Guns don't kill people, it's true. Bullets do.

[question everything]

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap21-2009sep21,0,5723271.column

latimes.com

Going after the real killers
A bill regulating sales of ammunition for handguns would save lives.

George Skelton
September 21, 2009



Guns don't kill people, it's true. Bullets do. "Without ammo, a handgun is only good for pistol-whipping someone," notes Assemblyman Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles). "Ammo is the lifeblood of a handgun." On Sept. 11, the last day of this year's regular legislative session, De Leon narrowly won final passage of a bill to regulate sales of handgun ammunition.

The assemblyman has a long list of gang shooting horror stories from his district, which stretches from Hollywood to the Alhambra city line and includes Echo Park, Lincoln Heights and part of East Los Angeles. Stray bullets from gang crossfire have killed a 9-year-old girl playing in the kitchen, a 14-year-old girl as she sat in the back seat of her family's SUV and a 4-year-old boy while walking with his sister outside their home. Plus there has been a barrel-load of gangbanger assassinations.

De Leon's bill, AB 962, would make it illegal to knowingly sell handgun ammunition to criminals. Strangely, De Leon says, it's against the law for criminals to possess ammo but not for someone to sell it to them knowing they are criminals. The bill also would prohibit hard-core gang members -- those under court injunction restrictions -- from possessing handgun bullets.

And -- the more controversial part -- it would require:

* Ammunition dealers to keep bullets out of easy reach of potential shoplifters, similar to cigarettes.
* Dealers to check a purchaser's identification, take a thumbprint and make the records available to local law enforcement. There'd be no waiting period before delivery of the ammo, as there is with firearms.
* Handgun owners to buy their bullets face-to-face from a licensed dealer. They could order through the Internet or by mail, but they'd have to pick up the ammo at a store, just as they now must when buying a gun.

Opponents -- Republican legislators and the gun lobby -- complained about inconveniencing law-abiding citizens.

(snip)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not signaled a position on the bill. But he vetoed another version by a different author five years ago. In the veto message, Schwarzenegger pointed out that the federal government once had a similar law and concluded it "was simply unworkable and offered no public safety benefit." The federal law existed from shortly after Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in 1968 until President Reagan signed the repealer in 1986 -- a prehistoric era before the Internet and high-tech databases.

(snip)

[Posteritatis]

1. Bullets don't kill people, kinetic energy does! (nt)

[TheWraith]

2. So this reduces crime... how, exactly?

Are we supposed to expect that, say groups which specialize in moving thousands of pounds of cocaine and heroin are unable to supply their people with ammunition? Or that bullets won't simply be stolen in burglaries the same as guns are now?

[proteus_lives]

11. It doesn't.

That's the joke.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Lets hope the Gropenator does the right thing for a change and vetoes this bill

[Howzit]

4. If criminals can obtain handguns illegally, then obtaining a few rounds of ammo should be a cinch

Bullets smuggle easier than guns because they are smaller...

That said, anyone who sells ammo to a known criminal is a complete idiot and guilty of aiding an abetting IMO.

[winyanstaz]

5. It would simply open a bigger blackmarket for ammo...

as well as most gun owners would simple go back to making their own ammo...I know an old marine that makes all his own ammo already.
This is just another stupid idea and a stupid bill and a big waste of time and energy when there are much more important things to be focusing on now then disarming American citizens. sheesh

[rrneck]

6. Simple.

Make it illegal to steal a loaded gun.

:sarcasm: - natch

[Iwillnevergiveup]

7. It's probably too late anyway

Gun sales and ammo went through the roof after Barack's inauguration.

[masuki bance]

8. Guns don't kill people

People driving while texting kill people.

[Euromutt]

25. Yes, thank you!

Thank you for making that point. It drives me nuts how many people distract themselves with their cel phones while driving.

[chknltl]

9. A small step in a good direction

Making it even slightly more difficult for folks to obtain bullets means slightly fewer bullets used to maim or kill folks.

Argumentative types looking to debate me, I seek not debate, I see the math in this easy black and white way:

How many folks have been robbed, injured maimed or even killed with a working Star Trek Phaser?
The simple math is: increase the amount of handguns to the public and the numbers will increase for folks being robbed, injured, maimed or killed with handguns. Decrease those numbers of handguns throughout the public and the numbers of folks being robbed, injured maimed or killed with handguns goes down. Disagree all you want but currently there are a total of ZERO working Star Trek Phasers out there for the public to use. Oddly enough, a total of ZERO citizens have been robbed, injured, maimed or killed with a working Star Trek Phaser. I don't know about you but I am quite happy that there have been no folks robbed, injured, maimed or killed with a working Star Trek Phaser!


