It’s time to make bullets really, really expensive

Two years ago next month, Jared Loughner killed six people and wounded 12, including seriously injuring Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, in a mass shooting in Arizona.

Earlier this year, James Holmes walked into a movie theater and unloaded countless rounds of ammunition into the audience during a showing of the new Batman film, killing 12 and wounding over 50.

While Holmes was armed to the teeth with gas canisters, two handguns, a shotgun and an AR-15 assault rifle, Loughner needed nothing more than a Glock 19 with a high-volume magazine to carry out his rampage.


Bullets via Shutterstock

As long as guns, particularly handguns, are legal there is nothing we can do to prevent someone from sneaking one into a public event or movie theater and opening fire. There are, however, two ways to bring the body count way down:

First, bring back the ban on high volume magazines.

Whether or not owning a gun makes you safer – you don’t need 31 rounds to fend off a burglar.

Second, make bullets really, really expensive.

Whether or not the Founders established a right to own assault weapons for recreational use – they certainly said nothing about ammunition being immune from the tax code. What was a joke not too long ago doesn’t sound like that bad of an idea now:

Currently .40 caliber bullets, used in the Aurora shooting, can be purchased online for as little as 24 cents per round. That’s less than a cigarette (just under 34 cents), two eggs (33 cents) or two slices of bread (28 cents), and is the same as four sticks of gum.

James Holmes bought over 6,000 rounds of ammunition online in the months leading up to the shooting, but likely spent less than $2,000 dollars in order to do so. Buying bullets in bulk should cost at least enough money to set off a red flag with your credit card company the same way that buying too many household appliances at Sears does.

And think about it.  We tax cigarettes to help pay for anti-smoking programs, and more generally, to help create a disincentive for smoking.  Why not tax bullets to help create a disincentive for mass slaughter?

Though, remember that gun advocated immediately following September 11 wouldn’t let us check the FBI database to see if any suspected terrorists had bought guns. From the NYT, December of 2001:

The Justice Department has refused to let the F.B.I. check its records to determine whether any of the 1,200 people detained after the Sept. 11 attacks had bought guns, F.B.I. and Justice Department officials say.

The department made the decision in October after the F.B.I. asked to examine the records it maintains on background checks to see if any detainees had purchased guns in the United States.

Regardless of the lack of political will, had Loughner’s purchases set off a red flag, or had Loughner not been able to fire 31 rounds before needing to reload, more people would be alive today.

It is unlikely that guns will ever be outlawed in this country, and thus it is unlikely that gun deaths will ever completely cease. However, as Republicans have found with their efforts to end abortion rights, if you can’t ban something the next best thing is to make it difficult to access.

We’ve always been told that life is our most precious resource. The market currently prices the ability to take that resource at about 24 cents.  It’s time to change that.

Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

  • 2553077


  • Smith

    Oh yes, what a smart man. Let’s just mark up ammunition so only the rich can afford bullets. Fuck the country farmer who uses a gun to protect his livestock, or any responsible gun owner who shoots for recreation. Oh but the police and military can still have cheap ammo too right? Well we might as well tax candy bars and soda to $50 dollars per item. That way only the rich can afford to indulge every once in a while. But fuck all the poor low class peasants, they can have only eat vegetables. We should tax gas too! That sure could cut down on pollution if gas was more expensive than wine. Oh speaking of wine! Let’s tax all alcoholic beverages so nobody will ever drink and drive again (except the rich)!!!

    The CLOWN who wrote this article is beyond an idiot. He is a helpless, mentally repressed tool. He doesn’t deserve to live under the flag of the United States. Buddy, if you are reading this, you need to thoroughly examine your life and how you came to be where you are at right now. Examine what you are doing and how someone, somewhere down the road ensured you could do it today.

    And you know what? That person had a gun.

  • John Colaw

    there has been an 11% excise tax on ammo for years.

  • Molon Labe

    Lets also ban fists, tax fists, ban beer and whiskey ( oh wait tried that), ban hammers, bats pencils, bows and arrows, sling shots, toy guns, water pistols, muffins, fireworks, these things all kill people everyday or assist in doing so. as a matter of fact ban everything that can hurt us and we’ll all be safe and become immortal. Jon Green precisely how many times have you been shot at? How many times have you had to fend off evil people armed with firearms, (who didnt go through background checks to obtain thiers) with a firearm? Please tell the 75 year old Grandma on a fixed income in Oakland, or Chicago, or Atlanta why she should have to pay whatever arbitrary monetary amount YOU and your ilk think is a reasonable amount for ammunition to defend herself. Please tell the rancher in Texas, Arizona, Colorado, or Whyoming who carries and uses a rifle every day to protect his livelyhood from wild predators, that his “evil” rifle should be fed only insanely priced and taxed bullets.
    Somehow that will keep criminals from killing people. How many bullets did the 19 hijackers need to kill 3,000 people? How many bullets did Mcveigh need to destroy the Murrah Building? How many bullets did a man from Littleton CO need to kill one and injure 11 others with his “Tactical Assault Sedan”? Answer: Zero, Nada, Cero, 0.

  • Parallax

    It’s kinda funny. I got here by googling “The danger of making ammunition expensive”. Ironic. I actually thought that this article was meant as satire….right up until the last sentence. I wonder how increasing ammo prices will correlate with accidental shootings. There are lots of people out there with guns, who can’t afford (or find) enough ammo to practice frequently and responsibly.

    As for big magazines, the offender managed to kill 12 people. Will limiting mag capacity to 10 rounds save 2 lives? To a logical person this is BAD MATH. Unfortunately this is the kind of math our elected officials base policy on.

  • Parallax

    I would prefer NOT to kill someone, but happy thoughts aren’t going to protect me or my family from people who don’t share that preference. In a situation where lethal force is warranted, I’d like to have the option to use lethal force.

  • Justin Behrens

    Sweetie, please stop making normal gun owners look bad.

  • Justin Behrens

    Powkat, that is one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever read. Grow up.

  • By partisan

    It’s so funny Obama wants to ban guns! In the last year 60 million guns have been sold! He is the best gun salesman in the world! The more people try to ban guns the more guns are sold. Keep up the good work! Lets say you crazy people think you could ban guns. Lets say you got your way. Now are you going to be the one who tries to take those 250 million guns away? No way in hell! As for ammo you can make your own. It’s like sand in your hand the more you squeeze the more comes out! The facts are that guns don’t kill anyone only crazy people kill!

