America's Ammo Addictions

[American Legionaries]

The National Firearms Agreement.



That seems self evident.

Not to them and frankly not to me either. What I'm suggesting is influenced by the impossibility of disarming the entire country. If it was even doable, I'd advocate for a total ban on civilian firearm ownership.

What's not to them? That a civilian with a gun cannot, by definition, be a civilian without a gun?

[Osmauri]

Not to them and frankly not to me either. What I'm suggesting is influenced by the impossibility of disarming the entire country. If it was even doable, I'd advocate for a total ban on civilian firearm ownership.

What's not to them? That a civilian with a gun cannot, by definition, be a civilian without a gun?

Wat?
Your post made... no sense whatsoever. Can you elaborate?

[American Legionaries]

The National Firearms Agreement.



That seems self evident.

...that's not how logic works. If the idea is that guns are there to deter tyranny, you can't just say "you're tyrannical because you don't let us have guns!" What actual forms of tyranny do you need to "use" the guns to deter?

Gun confiscation.

[American Legionaries]

What's not to them? That a civilian with a gun cannot, by definition, be a civilian without a gun?

Wat?
Your post made... no sense whatsoever. Can you elaborate?

The problem solved by people having guns is people who do not have guns. It's self evident that a person with a gun is not without a gun, since these conditions are mutually exclusive.

[Osmauri]

...that's not how logic works. If the idea is that guns are there to deter tyranny, you can't just say "you're tyrannical because you don't let us have guns!" What actual forms of tyranny do you need to "use" the guns to deter?

Gun confiscation.

Y'know, breaking new laws isn't what I quite wanted.
The whole reason I suggested rubber bullets was that confiscation couldn't happen because we mainly use live ammo right now. It... still really wouldn't happen with rubber bullets either, but ultimately confiscation and/or relinquishment requires cultural sea change, which isn't in the cards yet.

[Juansonia]

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.

Whether someone is in pain, alive, bleeding out, or even dead doesn't matter. What matters is whether they are still a threat. When defending yourself, you want to neutralise that threat by whatever means is necessary. Of course, you have a duty to only use deadly force if necessary, but deadly force often is necessary.

There is a reason that cops, soldiers, and self-defense experts still use lethal ammo in their guns - it's because less lethal options(rubber bullets, beanbag shotguns, tasers, pepper spray, etc.) isn't as effective at neutralising threats. When defending yourself from a deadly assailant, you want to protect yourself effectively, not to compromise in the assailant's favor.

Also, the use of less-lethal ammunition in a firearm still legally counts as deadly force(if you're a civilian), and self-defense with deadly force requires that deadly force be necessary. When you use less-lethal ammunition, it still legally counts as deadly force, but your choice of ammunition shows that you believe that killing is unnecessary in that scenario, therefore proving that your use of deadly force was excessive.

You should add "no, less-lethal solutions aren't effective enough to rely on" to the poll.

[Paberia]

I like this idea.

[San Marlindo]

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.

Great. Like lots of low income working folks in the South and Southwest I hunt for the pot. How am I supposed to hunt with rubber bullets?

[Also Not FNU]

A lot of non-lethal projectiles can still do substantial harm or still kill a human being, and to assume that there wouldn't be resistance to the restriction of ammunition sales is just fantastical. Additionally, this still wouldn't stop at home reloaders from continuing their legally protected right to manufacture ammo. On a more person to person note, I'd rather a bullet do it's job then a piece of rubber maim.

[Osmauri]

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.

Whether someone is in pain, alive, bleeding out, or even dead doesn't matter. What matters is whether they are still a threat. When defending yourself, you want to neutralise that threat by whatever means is necessary. Of course, you have a duty to only use deadly force if necessary, but deadly force often is necessary.

There is a reason that cops, soldiers, and self-defense experts still use lethal ammo in their guns - it's because less lethal options(rubber bullets, beanbag shotguns, tasers, pepper spray, etc.) isn't as effective at neutralising threats. When defending yourself from a deadly assailant, you want to protect yourself effectively, not to compromise in the assailant's favor.

Also, the use of less-lethal ammunition in a firearm still legally counts as deadly force(if you're a civilian), and self-defense with deadly force requires that deadly force be necessary. When you use less-lethal ammunition, it still legally counts as deadly force, but your choice of ammunition shows that you believe that killing is unnecessary in that scenario, therefore proving that your use of deadly force was excessive.

You should add "no, less-lethal solutions aren't effective enough to rely on" to the poll.

Except for the fact that it's now much harder to acquire live ammo, even as a criminal. And there'd still be live ammo available, you just need background checks and the like for it. This just discourages people from using deadly force unnecessarily, which is more common than you seem to think it is. And, additionally, the laws would require a change then. Non-deadly and deadly force would need updated definitions.
But the idea isn't to just be discarded, nor would I intend it as just only itself for a solution.

