peter lindsay

Physics Teacher,


This conversation is closed.

An Alternative Form of Gun Control

Ammunition control. Pass a law that makes it illegal to keep ammunition in a house unless it's in a gun. Ammunition would be kept in a safe at the gun store or shooting range and only brought out when it is to be loaded into a gun. A special permit would allow the posession of unloaded ammo for hunting purposes but unused ammo must be returned to a storage facility. I see several advantages to this system.
1) Doesn't impinge the right to bare arms for protection.
2) An individual who tries to stockpile ammo by going to get it loaded several times in a week would attract attention.
3) If police search a residence or vehicle looking for drugs etc they could seize any unloaded ammo they find effectively disarming criminals.

Closing Statement from peter lindsay

Perhaps in view of recent events I should re-post this discussion. Perhaps Ted management could re-open it.

  • thumb
    Jul 27 2012: The current administration in the US have already addressed this as a form of weapons control. For about three years it was very hard to get ammo as it was being bought up prior to the government making it illegal to have XXX amount. The government is still attempting to "control" guns. It is written in the Obamacare program that doctors must ask each patient in every visit if they own a weapon and where it is stored.

    One of the major objectives of conquering a country is gun control. It is widely acknowledged that only the honest citizen would comply so what exactly would be accomplished? Shooting would still occur? These acts are not being accomplished by either sane or honest people. What would happen if the criminals knew no resistance or danger awaited them if they broke into a home. No argument there ... more break ins, more violance in the robberies.

    I am not arguing either for or against ... but what is the problem with honest citizens owning a registered weapon.
    I cannot understand the gun control argument. Hunting rifles and handguns that are legally purchased and registered pose no danger to the general population.

    The obvious answer is to enforce the existing laws.

    • thumb
      Jul 27 2012: My proposal doesn't include disarming anyone. I'm working with the assumption that a fully loaded gun is enough protection for person and property so additional ammunition is unnecessary to anyone who only uses a gun for personal protection.
  • thumb
    Jul 28 2012: I don't understand why computers haven't fixed this problem already... Why don't we just make guns register shots fired. If you're in a hunting zone, or a shooting range, and your gun goes off, nothing happens. If it goes off on Hollywood and Vine, your gun calls the cops.
  • Jul 28 2012: No.
    Take the guns away from the police, IRS, FBI, CIA, etc, the military and government and give them all to the voters.

    Things will change for the better.
  • thumb
    Jul 27 2012: Howdy Peter
    Well that is a new way of looking at it. I also have to agree with Pat on the only the law abiding will be effected. I am an avid shooter and law abiding citizen and ave been known to use 1000 t 1500 rounds in a day of shooting that is spread over many different calibers of firearms. I believe that the over 2000 gun laws in this country are enough maybe they should just enforce the ones we have and that could solve a lot of the problems. Again that's just my thought on it.
    • thumb
      Jul 27 2012: Hi Dean
      I assume you are using your ammo either on a range or hunting. My concept allows for storage of your ammo in a safe on the range of your choice. If you are shooting recreationally on private property then you get a hunting permit, buy ammo for the day, use as much as you like and surrender the rest at the end of the day. The point being if you are a criminal and buy ammo for the day the police will see a pattern. You buy ammo followed but a crime spree. If you are buying ammo and using it legitamately the police might ask you what the ammo is for but as long as there is no asociation with you buying ammo and crimes occuring they have no reason to hassle you. In AUS we have recreational fishing permits that last 24 hours. I can see recreational shooting working the same way. You go to the shop to get ammo and a permit for that day, but the ammo becomes illegal for you to keep when the permit expires.
      • thumb
        Jul 27 2012: Being a physics teacher you have to appreciate the scientific method. The solution is to find the real cause of the problem otherwise you not only will not solve the problem you will get the aforementioned unintended consequences and almost always get the reverse of the intended effect.

        There is a correlation between the use of psychotropic drugs and the incidents. Of course there were psychopaths before these drugs but the incident of these crimes correlates with increased prescriptions being given for these drugs. They were a factor at Virginia Tech and Columbine
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: This idea wasn't really inspired by recent events in Colorado. I mainly see it as a way of making it a bit harder for "Gangsters" to maintain an arsenal while having minimal impact on everyone else.
      • thumb
        Jul 27 2012: Yes sir my only problem with the range thing is the nearest one to me is 55 miles one way. I kind of live in the country here in texas. I think your idea is aleast a different angle at the problem but I'm afraid that most of the police could poor piss out of a boot if you worte the instructions on the bottom. I do know that with over 2000 gun laws still on the books in this country they should be able to do better. I also would be afraid our trustworthy goverment would take the ammo records determine how many firearms a person has and that is where there arises a problem. We don't think the goverment has a right or need to know what we have. If there were some way to keep them away from keeping this info it would meet with more support
  • Jul 27 2012: I think that it is a really interesting idea! I do wonder though, would this inadvertently lead to more gun ownership? If people wished to have more firepower, the only way they could get it was through owning more guns. I think it is a really cool idea though. I could see many people opposing it as a clever way to "remove the second amendment," but I think it is a fresh outlook on the issue.
    • thumb
      Jul 27 2012: I'm working on the assumption that the vast majority who have a gun for protection probably only have one gun and the ammo in it, so the second ammendment is taken out of the arguement as they are unaffected. Even if they buy a secand gun I think two guns with a total of 20 rounds of ammo in the house is still an improvement over one gun with 200 rounds in a box under the bed.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2012: Same problem as always those who are law abiding will abide those who are not will not abide and have an advantage over those who do.
    • thumb
      Jul 27 2012: At least this way you retain your ability to defend your property. I can't see many circumstances where you would need to reload to repel a property invasion. If you retain a gun purely for self defence you shouldn't go through much ammo. People who go through a lot of ammunition would attract the attention of the police who would be able to seize any stockpiled ammo.
      I think the strength of this is that it has no real effect on the law abiding as they probably only have the ammunition in their gun if its for self defence. Many people may keep a loaded pistol in their bedside table but how many keep a case of ammo under their bed? Probably only the non-law abiding.
      • thumb
        Jul 27 2012: The point is that the authorities are not going to hear about the non law abiding.
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: Anything that makes it harder for criminals to arm themselves and hang onto their ammo, without greatly affecting the average citizen must be worth a try.
      • thumb
        Jul 27 2012: Ok, but the only ones it is going to harder on is the honest people.

        As I recall you said that you don't have this problem because you don't have any borders.
        That is not the case in the U.S.

        The bigger problem that doesn't get much air play is the complicity of psychotropic drugs with these violent attacks. Although anecdotal my cousin has been on Lithium for years when he quits taking his meds he get scary and literally has to go to the rubber room. This is bigger factor with the recent tragedy in Co than guns.
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: I fully agree that this would not stop the rampage of a mentally ill lone gunman. I see its effect as mainly making it harder for career criminals to maintain an arsenal as every time the police search person, property or vehicle the seize any loose ammunition they find. As to the honest people, how many of them really need more bullets than those loaded into their gun? I would assume most firearms in the US are rarely if ever fired.
          Regarding borders, you would have to search vehicles coming in from Mexico, but if they're in the US you can seize their ammo. I can see ammo smuggling becoming a concern though.