America's Ammo Addictions

[Osmauri]

I'm aware there's a gun control thread already ongoing, but I feel that my idea here could derail discussion there a bit and/or get lost in the post minefields. Additionally, I want to float this out there to see what people think of this. So this is split off from there. However, if mods do lock this for being too similar I will NOT entertain any requests to re-open another thread.

Hear me out.
Since the Nashville shooting on Monday, I've been thinking about all the whys and hows of it, and all other shootings. I've also come up with some pretty standard solutions to the problem, solutions that (as an American) I know wouldn't be able to really work right now, or maybe evermore.

Then I thought of something. We can't disarm the entire country, obviously, and people will still find guns and kill people with them even if they're banned wholesale. However, this sort of violent crime is unacceptable: rates of mass shootings have stayed constant, rather than going down like a lot of other crime has, and that cannot stand.
What I thought was this: "What if we looked at what the gun shoots?"
My solution to this would be to heavily restrict lethal ammunition sales and marketing. In its place, non-lethal ammunition like rubber bullets and other such things would be sold instead, in addition to tightening background checks on buyers and users. This wouldn't be relegated to states, ideally, but a federal law.
Now, I obviously haven't been shot with rubber bullets, but from what I can tell they hurt like hell. The entire point of defending yourself is just to stop the other guy from shooting, and if he's rolling around in pain on the floor you've achieved this aim as well as if he was bleeding out instead.
People in that case get to keep their guns, defend themselves from assailants, but wouldn't be able to kill people in the process. If you did and you could've avoided a death, then charges for stuff like gross negligence.

Theoretically this would also reduce the murder rate. If all you can find for your gun easily is some puny rubber pellets you're not exactly going to do a whole lot of permanent damage. And for that case, we have assault charges.

Vote in the poll above on what you think of this, and maybe also say what you think too.

[Stellar Colonies]

Remove the exclamation mark in your spoiler.

[Osmauri]

Remove the exclamation mark in your spoiler.

Si, I will do that.

[Northern Seleucia]

Tbh I don't think restricting lethal ammo sales will help. Firstly, misusing rubber bullets are still lethal, so that's a start. People can still die...

[Osmauri]

Tbh I don't think restricting lethal ammo sales will help. Firstly, misusing rubber bullets are still lethal, so that's a start. People can still die...

That is true, which is why I believe training in proper defence should be mandatory.
And you have to "misuse" pretty hard to kill someone, whereas death is the only point of metallic ammo.
The job of rubber bullets is to not kill. If it does, you fucked up.
The job of metal bullets is to kill as efficiently as possible. You fucked up if it doesn't kill someone.
That's the main difference. One is meant to only injure while the other is flawed if death or crippling wounds isn't the outcome.

And I never meant to say it would cut the shooting death rate to zero, only that it would hopefully quite reduce it.

[Northern Seleucia]

Tbh I don't think restricting lethal ammo sales will help. Firstly, misusing rubber bullets are still lethal, so that's a start. People can still die...

That is true, which is why I believe training in proper defence should be mandatory.
And you have to "misuse" pretty hard to kill someone, whereas death is the only point of metallic ammo.

Indeed, which is really the point. To stop the threat, often by killing.

Now, a rubber bullet can kill if misused, but if used properly, won't kill. They cause bruises, welts, swelling, etc, but won't necessarily stop an armed threat. In a scenario where my house is being burglarized by an armed man...you know, I may be screwed. The criminal will likely have live ammunition, as they would, of course, not care much about the law. I'm at a disadvantage.

[Osmauri]

That is true, which is why I believe training in proper defence should be mandatory.
And you have to "misuse" pretty hard to kill someone, whereas death is the only point of metallic ammo.

Indeed, which is really the point. To stop the threat, often by killing.

Now, a rubber bullet can kill if misused, but if used properly, won't kill. They cause bruises, welts, swelling, etc, but won't necessarily stop an armed threat. In a scenario where my house is being burglarized by an armed man...you know, I may be screwed. The criminal will likely have live ammunition, as they would, of course, not care much about the law. I'm at a disadvantage.

Yes, and that's one of the difficult parts. I would think that making live ammo much harder to acquire would help, but it wouldn't fully cure.
Don't intend this to be a magic bullet, hehe. Just something to help.

[Northern Seleucia]

Indeed, which is really the point. To stop the threat, often by killing.

Now, a rubber bullet can kill if misused, but if used properly, won't kill. They cause bruises, welts, swelling, etc, but won't necessarily stop an armed threat. In a scenario where my house is being burglarized by an armed man...you know, I may be screwed. The criminal will likely have live ammunition, as they would, of course, not care much about the law. I'm at a disadvantage.

Yes, and that's one of the difficult parts. I would think that making live ammo much harder to acquire would help, but it wouldn't fully cure.
Don't intend this to be a magic bullet, hehe. Just something to help.