  • WHY? do you really want to KILL someone?

    we should lock you up under the Baker Act

  • 2nd AMMENDMENT BABY!!!!!!!!!

    It isn’t the guns that kill people…. It’s the person pulling the trigger. should we just outlaw hammers now? because people die from hammers to you know. Should we outlaw cars? probably not. Theres more deaths per year from vehcles. You can’t just take away our right to bear arms.

  • Jon, Its obvious you are deeply poisoned but try to break out of your programming and THINK!

  • anon

    Why don’t we make knives really expensive? they cause far more deaths than bullets.

  • CyanLink

    Hopefully since he claimed PTSD he’ll lose his right to carry. What a shitbag. I slept most of my time away in Qatar on my way back from Afghanistan for Christmas. And the time I was awake was reading a book or eating McDonalds, loved that place.

  • CyanLink

    Key words being: that have received significant media attention. So I guess the other 87% of crime doesn’t matter.

  • CyanLink

    OK. Make sure you tell the Cartel/Bloods/Crips/MS13 to jack up the prices on the rounds they sell so the playing field will be level with law abiding citizens. There is such a thing as the black market and this will not affect that.
    I’m getting sick of making this argument. You are not hurting the real problem, mass shootings are a small part of crime. Yes you may stop that but you are making more innocent people targets for violent criminals. You are having a knee jerk reaction here. Learn more than what you just see in TV. Think about the drive-by shootings in low income neighborhoods that happen so often, the news doesn’t even bother to show it.

  • awesome

    go fuck your mother you stupid dickbag, maybe they should make gay porn cost $1,000 a magazine faggot.

  • wacio

    Let me see how large are magazines in politicians security serviceman guns. Are they five rounds. I don’t think so. Do they need that many to defend themselves. Well better bring too many bullets to the battle than not enough.

  • Protect your Rights

    Lmao… this has prob already been said but fact is if more people had conceal carry crimanals and douche bags like Holmes would have to think twice about attempting a shooting rampage. Also, a ban on extended mags is completely rediculous…. reloading a mag takes a whole of 5 seconds… idiots who want to do a mass shooting just have to carry more mags. Honestly, does anyone truly think the size of a magazine would stop idiots like that? Would banning guns be your next suggestion? Educated idiots are the worst…

  • Something doesn’t have to be complex in order to work.

  • You’ve obviously never shot, or you’d know that it takes about 2 seconds for a competent shooter to change magazines. In the meantime, us hicks want high-capacity mags for the same reason cops do: a gun without bullets is a very expensive, awkwardly shaped club, and none of us want to risk facing a bad guy with only a club.

    As for making ammunition expensive, that’s even dumber. Having to pay $2 a round is not exactly the sort of disincentive that fazes someone who wants to commit murder, or who can afford to spend $2000 on ammo (as though that’s cheap), but it’s sure as hell the sort of disincentive that can faze a cop or a responsible gun owner from going to the range to get some extra practice in.

  • Stickemup

    Guns don’t kill people. Husbands that come home early do.

  • Obama

    Liberals are spineless anti Americans

  • Chris

    Texas is the worst place in the world to be a criminal because of the likelihood that you’ll be shot and killed in the act of committing a crime by a law-abiding citizen that just happened to be carrying.

  • Naja pallida

    I linked to a source in a post above… and the Sandy Hook weapons were legally purchased, and made readily available in the home to someone who obviously had no business having access to them. The shooter’s mother is just as much to blame as he is, because of her irresponsibility, and she paid the ultimate price for it. One can only hope others learn from her mistakes.

  • Naja pallida

    For the purposes of firearms ownership, there is a legal definition for “psychological problems” which was laid out in a gun control bill signed into law by some raging liberal who wanted to take away everyone’s guns, named Ronald Reagan.

    And no, you’re right, crazy people don’t need guns. But I wonder if there’s a reason why we restrict explosives – not that there was much restriction in 1927 when the particular bombing you refer to occurred. Just because they don’t need guns, doesn’t mean we should be making it easier for anyone to get them.

  • janinec

    Please cite sources… I do not know of any proof showing that “most” mass shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms. The one at Sandy Hook school was not legally acquired. The guy took his mother’s guns.

  • janinec

    And what constitutes “psychological” problems. Isn’t that a bit arbitrary? I hear you leftists always saying everyone on the right is “unstable” because you don’t agree with the right’s views. Besides, who knows when a person could crack someday? Nobody does. But if there is someone who can stop that person before they do much damage, then we can save lives. By the way, if someone is whacko, they don’t need a gun to kill people. The worst school mass murder that ever took place happened in 1928 and was done with a bomb.

  • janinec

    Don’t be silly…

  • janinec

    What part of “shall not be infringed” do folks not understand??

  • janinec

    That is because that is “leftist” thinking…not “liberal” thinking.

  • janinec

    Jon, you should have taken some economics courses instead of political science. You would have learned something much more valuable. By the way, the 2nd Amendment is not about shooting for pleasure, hunting or even protecting oneself from intruders. The 2nd Amendment was written with government tyranny in mind. The Founders wanted to make sure that the citizens could stop a tyrannical government should it try to oppress the people (which happens when it gets too big and too powerful). Maybe you should read our Founding documents and the Federalist Papers too… But take the Econ courses first…please.

  • Sam

    Considering ammunition is considered arms what your article suggests is an infringement.

  • Abraham Collins

    I’ll cast and swage my own rounds if you tax ammo. It’s not difficult. You lose.

  • asdfasd

    How about you bring your little ass over here and try to take my guns boyyy.

  • civil

    The sad thing is, I know you are serious when you rationalize that more expensive bullets or guns will somehow change the irrational thought processes of a mentally ill person. Those who chose to walk into a business or a school to kill other people didn’t give a damn how much his ammunition cost him. He didn’t care that what he was about to do was wrong, or bad, or evil, or anything else, because he was mentally ill. The real solution to these shootings was and is clear to someone before they happened, but because some do-gooders felt it might be mean spirited to keep a mentally ill person instutionalized, or some psychiatrist felt like someone might think badly of him if he hospitalized or even just reported someone who expressed thoughts of killing other people, that we just think it better to turn a blind eye and hope nothing happens. well, it happened, and it happened in such a way as to make me angry and sick to my stomach. Unless we wake up and put an end to political correctness and return to treating mentally ill people in mental hospitals, even if it is for a very long period of time, then we aren’t truly facing the problem. we are turning away from treating severe mental illness and hoping nothing bad will happen. In the meantime we have tens of thousands of homeless people roaming the streets like ticking time bombs that we know without a doubt are going to go off eventually while we all feel better about not upsetting anyone by keeping them locked up. Those are the people who are killing our co-workers, 20 beautiful children, 5 brave teachers, and God knows how many more before we finally quit pussy footing. No! It is not cheap ammunition that killed these babies, and you know that damn well/ You just have a do-gooder agenda and refuse to face facts and accept responsibility, so you come up with some asinine idea to raise bullet prices. God bless those babie and their families, and God help those spineless people who refuse to do what they know is the right thing to do, and come up with some stupid agenda instead.