The math to me is just that simple. Trying to change my simple way of seeing things is a waste of both of our times. If I should ever see a measure on my ballot which decreases availability of handguns or bullets to the public, I'll vote YES to that measure every time.

[proteus_lives]

12. Ok, we get it.

You vote out of fear and your rights aren't important to you.

Let's hope free speech doesn't start to scare you.

[chknltl]

16. Wrong on both counts

It would be equally silly of me to say that you hate freedom just from your post. I do not know you and nothing in your post says that you hate freedom.

Nothing in my post says that I vote out of fear. You made that up. The reality is I would vote to reduce handguns/bullets out of a love for my fellow humans. It pains me to see the accidents. It sorrows me to hear of those who have been senselessly victimized.

I am happy to report that not one person has lost a loved one from the accidental discharge of a working Star Trek Phaser. Like it or not, it is a good thing that nobody has been maimed by one either. Don't you agree that it is a good thing that there are none of your fellow citizens of this planet who are suffering in misery due to the misuse of working Star Trek Phasers?

I care enough for my fellow man that I would spare him or her the grief some find as an acceptable trade off for handgun ownership. I care enough for my fellow man that if/when I see measures on the ballot to limit accessibility to those handguns or their bullets I will vote YES for those measures knowing full well that I am voting NOT out of fear but out of compassion.

[proteus_lives]

20. It's fear.

A bill like this and "limiting" handguns/ammo only hurts legal owners who have committed no crime. If a criminal wants guns or ammo, he'll get it. You're infantilzing your fellow man, telling them they are mature enough for to handle one the founding rights of our country. I've never had an anti-zealot give me a honest answer to this question, I'm a legal gun-owner and CCW holder. I've never committed a crime, violent or otherwise. Why should my rights be restricted when I've done nothing wrong?

[chknltl]

22. Fear is not my motivator here

Compassion is my motivator. I do hope you weren't callin me an anti-zealot. I wouldn't think to call you, my fellow DUer, a gun-zealot. Tell ya what, you can call me an anti-handgun-nut, that would be fair and accurate.

I've no doubts that you are like many other Americans, a law abiding honest hand gun owner. You are also likely a registered voter. We each make our choices regarding how we vote for handgun legislation. My choice will always be for reducing the pain and misery associated with handguns. It is more important to me to see to the well being of my fellow man than it is for me to support my rights as an American to own a handgun. It's a trade-off I am willing to live with.

This will likely not answer your question to your satisfaction but my answer to it would be: I own a truck. For the sake of argument let's say that I have never received a ticket, nor have I ever broken the law with my truck. So why do I have to abide by speed limits? Why can't I go out and buy a Formula-1 race-car and take her out on the freeways of America? Besides the obvious legal issues, the answer is that I accept limitations because the trade-off is for the safety of my fellow man. It is another trade-off I am willing to live with. If it were to come to a vote, I would vote in favor of restricting how you and I operated our vehicles. I suspect in this case and there are many other examples which come to mind, we would vote pretty much the same way when it comes to public safety.

For me, the handgun issue is a matter of public safety. The history of deaths and maimings, the tragedy of the victims who lost loved ones, all due to handgun misuse, leads me easily to conclude that far and away not enough has been done in America to restrict handguns.

No, fear is not what motivates my vote, in this case what motivates me is compassion.

[Euromutt]

32. Your analogy can be improved upon

Let's take your hypothetical example that you own a truck, and are scrupulous in obeying the law with it. In this example, the analogue to ammunition is not speed limits, or Formula 1 cars, it is fuel.

Would you think it reasonable that you have to jump through a bunch of administrative hoops every time you needed gasoline (or even biodiesel), because there are some people out there who are breaking the law using motor vehicles that, for the most part, they're legally prohibited from possessing in the first place? But instead of putting more effort into identifying and prosecuting those people, some bright spark of a legislator decided that the way to curb their excesses was to require ID and a thumbprint to acquire fuel?