Also, that falls under infringing gun user rights. I'll need more convincing evidence to add another poll option, because as it stands I could only add one more before the limit.

[Osmauri]

A lot of non-lethal projectiles can still do substantial harm or still kill a human being, and to assume that there wouldn't be resistance to the restriction of ammunition sales is just fantastical. Additionally, this still wouldn't stop at home reloaders from continuing their legally protected right to manufacture ammo. On a more person to person note, I'd rather a bullet do it's job then a piece of rubber maim.

I know. But the other radical solution is to just ban guns completely, and we already know that wouldn't fly here.

And at-home reloaders should probably get a license and training, because they might end up killing themselves if they fuck up a bullet and it (say) shatters the barrel instead of firing.

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.

Great. Like lots of low income working folks in the South and Southwest I hunt for the pot. How am I supposed to hunt with rubber bullets?

That's why I put an option in the polls for legitimate reasons to use it, an option I've voted for as well.

[Juansonia]

Whether someone is in pain, alive, bleeding out, or even dead doesn't matter. What matters is whether they are still a threat. When defending yourself, you want to neutralise that threat by whatever means is necessary. Of course, you have a duty to only use deadly force if necessary, but deadly force often is necessary.

There is a reason that cops, soldiers, and self-defense experts still use lethal ammo in their guns - it's because less lethal options(rubber bullets, beanbag shotguns, tasers, pepper spray, etc.) isn't as effective at neutralising threats. When defending yourself from a deadly assailant, you want to protect yourself effectively, not to compromise in the assailant's favor.

Also, the use of less-lethal ammunition in a firearm still legally counts as deadly force(if you're a civilian), and self-defense with deadly force requires that deadly force be necessary. When you use less-lethal ammunition, it still legally counts as deadly force, but your choice of ammunition shows that you believe that killing is unnecessary in that scenario, therefore proving that your use of deadly force was excessive.

You should add "no, less-lethal solutions aren't effective enough to rely on" to the poll.

Except for the fact that it's now much harder to acquire live ammo, even as a criminal.

Stockpiling, loading your own ammo, theft, smuggling, black market

And there'd still be live ammo available, you just need background checks and the like for it.

People already need a gun license to buy ammo(at least in most states that have gun licensing), and California mandates a background check anyways.

This just discourages people from using deadly force unnecessarily, which is more common than you seem to think it is.

If you want everyone to use less-lethal options for self-defense, just distribute tasers and pepper spray.
If you want people to understand the difference between what does and doesn't justify deadly force, add a competency requirement to licensing.

[Also Not FNU]

A lot of non-lethal projectiles can still do substantial harm or still kill a human being, and to assume that there wouldn't be resistance to the restriction of ammunition sales is just fantastical. Additionally, this still wouldn't stop at home reloaders from continuing their legally protected right to manufacture ammo. On a more person to person note, I'd rather a bullet do it's job then a piece of rubber maim.

I know. But the other radical solution is to just ban guns completely, and we already know that wouldn't fly here.

And at-home reloaders should probably get a license and training, because they might end up killing themselves if they fuck up a bullet and it (say) shatters the barrel instead of firing.

So you're implying that at home reloaders are too stupid to read a chart on powder to shot ratio? The solution isn't banning live ammo, nor is it banning guns, the solution is providing the basic care to those who are unwell before they ever get to the point of a terribly irrational action.

[Juansonia]

I know. But the other radical solution is to just ban guns completely, and we already know that wouldn't fly here.

And at-home reloaders should probably get a license and training, because they might end up killing themselves if they fuck up a bullet and it (say) shatters the barrel instead of firing.

So you're implying that at home reloaders are too stupid to read a chart on powder to shot ratio? The solution isn't banning live ammo, nor is it banning guns, the solution is providing the basic care to those who are unwell before they ever get to the point of a terribly irrational action.

That and teaching more people how not to fuck themselves up accidentally. I know that at-home reloaders are competent enough to be safe, but many gun owners aren't. Maybe offering free training to everyone at (specific age point) would be a good idea?

[Osmauri]

Except for the fact that it's now much harder to acquire live ammo, even as a criminal.

Stockpiling, loading your own ammo, theft, smuggling, black market

And there'd still be live ammo available, you just need background checks and the like for it.

People already need a gun license to buy ammo(at least in most states that have gun licensing), and California mandates a background check anyways.

This just discourages people from using deadly force unnecessarily, which is more common than you seem to think it is.

If you want everyone to use less-lethal options for self-defense, just distribute tasers and pepper spray.
If you want people to understand the difference between what does and doesn't justify deadly force, add a competency requirement to licensing.