  • dj*

    There was something I read about each bullet being coded. The expense of doing that will have to be passed on to the purchaser (ka-ching) and the scanners and technology at point of sale for individuals will be passed on to the purchaser (ka-ching) and high taxes that can go back to the community for upgrading law enforcement to make it easier to identify the owners of bullets and a fund for the victims of gun violence (ka-ching). Blanks for practice and non lethal shot can be less regulated. Most sportsmen want to practice. I KNOW technology can make rounds for targets and a few expensive rounds for the hunting trip is fine. An individual who needs rounds for food gathering can even get a waiver if there is a need and proper id and plenty of paperwork. Why not????

  • voice of reason…

    Oh boy… this is one of the most ill-conceived solutions to the gun violence yet!

  • Tom RKBA

    Has the author contemplated the consequences of such a tax? What if states refused to collect it? What would happen if states decided to prevent Federal law enforcement officers from operating within their borders for the purposes of collecting the tax? What if states told the Feds they could no longer operate at all in their state? What if a state passed legislation banning the tax?

    Does the author think that Mexican cartel smugglers would not begin transporting ammunition across the border? How would the government determine if a gun owner had paid the tax on ammunition? What additional measures would be required to implement such a thing?

    Would there be personal limits on the quantity of ammunition a person can possess? Is 1,000 rounds of ammunition a small amount? Competition shooters can shoot up 2,000 rounds or more in a weekend. Will reloading become illegal? How will that be controlled?

    Finally, what if people decide to ignore the law? How many people is the author willing to put in prison?

  • Timothy

    That would do wonders for the reloading (roll your own) business. And I don’t think you’re going to get some good old boys banging out rounds with a Blue Press to pay sales tax on anything.

  • JackLinks

    How about requiring life insurance on firearms for say $250,000 minimum?

  • This ranks up there with the most moronic suggestions I have ever seen.

  • Paul Smathers

    Guns are not very effective at killing people. The easy way to kill hundreds of people is with a fertilizer bomb. Bombs are very mush easier to make than guns. James Homes could have easily wiped out the hundreds of people in the theaters, probably most by just using fertilizer like was done to the FBI building.
    I guess that is what many people want …just please don’t use a gun.

  • J

    So lets make it too expensive for firearm owners to learn to safely and effectively use their firearms…?

  • Chuckmonk

    Those who pound their swords into plowshares soon find themselves plowing for those that kept their swords. I believe the intent of this amendment has less to do with the examples cited and more to do with keeping well armed citizens to defend against a government turned tyrannical. Granted it can be argued that a well armed militia was established with state national guards a counter-argument can be made that it has long since morphed into just another arm of the national army..

  • There are plenty of mindless conservative rants in here as well. It seems the lack of thought and due consideration are common deficiencies on both sides of the fence.

  • RE Hafner

    You got it Fred, a liberal educated idiot exposing his ignorance for all to see. And an Obama supporter. That about says it all.

  • RE Hafner

    That nonsense has been tried, complete failure. The uk a prime example.

  • RE Hafner

    Sweetie, you have run out of steam. You have run out of facts and reason.

  • RE Hafner

    Sweetie, what is it about facts that the libs hate?

  • RE Hafner

    You are out of touch Sweetie, modern bullets are also formed from pure copper. Maybe you should check you home for lead paint.

  • RE Hafner

    Sweetie does not have an intelligent response therefor she resorts to the liberal mindless rants.

  • RE Hafner

    Emelye-You are correct, gun control has accomplished nothing, Chicago a fine example.

  • RE Hafner

    MerryMarjie, how wrong you are. When you have time google “The Armed Citizen”.

  • RE Hafner

    You can’t depend on cops, they shoot each other, innocent bystanders and family pets.

  • Abortion isn’t being stopped. Don’t be naive. Abortion is merely being driven back underground, to the detriment of women’s health and well being.

  • This isn’t really a liberal/conservative issue in my mind. In many other areas you’d consider me a flaming progressive. I just can’t see how anyone utilizing reality based thinking can imagine that gun control would work its intended purpose, reducing violent crime in the US.

  • How does mocking me prove anything?

  • Fred P.

    What a surprise – a “Political Science major” and a “Deputy Regional Field Director on the Obama Campaign in Virginia.”
    No real-world experience or knowledge.

  • MerryMarjie

    Yes, hysterics are better left with the TV soaps, and so are your ideas about guns being protection. I know the make-believe scenario you have in your head about “protection,” but you’re never going to figure me out and vice-versa, so we’ll leave it at that.

  • Asterix

    Well, heck, pretty soon we won’t have to license guns because people will be making them for themselves:


  • Papa Bear

    Well, he’s black, and he got elected…twice!

  • jarhead1982

    START a report to Homeland Security Jan 2012 reviewed violent mass attacks since 1970 and found that since then 368 attacks were by leftists and 58 by righties, establishing the irrefutable facts that lefties have set the bar high for what consitutues a terrorist act.

  • jarhead1982

    YA, but such simple minds are very good goose stepping in their hobnail boots!

  • jarhead1982

    Jack, Jack, Jack, dont you know by now, antis HATE when people use facts and logic they cant refute as all they can do is fling cheap irrelevant one liners as a chimp flings pooo in anger.

  • Sweetie

    Yeah, who needs to feed the poor. Give them guns!

  • Sweetie

    Oh, another creative word. “Libbers.” Did you make that yourself?

  • Sweetie

    Is this an NRA bot? We have “libtards” and “loonyversity” and a bunch of bizarre ranting. It’s all starting to sound the same.

  • Sweetie

    God has nothing to do with guns.

  • Sweetie

    OMG. They’re gonna get me! They’re out to get me! THE CRIMINAL PREDATORS! They’re everywhere! Quick, build a shelter!

