Will this work to stop killing with guns?

C

cdoc42

New member
118th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 584

To require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2023
Mrs. Watson Coleman (for herself, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Carson, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Norton, Mr. Payne, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Ivey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
 
Not really

Will this work to stop killing with guns?
Click to expand...
No sir but would probably address other problems. As stated before; bad guys don't adhere to man-made laws as well as moral laws. ..... ;)

We are seeing an increase in folks who are mentally ill and my only respose to them, is to pray for them. ...... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
California has had background checks for ammo sales for a while now. I dont see a reduction in gun related crimes in that State.
 
Note the pattern here...

violence with guns, pass restrictive laws on buying guns and or ammo...

violence continues, pass more restrictive laws on buying guns or ammo
repeat
repeat
repeat

Who was it first said "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity" ?? :rolleyes:
 
It looks like it would require repealing part of the 1986 FOPA if it were to be enforced.

And no, it wouldn't do much good even if it did go into law.
 
Will this work to stop killing with guns?
Click to expand...
You read the proposed law, I assume.

Which of the proposed restrictions would make it harder for criminals to kill people with guns?

I don't see that any of the changes would restrict criminals' access to ammunition at all, but maybe you see something I don't.
 
Yes it will. But first you have to get rid of the billions of rounds of ammo currently available through other channels, reloading supplies and equipment, and certain human behavior that revolves around killing their own kind.
 
cdoc42 said:
Will this work to stop killing with guns?
Click to expand...

Is the more basic question whether that is a desirable policy goal?

cdoc42 said:
118th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 584

To require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
Click to expand...

A law regulating bulk purchases would draw a venn diagram in which people who would be affected by such a law almost entirely covers everyone with a 10/22.
 
Last edited:
JohnKsa, I think you may have misinterpreted my question. I was being facetious, and really looking for any reason that I may have missed that might support the sanity-deficient legislative attempt.

The need to do "something" by these fools missed the entire handloading fraternity that doesn't buy cartridges. If they happen to pass this bill, the criminals will shift their attention to handloading and after some time passes and there is no reduction in shooting, the fools will amend the law that is now in place to ban all mail-order purchases of bullets (because they didn't realize the difference between bullets and cartridges).
 
cdoc42 Will this work to stop killing with guns?
Click to expand...
Well, it didn't when it was law decades ago.;)

Licensing of ammunition sellers and recording ID on ammo purchasers was federal law from 1968 until passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Note that between 1968-86 several people were killed with guns.
 
Lots of people argue against the death penalty, some on moral grounds, some on the way its is currently applied, and some on the fact that they believe it is not a deterrent.

I won't go into that here, the one thing I have noted is that when the death penalty is carried out, there is no record anywhere of a repeat offender....
 
The argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent creates the need to produce data that reveals how many crimes did not occur, that would have otherwise, had that potential punishment not been available.
 
cdoc42 The argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent creates the need to produce data that reveals how many crimes did not occur, that would have otherwise, had that potential punishment not been available.
Click to expand...
How about you show us data that proves the death penalty IS a deterrent?
This should be entertaining.
 
100% Democrats wrote and sponsored the Bill. I doubt it will go anywhere....for at least a couple years.
 
If they happen to pass this bill, the criminals will shift their attention to handloading ...
Click to expand...

I rather doubt criminals will resort to handloading. Possibly some one(s) will supply criminals with handloaded ammo, but I think it much more likely that instead of that, what we'll see is a rise in the theft of ammunition.

And I don't doubt that will result in the increased cry for laws requiring some kind of "serial number" tracking on every round of ammunition.

How about you show us data that proves the death penalty IS a deterrent?
This should be entertaining.
Click to expand...

Am always somewhat entertained by data "proving" a negative. :rolleyes:
 
If they happen to pass this bill, the criminals will shift their attention to handloading ...
Click to expand...
The law doesn't actually prevent criminals from getting ammo.

There's no provision for background checks, no prohibition against having someone else buy ammo for you. Even if the law passes, any criminal can go into any store that sells ammo and buy ammo. Or they can legally have someone else buy ammo for them.
 
Let’s change it to read “ If you commit a crime with a gun, you are executed within 48 hours”.
Click to expand...

"Due Process of Law," the right to face an accuser, appointing effecfive counspel, "probable cause" for seizure and arrest (all literal constitutional requirements no less important than the 2nd Amendment) would be awfully hard (impossible) to accomplish in that time frame.

I do get it though. It's hard to argue that the death penalty is a deterrent when only a handful of people are executed nationwide per year. I'm all about due process, a fair trial, and the right to appeal. This does take time. It does not take 20 years. Being on death row for over 20 years is pointless. There is such a disconnect in time between punishment and crime that it's basically pointless, and it is not a deterrent.

If there was common precedent for 22 year olds being executed prior to turning 26 if they are caught and convicted of murder, more of them may think twice before doing it. As it stands, if they're convicted there is a very low chance the death penalty will be sought. There's an even lower chance it will be issued. If it is issued, the convicted has at least 20 years of life to live, do more misdeeds in prison, and possibly even sire children during conjugal visits. As it is now its not a real deterrent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top