Is it time for a red flag number when it comes to ammunition?

[Baitball Blogger]

I read the forum purpose and I believe my question falls within the correct parameters. This is my first post to the group, so, if it doesn't qualify please someone tell me and I'll lock the thread.

I heard on the news that the Colorado shooter purchased 6000 rounds within the last 60 days. For the sake of lowering the casualty rates with these shootings, is it possible to set up a red flag number on the number of rounds a person buys? I'm not saying to put a limit on the purchase, but for the sake of public safety, wouldn't it be a good idea to keep track of someone who suddenly purchased such a high number of rounds at one time?

I can understand someone that goes to the shooting range on a regular basis getting a pattern of high round count. No problem. But isn't it time to keep track of someone who purchases an automatic and buys as much as 6000 rounds in as short period of time? In this case, if he had his house booby trapped, maybe there were other purchases that would have brought the authorities in to find out what was going on?

[gejohnston]

1. you mean semi automatic

I don't know how you could create such a system and make it work. The only thing I can think of is go back to the record keeping system similar to the 1968-1986 laws. In order for it to work, it would have to be automated and the mainframe would need software tracking trends and look or anomalies, which some credit card companies seem to have. How would you adjust for reloading equipment? New shooters? One time bulk purchase because of really good sale and nothing else?
Then what? Prior restraint? Going back to the ammo record keeping is acceptable, prior restraint is not.

[Callisto32]

72. Chilling effects.

There is a good argument that record keeping is NOT acceptable.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Not sure how that could be done objectively or practically

If someone gets a weapon in a new caliber, 1000 rounds is a typical starter buy because that is where serious discounts start. If someone is a competitive shooter, even more is routine. For example, in a serious trap shooting competition, I used to routinely shoot 2000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun ammo in a week.

About the best one could do is have automatic reporting of center fire ammo purchases of 1000 rounds or more to the local cops who in turn would do nothing with it.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Maybe we need a better dispatch center to keep track of the bulk sales?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Bulk sales IMO would start at 5000 or 10,000 rounds of the same kind

You might also want to see just how much ammo is bought annually in the US. The totals will scare you. The paperwork volume, even computerized would drown BATF.

For starters, go to WalMart and just see what they have on the shelves in terms of breadth and quantity. Then realize that they do not stock what does not sell rapidly.

[Baitball Blogger]

18. I wish Storage Wars would air the number of times they opened one of those

storage places to find a stockpile of weapons and ammunition. I know they have to turn in everything to the police if they find them, but it would really be interesting to learn how often it happens and what parts of the U.S. it tends to happen more often.

[rl6214]

36. "I know they have to turn in everything to the police if they find them"

That is only the law in California on some weapons. I have seen Auction Hunters on Spike and they often sell weapons they have found in lockers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. That is a state by state thing

I get called in occasionally to help estates sort out weapons and ammo. Its amazing what I see.

[Baitball Blogger]

48. Do tell.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. Not too much to tell

Family or the lawyer asks me to look at what is there. I inventory the firearms, ammunition, and larger accessories if one does not exist. I may do condition evaluations or provide other recommendations. I refuse to price them, though that is readily available on line. Used firearms and shooting accessories prices are very fluid with a large wholesale/retail spread. I choose not to have an FFL so I cannot buy/sell them.

[HALO141]

113. No kidding.

Except for the ammunition shortage a few years ago, when you were limited to only one or two boxes, I can't remember buying less than 500 rounds at a time from Walmart, Academy, etc.

[rrneck]

4. "People watching infrastructure" would be better

put to use helping them rather controlling them. If such infrastructure were possible or constitutional.

[LonePirate]

5. Is there a difference between someone on "Hoarders" and someone who stockpiles ammo?

[Baitball Blogger]

8. Such a major non sequitur I don't even know where to begin.

[LonePirate]

11. I'll take that as a no then.

They both have personalities that compel collection of items in amounts far greater than what is needed or considered normal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Either that or they got a very good deal

A few ago there was a mass shipment of a particular kind of ammo into the US. Very very low cost in bulk. I bought a box of 5000. Still have about half of it left, despite using in my weekend classes as a demonstration.

Today I would buy it in 1000 rd lots since that is where the volume discounts start.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. You might have a percentage of gun owners that fall in the range of hoarders

I see your point. But many of them really do enjoy shooting at the range. I imagine they would have purchase patterns that would take them off the red flag lists.

I can also see potential ordinance violations if they stock piled something that was considered hazardous. You have to wonder what would happen to a garage stocked with bullets if there was a catastrophic fire in an urban area. Anyone know? Has it ever happened?

[NewMoonTherian]

9. That depends on your definition of "stockpiling".

Owning a few thousand rounds of ammunition is not going to interfere with the functions of daily life. Considering the constant murmuring of the anti-gun movement, and attempts at banning and restricting and tracking, can you blame gun owners for wanting to be prepared in case one of the crackpot ideas actually catches on? Many people would love to be able to go back to 1985 and buy a few automatics before the fraudulent passage of the Hughes amendment, but it's too late. We screwed up and now we're stuck with a bad law that we may never get rid of.