  • Sweetie

    I guess that’s why Japan is flooded with guns. Even the schoolgirls carry them.

  • Sweetie

    Research has found that people who identify as conservative are more fearful.

  • Sweetie

    Obama wants to turn us all Muslim, too. The end times are near.

  • Sweetie

    Simple rules for the simpleminded.

  • Sweetie

    The odds of being killed in an accident aren’t laughably low, despite what any “libtards” may have said about guns.

  • Sweetie

    “And ~this~ Dear Readers, is the mind of the liberal thinker.”

    You have no idea what liberalism means. But, please carry on with your rant.

  • Sweetie

    I can see that you’ve been handling lead frequently.

  • HenryBowman419

    Actually, that statement is simply false. Russia has a far higher per capita firearms homicide rate than the U.S., and firearms ownership there is banned unless one is more equal than others.

  • slideguy

    So much for attempts at dialog. No substance, only insults.

  • HenryBowman419

    Actually, I think such folks have already determined the amount of freedom that you should have, namely zero. They are truly totalitarians at heart.

  • RE Hafner

    slideguy-The number of homicides is what is important, not what they were committed with. You are just as dead when bashed with a hammer than when shot. Dead is dead. BTW the African nations sport the highest homicide rates, also very strick gun control. A link just for your personal edification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

  • RE Hafner

    Links are only others views. not necessary fact. With the modern web verification is only a check away. Most sites do not allow long winded dialog or a string of links. You are entitled to your opinion but everyone has them, A liberal with firearms you say? Is that like Obama with a budget?

  • Naja pallida

    So, in short, my initial post was correct and that is all he has done on this issue. Thanks for clarifying.

  • Barry Hirsh

    Please. Can you be serious?

    “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in
    existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not
    interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects
    modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil
    Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment
    applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United
    States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment
    extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
    even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478
    F. 3d 370, affirmed.

  • Barry Hirsh

    OK, I’ll enlighten you. Obama signed “must-pass” legislation that had the national parks provision attached, because he needed the credit card law as an arrow for his political quiver. It was a pragmatic cost/benefit analysis, and purely cynical. I’ll just bet that his handlers were slapping high-fives over the propaganda coup – gaining a big plus for “doing something” about banking, and “proving” he respects the Second Amendment with a throwaway law that has no real strategic significance viz his ultimate goals.

    Whereas, Obama’s recorded statements, votes and activism as a state and federal senator illustrate unequivocally that he opposes handgun ownership, semi-automatic firearm ownership, and carrying arms for self-defense. It is said that politics is the art of the possible. Obama has determined that those goals are not possible at this time.


    However, his goals remain intact.

  • slideguy

    “Did you ever hear of criminal control? It works!”

    Not so as that I’d noticed here in the United States. We have, by far, the greatest per capita number of deaths by firearms of any nation that isn’t actually in a state of civil war.

  • Once again a liberal proves that he feels a woman raped, battered and left for dead is somehow morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead would-be rapist at her feet.

  • slideguy

    “Did you ever hear a liberal present a feasible argument when it come to disarming the citizens?”

    I post them regularly, but you haven’t referenced them, and there’s no substance to your post. Lots of characterization, with no evidence, no prior cites. You seem willing to insult but not to actually engage in dialog. And I’m speaking as a very liberal gun-owner.

  • Barry Hirsh

    In other words, “deemed legal” = “made up out of thin air”.

    Non sequitur.

  • Naja pallida

    Please, enlighten me. List all the things Obama has done to ban guns.

  • Barry Hirsh

    Mike, these dolts are in denial viz how many there are of us, who WILL NOT roll over and go to the boxcars.

  • RE Hafner

    Kurt, have a copy of the Constitution in front of me, there is no intent implied limiting ammunition to lead projectiles. Where do you come up with such wild theories?

  • Barry Hirsh

    Try it and watch what happens.

    Methinks that the PTB know what would happen, and are cooling their jets because of it.

  • Barry Hirsh

    Are you REALLY that stupid, or do you know the truth and are deliberately obfuscating?

  • RE Hafner

    The AK47 does not utilize a clip, it is a magazine. Maybe we should limit you on the horse power of the automobile you drive.

  • RE Hafner

    Praha-Did you ever hear of criminal control? It works! Firearms are an inanimate objects as is ammunition. Without human interaction they both just sit there. Man has been killing man thousands of years prior to the introduction of firearms. You need to find another scapegoat.

  • RE Hafner

    slideguy-Did you ever hear a liberal present a feasible argument when it come to disarming the citizens? All the libs do is blindly repeat what they heard from their masters. When challenged the libs stutter and repeat, never changing the dialog.

  • RE Hafner

    Naja-The firearms used at Columbine were purchased by a legal buyer. There were no laws preventing the purchase. Now, gun laws are not in place to control criminals. Gun control laws are initiated to control honest citizens. How many criminals can you name who went through the legal firearms purchase procedure?

  • RE Hafner

    MerryMarjorie-Please refrain from make believe scenarios. A firearm is insurance, you do have insurance of some type, don’t you? Does anyone tell you how much protection you need? Not everyone around the corner is carrying a UZI, in fact probably no one is. Hysterics are better left with the TV soaps.

  • slideguy

    My that was substantive. The best you could do, I presume.

  • slideguy

    Of course. Why didn’t I think of that? That strategy has worked so well with drugs.

    Well, no, it hasn’t. During alcohol prohibition, it made the mafia fabulously wealthy, and our current utter failure of a war on drugs has simply made the drug suppliers so wealthy that they can afford better weapons than most national armies.

  • Papa Bear

    Yep — there’s a reason why it’s mostly the feds that enforce those laws…

  • ACKF

    If you look at the CDC site and compare gun related deaths of all types to deaths related to alcohol, both long term use / abuse and DUI, cancer related to smoking, the cost of medical care for those who smoke and drink you will find that gun related deaths pale in comparrison. The problem is smoking, alcohol, and illicit drug use are acceptable in our society. If you ban or tax the hell out of the lesser of the evils why not do it to the ones that actually cost our society so much?

  • PrahaPartizan

    It’s not gun control. It’s weapon control. You can still own as many guns as you want. Isn’t that what the argument has always been by the gun lobby. The Constitution does not explicitly state that a right to ammunition exists, which is something I would imagine that a strict constructionist would appreciate. I’ve always been amused about how the construction of the Constitution varies for the right depending on what their preferred policy might be.

