if they're criminals to begin with

Post #57,008 by SpiceWare 10/15/02 2:04:10 PM Reply	if they're criminals to begin with then they'll just steal somebody else's bullets. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #57,010 by deSitter 10/15/02 2:08:15 PM Reply	Fine Take care of your ammo, report theft. We're not talking about camera equipment. -drl
Post #57,016 by Brandioch 10/15/02 3:32:39 PM Reply	People will horde ammo. If it's difficult and time consuming to buy ammo, people will buy LOTS of it when they do buy it. Which then creates a 2nd market when your friend asks you to sell him some of your stockpile or he'll repay you when his order is processed. You're trying to ID the ammo and restrict the distribution channel. Instead, you'll restrict the LEGAL distribution channel and make ammo horders out of gun nuts who will then become targets for theft because ammo will become more expensive. If it takes a week to process an order, I'd stock up on as much ammo as I could get. 1,000 rounds? 2,000? more? Not to mention I wouldn't have any moral problems sharing this ammo with my friends.
Post #57,028 by deSitter 10/15/02 4:40:39 PM Reply	Re: People will horde ammo. Well, then limit it, the way one limits purchase of pseudoephedrine (can be used to make speed) or potassium nitrate, etc. etc. Again, you're responsible for your ammo. Someone gets hurt, they trace it to you, you're in dutch. The WHOLE point is to identify bad guys after the fact, not necessarily before. My first principle is that deeds and not behavior get punished. -drl
Post #57,041 by Brandioch 10/15/02 6:01:16 PM Reply	Getting too complicated. And the final stage is allowing the unrestricted ownership of weapons, but having the government restrict you to 10 rounds, total. And you'll have to turn in your brass to get new rounds. Again, you're responsible for your ammo. Someone gets hurt, they trace it to you, you're in dutch. So, someone breaks into my house and steals my 10 rounds and then shoots and kills someone, I'm responsible to what degree? Do I get the death penalty? Do I get 20 years? Do I get fined $1 per round? The WHOLE point is to identify bad guys after the fact, not necessarily before. But, in order to identify the bad guys, you're restricting the good guys. Then you're punishing the victims of theft for not building a fortress out of their house. Do you see how complicated this is getting?
Post #57,070 by deSitter 10/15/02 8:19:20 PM Reply	Re: Getting too complicated. You're stretching now. Like that will be commonplace. The idea is to find bad guys by the trail they leave. -drl
Post #57,098 by Brandioch 10/15/02 10:44:19 PM Reply	Just making the point. You want law abiding citizens to wait for their ammo. And to have their photograph and prints taken. And you want to restrict how much ammo they get. And hold them responsible when THEY get robbed. All to "catch the bad guys".
Post #57,134 by deSitter 10/16/02 9:56:39 AM Reply	If you lend someone your car.. ..and he wrecks it, who gets to foot the bill? -drl
Post #57,180 by Brandioch 10/16/02 1:21:03 PM Reply	Correct that analogy. If I lend someone my car and he KILLS someone with it, am I the one charged with anything? No. Your analogy holds true ONLY if you're looking at damage to the weapon itself or the ammo (which will be expended anyway). #1. If I lend someone my car/gun/ammo and he wrecks it, I foot the bill. #2. If I lend someone my car/gun/ammo and he kills someone with it, I am innocent. Under your plan, #2 would have me guilty.
Post #57,185 by deSitter 10/16/02 1:59:22 PM Reply	Re: Correct that analogy. Well, under my scheme I would not expect you to be charged with murder - I'd expect you to be charged with illegally distributing ammunition. If your ammo was stolen and you reported it, of course you'd be faultless. If you didn't, then you'd be guilty of something like leaving the scene of an accident, or aiding and abetting. For once you're cornered :) -drl
Post #57,232 by Brandioch 10/16/02 6:46:24 PM Reply	Which brings back the car analogy. Well, under my scheme I would not expect you to be charged with murder - I'd expect you to be charged with illegally distributing ammunition. If your ammo was stolen and you reported it, of course you'd be faultless. If you didn't, then you'd be guilty of something like leaving the scene of an accident, or aiding and abetting. Okay, the "illegally distributing ammo" I can understand. But that SHOULD apply whether anyone is shot/kill/whatever or not. It's the OTHER bit. "leaving the scene of an accident" But I wasn't AT the scene of the accident. "aiding and abetting" Possibly. BUT Such is NOT the case if I lend someone my car. And that is my point. You will create an entirely NEW "crime" (illegal distribution of ammo) If I commit that "crime" -and- The other person kills someone -then- I am "guilty" of ANOTHER "CRIME" AS WELL. This isn't "gun control". I don't want to have "gun control". I am opposed to "gun control". BUT We'll just criminalize the AMMO. And that is what you are doing. Today, it is legal to buy ammo. As much ammo as I can afford. And I can give it away to anyone I want to. Whenever I want to. As much as I want to. So you'll have to create NEW "crimes" to be enforced so you don't have "gun control". #1. Illegally distributing ammo. Where it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to illegally distribute ammo today. #2. Aiding and abetting. Whereas today such a charge would NOT stand up in court. And the REASON for that? Is the ammo itself dangerous? No. The goal is gun control. The method is criminalizing a legal product and controlling the distribution of such.
Post #57,268 by deSitter 10/16/02 11:18:20 PM Reply	Re: Which brings back the car analogy. You know when the Irish are cornered because they start shouting. The HTML equivalent of shouting is boldface. Tomorrow, when I am less tipsy (friend had a Bdaty Bday tonifhtght) I will be more sp-specif ic, specific, . -drl
Post #57,281 by Brandioch 10/16/02 11:52:22 PM Reply	You've fallen for the classic error of law enforcement. By creating new laws, you create new "criminals". Then you lock up these new "criminals". More "criminals" are in jail, but you've also increased the "criminal" population. Net effect: Zero reduction in crime (as defined by laws from 2001).
Post #57,288 by deSitter 10/17/02 12:00:17 AM Reply	I haven't fallen for shit, I'm too drunk to argue tonight Cna;t Can't believe I can type this food good. Talk at me tomorrow. -drl
Post #57,290 by Steve Lowe 10/17/02 12:02:05 AM Reply	Re: I haven't fallen <--- YET! :-) ----- Steve
Post #57,292 by boxley 10/17/02 12:05:34 AM Reply	know yer snot!!! will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #57,342 by inthane-chan 10/17/02 11:12:07 AM Reply	"Am I droonk, or am I droonk?" - Lister End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
Post #58,229 by jb4 10/22/02 9:22:12 AM Reply	Another possible analogy... We'll legalize marijuana... ...But criminalize the stuff needed to injest it (cigarette papers, pipes...of all kinds..., aluminum foil (can be used to make pipes), the inner paper roll from toilet paper and paper towls (can also be made into pipes), glass, plastic or plexigals tubing (including PVC), and Betty Crocker brownie mix. What am I missing? jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)

Welcome to IWETHEY!