[chknltl]

50. This is no improvement/This is my LAST post to this thread.

To all who seek to debate me on this matter:
Perhaps I've not made it plain enough, I posted my show of support for this legislation NOT to enter into debate with those who disagree. Judging by the responses from my fellow DUers who wish to ignore this request, should I assume that I should not have bothered posting my support at all?

For me to remain here, defending post after post after post is a waste of our time, a waste of time easily anticipated, a waste of time I hoped to avoid.

I am well aware of the 'pile on' style one finds over here in the Gun Forum. This happens when a fellow DUer posts thoughts here that run contrary to those who frequent that forum. For that reason, I do not post my thoughts in the Gun Forum. To me, posting anti-handgun thoughts in the Gun Forum is similar to posting anti-Clinton material in the Hillary Clinton forum back when we had one.

This OP was not originally posted in the Gun Forum, which is where it resides now. Had it been there to begin with, I would have respected my fellow DUers of that forum and not posted what IMO is something they would see as inflammatory. Thanks for making me feel that free speech is not such a good idea on this board when I specifically asked to not be drawn into a debate on this matter.

Euromutt, my use of the analogy was an example to answer a very specific question. You have altered my analogy, ('improved on' as you put it), to no longer apply as a good analogy to answer that question.

Well now I am forced to defend the analogy as it is altered, so be it.

"De Leon's bill, AB 962, would make it illegal to knowingly sell handgun ammunition to criminals." Selling gasoline to those who obey the laws of the road or to those who break those laws hardly compares, but read on....

"Ammunition dealers to keep bullets out of easy reach of potential shoplifters, similar to cigarettes." OR gasoline! Ever tried to shoplift a tank of gas?

"Handgun owners to buy their bullets face-to-face from a licensed dealer. They could order through the Internet or by mail, but they'd have to pick up the ammo at a store, just as they now must when buying a gun..." I believe it is possible to purchase a car online but I am not too clear how one can have full cans of gasoline UPSed to ones' residence. Even-so one supposedly has to sign for it.

The legislator's point and the very point I support, is a desire to increase public safety. No, that increase won't be dramatic but it is imo, a small step in the right direction.

In your 'improvement' of my analogy, if public safety were of concern, then yes further 'restrictions' on the purchase of gasoline could be a consideration.

Would you be so bothered to use your drivers license or I.D in order to purchase gasoline if it became the law of the land? Would it bother you if also another law of the land required a locking gas cap on everything that used or contained gasoline?

The likely answer is that you would be bothered by such restrictions given the current status quo but lets change things around a bit. What if these laws were enacted to protect our children who were being regularly gasoline bombed in their schools by some mad terrorist group? Overly dramatic analogy yes, but my point is still public safety as the motivation for restrictive access.

I hope you can see where your 'improvement' still fits within my primary motivation.

Was your goal here to change my mind or perhaps to try to make me look silly? I've already stated that my mind is made up on this matter-I seek to support legislation which makes it more difficult to purchase handguns and/or bullets. As to perhaps making me look silly, well imo, anyone who disagrees with the status quo over here in the Gun Forum is going to at best look silly to those who hang out there. I accept the facts that most folks in this forum think my views are silly at best and downright dangerous to our nation at worst.

As a Barack Obama supporter, I stayed out of the Hillary Clinton Forum for a darn good reason. I am happy to report that I am still chummy with many folks who once frequented that forum. This is one of the DU's strengths I think.

This OP has been moved to the Gun Forum. I choose to not post here generally for the same darn good reason I chose not to post in that Clinton Forum. I know that most here disagree with my support of the legislation in the OP, I think no less of any of you for this.

[Treo]

51. The only thing the "Forced" you to defend your analogy is your ego

You wanted to come in here, take a dump and leave us W/ the mess

[chknltl]

52. Making an exception: Welcome to ignore. Nuff Said

[Treo]

54. I'm a gun owner people like you ignore people like me routinely

Every time you pass an unrealistic law that restricts my rights. Every time you make me get a permit and pay a fee for something that I should just be able to do. How this any different ?

[Euromutt]

55. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

Thanks for making me feel that free speech is not such a good idea on this board when I specifically asked to not be drawn into a debate on this matter.

One: freedom of speech doesn't mean people can't tell you you're wrong when they think you are. That's their freedom of speech.