A couple of posters here like to mock gun owners as paranoid, but then we get threads like this. There's an old saying that goes "It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you." There are people "out to get" gun owners, and they succeeded for 60 years, from 1934(the NFA) until 1994(the AWB). Now that we've finally caught on to the scam, we get called paranoid.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. On the contrary, we're not out to get you.

I'm a Jr. NRA member. Some of that best times was shooting on the range on weekends. It just got all soured when my friend's dad convinced us to kill a couple of crows and I didn't have a clean shot. My friend had to finish it. I think it stopped being fun after that.

But, I digress. Not in any way trying to take away your right to bear arms, and I absolutely see the benefit of having many of you around in case the government goes apeshit on us, or, for sci-fi lovers, if the next zombie horde begins.

On the other hand, it's not working in this relatively calm-before-the-hypothetical-storm. People are getting killed. Our way of life is threatened because we can't go anywhere without the fear that some loon is going to flip and shoot. Don't we have a right to protect our right to live, as much as you have the right to horde guns? Isn't there a happy medium we can reach? You know, that all powerful balance between the public safety and private right? It's referred to as public interest.

Wouldn't it be better to find a civilized solution now, rather than to wait for these things to escalate to the point that your worst fears are realized?

[Starboard Tack]

24. Good luck with that around here.

You are not going to encounter many who are looking for solutions. Mostly, the gun owners who participate here, want gun laws to be less restrictive. They think that concealed carry is a "civil right" and should be expanded. The only problem they see is the rest of us for our lack of understanding of their "rights". Any deaths are "statistically insignificant" when compared to the number of gun owners.

"Wouldn't it be better to find a civilized solution now, rather than to wait for these things to escalate to the point that your worst fears are realized?"

I have been asking that question for a long time. Ain't gonna happen. The irony is that their worst fears will be realized when draconian laws are passed, which eventually, they will.
Don't be a stranger around here. We need more thinking people.

[NewMoonTherian]

31. Oh come on now. I want to find civilized solutions...

that don't hinge on hampering the gun rights of innocent people. Is that too much to ask?

[Clames]

33. Let the group know when you actually come up with a solution.

And by solution I mean something that has been rationally and thoroughly thought out and considers second- and third-order effects. Something that could actually be effective and not the usual moral whip. Thinking...that would be a start indeed.

[shadowrider]

35. Taking into account the law of unintended consequences n/t

[Starboard Tack]

42. Easy

The only solution and the one which will be implemented eventually.
A total ban on certain types of weapons and equipment in public places. Not control, BAN! Break it and the consequences will break you.

[Clames]

49. Laughable.

That doesn't pass the common sense test, the feasibility test, or the effect on crime test. Fail on all counts.

[shadowrider]

50. Make sure you keep that post. Next time someone says "Nobody wants to ban guns"

you have a comeback.

I did.

[Clames]

59. That's what Print Screen is for ;) n/t

[Kaleva]

66. Saw a post in GD about banning all semi-automatics

[shadowrider]

71. Only one? Those comments are flowing like the River Nile. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

83. I don't want to ban guns.

I was asked what the solution was. I gave what is obviously the inevitable solution, which will not be encourage or brought about by folk like me, who believe in private, responsible gun ownership. It will be brought about by those who walk the streets armed with handguns and those who promote such insane behavior. Such irony. But the selfish often ruin things for the rest of us.

[NewMoonTherian]

70. That would take away the tools of legitimate self-defense...

from honest people, while failing to deter self-destructive lunatics. I don't see the benefit.

[Atypical Liberal]

103. So what kinds of weapons and equipment are we talking about?

What are the certain types of weapons and equipment that you would ban from public places? And what about on private property?

[gejohnston]

43. need more thinking people

given that you are the only one on your side, I would agree with that.

[Starboard Tack]

106. There are many thinking people here, including yourself.

There are also many unthinking people who post here. It would be nice to have a more of a cross-section of DUers participate here. You get a more realistic picture if you read the threads in GD. Obviously, people need to be educated. Many don't know one gun from another, others are probably oblivious to the recent explosion in gun sales and CC laws. We have a lot of ostriches.

[gejohnston]

107. I read some of the ones in GD

and the "not so open minded to RKBA" tend to be closer to Hoyt than yourself. Very few if any are thoughtful beyond "I hate guns because I associate them with rednecks and teabaggers," or simply "I have gun nuts."
But then, there is bigotry and then there is respectable bigotry. Some I would describe is regional bigots. Redneck is often a pejorative for white rural working class.
One thing I noticed about some of the former New Yorkers around here. They tend to be more paranoid of people like me, white and drives a pick up truck, than African Americans. Something I picked up on in a CCW class I took, and I went to gated community country club a couple of times on business.

