo, I would be less inclined to attempt to shoot an intruder with it than if it was loaded. :? Perhaps that's just me!

[mathurin]

i have an even better idea, lets charge a tax on voting, that way all those poor ni**ers cant vote!!!




note: racist comment meant for effect, not to imply racism on my part

there are numerous court precedents in the US that say taxing a right is infringing a right, the 2nd does not say guns, it says arms, since a firearm without ammunition is just an expensize brick i find it hard to believe that the right does not include a right to ammunition and supplies for said firearms, when you look at the past and present armories (ie, arms storage places) they have the weapon, any maintenence equipment, and some amount of ammunition

besides, any law artificially increasing the price of the ammo is discriminating against the poor, and since the american poor is disproportionatly made up of minorities, it could easily be interpreted as discrimination against them

this is not an original idea, the moron chris rock came up with it as well in his stand-up routine, he is kind of funny, but no scholar

[Jefferson]

britboy wrote: Howsabouts this for a compromise?

Couldn't we make home defense ammunition cost $500 a bullet - refundable if it is used legitimately for home defence?

That way, in exactly the same was as street drugs .. the 'street price' of illegal imported ammo would go up drastically. This will mean its harder for the criminals to pull the trigger (it'll cost them $500 per shot if bought legally, not much less 'off the street' -- hardly worth the grief of shooting the thing). Gang-bangers would find it bloody expensive to have their drive-by shootings. Yet the legitimate home owner has no extra problems at all (whenever he wants he can also trade his bullets back in to the shop for $500 a peice). If your home has to be legitimately defended .. every time you shoot a bullet you get the price of that bullet back, it doesn't cost you a cent until you start illegally discharging the weapon.

Hunting clubs/ranges would have strictly controlled, locked ammo which they sell at normal prices. So you can still enjoy hunting / shooting as normal.

Undoubtably this has been thought of before, but I can't off hand remember the arguments against ...

And yes ammo would still get stolen etc. but I reckon it would be harder for criminals, generally, to afford to discharge their gun.

How about you stick this where the sun doesn't shine. Who is going to set all this up? How much is it going to cost? Who is going to pay for it? I carry 8 bullet in my defense pistol and another 7 in a back up mag. This is an EXCESSIVE tax. Don't forget, people were once shot and killed in 1776 over taxes.

This is not a plan for bullets, this is still a plan to violate my 2nd Amendment rights. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

[Boneman]

britboy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
No, theres no reason to restrict ammo, the availibily of said ammo will have nothing to do with people willingness to use a gun in sitatuations that warrant it.

er .. just this particular sentence .. I would suggest that if ammo wasn't available, people would be unwilling to attempt to use their gun as much. Therefore I disagree with this specific sentence.

Personally if I had an empty gun, with no ammo, I would be less inclined to attempt to shoot an intruder with it than if it was loaded. :? Perhaps that's just me!
Well the whole point of having a gun for self defense is so you can shoot the intruder, I don't really get your point. And how is the bullet costing alot going to deter people from firing a gun unjustifiably? Im sure 500 dollars or whatever isnt very significant compared to the jail sentence there going to receive. The only people that would see this as a deterrant would be gangs and criminals, but these people usually get their gunz and ammo from an illegal source, so theyll be able to buy the stuff cheaply, but we wont.

[Wolverine]

I read three sentences and realized it was idiotic.

Oh, and this $300 honey could reload several hundred $0.11 rounds an hour.

[Boneman]

britboy wrote: Howsabouts this for a compromise?

Couldn't we make home defense ammunition cost $500 a bullet - refundable if it is used legitimately for home defence?

That way, in exactly the same was as street drugs .. the 'street price' of illegal imported ammo would go up drastically. This will mean its harder for the criminals to pull the trigger (it'll cost them $500 per shot if bought legally, not much less 'off the street' -- hardly worth the grief of shooting the thing). Gang-bangers would find it bloody expensive to have their drive-by shootings. Yet the legitimate home owner has no extra problems at all (whenever he wants he can also trade his bullets back in to the shop for $500 a peice). If your home has to be legitimately defended .. every time you shoot a bullet you get the price of that bullet back, it doesn't cost you a cent until you start illegally discharging the weapon.