Two: if you don't want to get to "drawn into a debate," all you have to do is shut your self-righteous yap and walk away. This is a discussion board; you can't reasonably expect people not to react to your posts. The decision to read and respond to those reactions is yours; nobody's forcing you. And do I really need to point out the rank hypocrisy in complaining that your freedom of speech is supposedly not being respected, while in effect telling other people they can't post responses to your posts?

Get the fuck over yourself already.

As for the rest of your post, yes, I'm aware of the fact that cartridge ammunition and petroleum distillates aren't quite the same. That's why it's an analogy. And it's still an improvement over your spurious one of comparing restrictions on ammunition purchases to speed limits or prohibiting Formula 1 cars on public roads.

One of the things that makes it a less than perfect analogy is that gasoline is dangerous by itself; in a sense, it is more dangerous outside a gas tank than it is in, whereas ammunition really doesn't achieve its full hazard potential until it's loaded into a firearm's chamber. That's what makes it safer--and therefore easier--to ship than gasoline.

"Ammunition dealers to keep bullets out of easy reach of potential shoplifters, similar to cigarettes."
Yeah, because those ammunition retailers are notoriously lackadaisical about having their stock pilfered. It doesn't affect their bottom line at all, heavens no! Fact is, most gun stores and sporting goods departments I've been in keep at least the more expensive and more lethal "premium" hollow-point ammunition behind the counter, and quite a few keep everything behind the counter. And if you think gasoline is difficult to shoplift, try strolling nonchalantly out the door with a 5 x 3 x 1.5", 1.5 lb box of fifty 9x19mm rounds under your jacket. Fifty little cartridges, all merrily rattling with every step you take.

Would you be so bothered to use your drivers license or I.D in order to purchase gasoline if it became the law of the land?

Why no, I just fucking love being treated like a criminal! Being hassled by the TSA is my favorite part of air travel, for example. Good lord, how I could possibly object to living in an encroaching police state, in which I have to show my papers and submit a thumbprint to make a perfectly legal purchase? After all, those with nothing to hide will have nothing to fear, and moreover, it's for the children! Won't someone think of the children? In fact, we should make that mandatory for potentially dangerous household chemicals! And bicycles (look up "bicycle bomb" sometime)! And books with seditious content! Oh, the list is endless!

In other words, damn right I'd mind. I'd mind even if there were any substantial evidence that such a measure would improve public safety by lowering violent crime, which there isn't.

[TheWraith]

34. You love your neighbor so much that you want to control their lives.

You want to be able to dictate that they follow your opinions on what's good for them and what isn't, regardless of their own free will.

So what's the difference between you getting to tell your neighbor whether they're allowed to own a gun or not, and the religious right trying to force gay people to be straight "for their own good"?

[Howzit]

15. Would you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI

"The simple math is: increase the amount of handguns to the public and the numbers will increase for folks being robbed, injured, maimed or killed with handguns". People have been buying guns at much higher rates than before Obama took office, yet "folks" aren't using them in the crimes your simple math predicts. What is up with that?

[chknltl]

19. So if every single person in America owned a handgun...

... and using your logic, would you think to even try to convince me that the accident rate from handguns would not eventually go up? If all of a sudden NOBODY in America owned a handgun, are you saying from that same logic, that the accident rate from handguns wouldn't go down??? Quote whatever stats all you want, I stand by this simple statistic: Not one life has been harmed by a working Star Trek Phaser because the public does not have access to a working Star Trek Phaser. In this matter my mind is set.

btw: I said from the start I sought not debate, I wished ONLY to show my support for the legislation.

[Statistical]

40. Number of firearms has been going up for long long long time....

Compared to 20 years ago we have about 50% MORE firearms in this country.

Accidental death rate is at a 45 year low.
Homicides is lower than 30 years ago.
Violent crime rate also lower than in 1968.

More guns and less crime, homicides, accidental deaths. How do you explain that?

[X_Digger]

23. False premise..

"The simple math is: increase the amount of handguns to the public and the numbers will increase for folks being robbed, injured, maimed or killed with handguns."

Simply not true- demonstrated by the increasing rate of firearms ownership, and decreasing crime rate..

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index.html

Crime has been on the decline for more than 10 years, yet firearms ownership is at an all time high (both in number and distribution). While I wouldn't make a causal link between those two bits of data, it does show that the reverse is not true- more guns doesn't mean more crime (or injuries).

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/graphics_matter.html

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Go back to the chalkboard with your "math".

Fact: In the last twenty years the number of guns in America has greatly increased.
Fact: The crime rate has dropped in the past twenty years, including the murder rate.