Kind of reminds me of something George Orwell wrote. I think George was more spot on, whether you are talking about the UK or here, than Thomas Frank.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/05/obama_and_orwell.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=timeline
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/0805073396

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

If some of the more thoughtful ones would come by (there are a couple who do on occasion. One seems to be agnostic when she comes by. I see her in GD on things nothing about guns)

[gejohnston]

108. exhibit number one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117253377
The OP and one of the posters.

[Atypical Liberal]

102. If I have to choose between fighting a big fight or years of incrementalism, I'll take the big fight

The irony is that their worst fears will be realized when draconian laws are passed, which eventually, they will.

If my choices are fighting incremental gun control laws or fighting one big push for gun control, I'll take the big fight, thanks.

[Trunk Monkey]

51. I can promise you that ammuntion and magazine sales are going to go up

because of this event. They'll sky rocket if there's any serious talk of bans or restrictions.

I remember when you couldn't walk into a Wal Mart any where and find ammuntion for 2 years after the 2008 election.

In any event ammunition will never be cheaper than it is right now.

If I bought 1 million rounds I'm sure I'd shoot it all up before I die and if not I'll pass it on

That is why I buy in bulk and stockpile.

[Baitball Blogger]

73. More the reason we apply this red flag rule now and get over the hump

so it doesn't become a continual fire sale opportunity.

[Trunk Monkey]

92. What does this accomplish?

IME ammunition is sold in lots of 20 for rifles and 50 for handguns. You can buy .22 caliber in packs of 500 or so or you can buy it in bulk through the mail or at a gun show.

An arbitrary limit of even 500 rounds would have had zero effect on the Aurora shooting.

No matter how low you set the limit someone will pull a mass shooting w/ less than the magic number of rounds and someone will call for a ban on sales of the magic number minus X until we're buying our rounds one at a time

[NewMoonTherian]

68. I don't think that public safety and personal freedom are conflicting interests.

I don't think that's what you were saying, but the terms "happy medium" and "balance" suggest, to me, a situation where we have to make sacrifices in both areas. I'm not willing to compromise public safety OR personal freedom. I think there are ways we can protect both. No one has been exploring those possibilities, because the conversation always goes something like:

"We have to pass massive new gun restrictions!"

"Nuh uh!"

And then neither side is in any mood to discuss actual solutions. I want to have that conversation. I can't guarantee it will turn up anything useful, but it'd be more productive than the groove we're in now.

Let's explore the bulk ammo "red flag" scenario. A big ammo purchase triggers alerts with some government bureau(we're already in uncomfortable territory for me, because ammo purchases should be anonymous). After some digging around(and some creative stretching of the fourth amendment), it turns out that the same person also bought... I don't know - something else that triggers alerts. What is the next step? All the purchases were legal. Do agents come with a warrant and interrogate the buyer as to his intentions? Search his home for disturbing reading material? Confiscate his ammunition? I don't understand what you want to see happen, and I can't see any possibilities that I would find acceptable. I'm more afraid of an overpowered government than of individual lunatics.

[Baitball Blogger]

74. I do forsee the day when these things will be handled without our knowledge.

Perhaps they already are. I or a member of my party gets checked for additional security checks at airports at an alarmingly high rate. No way is that coincidental. Expect the same kind of profiling to occur as these loon shootings continue.

I'm just saying, the gun supporters are working against the clock, if these things escalate. Learn how to self govern your own, or the public support will force the government's hand.

[gejohnston]

75. what do you mean "our own"?

He isn't one of us. I don't see evidence of him being a collector, hunter, target shooter. Don't see any evidence of him owning guns before this. He bought them specifically for this.

[Baitball Blogger]

76. He is a byproduct of your loose rules.

If this is what you want for yourselves, then find a way for gun stores owners to have a better relationship with the police department to turn in people who might put in a suspicious order for a first time gun owner.

Or do nothing and we'll sit back and watch the self-fulfilling prophecy realize itself. There is a number we will reach--a number of accumulated dead count--where even NRA members will wake up and realize things have gone too far. We are a pathetically, crisis oriented society that way.

[gejohnston]

77. gun store owners do

they even turn in suspected straw buyers to the ATF, for all the good that did in Arizona. Assuming Gander Mountain did, the cops would do nothing because "he hasn't done nothing yet".

[Baitball Blogger]

79. Except, it looks like we have an accomplice in the mix.

Did I read that right in another thread? And I would be very surprised if a credit card check didn't turn up the kind of things that police have been flagging since the Oklahoma bombing.

[gejohnston]

82. most likely he did have an accomplice

other wise, how could a guy on unemployment, or even without a really good paying job, get that stuff in a fairly short period of time. Where did he get the tear gas grenades?

