|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 14:08:12 GMT -5
If you know you are going to go to the range and shoot two boxes, then buy two boxes. You register your gun, you should register your bullets. What if I know you have a gun so I want to buy you bullets as a gift, but don't own a gun myself? How would you register bullets anyway? Guns all have serial numbers. Bullets don't. If they did, they'd likely get destroyed in the process of shooting them. And what of the people who load their own shells? A guy shoots two boxes. He goes back to the range next week. Now he has to have another background check to buy two more boxes of bullets? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 14:18:09 GMT -5
How would the store know that you don't own a gun? You just tell them you don't?
I'm sure they could make bullets distinctly identifiable.
Could people build their own guns?
Yeah, another background check. You buy one gun on Saturday. You want to shoot another one next week, why should you have to get another background check to get it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 14:58:14 GMT -5
How would the store know that you don't own a gun? You just tell them you don't? I'm sure they could make bullets distinctly identifiable. Could people build their own guns? Yeah, another background check. You buy one gun on Saturday. You want to shoot another one next week, why should you have to get another background check to get it? That's my point exactly. I don't own a gun, but want to buy bullets for someone else. How is the store supposed to verify my story? How would you make a bullet identifiable in a way that would not be damaged by simply firing the gun? Just going through the barrel of the gun and going through the heat of firing damages the bullet. Actually hitting something (or someone) does even more damage. So I buy bullets on Saturday. I get a background check. It's a three day weekend so I go buy bullets again on Monday as I decide to go to the range on a whim. I get a background check again? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 15:04:49 GMT -5
The way to get around the background check for bullets is to not buy a gun until you bought the bullets. That is a pretty big loophole.
I've seen bullets that have been pulled from people that are not that much damaged from the original state.
Yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 15:08:32 GMT -5
The way to get around the background check for bullets is to not buy a gun until you bought the bullets. That is a pretty big loophole. I've seen bullets that have been pulled from people that are not that much damaged from the original state. Yeah. You're right. It really depends on what you hit. If you hit bone though the bullet tends to get pretty banged up. If you hit flesh, not so much. If your bullet hits stone or wood or something hard like rock, then it's gonna pretty much get destroyed. Requiring background checks every time someone buys a box of bullets is just insane. It creates so much paperwork and so much more bureaucracy that people won't comply because of the headache of it. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 15:13:22 GMT -5
I don't think they'd be open long if they didn't follow the law.
We need to make it harder for those who want to go out and kill to get a gun/bullets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 15:56:43 GMT -5
I don't think they'd be open long if they didn't follow the law. We need to make it harder for those who want to go out and kill to get a gun/bullets. No one would argue with that. You're crossing the line to making it harder for people who simply want to use guns recreationally. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 14, 2011 15:58:00 GMT -5
Slappy, I think the moral of the story is that we need to realize that if this person owned an illegal firearm (or two, as it sounds); then we have to assume that finding bullets for the weapons was not going to be a deterrent from him committing the crime.
If he can go down to Walmart and buy the bullets easier and cheaper, sure, he's probably going to go that route...
But is it really going to stop him if he can't?
Can we just be realistic for a minute and think about the circumstances and the clear insanity of this person? He's not going to be stopped just because he's being inconvenienced by the law. This is similar to the assumption that by making drugs illegal, no one will do them unless they have a prescription. It's just an absurd proclamation with no factual evidence to back it, and factual evidence to back the contrary.
Insane people are going to kill or attempt to kill others whether or not they are inconvenienced by the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 16:07:20 GMT -5
Yes, criminals will do whatever no matter if it is illegal. We shouldn't legalize something because people are going to break the law anyways.
We have a right to bear arms, but it doesn't say what arms you may have. For example, you can't have anti-aircraft arms.
We need more mental health programs in this country and we need more people to go to them.
If you are kicked out of school for being insane, that should raise some flags. The school says they are crazy, but the state doesn't say they are crazy, so that is good enough it seems for most people.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonylentelli on Jan 14, 2011 16:11:44 GMT -5
The person is to blame not inanimate objects or talk radio or call of duty or anything else. This evil person made an evil decision and it is all on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jan 14, 2011 16:16:06 GMT -5
you can put all the regulations you want on bullets, but it still does not change the fact that people will go elsewhere for their ammo. This hurts not only the consumer and law abiding citizen, but the businesses that sell the product.