Hunting clubs/ranges would have strictly controlled, locked ammo which they sell at normal prices. So you can still enjoy hunting / shooting as normal.

Undoubtably this has been thought of before, but I can't off hand remember the arguments against ...

And yes ammo would still get stolen etc. but I reckon it would be harder for criminals, generally, to afford to discharge their gun.
I got a better idea, how about punishing those that shoot others when not for self defense with a prison sentence, instead of expecting 500 dollars to be a deterant.

[lilwolf]

I reload all my own ammo as I use it up. Charging that kind of money would never work anyway. To reload costs me very little and I get to experiment with different loads and such. Better velocities and all. Lots of fun.
:-D

[Winchester]

Reloding FTW:

[britboy]

Jefferson wrote: britboy wrote: Howsabouts this for a compromise?

Couldn't we make home defense ammunition cost $500 a bullet - refundable if it is used legitimately for home defence?

That way, in exactly the same was as street drugs .. the 'street price' of illegal imported ammo would go up drastically. This will mean its harder for the criminals to pull the trigger (it'll cost them $500 per shot if bought legally, not much less 'off the street' -- hardly worth the grief of shooting the thing). Gang-bangers would find it bloody expensive to have their drive-by shootings. Yet the legitimate home owner has no extra problems at all (whenever he wants he can also trade his bullets back in to the shop for $500 a peice). If your home has to be legitimately defended .. every time you shoot a bullet you get the price of that bullet back, it doesn't cost you a cent until you start illegally discharging the weapon.

Hunting clubs/ranges would have strictly controlled, locked ammo which they sell at normal prices. So you can still enjoy hunting / shooting as normal.

Undoubtably this has been thought of before, but I can't off hand remember the arguments against ...

And yes ammo would still get stolen etc. but I reckon it would be harder for criminals, generally, to afford to discharge their gun.

How about you stick this where the sun doesn't shine. Who is going to set all this up? How much is it going to cost? Who is going to pay for it? I carry 8 bullet in my defense pistol and another 7 in a back up mag. This is an EXCESSIVE tax. Don't forget, people were once shot and killed in 1776 over taxes.

This is not a plan for bullets, this is still a plan to violate my 2nd Amendment rights. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

I believe that if the street price of each bullet was, say, $200, criminals will buy less than if the price is 11 cents.

I believe that if criminals have less bullets, there is less chance they will end up entering YOUR HOME with a loaded gun. It may be partially loaded. Maybe not even that.

I believe the one off DEPOSIT of a couple of grand for a magazine .. ONLY PAYABLE ONCE, You can get your money back WHENEVER YOU WANT .. if you use the ammo legally you also get your money back to buy more (or whatever). Isn't it worth paying this small price for the enhanced safety of your family? It will make anyone discharging a weapon ILLEGALLY think twice about it. In fact, those crips and bloods would stop drive-bys within about a day.

I'd rather pay $2500 for 5 bullets, in full knowledge that I could have my money back whenever I wanted, then let criminals buy bullets for 11 cents each. I want criminals to have the most grief possible in getting and using illegally a loaded firearm as possible. I want to make it harder for these guys .. NOT YOU! I'M NOT taking your guns or ammo away. You can legally shoot as much of the stuff as you want, for home defence, range, or hunting, for the same price as you've always paid (or in fact CHEAPER in the case of home defence!).

This does not remove any part of your right to have a loaded gun for self protection. I think this would make everything safer. I think there are few people that would fail to scrape together $500 (yes - a very, very small minority. Less than 0.5%. This is not a holy grail answer to all the problems!) . Now, isn't everyone here prepared to suffer a little to make a criminal's life a sh*t load worse? You still get your ammo. It will work out CHEAPER than the current system for you. If you discharge it legally .. you get your money back. You can trade the bullets back in. Free ammo! Criminals having to go searching for dodgy bullets like junkies do a fix ... the ammo dealers life is quite tough as the police are all over them .. sounds like a winner to me ... you get your gun. You get your ammo. Your family is safer than it was previously.