[alabama_for_obama]

99. This is not the fault of gun owners not accessibility of firearms.

He could have easily used something else. Have you heard of maltov cocktails? They are supposed to be easy enough to make. I imagine the guy could have burned down the theater with everyone in it if he had wanted to.

[NewMoonTherian]

78. The current airport security procedures aren't acceptable either.

I have a chilling suspicion that you're right about the government pursuing these things without out knowledge, and it's absolutely outrageous. I want transparency from my government, and instead they behave like the old Soviet Union.

We aren't working against the clock, so much as we are working against a sensationalist media and ghoulish gun control lobby. They are capitalizing on these acts for their own purposes. If public safety were really their number one concern, they would be addressing the dozens of more frequent causes of death in the United States. Why are deaths by mass shooting different from deaths by any other cause? Why should it take such a few deaths to cause a public outcry against guns, while it takes far more to cause a public outcry against other dangerous activity?

[Baitball Blogger]

80. I think the fatality numbers are the issue.

Semi-automatics can now shoot 70 people before anyone can stop the shooter as he's reloading.

Also, other deaths with these high casualty rates do get looked into. A bridge collapses killing motorist who are crossing it, and it results in inspections of all bridges and a cry that there are infra-structure oversights.

Sinkholes in Florida become a cause for required insurance on homeowner policies.

There is always a cause and effect when there is a high casualty number. In this case, the NRA's lobby efforts have put a stop to good legislative change. That will change once the numbers reach a level that no one can accept. Not even the NRA.

[NewMoonTherian]

84. No good legislative change has been proposed.

There are already severe restrictions on firearm ownership. More severe restrictions do not qualify as good legislative change. The assault weapon ban was a massive failure, and was appropriately done away with. You mentioned that you like the idea of gun owners being prepared to resist an overreaching government, but bulk ammo red flag policies will make that more difficult.

[Baitball Blogger]

87. When 9/11 occurred, Republicans were the first to support the Patriot Act, which flagellated

Democrats for decades of laws which didn't allow the intelligence agencies to communicate with each other because of privacy issues.

Believe me, there will be a number or an event where even the NRA will concede.

[NewMoonTherian]

88. Concede to what?

What change do you want to see? Ammo purchase limits? Bans on certain guns? What will it help? What practical benefit will it have?

[Baitball Blogger]

89. Red flagging large ammo purchases.

If the whole point is to stop terrorism of all kinds, domestic and foreign, and assuming that something like this is already in place because of 9/11, the big question is, why didn't the system stop the Colorado shooter, when there are witness reports that claim there was an accomplice?

You see, questions like this will be harder and harder for the NRA to defend. If there were two people behind this, we can eliminate insanity. We are dealing with domestic terrorism. People are going to want to know why this one slipped through the purchase reviews that we all know were put into place since the Oklahoma bombing.

[oneshooter]

90. How would you describe a "large ammo purchace"?

When I built my youngest son a AR-15 I ordered 500rds of SS-109 ball ammo for it. He got the rifle for X-Mass and he, not we, have gone through more than 400rds. That was breaking the rifle in, tweaking the sights, and practice.

I am about to order another 5oords for him to shoot competition with. Once we find a comparable handload then he will be reloading his own ammo, using his empty cases.

Between myself, Loving Wife, and my son we will shoot some 5-6000 rds this year. And that is just 223 ammo.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[NewMoonTherian]

96. My concern...

is that red flagging large ammo purchases will disenfranchise honest gun enthusiasts. How will they be protected?

[Atypical Liberal]

105. Flagging large ammo purchases won't accomplish much.

Holmes probably fired fewer than 200 rounds.

I shoot that in an afternoon at the range.

Are you really going to instigate a federal investigation of everyone who buys 4 boxes of pistol ammunition?

The fact that Holmes bought 6000 rounds recently doesn't change the fact that he could have done the same thing after purchasing 300.

[Trunk Monkey]

94. Semi-automatics can now shoot 70 people

Semi-automatics can now shoot 70 people before anyone can stop the shooter as he's reloading.

They've been able to do that since the first detachable magazine fed weapon was invented over 100 years ago. the fact is that most of those over sized magazines are novelty items and frequently very poorly made.

Cho Sung Hui had reduced capacity 10 round magazines at VA Tech but since he was the only one in the building with a gun he simply shot the Glock19 dry and held people at bay w/ the P22 while he reloaded.

If the oversized magazine were all that effective the Army would issue them to the troops

[shadowrider]

95. The shooters 100 round drum also jammed n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

104. But the numbers are in decline.

That will change once the numbers reach a level that no one can accept. Not even the NRA.

But the numbers are in decline. Violent crime has continued to decline for decades. We are now at 1960's levels of violent crime.

[alabama_for_obama]

98. I go almost everywhere without fear of being shot.

We are safer now than we have been for 40 years... And there is nothing to indicate we won't be even safer next years.