  • FSA hater

    I think we should tax anti-civil rights assholes like yourself at a 105% rate and bring back debtors prison.

  • PrahaPartizan

    Damn skippy! And when those “law abiding” gun owners break the laws by buying bootleg bullets, we can throw their butts in the slammer, where they will belong as any other felon. Some misguided people may believe that breaking the law is OK if it involves an activity they approve of, but the courts seem to have taken a dim view of that philosophy. With any luck, the really rabid gun-owners will prove to be recidivists, breaking the law multiple times, with the result they can spend the rest of their lives in prison.

  • Naja pallida

    Yeah, it varies by locality. Here I think it’s like 200 gallons of wine or beer on hand at any given time… but reading more into it, distilling is still illegal by federal law. Though, I maintain that is more because of the taxes, and the income for a powerful lobbying group, involved than any real danger to the public from home distilling.

  • mgardener

    And abortion has been deemed legal by the US Supreme Court.
    Doesn’t make the republicans any less sneaky on how they ‘choose’ to get rid of things the do not agree with.

  • Barry Hirsh

    Yeah. And it will disproportionately impact the nigras. Ooh, there’s civil rights issue here….

  • Barry Hirsh

    The difference is that the words “people”, “right”, “arms” and “infringed” are actually IN the Bill of Rights. I don’t see “abortion” in there anywhere.

    Try again.

  • SLOphoto1

    So then only rich people can own guns? Sounds elitist to me.

  • Jon, you’re just what I have become to expect as a product of our “education” system – an indoctrinated shill that know very little about the topic at hand.
    Magazine bans and more taxes would only affect those who obey the law(s), and they/we are NOT THE PROBLEM.
    You lefties just don’t get it: NO amount of “gun control” will prevent criminals from plying their trade. There are way too many explamles of “gun control” being an absolute, abject failure as a crime-fighting tool. Look at all of the areas, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., that have very severe and prohibitive “gun control” and then look at the violent crime rates in those areas.
    And you poor, misled, misinformed fools are the future of this nation? God Help Us.

  • Papa Bear

    There is generally a limit on the amount of home brew you can make in a given amount of time, and the amount you can have stored on your property…

  • Like you, I have a high opinion of my fellow citizens and don’t really expect to need a gun at any particular time and place or I wouldn’t be there. However I hold a different opinion about my infallible ability to predict the future and realize that I could be wrong. What is the damage if I should really NEED a gun and don’t have one? What is the disadvantage of having one available? You choose to render yourself ineffective and depend on someone else with a gun to protect you if the worst happens (cop). I am not willing to bet my life that a cop will be that close if needed.


    Both are stochastic processes with low absolute event probability. Mitigation efforts for each event are not particularly inconvenient and are indispensably helpful if needed. Because the events are unpredictable, a case-by-case analysis is not possible in most circumstances. As you point out the hassle of choosing whether to take precautions (by removing the spare kit from your car or removing a safely holstered handgun from concealment and leaving it unattended) may be more trouble than it’s worth even if such events COULD be predicted. Also, in the case of firearms, unnecessary handling increases the chances of other undesirable events.

  • Mike Vanderboegh

    Try both of your proposals, then hide and watch what happens. The resulting civil war will make today’s crime statistics look insignificant by comparison. Don’t they teach the Law of Unintended Consequences in college anymore?


  • Dear Jon Green;

    You’re a moron. It’s always amusing when a loonyversity know-it-all expounds on a subject he doesn’t understand. The term “bullet” is often misused to refer to a complete cartridge.Obviously, you don’t understand the first thing about a subject that you droned on about paragraph after paragraph. Do yourself a favour and do some research before you bore everybody to distraction.

  • I love how Libbers react to gun violence… 1 MORON shoots someone and 30 MILLION legal, sane gun owners have to *pay the price*… Nice try DOUCHEBAG, never gonna happen…

  • RE Hafner

    Liberals can’t think, they only parrot their masters.

  • slideguy

    The law of unintended consequences says that if you boost the price of ammunition high enough, a black market will arise that’s profitable enough to create an enormous new criminal enterprise. Has no one learned anything from prohibition?

  • Stop this crap. People always want to come up with a scheme that burdens on 99.9% of us to control a few evil dirt bags. Keep it simple. When the evil do their deeds throw them in jail for a long time. If they kill someone kill them. It will give the 99.9% of us more freedom.

  • My right to defend myself, and others, exist no matter where I happen to be standing.

  • Most people will never need or use a gun in self defense in their entire lifetime. But when you do need one, you need it real bad and you need it right away. Pleading for mercy from the bad guy for time out so you can go home and get your gun is not likely to save you.

  • RE Hafner

    It’s called stocking up prior to the price increase. Since China has been buying raw material the cost of lead, brass, steel etc has skyrocketed. I remember when a 25 lb bag of lead shot was 8 dollars now it is over 54 dollars. However; Obama has been exposed as a gun grabber by his past voting record and comments while running his mouth on the campaign trail. Obama fails to understand he cannot tell the American people what they can and cannot have.

  • mgardener

    Just like abortion.
    We too can play the republicans game.

  • RE Hafner

    Powkat, you appear to be suffering from a sever mental disorder, firearms in the hands of citizens secured the freedom of the country. Armed men are free, unarmed men are subjects.

  • Gun & ammunition control does nothing more than take these items out of the hands of law abiding citizens while providing a new market for organized crime. Look how ineffective we are at stopping illegal drugs. What makes people think that gun control would keep us safe?

  • RE Hafner

    Your social experiment was tried in the UK, a complete failure where the criminals have more rights than the home owner and the crime rate did not decrease..

  • RE Hafner

    A few other items to consider. The military, not the civilian police, politicians or school boys determine what an assault rifle is. Those who reload their own ammunition are skeet, trap, sporting clays, participants are the competition handgun and rifle shooter along with avid hunters. There have been no reported cases of anyone spending a thousand dollars on ammunition reloading equipment and heading out to commit a criminals act. If you think reloading gear is low cost check out Dillian’s catalog the Blue Press. Reloading is cost effective only if you shoot a lot.therefor not feasible for a local punk. For you that think ammunition is not taxed, get a life. Hunters and shooters supported a federal tax for the Pittman Robertson Act that provided for the re stocking of animals to their original habitat . The explosion of wild turkeys, deer, black bear, cougar, and other species population for all to enjoy was the end result of the hunter/shooter self imposed tax. Fore the fools such as Jon Green and some of these liberal posters that harbor the idea that gun and ammunition control will lead to a safe environment should take a course in history instead of showing their ignorance. Disarming citizens has led to genocide by the governments that they thought were to protect them, poor fools.

