Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos/PPP Poll: NRA and GOP grossly out-of-step with America ... including Republicans (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, they do (7+ / 0-)

    Generally speaking, any transfer from an FFL requires a background check, regardless of where it takes place.

    The problem is that a transfers not involving an FFL do not require a background check. This needs to change.

    ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
    My Blog
    My wife's woodblock prints

    by maxomai on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:18:28 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I still say..... (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, cybersaur, msmacgyver, peteri2, belle1, gmats the shit out of the ammo. Can't take their precious guns away, so just make it a hell of a lot more expensive to shoot at stuff (or people).

      Or for that matter, outlaw the possession of more than, say, 100 rounds of ammo. Can shoot a ton of deer with 100 rounds. Cuts down on the slaughters, too.

      •  In practice (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maxomai, MPociask

        what you are really doing is making it more expensive to shoot guns, which would make sense if the only thing gun owners shoot at is people.

        But that's not what 99.999% of gun owners shoot at.

        •  Bummer how much inconvenience this would cause. (13+ / 0-)

          Ask those kids how convenient it was to be shot up.

          And, yes, making shooting expensive is exactly what I'm proposing.

          You want sport? Go play soccer/softball/golf/touch football.

          We outlaw other "sports" - bull fighting, cock fighting, dog fighting, etc. "Senseless shooting" should be added to that list of banned sports.

          Here's a 100 rounds. Go shoot your deer and eat hearty tonight.

          •  Spoken by someone (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MPociask, Bailey2001

            who doesn't own a firearm or particularly enjoy shooting firearms and can't imagine why anyone would.

            I'm only guessing, of course.

            'Think like I do.  Enjoy my hobbies, or the hell with you.'

            Compelling argument ...

            Getting to your 'analogies', bull fighting, cock fighting, and dog fighting are all outlawed because they inflict cruelty towards animals.  Hunting is as humane (oftentimes more-so) as obtaining one's meat from the grocery store.  In fact, one gains an appreciation for where one's food comes from.

            More to the point, lifeless, paper targets are probably the most shot at object in this country ...

            •  Jeeze. Can't you see the difference... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peterfallow, RadGal70

              ...between "lifeless, paper targets" and REAL HUMAN BEINGS?????

              Gun Owners are from Mars, Gun Control Advocates are from Venus.

              •  Of course I can (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MPociask, Bailey2001

                and I think you know that.

                I'm trying to make you understand that what you believe to be a rational, cut and dry response to these continuous shooting tragedies has implications beyond the scope of the problem.  And lawful, responsible people that would be affected by your proposal would wonder what they did wrong to be targeted in such a manner.

                •  So what are your solutions? (0+ / 0-)

                  To the killing of people, that is.

                  •  My personal opinion (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MPociask, Odysseus, m2old4bs, BachFan, Smoh

                    is that laws are there to protect us in society from greedy/stupid/crazy people.

                    The best laws are those that limit the ability of those people from hurting society without undo hardship on those of us that are not greedy/stupid/crazy.  In that light, my own ideas regarding limiting/lessening gun violence are:

                    1) Mandatory, federal registration of all fire-arms owned within the US. Doing away with loopholes that allow unregistered weapons being sold at gun shows (such as those in Virginia).

                    2) Mandatory, federal licenses prior to the purchase of any semi-automatic rifle/hand gun within the US.  Similar to hunting licenses in the state of Virginia, a license cannot be obtained until the owner completes a federally managed weapon's safety class, has undergone a mental health evaluation (that will be fair, unbiased and not open to the interpretation of whatever state you happen to live in), and shows proof of the purchase of a storage device/location for said semi-automatic rifle/handgun, proposed below.  License renewal every 2-5 years.

                    3) Mandatory federal regulations regarding the storage of all semi-automatic rifles/handguns.  The details could be hashed out, but I would argue that either a storage facility away from the home or a gun case in the home would meet the needed requirements.  You could also impose rules such that if the weapons are to be stored in the home, all members of the home over the age of say 12 (the age you can legally hunt alone in the state of Virginia) would be required to have undergone the process of acquiring a semi-auto license.  If not everyone in the home over 12 has a license, the weapons must be stored in an alternate location (potentially a federal/state run storage facility).