Yeah, I know, I'm just trying to find issues. Not that I'm targeting you or doing so in a rude way, but something I'm learning in one of my classes is that whenever you see a proposal, you find all the negatives so we can iron out the wrinkles.

[Osmauri]

Yes, and that's one of the difficult parts. I would think that making live ammo much harder to acquire would help, but it wouldn't fully cure.
Don't intend this to be a magic bullet, hehe. Just something to help.

Yeah, I know, I'm just trying to find issues. Not that I'm targeting you or doing so in a rude way, but something I'm learning in one of my classes is that whenever you see a proposal, you find all the negatives so we can iron out the wrinkles.

I know, I don't take it personally. I'm actually glad someone's taking my proposal apart, helps me out as well
Good on whoever your teacher is in that class, that's an important skill right there.

[Northern Seleucia]

Yeah, I know, I'm just trying to find issues. Not that I'm targeting you or doing so in a rude way, but something I'm learning in one of my classes is that whenever you see a proposal, you find all the negatives so we can iron out the wrinkles.

I know, I don't take it personally. I'm actually glad someone's taking my proposal apart, helps me out as well
Good on whoever your teacher is in that class, that's an important skill right there.

Yeah, 11th Grade Political Science. Very fun.

Anyway, another thing to note would be the fact that there's such an abundance of ammunition. There's 25 trillion rounds of lethal ammunition in the U.S alone. These are in people's possession already.

Edit: Additionally, NSSF estimates at least 12 billion rounds of ammunition are manufactured annually in the United States. After its purchased, there's no way to track where it goes.

[T50]

Hello!

[Osmauri]

I know, I don't take it personally. I'm actually glad someone's taking my proposal apart, helps me out as well
Good on whoever your teacher is in that class, that's an important skill right there.

Yeah, 11th Grade Political Science. Very fun.

Anyway, another thing to note would be the fact that there's such an abundance of ammunition. There's 25 trillion rounds of lethal ammunition in the U.S alone. These are in people's possession already.

I know, that's why I didn't have the option to outlaw it completely. Same with removing guns fully. Not possible.
Hmm... what if people could exchange their live ammo to get free non-lethal ammo? Maybe even a financial incentive to trade in your slugs for rubbers, or perhaps a slight rebate of tax money to people who trade in ammo.
Just about nothing would make a Republican do something faster and more completely than hearing they'll get a tax cut for doing it, lol. It's an idea.

[Exarkyon]

This is an interesting proposal. I had a similar idea that I ultimately abandoned once, where the amount of ammo would be restricted so you would have enough to protect yourself in one incident but not enough to go on a mass shooting. The idea had a lot of flaws, hence me abandoning it.

In the spirit of one of the above people, here are the potential objections that I see right away:

1. Pain is not guaranteed to stop someone who is a threat, especially if they are on drugs. Dying is.

2. You might need to mess up pretty bad to kill someone with rubber bullets, but I'm sure criminals could find a way to mess up reliably.

3. You need lethal ammunition for hunting. That's a reason to get it, and it means that there will always be some in circulation.

I think personally that media coverage is the main driver of mass shootings. I think that persuading everyone outside the local area not to cover mass shootings all the time would help a lot.

[Georgia rp 2023]

Hello!

?

[Northern Seleucia]

Yeah, 11th Grade Political Science. Very fun.

Anyway, another thing to note would be the fact that there's such an abundance of ammunition. There's 25 trillion rounds of lethal ammunition in the U.S alone. These are in people's possession already.

I know, that's why I didn't have the option to outlaw it completely. Same with removing guns fully. Not possible.
Hmm... what if people could exchange their live ammo to get free non-lethal ammo? Maybe even a financial incentive to trade in your slugs for rubbers, or perhaps a slight rebate of tax money to people who trade in ammo.
Just about nothing would make a Republican do something faster and more completely than hearing they'll get a tax cut for doing it, lol. It's an idea.

Something similar has been attempted, a buyback program for guns.

[Saiwana]

Ammo which isn't lethal, usually isn't ammo at all as most people would define it. A lot of "less than lethal" ammunition can still injure or kill people depending on where they're hit and what it is designed to do.

[Osmauri]

This is an interesting proposal. I had a similar idea that I ultimately abandoned once, where the amount of ammo would be restricted so you would have enough to protect yourself in one incident but not enough to go on a mass shooting. The idea had a lot of flaws, hence me abandoning it.

In the spirit of one of the above people, here are the potential objections that I see right away:

1. Pain is not guaranteed to stop someone who is a threat, especially if they are on drugs. Dying is.

2. You might need to mess up pretty bad to kill someone with rubber bullets, but I'm sure criminals could find a way to mess up reliably.

3. You need lethal ammunition for hunting. That's a reason to get it, and it means that there will always be some in circulation.