How do those facts square with your math?

[Treo]

26. My mind id made up, please don't confuse me W/ facts NT

[rrneck]

28. Note also

that zero people have had to defend themselves with Phasers.

You need to consider those who use firearms to defend themselves in your calculations. Also, the potential presence of firearms by a possible victim can cause an agressor to alter his or her behaivor. The risk assesments of muggers and rapists is much more difficult to calculate.

[Euromutt]

30. If you "seek not debate," what are you doing on a discussion board?

You could just have written "I've made up my mind, don't bother me with the facts," or better yet, not posted at all.

The obvious flaw in your "logic" is that phasers don't actually exist, which is why we don't need to worry about their being used in the commission of crimes. Cartridge ammunition, by contrast, does exist and, as long as there are countries with munitions industries outside the United States, cannot be legislated out of existence. To compare, there is a thriving industry in this country that smuggles, distributes and retails illicit drugs, in spite of laws prohibiting that activity. In western European countries, stringent gun control legislation doesn't prevent someone who wants to acquire a firearm illicitly from doing so. Where there is a criminal demands for firearms--and, by extension, for ammunition--a supply will rise to meet it, and if it has to operate on the black market, it will do so.

The simple math is: increase the amount of handguns to the public and the numbers will increase for folks being robbed, injured, maimed or killed with handguns.

"2 + 2 = 5" is simple math as well; the fact that it's simple doesn't mean it's not wrong. There is empirical evidence that your "math" (actually an unsupported assertion) is wrong as well. Despite numbers of firearms in private hands being at an unprecedented level (with estimates ranging from 0.9 guns per capita to over 1 gun per capita), since 2000, violent crime--including firearm crime--has been at levels not seen since the mid-1960s (that is, they've only been higher in the interim). Correlation is not a sufficient condition to prove causation, but it is a necessary condition, and there is no correlation; ergo, there is no causal link.

Your position is faith-based, not evidence-based. Which goes some way why you're not willing to discuss it; you'd hate to have your faith proved to be misplaced.

[rd_kent]

39. You say 2+2=5 yet dont want to debate why you are wrong.

Your math is just wrong. Period. No debate needed.

[Euromutt]

43. Heh. Great minds...

Funny how we both came up with that "2+2=5" response.

[rd_kent]

44. I guess we have too much common sense! We should share some with those that lack it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Okay, explain why people who break gun laws will obey the ammo law?

n/t

[grifter_tm]

10. I've heard this joke before...

Chris Rock anyone?

[tulsakatz]

14. yes, I was thinking of Chris Rock too!

he does a joke about how the gun laws are backwards. He suggests that we shouldn't necessarily limit gun ownership, we should limit the bullets instead! He said if they charge $2000 per bullet.......or some other extreme price, that would greatly limit gun violence.

That idea actually made sense to me!!

[kelly1mm]

18. Me too! I would have $80,000,000.00 worth of ammo - I'd be rich!

[PavePusher]

33. Ah, so you want people to...

Have less chance to practice safety and marksmanship, and thus be a greater risk to themselves and those around them. Good grief, pull the other one, it's got bells on...

[Euromutt]

42. Sure that makes sense

After all, why should a legal gun owner ever need to practice with the thing? And of course, it would never occur to the criminal element to smuggle ammunition into the country the way they already do with cocaine, heroin and meth. So it's also a good thing that not even drug dealers would be the only people both willing and able to fork over a few grand a round if it came to it.

I trust the "sarcasm" tag is redundant?

[proteus_lives]

13. Veto it!

It's a bullshit, anti-rights, do-nothing bill.

[Elmore Furth]

17. Aristotle was wrong, there is no cause and effect

Motorcycles don't kill people - people kill people

Broken Elevators Don't Kill People, God Kills People

Fish Don't Kill People, Air-To-Air Missiles Do

Monkeys Don't Kill People; Xanax Does

Flip Flops Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Earthquakes Don't Kill People, Buildings Do

cigarettes don't kill people,people kill people

Video Games Don't Kill People, Crazy People Kill People


F16’s Don’t Kill People, 500 Lb. Bombs Kill People

Swords Don't Kill People. People Kill People.

Pittbulls don't kill people. I KILL PEOPLE!

Ads Don't Kill People, Wars Do


Stupidity doesn't kill rational discourse, people kill it.

[TheWraith]

35. A gun has never been known to get up, walk out into the street, and shoot somebody.

Just like a bottle of whiskey has never been known to get behind the wheel of a car and get in an accident. People misusing those items, however, are a different story.

[krispos42]

21. I don't have a problem with this:

* Ammunition dealers to keep bullets out of easy reach of potential shoplifters, similar to cigarettes.

If given a time period to do so. Gun stores, for example, usually just have it sitting on shelves, as well as supersize sporting-goods stores like Cabela's. There is a rich assortment of ammunation in any given chambering, and there are a LOT of calibers out there to pick from.

Places like Wal-Mart have a much narrower selection and keep everything except birdshot behind glass.



I'm not really enthused with having to purchase a permit to buy ammo, and it's probably unconstitutional. A tax on printer's ink was shot down for the same reason; it's a de-facto limitation on a constitutional right.



Mail order is a way to get either bulk ammo (like military surplus) or to get a specific manufacturer and bullet type that your local place might not carry. If you have to get it sent to a dealer for pickup and pay some kind of handling fee, that's going to be a hassle and the equivalent of a tax as well.

[Hangingon]

27. Pencils misspell words!

[Treo]

29. Spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat NT

[Tim01]

31. L.A. ? BWAHAHAHAH ha ha ha ha!

Yeah, you go ahead and prevent the criminals in L.A. from getting ammo. Shit. What a useless circus.

Somebody should get rid of this idiot. Make him a janitor or school crossing guard or something.

[PavePusher]

36. I would personaly open an ammo store...

10 feet east of the CA/AZ border and sell discount ammo to anyone. At cost+expenses. And claim non-profit status.

[Katya Mullethov]

37. Gang drive bys----- gang assasinations

What racist accusations !

[JonQ]

38. Oh yes, let's create a black market for bullets

the same way we did with drugs, that will certainly lead to fewer crimes.

[BigBluenoser]

45. These assholes should have the balls/ovaries...

to come right out and admit that this has nothing to do with gun crime reduction and everything to do with hassling legitimate gun owners and retail outlets.

[Kaleva]

46. I'd be fine with this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Yeah, bullets will be as hard to come by as meth and heroin

Making them harder to get surely won't result in an illicit trade in them!

[Kaleva]

48. Murder is against the law but the crime is still commited

Making it legal probably won't result in an explosion in the homicide rate as most people are naturally hesitant in taking the life of another. Having murder illegal gives society a weapon to punish those who do commit such an offense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. "The 'three strikes law' isn't reducing the CA crime rate, so...

let's add another crime that applies. Surely it will work this time!"

All agree murder is, and should be, illegal

This law specifically targets the innocent. Crooks won't care about it,

as they are already using guns (mostly) illegally.

Face it, Johnny Gangbanger won't care if you throw an 'illegal posession of ammunition' charge on top of the
'felon in posession' and ADW charges he will already be facing. Some people just stop giving a shit
what the law says.

This law will only hinder the *already* law abiding.

[Kaleva]

53. All laws hinder the law abiding

[Euromutt]

57. Demonstrably false

At least, I don't know about you, but I'm generally not hampered by laws prohibiting homicide, theft and assault, because I'm not normally inclined to commit those activities.

[Euromutt]

56. Jesus, it's the "should we legalize murder?" canard

Is it really so hard to work out why that argument is spurious? Murder involves the direct imposition of harm on an unwilling victim; that's what makes it a crime in most people's perception. The action of purchasing ammunition, in and of itself, doesn't hurt anyone else.

[Kaleva]

58. Read again what I wrote. You'll see your error.

[Euromutt]

59. Variations on a common theme, mac

There is no parallel between homicide and buying ammunition; the former results in direct harm to an unwilling victim, the latter does not. And I'll tentatively agree with you that homicide is illegal so that there is a mechanism to punish (and dare I say it, rehabilitate, even though the American criminal justice system is remarkably indifferent to this objective) those who commit it, what social purpose does it serve to punish people who would attempt to circumvent this law if they did not seek to use the ammunition thus acquired for committing unlawful acts that result in direct harm to unwilling victims, but instead intend to use it to put holes in paper targets, or use it for self-defense within the framework of law governing the use of lethal force to that end?

[SteveM]

60. I see you are a fan of Henry Thoreau. You might be interested in this:

"We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected."

-- Walden