                    I believe you will find that, as long as the costs to gun owners is not particularly high (no $100 licensing fees ...), they wouldn't have much problem with any of these ideas.  All guns must be registered, if you want a semi-auto you have to take a weapon's safety course (something most gun owners already do) and if you want to keep your guns at home, you have to ensure that they are safely kept and not accessible to anyone without a license (who have been screened for mental instability).

                    Had these rules been in place (and enforced), I find it very hard to believe that incidents like this most recent tragedy would occur as frequently as they do.

                    •  I applaud your proposals! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RadGal70, Smoh

                      How about allowing individual states to ban certain weapons?

                      You wanna shoot up Wyoming with autos, fine.

                      We don't need autos in Illinois, NY, California, etc., so we can ban them in our states. OK?

                      •  Autos are already banned (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Odysseus, Otteray Scribe, BachFan

                        We are talking semi-autos here.

                        You pull the trigger and you fire a bullet for each trigger pull, without having to reset the action: that's the 'auto' part).  Full auto = you press and hold the trigger, and bullets keep firing: these are already very illegal.

                        You will be hard-pressed to ban all semi-autos, as I have mentioned in other posts, as almost all modern hunting rifles / handguns are semi-automatic.  The Supreme Court has already ruled on this I believe, and indicated that bans on something as broad as 'handguns' was unconstitutional.

                        You can try, but I don't think the outcome would stand up to the Court at this time.

                        •  Why not just ban the "semi-auto" part. (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm pretty sure hand guns (or any guns) don't have to be semi-automatic.  As I've been told by someone else on Kos today:

                          any gun can kill a lot of people efficiently and quickly in the wrong hands. Oswald didn't need an AR-15 to kill Kennedy. He used an old Mosin-Nagant variant. Something most people consider a junk gun, even by 1960s standards.

                          The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                          by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:27:52 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Not a junk gun at all (0+ / 0-)

                            One of the best sniper rifles from WWII.   Vasili Zaitsev and Ivan Sidorenko both used modified Mosins.

                            The thing is, you have to be well-trained to effectively use one.  The same can be said for any bolt action / single shot firearm.

                            If you want a second shot quickly and on target, you really need a semi automatic.  Which is why they have surpassed the bolt action and make up the majority of the weapons manufactured today.

                          •  Thanks for the info. (0+ / 0-)

                            I have to say I do appreciate the technical info I'm learning from RKBA'ers and others here.  

                            The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                            by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:55:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  License fees should cover costs. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gmats, cany

                      No reason that tax payers should subsidize some people's hobby.

                      Registration should also be checked. I'd like to see that gun owners have to take all their guns to the police station once a year, and if a gun that you owned last year isn't there this year, you either bring the relevant paperwork or prepare for a vacation in Club Fed.

                      Repeal the 2nd amendment.

                      by Calouste on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:06:02 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You can make that case (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        ... but I am keeping costs removed from the establishment of the regulations because the issue of cost is something the NRA and gun manufacturers love to use as arguments against all regulatory efforts and it resonates with gun owners.

                        If it is easy, fair, and doesn't take money out of their pocket, they really have no reason but to go along with it (unless they are a greedy/crazy/stupid person of course, but we'd be targeting them anyhow).

                    •  I would add a liability insurance component. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gmats, Smoh

                      No liability insurance, no license, no registration, no ownership.  Ownership means responsibility for any damage it causes to another person and/or the family of a person, self defense exempted, whether it is used by the owner or by someone who "borrows" it with or without consent.  

                    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mandatory, federal registration of all fire-arms owned within the US. Doing away with loopholes that allow unregistered weapons being sold at gun shows (such as those in Virginia).
                      Registration might not actually be necessary if you require purchasers to be licensed, even for private-party sales, and enact severe penalties for selling to an unlicensed buyer. Sellers would be required to keep the documentation in case there is an issue, if it weren't submitted to a registry.

                      Canada (under Harper's conservatives, who I almost never agree with on anything) federally registers handguns but not (non-semi-auto) long guns. This came about because registering hunting rifles turned out to be the major point of contention between the rural community and the gun laws (a considerably more moderate dividing point than we have here, that's for sure). That might be a reasonable compromise here, as well; it could reduce the amount of political backlash, which given the shaky condition of US politics should still be a core concern. Sellers might still be required to check the license of any purchaser regardless of the weapon.

                    •  Deep Breath: Mrs. Lanza might have complied ... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      ... with your proposal that "... if you want to keep your guns at home, you have to ensure that they are safely kept and not accessible to anyone without a license (who have been screened for mental instability)."

                      What they have stopped her son from taking one? She's dead, he's killed 26 individuals and himself.

                      From conversations with gun owners (small sample, I admit), I think they'd accept your list. But you could have 100% compliance and Adam would still be able to get at the four guns he had in his possession (the three he took to school and the shotgun in his car) and massacre people without so much as reloading. As for "screening for mental instability," ask professionals in the psychiatric field - who have a legal duty to turn such people in - how well they can identify psychotic shooters in advance.

                      As for taking America back to where it was with guns sometime in the 1800's, I'd take it all the way back to the muskets that were in vogue when the Second Amendment was passed. I believe America and its gun culture has gone far beyond that of any other civilized nation on earth ... and with all those dangerous weapons about with their manufacturers and defenders arming them to the teeth, we're risking being known as civilized.

                      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                      by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:27:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If these rules were compiled with (0+ / 0-)

                        ... he should not have been able to access the weapons she kept at her home.

                        He would have needed a semi-auto license to live in the home were those weapons were kept (he is over 12), and if he owned them himself, he would have had to pass the criteria for the license anyway.

                        I admit that, a gun safe will only work if you put your guns in it, lock it, and prevent the key from being easily obtained by others.  If this is an issue though, then the offsite storage of the fire arm is the reasonable alternative.

                        I would argue that mental instability of a family member of such degree as to require a trip to the psychiatrist would be reason enough for most people to either secure their firearms or move them to an off site location.

                        Regarding the mental health evaluation, the psychiatrist doesn't have to turn anyone in; they only have to sign a piece of paper endorsing a persons application for a semi auto license.

                        •  True, he "should" not. But unpack your rules ... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          ... for me.

                          Just "to live in a home where [Mrs. Lanza's] weapons were kept" and be over the age of 12, you would license every occupant older than 12 of a household with a semi-automatic of any kind? That is one powerful lot of licensing and mental testing, not to mention privacy issues. Cover guests? Occasional visitors?

                          And if "mental instability" means having a prescription for meds for, say, depression, putting that together with your anyone-who-lives-in-the-house standard ... wouldn't that be likely to deter gun owners from fessing up to possessing a semi-automatic? Or going back to the prescribing psychiatrist for their required gun licensing checkup?

                          (My comment about reporting psychotic tendencies wasn't aimed at your required evaluation, but to the current legal obligation to report patients evidencing such behavior.)

                          Forgive this light reference, but I think your rules are trying to stop up the fire hose from the wrong end.

                          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                          by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:46:50 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Your points are good ones (0+ / 0-)

                            Suffice it to say, it certainly would not be easy.  Implementation of broad, multifaceted programs like this never are.  It's easier to just say, "lets ban guns" but honestly, we've tried that, and any law that eventually gets on the books would be watered down to near irrelevancy.

                            Yes, I do believe that everyone over the age of 12 that lives in a home where semi automatic weapons are housed should know how to safely handle and store those weapons and have been screened for mental health problems.  Visitors and guests I think would be pushing it, but those that live in the house having licenses would have been trained in their proper handling and storage, and therefore should be responsible for those weapons.

                            I don't like speaking ill of the dead, but there is absolutely no reason Adam Lanza should have had access to those fire arms and the fault lies largely with his mother, who did  not store them in an appropriate manner; either in a locked safe or in an alternate, secure location.

                            Your point about gun owners not admitting that they have semi automatics, due to concerns about failing their mental health assessment, is a good one.  If this is worrisome, the plan could be implemented in stages, with the priority first being registration of fire arms, the weapon handling/storage workshop class, and proof of safe storage components.

                            The mental health assessment is quite critical however.  If the matter were addressed separately, that might be a work-around; the establishment of standard mental health assessments for anyone and everyone.  It really is something we have to address, as the results of the status quo are presently before our eyes

                          •  You are arguing political reality, usually my ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... point on Kos. "Watered down to mere irrelevancy" says it all. After all, it took five years to get the highly flawed 1994 Assault Weapons ban.

                            I hope that now we have more political heft on the issue, a more nuanced approach than the public opinion poll that asks a big yes-or-no question, but instead asks questions about the details. After all, the results on public issues of significance, typically, are more telling and better guides about how to reach policy solutions than questions that are high altitude abstractions.

                            As for mental health, I must profoundly disagree with you. I'd worry very much about a society that required "mental health assessments for anyone and everyone." More mental health professionals, yes, as well as including coverage in insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, much better attention to meds and their side effects,  lessened stigma to those who suffer, etc. But the profession is far from the ability to identify the mentally ill, much less to know what to do when encountering someone who might have dangerous propensities.

                            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                            by TRPChicago on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:27:59 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am not a mental health professional (0+ / 0-)

                            ... but I would bet that if they weren't worried about being sued/dragged into court, mental health professionals could paint a pretty good picture as to the mental state of an individual, and come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether or not they should have access to fire arms (semi automatic fire arms in particular).

                            As loath as I am to do this (probably a ban-able offense here) I recommend you read ... man, I can't believe I am writing this ...  Charles Krauthammer's editorial in the today's WaPo.  He brings up the three things he believes to be present in most mass killings: the weapon, the killer, and the culture that helped set things in motion.

                            Rather then laying blame on any one of them, he writes that all contribute to the problems we face, and that in combating each of them, we would have to curb the rights of various portions of the population.  A good read, even if you disagree with his argument and think we only need to target guns.

                •   (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  "And lawful, responsible people that would be affected by your proposal would wonder what they did wrong to be targeted in such a manner."

                  It's not the's the guns. And the killing of people. That's whats wrong.

                  Find another "sport" that doesn't involve killing people. Or lifeless, paper targets. Try bow-hunting. That involves skill and doesn't slaughter people. Can kill a deer that way. (My cuz bow hunts bears, successfully, so I know this can be done.)

            •  If you're shooting at paper targets (6+ / 0-)

              then you don't need the kind of weapons that are commonly used in mass murders.

              If you honestly believe that "sport" guns should be available, fine, work for that. But to argue for the availability of any and all guns to any and all comers is insanity. The "slippery slope" argument that stopping the distribution of one kind of gun will lead to the black helicopters descending on your house to take all your guns is also insanity.

              We have speed limits in this country (even though some people enjoy driving fast). Does that mean that the government is coming to take your cars?

              Please, think for a minute about the price everyone in this country is paying so that you can continue to shoot at paper targets with whatever the hell weapon you want.

              I've often said that the main difference between modern Republicans and Democrats is that the former have no empathy, and can only think about governing in terms of what helps "me." Democrats are the people who think about how our decisions affect society at large; people who are not "me."
              Please - think about the hundreds of thousands of people murdered by people using guns over the past 20 or 30 years.
              Really stop and think about them.
              Think about the children as their bodies were being torn to shreds by bullets that are designed to eviscerate their (human - not paper) targets.
              Think about the lives that will never be lived.
              Think about the holes in families' lives.
              Think about the damage that we do to our present and future every day that we don't face this insanity.

              You want to shoot paper targets? Go ahead.
              You want to shoot deer? Well, we need that to be done, so go ahead. But remember not to use the kind of ammo that was used in Sandy Hook, because that kind of bullet is made to destroy the flesh that it enters, so your deer won't be edible afterwards....

              •  Anyone watch the Olympics - Biathlon (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                beth meacham, m2old4bs, BachFan

                you know the one skiing and shooting. they use .22 with 5 round magazines - and this is Olympic level.

                Each time they stop for a shoot, they need to load a magazine. Ever watched closely? These rifles aren't semi autos,they are bolt action -  they operate the bolt with their thumbs.

                So don't say a sportsman needs an AR15 with 30 round mag.These athletes can eat your NRA warrior for lunch.

              •  I understand your points (0+ / 0-)

                We both want the same thing.  Are approaches are simply different.

                I simply believe that we can get to where we both want to be (less gun violence) with my proposal, without banning all guns made/sold in this country since the late 1800s.

                Not only that, but as far as implementation, I feel that these three regulations stand a far better chance of actually becoming law then the ban of all semi automatic rifles and handguns.

                Personally, I don't target shoot.  But I know that millions of Americans do.  If you can make proposals that are inclusive enough to get enough support and yet surgical enough to eliminate the root of the problem without going over board, you stand a real chance of getting something done that will safe lives.

                That's my feeling anyway.

                •  Nice NRA talking point (0+ / 0-)

                  Your repeated claim that I am trying to ban "all guns made/sold in this country since the late 1800s" is a straw man. I haven't said that.

