In the wake of the Connecticut shootings, why not Ammunition Control? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 07:13:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  In the wake of the Connecticut shootings, why not Ammunition Control? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: In the wake of the Connecticut shootings, why not Ammunition Control?  (Read 1027 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: December 17, 2012, 07:27:22 PM »

I could see magazine restrictions possibly passing, but not ammo limits.  Even a 100 round at a time limit would be highly intrusive and easily circumvented, yet it wouldn't really do anything since these sorts of out-of-the ordinary sprees generally seen over 100 rounds actually used.  The tragedy in Norway is the only one I can think of off hand that used over 100 rounds.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2012, 09:35:37 PM »

Benj, I can easily see someone using 100 rounds or more at a time doing target practice.  Unless we take the draconian step of only allowing target practice at government licensed target ranges, it just ain't practical to have such a small limit and 30 is utterly absurd.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 10 queries.