The issue is that people still have guns, and there's still quite a few people who'd default to using a gun anyways. Competency requirements are definitely a good idea, but they (like my idea) don't solve the whole issue. And that would like end up a state-by-state quagmire, where the effectiveness is weakened by just crossing state lines.
And smuggling would require better-funded, stronger and more adequately-trained border security. No giant walls, unlike a certain orange wig, but competent and effective border security. That one, I don't think gun nuts would complain about.

Now, trying to convince any of my fellow liberals to support this is a different story...

[Osmauri]

I know. But the other radical solution is to just ban guns completely, and we already know that wouldn't fly here.

And at-home reloaders should probably get a license and training, because they might end up killing themselves if they fuck up a bullet and it (say) shatters the barrel instead of firing.

So you're implying that at home reloaders are too stupid to read a chart on powder to shot ratio? The solution isn't banning live ammo, nor is it banning guns, the solution is providing the basic care to those who are unwell before they ever get to the point of a terribly irrational action.

Exactly. I won't dispute that mental health care is needed, but as said before, some people might not get to it in time no matter what we do.
This is trying to somewhat minimize the fallout of such cases. And again, it'd be very hard to pull off and isn't the whole solution.

[Grinning Dragon]

So you're implying that at home reloaders are too stupid to read a chart on powder to shot ratio? The solution isn't banning live ammo, nor is it banning guns, the solution is providing the basic care to those who are unwell before they ever get to the point of a terribly irrational action.

That and teaching more people how not to fuck themselves up accidentally. I know that at-home reloaders are competent enough to be safe, but many gun owners aren't. Maybe offering free training to everyone at (specific age point) would be a good idea?

HEH, TIL that Hornady, Lyman, Sierra, Lee, etc., reloading manuals don't exist.
There isn't a whole lot of training needed to reload, it's pretty self explanatory and with advancements on modern reloading equipment a novice can turn out quality ammo.

[North Jus Intius]

Food for thought:
White racists believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with young white boys shooting their fellow students. This is because they are defending the white ethnostate.

[Juansonia]

That and teaching more people how not to fuck themselves up accidentally. I know that at-home reloaders are competent enough to be safe, but many gun owners aren't. Maybe offering free training to everyone at (specific age point) would be a good idea?

HEH, TIL that Hornady, Lyman, Sierra, Lee, etc., reloading manuals don't exist.
There isn't a whole lot of training needed to reload, it's pretty self explanatory and with advancements on modern reloading equipment a novice can turn out quality ammo.

I meant teaching gun safety and the like to the general population (most of whom wouldn't home-reload anyways), not treating home-reloading as more dangerous than it is.

[Grinning Dragon]

HEH, TIL that Hornady, Lyman, Sierra, Lee, etc., reloading manuals don't exist.
There isn't a whole lot of training needed to reload, it's pretty self explanatory and with advancements on modern reloading equipment a novice can turn out quality ammo.

I meant teaching gun safety and the like to the general population (most of whom wouldn't home-reload anyways), not treating home-reloading as more dangerous than it is.

Easy solution to that as well. Bring back firearm safety courses in schools starting at the elementary level.

[Cuba 2022 RP]

Wow, where’s the catch? Seems too good to be true

[Osmauri]

Food for thought:
White racists believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with young white boys shooting their fellow students. This is because they are defending the white ethnostate.

Dry, and a little over-heavy on the pepper. I liked the mashed potatoes more.

In all seriousness, though, it is not just young white boys doing the shooting. It also is not just about "defending an ethnostate". Far as we know, the shooting wasn't about racism, and that's a big ol' subject that might make for a threadsplit.
Definitely food for thought though.

[Osmauri]

HEH, TIL that Hornady, Lyman, Sierra, Lee, etc., reloading manuals don't exist.
There isn't a whole lot of training needed to reload, it's pretty self explanatory and with advancements on modern reloading equipment a novice can turn out quality ammo.

I meant teaching gun safety and the like to the general population (most of whom wouldn't home-reload anyways), not treating home-reloading as more dangerous than it is.

I was unaware and I apologize for any conclusion jumping.
Yes, firearm safety courses. Honestly, the more reasons given that would make this drastic measure unnecessary the better.

[Orcuo]

So enforce people to use rubber bullets and… then what?

First off, rubber bullets can be lethal, and while the death rate on rubber bullet is lower then regular bullets, it still really doesn’t solve the problem of reducing fatalities.

And honestly, the risk isn’t worth the reward in this case. If you heavily restrict/ban lethal ammo, all that’s gonna do is create a black market for real bullets. Then there’s the massive economic change in the arms industry, trying to convert metal bullet making machines into rubber would definitely be a hassle, and cost a lot. So more then likely some people would be getting laid off. Finally if we got past all that you’d still have to convince the politicians to actually support the law, more then likely a few of them are taking a couple checks from private arm manufacturers.

Overall, good intentions, bad results.

[ImperialRussia]

America has always been natural born killers what difference does it make what race they are by natural selection they will always find way that follows their doctrine and remain supreme