                  I do think we should not allow most citizens access to any guns that are made to kill large numbers of humans in a short period of time.
                  Use whatever terminology to define those guns that you want to use, but it doesn't change the fact that there are many guns made and used in the US that do not fit that description. I know that a lot of my neighbors use guns that don't fit that description to hunt around here.

                  So if you want to have a real conversation, please don't set up straw men.

            •  People like to smoke cigarrettes (4+ / 0-)

              yet we tax the shit out of it. Alcohol too.

              "I enjoy it" is no reason for anything. Particularly if that thing you enjoy doing has high societal costs.

              And I'm saying that as someone who has shot more types of guns, and bigger guns, than 99.99 percent of Americans.

          •  Here's a compromise. (0+ / 0-)

            Now this would involve some R&D into inventing this, but how about creating a new kind of bullet that is like a combination of a blank and a paintball, so that those who are actually using for target practice can shoot so that it'll leave a paint mark where it hits, but which is much less lethal than regular bullets.

        •  Target shooters should just use non-lethal guns (0+ / 0-)

          Paintball, airsoft, BB guns, etc. A projectile doesn't have to have the kinetic energy of a lethal round to make a hole in a paper target, after all.

          Then we can make lethal ammo prohibitively expensive to buy in large quantities, and non-lethal ammo can remain taxed at the same rate. Everybody wins!

      •  So the sane version of that proposal (5+ / 0-)

        is that we do background checks for ammo sales and investigate anyone who's bought more than (ballpark) 1000 rounds, just to make sure there's nothing hinky going on. We do the same when someone buys a lot of fertilizer who doesn't own a farm.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:08:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Won't work for a number of reasons. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask, Odysseus

          Competition shooters may shoot 1000 to 5000 rounds per week.  They may increase that to as many as 10,000 rounds in the weeks leading up to a national championship.

          Generally, competition shooters refer to themselves as 'used brass generators.

          There are perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 very active competitive rifle and pistol shooters.  There are many more trap, skeet and sporting clay shooters.

          Many competitors reload their own ammunition due to cost considerations.  Some, but not all, cast their own bullets.

          It would make sense to show a drivers license when purchasing ammunition and require the same for internet sales.

          •  I have no problems with this kind of shooting. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            belle1, gmats

            The kind of shooting I'm trying to address are the daily, senseless slaughters on the streets of Chicago/NY/Detroit/Philadelphia/Miami/LA and so on and so on and so on.

            Read the Sat. and Sun. morning papers from those cities - shootings, killings, rampages, etc. on a DAILY basis.

            Chicago, for example, is happy to keep annual murders below 500! (That's 20 Sandy Hooks for those that can't count.) And that's just in the City of Chicago. Ask about the rest of the cities in America.

            This ain't about your skeet shooting or deer hunting. This is about people-killing. Surely you can see the difference.

          •  How about this. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, BachFan, gmats

            I don't know much about about competition shooting, but I do know a lot about competitive sports.  How about buying and keeping ammo for competitive shooting only where you shoot it.  Kind of like a driving range where you get buckets of balls that you hit, same as a batting cage, etc.  I suppose there are those that practice elsewhere, but I'm not sure where and how and what laws govern that.  It's just meant as a suggestion and question of feasibility.  Clearly it would be an issue for those reloading and casting their own.

            The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

            by Back In Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:22:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Are you sure of your numbers -or are you making (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            shit up?

            Taking the low end of your ranges, you are saying these guys use 80 million rounds per week. At the high end you are saying that they are using 500 million rounds per week.

            And as for casting their own bullets, maybe you can answer the following questions

            How long does it take to make 1000 bullets in your kitchen/ Does it leave you anytime to actually shoot them.

            How much powder/cordite or whatever would you need to make 5000 bullets a week, and would this not attract a little attention from the ATF?

            •  A weekend match, depending on shooting (0+ / 0-)

              discipline will run between 120 rounds to 200 rounds.  

              With a little practice before hand, that is easily 500 rounds a weekend.

              There are over 10,000 western 3-gun shooters every weekend...except in very bad weather.  So, just for this one discipline, that can be 5 million rounds per week.  

              A normal 38 special load with most powders would run aroun 3 grains (7000 grains to the pound).  So that will produce around 2000 and change cartridges.