  • RE Hafner

    As usual the liberals cry for gun control completely ignoring that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle and that the theater shooter did most damage with a shotgun. Shall we consider a few facts? Gun control does not control criminals, if such laws were effective Chicago and Washington DC would be crime free. Gun free zones only insure a target rich environment for the perpetrator. Armed citizens are more effective in controlling criminals than police. .The police are not responsible for your safety, you are! Ammunition bans are the folly of fools therefor Jon Green is a fool. The jurisdictions with little or no gun/ammunition bans have the lower crime rates. Jon Green should gather facts prior to exposing his ignorance.

  • jack burton

    Approximately SEVEN to TEN BILLION bullets sold in America each YEAR.


    If only TEN PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then

    that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION dead people

    happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then

    that would mean that there would be at least SEVENTY MILLION dead people happening

    from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a

    person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN MILLION dead people

    happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    And if only ONE ONE HUNDETH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the

    death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN HUNDRED

    THOUSAND dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    And if only ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for

    the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVENTY

    THOUSAND dead people happening from guns each year.

    And that’s STILL far too large of a number – it’s more than double the actual

    number who die from the use of a gun each year.

    So you think that because much less than ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of

    bullets sold each year are used to harm people each year then a immense tax is

    reasonable on the 99.999% that are in very safe hands that harm no one?

    And ~this~ Dear Readers, is the mind of the liberal thinker. Punish the totally

    innocent for the misdeeds of the very few. This is who wants to determine the

    amount of freedom you have, based on the problems that other people make for


  • jarhead1982

    Yeah, sad he didnt have the politicial clout to veto that poison pill legislation and get the credit card reform bill passed by itself. But hey, dont let facts get in the way of you fantasy either.

  • jarhead1982

    I feel the same way getting near a progressive!

  • jarhead1982

    TADA we have a winner, harkening back to the days of Jim Crow laws making any sheap firearm illegal and unobtainable to slaves who had little money.

  • jarhead1982

    When you can figure out how to impose that tax upon the career criminals, gang members, and suiciders responisble for over 92% of deaths committed with illegal use if a firearm each year, get back to us eh!

  • jarhead1982

    Show your link to prove otherwise cause antis have no credibility EVER!

  • Barry Hirsh

    What a pedestrian, philistine argument.

    You seek to emasculate a right by redirecting your attack to that which makes the right viable?

    BZZZZZT!!! Sorry. Won’t work.

    Obama wants to make gasoline prohibitively expensive, you want to make ammunition prohibitively expensive. The difference is that driving motor vehicles on public roads is not a right, but carrying a sidearm in public for the purpose of self-defense IS. If you know anything about American jurisprudence (which you obviously do not), you must know that anything that materially “chills” the exercise of a fundamental right is constitutionally impermissible.

    You may as well face the fact that there is NOTHING you can legitimately do to stifle my right to arms simply because you don’t like it. That dog, as they say, won’t hunt.

  • jarhead1982

    Then we should never hear your biased and insane comments again as by your belief you are limited to paper, pen, quill and pony express.

  • jarhead1982

    You mean registration which by law in the US doesnt apply to felons (Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968, 5th Amendment)?

    You mean registration which began in Canada in 1997, has cost Candians ove r$2 bil in taxes, has a 50% compliance, has traced 47 guns a stolen, and hasnt solved on violent crime in that time, of course in the summer of 2012 the long gun portion of it was repealed.

    Or the CoBIS system of tracking fired sheels used in MD, NJ, NY since 1997, $4 mil per year cost to taxpayers, and it proved that yes indeed, those two firearm were stolen, and it to was repealed in summer of 2012 after costimg tax payers $44 mil and solving no violent crimes.

    Get a clue.

  • jarhead1982

    Since 92% of deaths by illegal use of a firearm are recognized by our government to be committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders.

    Then of course the fact that Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 clearly states that no person is legally liable to obey any law requiring them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, making 85% of th eexisting 22,417 gun control laws not applicable to felons…

    You neeed to explain what exactly taxing the law abiding will do to reduce violence when it never has done so before?

  • jarhead1982

    Reality is that people who are fearful of the law abiding individual exercising their right are mentally ill.

    Then of course since 92% of deaths by illegal use of a firearm are recognized by our government to be committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders.

    Then of course the fact that Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 clearly states that no person is legally liable to obey any law requiring them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, making 85% of th eexisting 22,417 gun control laws not applicable to felons…

    You neeed to explain what exactly taxing the law abiding will do to reduce violence when it never has done so before?

  • Firedsilver.ok

    They are also almost always perpetrated inside an already established “gun-free” zone. Ergo, there is already a law pertaining to the purveyance of firearms in that place. When will you people get it that criminals and crazies don’t give two sh!%s for any stupid laws we want to make.

  • Firedsilver.ok

    How about you can’t post anywhere on the internet without proof or ownership of a properly registered PC, phone, etc. and then every post you make should go to a database somewhere and be directly linked to you and your properly registered device. “The pen is mightier than the sword”, so it is much more important to the safety of this nation that your free speech be regulated and tracked before bullets are.

  • Firedsilver.ok

    Do you so willfully and purposefully ignore empirical data when making all your posts? Grammar and delivery were very nice, but it is still an argument based in ignorance. You don’t sound ignorant so please go educate yourself on the facts of this subject.

  • I’m sure we’ll be happy to see you at the Supreme Court over whether the bullet cartridge is an inherent part of an arm for it to be in any way effective and whether artificially raising prices unreasonably would be considered a de facto ban to a considerable portion of the population. Please, please, if you want to be intellectually honest, read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott Jr (professional statistician). He makes a clear case that firearms ownership does a great deal of GOOD to defend innocent people, in fact hundreds, if not thousands of times a day and to be safe and to be proficient, you need bullets to practice with at the range regularly, you need enough to stave off an attacker or attackers effectively. Go to Keepandbeararms.org for a daily updated listing from around the country of local new outlet reports of incidents where people successfully defend themselves with or without shots being fired. Think about the full implications of what you’re talking about, as of now your approach to this matter is pretty knee-jerk.