If you are worried you are going to get shot walking down the street I suggest you move somewhere safer or if you already live somewhere safe get some counseling.

[Atypical Liberal]

101. Except...

On the other hand, it's not working in this relatively calm-before-the-hypothetical-storm. People are getting killed. Our way of life is threatened because we can't go anywhere without the fear that some loon is going to flip and shoot. Don't we have a right to protect our right to live, as much as you have the right to horde guns? Isn't there a happy medium we can reach? You know, that all powerful balance between the public safety and private right? It's referred to as public interest.

Except....our way of life is not threatened.

Unless you are involved in illegal activities, your chances of being killed by gunfire are astronomically low.

For getting killed with an assault rifle your odds are really, really, astronomically low. There are only about 300 homicides every year in the United States with all rifles combined. This is half as many as are killed by hands and feet. So while high-profile shooting cases like the Holmes case may make you feel unsafe, the reality is that you are not really at risk from firearm crime.

Violent crime has been declining in the United States for decades. We are now at 1960's levels of violence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. I buy...

...AA batteries in boxes of 100 at a time. If I can get a good deal, I buy toilet paper in a 96 roll case. Am I a hoarder?

[4th law of robotics]

86. Hoarders often store trash

and other useless things.

Bullets have a use.

And 6000 sounds like a lot but it really isn't.

[NewMoonTherian]

6. I don't approve of legislation that further reduces gun/ammo buyers' privacy.

And this would do very little, if anything, to prevent mass killings. I think we need to think a little deeper here.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. I'm willing to field ideas.

Saying "no" to every idea is not an answer. So, if you're going to reject my idea, you have my attention if you can come up with a better one.

[NewMoonTherian]

10. I think there are better ideas already out there.

Ideas aimed at easing poverty and improving access to mental health care. All of these will go farther to reduce crime. We need to address the causes of crime, not the means. The means to kill and injure people will always be easily available.

I'm not smart enough or informed enough to start discussing specifics, but I think there are several other regulars here that will do so.


EDIT: I appreciate your attitude. It's refreshing to meet someone willing to discuss ways of actually improving the situation, rather than browbeating the opposition with played-out arguments.

[Baitball Blogger]

13. Those are very valid points.

Definitely mental health care is an area we need to work on, possibly more within our reach now with universal health care.

But this guy who just took on a theater of unarmed people, it doesn't look like poverty was an issue. I think the first indication that something was wrong was his ammunition purchase. If that had sent up a red flag, maybe his other purchases would have revealed incendiary equipment?

[shadowrider]

22. I disagree. His bulk ammo purchase was a symptom and not the problem.

He has serious, serious mental health issues. His mother knew it was him when she heard of the shooting. What did she know, when did she know it and why was nothing done? That is the problem.

[Starboard Tack]

39. The problem is that 70 people were shot in a theater. Not guns, not mental health, not his mother.

The causes of the problem were many.
What are the solutions? More guns? More concealed carry? Guns allowed everywhere?

I'm sure all the brave gun carriers here would have saved the day.

How about surveillance cameras on fire exits? All public gathering places declared gun-free zones (no exceptions).

How about gun parks, where all those who want to play with guns can go at it all day and all night, but if they leave, they leave their guns behind. Just think, everyone there has a gun, god guys, bad guys, cops and robbers. You get to shoot each other with impunity, unless you get shot, of course.

Or, how about we grow up as a society?

[shadowrider]

40. This theater WAS AND IS a gun free zone. The shooter must not have seen the sign.

His mom knew something was wrong with him and nothing was done. THAT is the problem. Had action(s) been taken, this MAY not have happened.

Again, the gun is the problem and not the mental health issue that is obvious to even the most casual observer.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Gun free zones are not gun free if there is no enforcement.

Anyone can put up a sign. Mother always know something is wrong. Mothers never turn their kids in. If you want to blame mothers for all these mass shootings, then good luck. How about blaming the fathers who have instilled in their kids how cool it is to carry guns around? Nah, you're right, it's all Mom's fault.

[shadowrider]

47. So what is your plan for enforcing no gun zones? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

111. How are they currently enforced? The real ones?

Screening, CCTV, harsh punishment for those who contravene, whatever it takes until folk get the message.

[gejohnston]

112. chances when caught,

they are going to jail for something much more serious.

[NewMoonTherian]

69. This post makes me feel like banging my head against a wall.

Gun free zones are not gun free. We agree there. I have no idea how - from that point of agreement - you and I can come to such completely conflicting conclusions.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Take your time.

If you want to create a restricted area for anything, it will take more than a few signposts. What part of that don't you understand?
There will always be the occasional misfit or sociopath who insists on ignoring a local ordinance. That's why restrictions are pointless without enforcement.

[NewMoonTherian]

115. What kind of enforcement?

Every business can't afford to hire security guards to pat down patrons at the door, and people wouldn't stand for it if they did. The police can't enforce the policies of each individual establishment, and a police force large enough to do so would be an absolute disaster.