Just another way to get around the second amendment in my book. It is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 14, 2011 16:17:04 GMT -5
Yes, criminals will do whatever no matter if it is illegal. We shouldn't legalize something because people are going to break the law anyways. No one is saying that we should legalize these things, only that it's unfair to people who are trying to own LEGAL firearms and compete in sports, go hunting, etc. for them to have to go through a new background check every time they want to buy a  ing box of bullets. I mean, really, man... Think about it. The only people you're harming with enacting a law like that are the GOOD people. We have a right to bear arms, but it doesn't say what arms you may have. For example, you can't have anti-aircraft arms. Realistically, if the Constitution doesn't strictly PROHIBIT it, it shouldn't be illegal. But I understand why these things are illegal, because they have been used to prevent the rights of others. The "Right to Bear Arms" is a tough one because, as you mentioned, the weaponry has just changed so much. But I think the thing that we need to keep in mind is that adding ridiculous regulations like this only cost us more money and inconvenience the people who want to do things by the books. The real criminals - the people who we should be scared of - are not owners of legal weapons, legal bullets, and thye do not use them in a legal way. We need more mental health programs in this country and we need more people to go to them. I agree, I think we have this built-in dislike for mental health programs in this country and people just simply don't want to believe that they could possibly benefit from something as simple as even talking to someone about their problems. Social help programs are in existence, we just need to make people more comfortable and less ashamed to attend them. I'm not sure how we start doing that other than making people more comfortable with it at younger ages. If you are kicked out of school for being insane, that should raise some flags. The school says they are crazy, but the state doesn't say they are crazy, so that is good enough it seems for most people. In fairness, a school shouldn't be the ones who determine whether or not a person is, as you say, "crazy." If a school kicks a person out, that's fine, it's a private institution... But to make that a determining factor on whether a person can buy a gun or not is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 16:23:50 GMT -5
There are always ways around everything. Like you can't get a gun? Well, ask your friend if he'll get a gun and then sell it to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 14, 2011 16:25:37 GMT -5
The fix for this is to let me decide who's crazy or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 14, 2011 16:26:48 GMT -5
There are always ways around everything. Like you can't get a gun? Well, ask your friend if he'll get a gun and then sell it to you. That's kind of my point. So why are we making things so much more difficult for lawful citizens? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 16:36:41 GMT -5
We do not know who all is good and who all is bad. Bad people may not have a criminal record. Bad people may not be flagged as insane. It just means they haven't been caught yet. There needs to be a way to catch the bad people without hurting the good, but we don't really know how to do that.
There are weapons that have no purpose other than to kill. You can say you can use them for hunting or for sport, but really, do you need such high powered guns/ammo for either of those things?
Years ago, a politician cried while running for President. That ruined him, he had to drop out, I'm not even sure what ended up happening to him. But now, Boehner cries if he sees a jello mold. He could set a good example for men and show that men don't have to hide their feelings.
Schools aren't going to kick you out because you wore a hat today. There was obviously something behind their claims that he was crazy.
Ok, you don't want to use the school as basis for denying him a gun. Fine. Something should have been entered into the system that the gun people have to see that the police went to his house multiple times and that he was threatening to kill people. If they saw that he was threatening to kill people that should raise some flags and they should think twice before deciding to sell a gun to the person.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 16:38:55 GMT -5
There are always ways around everything. Like you can't get a gun? Well, ask your friend if he'll get a gun and then sell it to you. That's kind of my point. So why are we making things so much more difficult for lawful citizens? Just because they seem lawful (no record) doesn't mean they are. The person could be a serial killer, but they aren't caught so they have no record. Also, maybe we should take note of the kids who kill animals for fun. That is one of the biggest warning signs that the kid is a sociopath. Should guns really be sold to sociopaths? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 14, 2011 16:43:58 GMT -5
I'm not saying the gun seller should have looked at him and decided he was crazy. Certainly Walmart will be in huge trouble if they sold illegal bullets. Otherwise I guess I don't see why it's a problem... Clearly they and the gun seller should have been able to see that the man was insane. ? Yes. (Not being curt, I really just agree.) |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 14, 2011 16:45:44 GMT -5
I didn't mean see as in look at him and then determine that he is crazy because he looks weird. I meant see as in on their computers that the school kicked him out for being insane and the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Jan 14, 2011 16:49:20 GMT -5
That's kind of my point. So why are we making things so much more difficult for lawful citizens? Just because they seem lawful (no record) doesn't mean they are. The person could be a serial killer, but they aren't caught so they have no record. Also, maybe we should take note of the kids who kill animals for fun. That is one of the biggest warning signs that the kid is a sociopath. Should guns really be sold to sociopaths? Eh, If you're talking about hunting, killing the animal isn't necessarily the fun part. |
|