  • Deano

    I think the flat tire analogy is a poor one. Although the odds of getting a flat tire on any particular day are extremely low, few individuals would think they should go to the trouble to REMOVE the tire replacement supplies from the trunk of their car each day for that reason. But one could safely argue that the odds of having a flat tire within a certain time frame (such as a year) are profoundly greater than the odds of being shot during that same time period. So, if you are basing your arguments on odds, there is a point where the odds get so low that preparing for an event that is so unlikely becomes a bit ludicrous. What would be the odds of a home in Sacramento, California being hit by a tidal wave? Extremely low, but it could happen if a large meteor smashed into the Pacific Ocean. But would such low odds of such a catastrophe occurring merit the decision to buy insurance against tidal wave damage just to be prepared?

  • According to the CDC the lifetime odds of getting killed in a violent crime is slighly higher than getting killed in a motor vehicle accident. No one laughs at ppeople wearing a seatbelt but libtards laugh at people carrying the best form of protection, a gun.

  • Most shooting sports people relaod and can make their own lead bullets. The libtards on here that know nothing about guns but profess to know how to control them is absolutley laughable.They obviously are from the planet of Stupidor which is right next to the planet of Theiranus.

  • My experience with people who NEED to “protect themselves” is that they tend to be FEARFUL individuals that I do not believe have the character necessary to make rational decisions regarding killing another human irrespective of the situation. Example: a whiner I was in the military with claimed he had PTSD after just 3 months in Qatar (the holiday location for Iraq / Afgan deployments btw). Now I don’t begrudge my fellow veterans getting disability, but for cryin out loud…there is NO way this idiot has a disabilty for PTSD when my husband served 2 tours to Iraq and was SHOT AT. Guess we need a better VA official to get us a higher percentage and include PTSD which my husband actually HAS. With that said, this whiner, fearful, “disabled” emotionally comprimised individual has a CONCEL CARRY PERMIT !?!?!?!?! WTF…..how in the world does someone clearly unstable obtain a permit to carry a fiream capable of killing dozens of people??? I have always insisted that bullets cost 1000 each. Then you have to make the elements to create bullets also very expensive because my step father self loads his own bullets and many other sportsman do the same (often giving themselves LEAD poisoning in the process).

  • peteywheats

    Guns don’t kill people, rich people with guns kill people.


    What are the odds I’ll get a flat tire today? Pretty small, yet I carry a variety of special purpose tools and supplies in my car at all times. Not because I live in abject paranoid fear of pointy road debris, but simply because I prefer to be prepared. You may have a different preference. Criminal thugs beating people to death with tire irons is an orthogonal concern.


    Gotta love the myth of police being highly trained. Speaking of risk analysis, requiring folks to disarm and rearm throughout the day under the mistaken belief that a “Gun Free Zone” sign will be obeyed by criminals increases risk due to unecessary handling and/or leaving the weapon unattended. Much safer for it to stay secure in its holster where it is not a threat to anyone.

  • An interesting claim. How do you know this? Link?

  • A tax rebate for ammo used in a licensed firing range? What if you are too poor, like me, to afford a licensed firing range and you practice at a friend’s house or some other unlicensed facility?

    Properly trained people need ammunition to become properly trained. They need more ammo to remain properly trained. Do you want people to buy a gun and just 1 box of ammo or do you want people who can shoot straight?

    In any event, taxing ammunition to keep it out of maniacs like Loughner and Holmes would probably not work anyway. Those people were nuts and nuts rarely care about the dollar cost of their madness. All a high tax would do would be to make things harder for law abiding citizens.

    Oh, wait, no, that’s not all. it would also give criminals another product to sell, just like they sell untaxed cigarettes now.

  • Powkat

    I held a gun once in my life – it literally made me sick to my stomach. Never gone near one since.

  • Naja pallida

    Last time I checked, one of the ways we work towards policy changes in this country is to sway public opinion. That isn’t going to be done with some dry statistics from the ATF. Citing examples that people are directly aware of is just one way. And yes, I am a gun owner. Life-long. And, despite all my rampant emotion, I’ve still somehow managed to stumble through several decades without injuring or killing anyone, nor even committing a crime with one.

  • MyrddinWilt

    Oddly enough, the type of people who go on mass shootings are rarely the type of people who would make their own.

  • MyrddinWilt

    How many bullets do you think you will need for that? How many people carry extra ammunition? If they did what would be the chance of being able to reload?

    There could be a rebate for any ammo used in a licensed firing range. Or even a deposit program $2 per shell case. You get the cash back when you turn in the shells. Stop the littering as well.

    $2 per shell case would set you back only $64 for an AK47 with a full clip. Thats enough to go hunting with.

  • AllesK

    Because notoriety is such a well-reasoned foundation for policy. I certainly hope you’re not a gun owner: as emotional as you are you’re a danger.

  • Naja pallida

    That is one thing… most gun-related crimes are committed with stolen or otherwise illegally acquired firearms. I wonder how gun-related accidents stack up.

  • Naja pallida

    Mother Jones actually did quite a nice piece on mass shootings. Though, it is certainly not thorough. I chose to discuss shootings which get media coverage specifically because those are the ones which most people are aware of, and those are often the ones which highlight the drastic lapses in the law, even when enforced. If you want to call that emotional cherry-picking, without even knowing anything about my personal stance on gun control, feel free, but that pretty much fits the textbook description of being condescending.

    As for Columbine, yes, that is one case where illegally acquired guns were used. Who is cherry-picking now? What about Aurora, CO? Oak Creek, WI? Tucson, AZ? Ft. Hood, TX? Those are just some of the recent mass shootings committed with legal firearms, where “enforcing the law” wouldn’t have made a difference without authorities taking action that would readily be called overreach.

  • Naja pallida

    The modern laws against moonshine typically have more to do with selling and distributing it, not necessarily just making it. Once you start cutting into excise taxes, you’re bound to get more attention… but home brewing is fairly common, an is legal in most places as long as it is for private consumption.

  • RepubAnon

    It all goes to risk analysis: what’s more likely, a threat cropping up at a daycare facility that can be solved with a gun by a well-trained shooter – or someone who carries the gun “for protection” without practicing good gun safety rules (or going to the range regularly) being careless and letting one of the kids get the gun?

    The main attraction of gun ownership is the feeling of power and control. As more and more of us feel threatened and powerless, more and more of us want guns.