That leads me to the conclusion that the only viable option for enforcement is to allow business owners and patrons to carry guns. Civilians are willing to carry weapons for the purpose of stopping violent criminals. They'll do it for free. They'll even pay to do it!

[Starboard Tack]

116. Enter an established gun free zone (urban area eg.) with a gun, go to jail for a long time.

"Civilians are willing to carry weapons for the purpose of stopping violent criminals. They'll do it for free. They'll even pay to do it!"

Frankly, that is nonsense and if it weren't nonsense, it would be pure vigilantism which is even worse. I doubt you'll find much support for that kind of thinking on DU. Maybe some Teabaggers would share your views.

[NewMoonTherian]

117. I'm not talking about hunting down gangbangers in the streets.

I'm talking about responding to violent crimes when they take place.

"Enter an established gun free zone (urban area eg.) with a gun, go to jail for a long time."

But that's just another rule. We were talking about enforcement. A lunatic like Holmes can walk into an area with such a law in place and do pretty much exactly what he did, and no one would know that he had a gun until it was far too late. It may reduce other forms of gun crime, replacing them with more stabbings and beatings and other creative methods of doing harm, or may just give a tactical edge to those criminals who don't care about jail time. But why wouldn't it be just as effective to say "If you enter these areas with a gun and you don't have a carry permit, you go to jail for a long time"?

[Starboard Tack]

118. How about preventing crimes like this or at least a faster response.

The government, federal, state and local, has spent tens of billions of dollars on surveillance cameras and detection devices during the last decade. The private sector has spent billions more. There are few urban locations that are not covered by cameras. He entered through an emergency exit, something my buddies and I did as kids. How was that possible without an alarm going off or a camera spotting a guy dressed like Rambo on steroids? Note that he chose a darkened environment as his target, not a ball park.
I have seen some loonies say that more guns in the theater would have either saved the day or lessened the death toll. Can you imagine what more guns would have done in a dark theater full of panic stricken people? And remember the guy was armored up. This was not a suicide bid, but a headline grabber. So far, nobody wins but the shooter.

[Clames]

109. And he finally gets it.

Gun free zones are not gun free if there is no enforcement.

No enforcement. Pretty much the missing mechanism of concept that exists in almost every so-called "reasonable" or "sane" gun-control law that is regularly suggested. How about focusing on what actually causes crime? Too hard. Blame inanimate objects? Much easier.

[Trunk Monkey]

53. All public gathering places declared gun-free zones (no exceptions).

The theater is a gun free zone, so was Columnbine, so was Va Tech, So was Vonn Maur, So was NIU , So was Paducah, So was Luby's

New Life church, Trolly Square, Appalachian School of Law, Pearl High School, Edinboro, Pennsylvania, not so much

Things that make you go hmmmm

Bolded text is edited

[Clames]

34. The problem is that such laws require some subjective definition of what is considered a bulk buy.

I don't think there is a way to make such a law that actually has the teeth to be enforced and would be effective. Buy smaller amount under that threshold value and stockpile longer. Buy reloading supplies and make you own ammunition in bulk. Keep in mind this guy didn't use enough ammo to be considered "bulk" by any reasonable definition. A mass killer like this would have just bought what he thought he needed and never would have raised any flags. Such laws have no teeth because there is no logical way to enforce them.

[rl6214]

38. The amount of ammo he purchased has not bearing on what happened

By all accounts in the news he went thru somewhere around 100 rounds, there hasn't been an exact amount reported yet but from what I have heard he started with his shotgun (8 rounds) went on to his AR15 with a beta mag (100 rounds which he may or may not have emptied) then moved on to his handgun which being a .40 ca is somewhere around 15rds. The shooting was over in minutes so the majority of that 6000 rounds he purchased were sitting in his apartment.

Some would say purchasing 4 guns in a couple month period should be more of a red flag. I have 3 sons and have purchased guns 4 at a time and gone thru 1000 rounds in an afternoon of shooting.

[alabama_for_obama]

100. Thanks

I was about to make this same point. He could have bought 20,000 rounds but it wouldn't have done him much good. Have you ever tried to lug around 500 rounds? Let alone 500 rounds AND a gun. Bullets are HEAVY.

[jleavesl]

17. I don't think this would work

I think that the biggest problem that you will run into is that it isn't that hard to make ammunition. I collect vintage pistols and have about a 1000 rounds of .41LC (an obsolete round) who's cases I reload. My father has about 4000 rds of .45LC that we do the same thing with. While we aren't a threat to anybody and aren't intentionally avoiding scrutiny, I don't see how we'd pop up under your system.

Even if you wanted to monitor the purchase of materials to manufacture ammunition, I'd still fall outside of your scope because I have the mold to make the bullets.

To be honest, I think all such a proposition would do is create another ineffective bureaucracy, inconvenience law abiding gun owners, and do little to avert another tragedy. Where I think money would be better spent is the existing NCIS background check. This cat was obviously off of his rocker and judging by his mother's comments, had been for awhile. If we spent a fraction of the money that your proposal would require, we could get better information into the NCIS background check and maybe have gotten this guy flagged.

Now would that have stopped this guy? Possibly, but he was apparently quite adept at making explosives, it's possible that he would have found another way to perpetrate this atrocity.

John

[Baitball Blogger]

19. You mean, he might have resorted to making bombs, rather than to go out on a shooting rampage.

I'm pretty sure that there are red flags that go up for certain purchases. Ever since the Oklahoma bombing. Fertilizer, for instance.

[jleavesl]

21. Then those should have gotten him caught

As he had booby trapped his apartment with enough explosives to take out the entire building.

John

[shadowrider]

25. We're not sure at this point what kind of explosives they are. C4 would have gotten

the attention of law enforcement. It may be bombs made out of simple everyday household items, but, that's purely conjecture on my part with nothing on which to base it.

[shadowrider]

23. Fertilizer in bulk. Nothing would stop him from legally buying enough in small quantities

and mixing it with legal diesel fuel. He'd have enough to kill many more than 12.

[upaloopa]

28. Your powder purchases could be restricted. The points could be restricted.

[CokeMachine]

55. Just curious

what are points? I reload but have never used points. Did you mean Primers?

[oneshooter]

57. I buy buy black powder in bulk, generally 25lbs at a time.

It is delivered to my home. I pay a small premium to get it delivered but the powder is much cheaper than buying from a store.

[upaloopa]

26. Why don't we restrict the number of rounds you can buy in a certain time frame?

If you carry a gun for protection you only need a few rounds to kill the bad guy. I don't think you'll need a couple dozen boxes of 40mm shells at home. You wouldn't run into enough bad guys in your life time to shoot all those shells.

I'm for limiting gun rights with reasonable laws.

[Travis_0004]

29. Did you forget about target practice?

I've shot 300 rounds in a single day before. Its not often, but it does happen.

When I bring my shotgun to the range, I typically go through 100 shells. (trap shooting).

I also buy ammo in bulk. Its a 30 minute drive to the place where I buy it from, and its the cheapest place, so I would rather go once every few months.

Even if you set a limit, lets say 50 rounds a week, does that accomplish anything. All somebody would have to do is wait 2 months, and they would have 400 rounds, which I'm sure is more than what was shot yesterday.

And there are many many shooters who shoot more than 50 rounds a week. Pro level competition shooters may fire 100k a year.

[upaloopa]

30. If you go to the gun range, the range can provide the rounds.

I use to live on twenty acres in the lower Sierra Nevada mountains. I had a target shooting area laid out on my property. I didn't need a couple thousand rounds for target practice. And I can hit 3 or more bulls out of ten at 25 yards.

[shadowrider]

37. Ok, so the range provides the rounds. How long before the government wants

to know how many rounds you fired based on the log the range would be required to keep?

Think about the law of unintended consequences and incremental, creeping "adjustments" to this. While you had a range on your property, no one was watching to see if you fired 50, 100 or 1000 rounds.

When I go to the range I pay for an hours worth of time. How many rounds I fire in that hour is no ones business but mine.

Keep in mind, I'm not paranoid of the government, I'm scared of the anti-gun people and their "death by a thousand cuts".

I must compliment you on your willingness to address solutions rather than the typical response we get here from anti-gun people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. Throwing the BS card on you here

If you were ever really a shooter, you would know that different rounds behave differently. The correct approach it to practice with the rounds you are going to use when required, not range ammunition.

Shooting a fairly large number of rounds builds the muscle memory need for in extremis usage. 5 rounds down range in month is almost a waste from a training perspective

If you can only get 3 out of 10 in the black at 25 yrds, you needed more practice.

[upaloopa]

63. M-14, M-16, M-60 Machine gun, m-79 gernade launcher,1911 Colt 45 automatic, M-50 machine gun

I'll bet I You haven't shot any of those have you? The various rounds act differently don't they?

I have.

I'll bet I've shot more different types rounds in one year than you ever did in any year of your life expert!

And guess what I was trained on all of them!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Qualified Expert on some of those, have the bars to prove it

And you got the nomenclature wrong. Its the M2...AKA Ma Deuce unless you are talking about the Reising M50. its also the 1911A.

What you posted earlier is still tripe...clean it up and then maybe some of us will believe you.

[shadowrider]

93. YOU'RE a fool. If you're going to say it, at least spell correctly, ok?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

97. Just pointing out obvious mistakes that make your post questionable

If you posted in a factually manner that was not full of hyperbole and poutrage, there would be a basis for discussion.

[Travis_0004]

52. Do you realize how many types of ammo exist?

There are hundreds of different types of ammo.