(Yes yes yes there are criminals whose great uncle Jose' is a drugs baron, who cast their own ammo cheaply, who would break into a 7-11 and steal their ammo anyway. But all these options, are a hell of a lot more grief to these guys then the current 15 cents over the counter system)

This is an anti-criminal post! Not an anti-gun post.

[britboy]

Boneman wrote: britboy wrote: Howsabouts this for a compromise?

Couldn't we make home defense ammunition cost $500 a bullet - refundable if it is used legitimately for home defence?

That way, in exactly the same was as street drugs .. the 'street price' of illegal imported ammo would go up drastically. This will mean its harder for the criminals to pull the trigger (it'll cost them $500 per shot if bought legally, not much less 'off the street' -- hardly worth the grief of shooting the thing). Gang-bangers would find it bloody expensive to have their drive-by shootings. Yet the legitimate home owner has no extra problems at all (whenever he wants he can also trade his bullets back in to the shop for $500 a peice). If your home has to be legitimately defended .. every time you shoot a bullet you get the price of that bullet back, it doesn't cost you a cent until you start illegally discharging the weapon.

Hunting clubs/ranges would have strictly controlled, locked ammo which they sell at normal prices. So you can still enjoy hunting / shooting as normal.

Undoubtably this has been thought of before, but I can't off hand remember the arguments against ...

And yes ammo would still get stolen etc. but I reckon it would be harder for criminals, generally, to afford to discharge their gun.
I got a better idea, how about punishing those that shoot others when not for self defense with a prison sentence, instead of expecting 500 dollars to be a deterant.

I'd rather do both. I think criminals should be hurt hard. I can , just about, understand the logic with regards to you just wanting to only hurt them with the prison sentence and let them off the effectively $500 fine, but I'm sure if you talk to the relatives of victims you will see I think we really should punish these criminals more, a nice addition being by adding the (high) price of the bullet to the criminal as well.. (and yup, a bit more deterrent).


(let's cut to the chase .. we're messing with each other's words here. Of course everyone on this forum want criminals to rot in hell forever. But my post was about deterrent AS WELL AS THE full maximum sentence bloody possible if they step out of line. We're singing from the same hymn sheet!) :)

[RooK]

britboy wrote: alclarkey wrote: And furthermore, what about practicing with said home defense gun?

Your practice range has ammo for sale at usual price -- not allowed to take it off site (yes I know people still might nick it -- not a perfect plan but better than 16 cents a bullet to anyone that wants it!)

Practice range has ammo for sale? This phrase does not compute. Since when did my backyard start selling ammo?

You do realize there is equipment out there that enables people to make their own bullets. Not just assembling the component into a cartridge, but making the component itself. All you need is lead, copper tubing, a press, and a set of swage dies. Corbin is one compnay that comes to mind.

Jefferson wrote: How about you stick this where the sun doesn't shine. Who is going to set all this up? How much is it going to cost? Who is going to pay for it? I carry 8 bullet in my defense pistol and another 7 in a back up mag. This is an EXCESSIVE tax.

How do you think I'd feel? My defend gun holds 15 rounds and one in the pipe.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

britboy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Intervention in the free market is.. allways retarded.

I hope you're joking! Otherwise you're advocating legal selling of all drugs (even untested new medication), allowing companies to pollute the environment, getting rid of sales tax/VAT/corporation tax, Small companies regularly getting stuffed by big companies (especially in getting their ideas nicked), price fixing, monopolys, unfair contracts, companies lying, stealing customers, unsafe goods, no consumer rights, water companies cutting off supply to houses that are too far out, power companies charging £300 a month (they'd instantly stop this 'virtual power' ****!), No Ofcom, Ofgas etc. Dogs and cats living happily together, MASS HYSTERIA!! :shock:

And?

[RooK]

Is some a fan of Ghost Busters?