I think personally that media coverage is the main driver of mass shootings. I think that persuading everyone outside the local area not to cover mass shootings all the time would help a lot.

Yes, reducing coverage would help. And I do know the issues with my proposal.
I don't intend it as the only solution, but one of many, along with community outreach, competent policing and enforcement, self-defence training, mental health resources... This would try to help.
Pain won't always stop a threat, and that's why I put the little addendum of "if it is necessary to have to shoot to kill, then you can do so". I don't advocate for banning all live ammo from public sale, just lowering demand for it. Once again, if live ammo is locked up in a gun shop and rubber ammo isn't, you'll have less of a chance of getting your hands on live ammo if you try to steal it. And gun shop owners would have to be armed with live ammo, in that case.
However, if they smuggled it in... now that could be an issue. This might force us to greatly step up border security, with better funding, smarter training and updated procedures. All of that being a complex issue of itself.

Now do you see why I didn't mean for this to be a cure-all? Too many variables to manage and account for. The only realistic way we'll near-fully fix this issue is a comprehensive overhaul, of which this idea would only be a part of, and not even the best part at that.

[Floofybit]

Tranquilizing darts

[Atomic Energy Defence Council]

Ammo which isn't lethal, usually isn't ammo at all as most people would define it. A lot of "less than lethal" ammunition can still injure or kill people depending on where they're hit and what it is designed to do.

i would say mostly handgun bullets would kill people the most not lethal is ethier Darts or nerf bullets

[Exarkyon]

This is an interesting proposal. I had a similar idea that I ultimately abandoned once, where the amount of ammo would be restricted so you would have enough to protect yourself in one incident but not enough to go on a mass shooting. The idea had a lot of flaws, hence me abandoning it.

In the spirit of one of the above people, here are the potential objections that I see right away:

1. Pain is not guaranteed to stop someone who is a threat, especially if they are on drugs. Dying is.

2. You might need to mess up pretty bad to kill someone with rubber bullets, but I'm sure criminals could find a way to mess up reliably.

3. You need lethal ammunition for hunting. That's a reason to get it, and it means that there will always be some in circulation.

I think personally that media coverage is the main driver of mass shootings. I think that persuading everyone outside the local area not to cover mass shootings all the time would help a lot.

Yes, reducing coverage would help. And I do know the issues with my proposal.
I don't intend it as the only solution, but one of many, along with community outreach, competent policing and enforcement, self-defence training, mental health resources... This would try to help.
Pain won't always stop a threat, and that's why I put the little addendum of "if it is necessary to have to shoot to kill, then you can do so". I don't advocate for banning all live ammo from public sale, just lowering demand for it. Once again, if live ammo is locked up in a gun shop and rubber ammo isn't, you'll have less of a chance of getting your hands on live ammo if you try to steal it. And gun shop owners would have to be armed with live ammo, in that case.
However, if they smuggled it in... now that could be an issue. This might force us to greatly step up border security, with better funding, smarter training and updated procedures. All of that being a complex issue of itself.

Now do you see why I didn't mean for this to be a cure-all? Too many variables to manage and account for. The only realistic way we'll near-fully fix this issue is a comprehensive overhaul, of which this idea would only be a part of, and not even the best part at that.

In that case, you have my tentative support.

[Osmauri]

Ammo which isn't lethal, usually isn't ammo at all as most people would define it. A lot of "less than lethal" ammunition can still injure or kill people depending on where they're hit and what it is designed to do.

Technically, paper can kill people if used right (or wrong, I guess). Paper is considered non-lethal. Is it no longer paper? Do we arrest people for making paper airplanes?
And by the way, not only can it theoretically happen:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... epsis.html
He didn't die, but he almost did. (Yes, i know it's the Daily Fail.)

If used properly it shouldn't be deadly, and we don't give a damn about the popular definition here. It works like all ammunition does. What else would one call it?

[Osmauri]

Tranquilizing darts

Based and sleepy-time-pilled.
Edit: In hindsight, that would be a good idea. However, tranq darts aren't as cheap as rubber pellets or even metal bullets. And you can't guarantee that it'll work every time either.

[Exarkyon]

Ammo which isn't lethal, usually isn't ammo at all as most people would define it. A lot of "less than lethal" ammunition can still injure or kill people depending on where they're hit and what it is designed to do.

i would say mostly handgun bullets would kill people the most not lethal is ethier Darts or nerf bullets

At that point it is no longer effective for any of the purposes guns are used for.

[Osmauri]

i would say mostly handgun bullets would kill people the most not lethal is ethier Darts or nerf bullets

At that point it is no longer effective for any of the purposes guns are used for.

Agreed. That's like taking a back scratcher to a cannon fight.

[American Legionaries]

At that point it is no longer effective for any of the purposes guns are used for.

Agreed. That's like taking a back scratcher to a cannon fight.

Is that not precisely what you're advocating for, though?