    What buying and carrying a gun does not do – is actually make you safer in practice. Plenty of armed police get shot down every year despite many hours of training and practice on the firing range. There are also lots of mistaken shootings by police, despite all that training and practice. Folks who buy a gun and think that merely owning it makes them a combination of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood are far more dangerous to themselves and the innocent bystanders in the immediate vicinity than the threat of armed robbers. (Besides, the armed robber has the drop on you – and will steal your gun to sell to another criminal. Buying the gun just put another stolen gun in the hands of a criminal… this makes you safer?)

    When the NRA starts pushing for gun registration and user licensing modeled on the rules for car registration and drivers licenses, gun ownership will move toward making gun owners less of a danger to themselves and others. As it stands, Al Qaeda’s handbook suggested that terrorists purchase guns at gun shows here rather than risk smuggling them over the border. This doesn’t make me feel “safer.”

  • AllesK

    You said: “The majority of shootings that have received significant media attention
    over the last thirty years or so were perpetrated with legally owned
    and acquired firearms.” You didn’t specifically exclude everything but mass shootings. Additionally, Columbine is a mass shooting perpetrated with illegally-bought weapons.

    Just because you can’t back your cherry-picked perceptions up with facts doesn’t mean I’m being condescending.

  • Naja pallida

    They definitely don’t need us for that. They did a run on ammo and guns when Obama was elected… because, you know, expanding gun rights to allow people to carry in national parks was a huge blow to the Second Amendment rights of NRA wing nuts. And, that’s the only thing Obama has done on the issue of guns.

  • Asterix

    Well, moonshine is easy to make yourself. Few do it because there are penalties for doing so. Why not forbid unlicensed manufacture of munitions?

  • RepubAnon

    The interesting thing would be to see what happens when the regulations making it more and more difficult to purchase bullets (minimum burglar alarms, hazardous materials storage, fire safety regs, special building codes, etc.) get brought up as undue burdens on people seeking to exercise their constitutional rights. I’m sure Justice Scalia would find a way to claim that the right to bear arms deserves more protection than the right of women to control their bodies.

  • RepubAnon

    If we expand concealed carry and gun possession laws, the police lack the ability to find the stolen guns used to commit the crimes. (Cop sees someone, stops and frisks them, finds a gun. If it’s legal to carry an unregistered gun, the cop has no probable cause to investigate further.)

    Gun registration would give police the tools to find and remove the stolen guns from the streets, help stop the flow of arms to the drug cartels, and help protect honest gun owners. Unfortunately, the NRA has convinced its members that the government would use the registration records for “gun-grabbing” (rather than using its powers under the Patriot Act to check credit card records for purchases of guns, ammo, check e-mail and computer records, etc.)

  • Naja pallida

    Except I didn’t say anything about “all gun crime”, I specifically referred to those that get significant media attention, which is typically mass shootings. Mass shootings, which are most commonly committed with legally acquired firearms. Or, cases of contested self-defense, which are also most often committed with legally owned firearms. Please read, and keep your condescension to yourself.

  • MerryMarjie

    I admit, I hate guns, so my opinions are decidedly anti-gun, but why do you think everyone needs so much “protection”? We all walk around like the next guy around the corner is going to be pulling an Uzi on us, or we’ll be accosted in our homes by gun-carrying thugs. Of course, it happens, and it happens every day, but when we have over 300 million people in the country, what are the odds that a person with a gun is going to encounter such a scenario?
    As for the daycare, one carelessly left gun in a purse or drawer plus one small curious child equals disaster on a major scale, no crime needed.

  • AllesK

    Here’s some more information for you:

  • AllesK

    All the laws, Naja. Note that the BATF has testified in front of Congress that 85 – 87% of all gun crime is committed with stolen weapons — which are illegal. Please bring facts and not emotion next time.


    Kind of like saying “you can have free speech, just don’t use language.”


    What’s up with concealed carry in a daycare? Do you not think your children are worth being able to protect?

  • guest1

    Yes lets make gun nuts even more paranoid and encourage them to buy more ammo asap.

  • Naja pallida

    Which laws would that be? The laws that allow anyone, as long as they don’t have a known history of psychological problems, nor a felony record, to own as many guns as they want and as much ammunition as they want? Or maybe the laws that say you have no obligation to attempt to retreat from a perceived threat before responding with deadly force, and that it is not your duty to prove you were actually threatened – it is for the other party, now dead, to prove they weren’t being threatening?

    The majority of shootings that have received significant media attention over the last thirty years or so were perpetrated with legally owned and acquired firearms. In most of those cases, there wasn’t anything to enforce, the only way they could have been prevented (and could be prevented from happening again) is to change existing laws, and/or add new ones.

  • This is a great idea, and completely in line with the 2nd Amendment. After all, according to the original intent our conservative friends hold dear, only musket balls are protected.

  • AllesK

    From the article you reference:
    “The law doesn’t permit you to execute somebody once a threat is gone,” he said.

  • Naja pallida

    Empty brass casings suitable for reloading are certainly not hard to come by… you can get them on Etsy. :P

  • People will just make their own.

  • Drew2u

    It’s how abortion is stopped, so why not?

  • Drew2u

    Military surplus stores for empty casings?

  • Drew2u

    According to the law, as interpreted and explained by this gentleman, these kids deserved to be executed.


  • hollywoodstein

    Not gonna happen. If you don’t have the political will to regulate firearms, you don’t have the political will to make ammo expensive. Not gonna happen.

  • If you do that then only well to do people will have adequate means to defend themselves from criminal predators. I can’t agree.

  • AllesK

    Why don’t we just enforce the laws we already have instead of punishing law-abiding civilians?

  • confusion

    Seems impossible…here in mi republicans passing law to carry concealed in daycare. On a lighter note mi gov recinding 100 environmental laws. Good times.

  • Naja pallida

    Rather rough when you can buy all the equipment you’d ever need to make your own ammunition for under 500 bucks. And all of the individual components, empty casings, primers, even black powder, are basically unregulated in most places, and wouldn’t put up any red flags unless you were buying them by the ton.

  • game-debate.com

    Gaming-Debate – PC game system requirements, gaming social network, compare your gamer system.

  • Zub

    Call it something like “law enforcement tax”, which maybe would be less of a red flag to gun-owners/2nd amendment rights folks, vs. “mass murder” tax or the like.

  • Asterix

    Currently, the sale of ammo is separated from the sale of firearms.

    Let’s link the two–no bullet sales without proof of ownership of a properly-registered firearm. And let’s track the sale of every bullet.

© 2016 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS