In the wake of the Connecticut shootings, why not Ammunition Control?

[heatmaster]

After the school shootings in Sandy Hook, Connecticut; there is no argument that guns were used; but these guns were rendered lethal, because they were loaded with ammunition clips, and this Lanza character took the lives of 20 plus kids, his mother included and why? Because of the amendment that defends the right of every citizen to bear arms; we know the same old arguments are going to be employed and once again the Gun lobbyists will win yet another skirmish; okay then, let's not debate on the merits of gun rights vs. gun control; it is not the debate America can afford or needs; I suggest Ammunition Control; you control the sale and distribution of bullets and all forms of ammunition; you side-step the minefield that revolves around Gun control.

[Benj]

Various Democratic politicians have been pushing for ammunition control for a while. The NRA and similar organizations have always been opposed, and until now it never had a chance at passing. (Their argument essentially boils down to, "This is just the first step on the road to steal your guns!")

I believe Joe Manchin's statement today endorsed ammunition sale limits, so we'll see if it goes anywhere now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I could see magazine restrictions possibly passing, but not ammo limits.  Even a 100 round at a time limit would be highly intrusive and easily circumvented, yet it wouldn't really do anything since these sorts of out-of-the ordinary sprees generally seen over 100 rounds actually used.  The tragedy in Norway is the only one I can think of off hand that used over 100 rounds.

[© tweed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0Y4qIZ4PA

[Benj]

I could see magazine restrictions possibly passing, but not ammo limits.  Even a 100 round at a time limit would be highly intrusive and easily circumvented, yet it wouldn't really do anything since these sorts of out-of-the ordinary sprees generally seen over 100 rounds actually used.  The tragedy in Norway is the only one I can think of off hand that used over 100 rounds.

I believe Manchin was arguing for a sales limit of 30 rounds at one time. Even that seems unnecessarily permissive to me--what is gained by allowing more than maybe 5 or 10 rounds at once? While I agree that a really dedicated person/organization could just go around to many different gun stores or purchase ammunition over a period of months or years, it does at least make short-term planning for these sorts of things more difficult.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Benj, I can easily see someone using 100 rounds or more at a time doing target practice.  Unless we take the draconian step of only allowing target practice at government licensed target ranges, it just ain't practical to have such a small limit and 30 is utterly absurd.

[dead0man]

Plus, it's pretty easy to reload your own.  Much easier than making your own gun or growing your own weed.

[bedstuy]

I don't see how an across the board limit on ammunition is going to work.  As said previously, target practice requires a lot of ammunition.  And there's going to be a black market and strategic purchasing which would circumvent point of purchase restrictions.

I would prefer regulating the types of ammunition available to the public.  I don't see why people need exploding or incendiary ammunition.  There's also probably room to curtail hollow point bullets.

[heatmaster]

So the argument is to do nothing for fear of failure, what a crock; not trying is worse than ignoring the problem; a debate needs to go forward; sure the NRA will offer the same old hackneyed arguments, why not? if it works, then it's a no brainer; the whole principle of Ammunition control, is to side-step the wording, "right to bear arms": if you tell the NRA, we don't question your constitutional right to own or buy guns; but you impose strict limits on the sale of bullets, there category, the distribution of ammunition clips; you profile the buyers of bullets and ammunition; essentially you apply strict quarantine's on the sale of bullets at the point of origin (licensed sellers). There should be a 48-hour waiting period imposed; and if a buyer of bullets and ammunition can verify they are not a danger to the community, you police the use of guns and bullets, but not the restriction of gun ownership. Avoid gun-control arguments at all costs.