              So, 2 to 3 pounds of powder and about 90 pounds of lead for bullets for 5000 38's with 125 gr bullets.

              ATF is interested in firearms or if you sell the ammunition you reload.  If you make it for yourself, no regulation.

              •  By the way, in almost 30 years of the western 3 (0+ / 0-)

                gun sport, there has never been a fatality.

              •  I just saw that: Make shit up. (0+ / 0-)

                Thanks.  Nice way to call someone a liar.

                I gave you a 'normal scenario' right above this.  But, the top shooters do practice what I mentioned at first.  And there are more people who want to be top shooters, so they practice too.

                It's unbelievable the amount of lead they can use in a weekend.

                In many cases, it's recycled every couple of years.

                •  Yeah well - numbers don't add up. (0+ / 0-)

                  80 million bullets - low end estimate - per week equals around 4 billion per year, your high end estimate 500 million per week comes to around 25 billion a year.

                  But according to Oxfam, world production is around 12 billion rounds per year.

                  So with your low end case, your US sport shooters are consuming one third of the world's supply, at the other end they are using 200% of the world's supply.

                  Doesn't leave much for the US army, Chinese army, Syrian rebels hunters, LEO's etc.

                  •  Your math sucks asshat. (0+ / 0-)

                    500 per week times 10,000 shooters equals 5 million.

                    Say, half of the weekends, on average is 26 weeks, equals 130,000,000 cartridges per year.

                    Add to that the serious competition practice and training end up with a very sizeable number.

                    And, these guys don't BUY cartridges, as a rule.  They build their own.  They are reloaders.  That won't show up in any government statistic.

                    That doesn't count, skeet shooters, trap shooters, sporting clays shooters, modern 3 gun shooters, long range precision shooters.

                    •  Heh SFB - your math is as bad as yr comprehension (0+ / 0-)

                      The comment I replied to this one was talking about 5000, that is thousands, rounds per week, and 80,000 shooters.

                      Before you criticize read the post, and then don't try to piss on me by changing the data.

                      I guess by the fact you are now downgrading the numbers to more realistic estimates, you agree that the original numbers were pulled out of someone's ass.

          •  Yes, and they don't use semi-automatic weapons (3+ / 0-)

            The issue isn't sports.  Trying to make it about sport shooting is derailing discussion of the very real problem of semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines.

            •  It isn't, but it is. (0+ / 0-)

              There are more and more "modern" 3-gun competitions.  They involve semi-automatic pistols, rifles and shotgun.

              It's one of the fastest growing disciplines.

              Competitors use more ammo than anyone else besides the military & police.  So, it's where you will get the most pushback if someone tries to tax or regulate them.

            •  They don't? (0+ / 0-)

              The hell they don't. Pretty much every competition gun I've seen is semi-automatic.

              ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
              My Blog
              My wife's woodblock prints

              by maxomai on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:31:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, they don't. (0+ / 0-)

                Western shooters use two models based on an 1873 design for the most part.  The modern equivalent is the Ruger Vaquero.  They use reproduction rifles based on designs from 1873, 1892 and 1894.  Their shotguns are old double barrels or pump Winchesters based on the 1897 design.

                For more info, go to youtube and watch 'cowboy action shooting".  For the fastest men and women, look at 'cowboy action shooting world records".

                This is probably the largest shooting group out there almost every weekend.  Something like 50,000 members and 10,000 very active shooters.  Shotgun shooters are a MUCH larger group of shooters, but they only use shotguns of course (skeet, trap, etc.)

          •  Actually, I disagree (0+ / 0-)

            I think it would work just fine.

            Investigator: Hey, we noticed you bought 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and that raised a red flag. Can you tell us what you're doing with it?

            Ammo owner: Not a problem. I'm a competition shooter. Here's my competition AR-15. Here's my competition 1911. Also, here's the .30-06 I use for elk hunting, which I'm going to spend the next week zeroing.

            Investigator: Looks legit. Okay, thanks.

            Case closed.

            The point is to get a human being to at least look at the situation.

            ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
            My Blog
            My wife's woodblock prints

            by maxomai on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:30:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yah. No problem. (0+ / 0-)

              If you don't restrict the sporting folks, they really don't care if you know what they use.  It's not a secret.

              Most likely, they'd invite you out to try out the sport with their gear.  Happens all the time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site