Then you need to think of bullet weight. This can differ based on barrel twist, or how much recoil you want to put up with. Also certain guns need more or less powder. M1 Garands often have ammo labled as M1, since modern 30-06 may have too much pressure and bend the operating rod.

Your idea is just stupid.
Plus, if you can only buy ammo at a gun range, how would you shoot on your own property. You would have no where to get the ammo.

Lets stop trying to come up with irrational statements, and dumb policies that do nothing to prevent crime, but only affect honest civillians. Gun control is a loosing issue, and if my Representative tried to pass another major gun ban, I wouldn't vote for them.

Keep in mind, Columbine was a horrible tragedy as well, and that was in an era where the assault weapon ban was in effect.

[spin]

58. Assuming that you were shooting at a target similar to this ....

and was referring to the black portion of the target as a "bull" -- if you had shot several thousand rounds of ammo you might have been able to hit your "bull" five out of ten times. After 100,000 rounds or so you might find that you can hit it eight or nine times out of ten on a regular basis and sometimes place all ten in the black.

[oneshooter]

62. Try a 20" bullseye at 600yds,20 shots, with no scope. Then get back to bragging.

[Clames]

60. How is that reasonable?

So you basically also want to limit how much practice one can do it seems. You would complain about poor competency of a CCW permit holder and in the same breath deny them the ability to buy enough ammo to engage in practice and training? You are for limiting, reasonableness need not apply.

[bluedigger]

27. No.

A single box of 50 rounds can do all the damage desired if used with ill intent. We might want to consider better regulating the storage of very large quantities of ammo for reasons of public safety, however.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. Smokeless powder rounds do not explode

Black powder is another thing entirely.

Component storage is already regulated.

[bluedigger]

54. Muzzle loading black powder Kentucky long rifles, used only for hunting, of course, are the only

acceptable firearms for private ownership, just like the Founders intended.

I'm speaking more about people buying and storing 10,000 round lots in ziplocks in the corner. You know it happens.

I remember a hardware/gun store burning down in my hometown in the 70's. The fire department had a very difficult time responding due the detonation of ammunition (and paint cans), and almost lost the whole downtown. The store relocated out of the downtown area. I guess there's been tremendous advances in ammo technology since then, and all the old unsafe stuff has been recalled.

And before you go there, yes, I know unchambered rounds don't send bullets flying (very far) when they detonate.

[oneshooter]

56. " all the old unsafe stuff has been recalled."

Old, unsafe stuff? I have some ammo from WW1 and it still shoots,and shoots well. I have fired some ammo, 8mm Lebel and 8mm Kropacheke(sp)that was loaded before 1900, and it still fired.

Modern ammo is quite safe, the corrosive primers used by the Soviets remain viable for many years.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. 8mm Lebel

That is a name I have not heard in a while

[oneshooter]

81. Had a real nice Cavalry carbine. sold it to a collector for a lot more than I paid for it.

[aikoaiko]

32. I'd rather tax money support mental illness programs and initiatives to thwart mass killings.

I don't think an ammo tracking system would have done anything to stop the Aurora mass shooting.

[Kaleva]

61. There is very little regulation in buying the materials needed for a fertilizer bomb

"It is also remarkably easy to produce with the proper ingredients, namely ammonium nitrate, one of the most common fertilizers found in the United States, and a fuel oil — the diesel fuel found at most gas stations being one of the most common. Neither of these items are illegal to buy, possess, or transport in the United States.

For these reasons it is the explosive Timothy McVeigh loaded into his truck when he drove to downtown Oklahoma City and detonated it near the Murrah Federal Building. The resulting blast was the largest terrorist attack on the United States at the time, surpassed only by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, killing 160 people and injuring almost 700."

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/materials-fertilizer-bombs-not-regulated

As the article states, the instructions for making such a bomb are easily found on youtube.

Edit:While I believe your opinion has merit, I also believe it's damn near impossible to stop someone hell bent on death and destruction. That is, unless we adopt a Stalinist society.

[4th law of robotics]

85. He purchased a semi-automatic

and if you'd limited him to X amount of rounds per day he would have bought X amount of rounds.

What if that stockpile had been only 5000? Would it have saved some lives? No, because he used far fewer bullets than that.

It makes as much sense as limiting gas purchases to stop drunk driving.

A) that will annoy the vast majority of legal drivers and B) it will do nothing to stop actual drunk driving.

[benEzra]

110. Practically speaking, someone can't carry/use more than a few hundred at a time...

so the difference between buying 1000 and 5000 is irrelevant as far as public safety goes. And it's not like small arms ammo will blow up in a house fire or anything.

Most bulk ammunition purchasers are people who shoot a lot---competitive shooters, people who shoot a lot recreationally, or people who are serious about maintaining their skillset (shooting is a perishable skill) and wish to take advantage of bulk pricing. Buying ammunition in boxes of 20 gets expensive if you shoot a thousand rounds a month.