Pirate's Cove

Gun grabbers keep proving that they aren’t doing this for safety, they just want to ban guns

If we can’t get rid of guns, why not get rid of the ammunition? | Opinion

Walmart got it right when it announced early September, following the mass murder of 22 people at one of its El Paso stores, that it would cease selling ammunition for all handguns and military-style weapons. It was the corporation’s way of saying getting the guns is not the answer.

The truth is, the guns can’t be gotten. I’ve seen that in Connecticut, a state known for stringent gun laws. Several months before the 2012 tragedy in Newtown, I happened to be in Stamford, Conn., police headquarters. Taped to a wall was a flier announcing the city’s latest antigun campaign, requesting that citizens voluntarily turn in their firearms.

“How many guns have you collected?” I asked the officer on duty.

“About 75.” It was more than he’d expected, he said.

According to that officer, and my Congressman U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, none of the near-useless weapons turned in was illegal. And that’s the fundamental problem. It’s difficult to convince legal gun owners to part with a viable weapon. What hope is there that a criminal, or a gun owner who is mentally unfit, will voluntarily surrender one?

So, all these criminals who have illegal guns won’t be able to buy ammunition?

The most expedient method of removing firearms from those who shouldn’t have them would be to pass federal legislation making confiscation mandatory — as Australia did, following a spate of mass killings that culminated in a 1996 nightclub massacre that took 35 lives. Twelve days later, the nation enacted strict gun reform legislation that limited the types of firearms available to civilians. The government has since collected and destroyed more than a million weapons through buyback and amnesty programs. Over the next 20 years, Australia suffered not a single fatal mass shooting.

Not mentioned is that only about 20% of firearms have been turned in in Australia. And that people who unlawfully possessed them aren’t going to turn them in

Gun policy experts say that strategy wouldn’t work here. “The U.S. gives too much power to single-issue lobbies,” explained David Hemenway, a Harvard professor of health policy, referring to the influence of the National Rifle Association.

The government doesn’t GIVE power to lobbies: the Constitution makes sure that the Government cannot silence them. The People are supposed to have the power.

Today, one can walk into a gun shop and purchase, for instance, a .22, .38, or .44-caliber handgun. Most firearms are built to accommodate one size round only. So here’s what would happen if the manufacture of today’s standard-size rounds were outlawed, and .23, .39 and .46-caliber rounds took their place: Eventually, gun owners would run out of the old ammo, and their weapons would become paperweights.

And this would effect criminals how? They’ll just purchase illegally trafficked ammo. Of course, the law abiding could make their own ammo, but, really, most, especially women, would be just left at the mercy of criminals.

As far as the new round size, it doesn’t make sense, and if you read the rest of the screed, it still doesn’t make sense. Unless the idea is to require a registration and to limit who can have them. And what of rounds used for hunting? The AR-15 uses the same .223 round as lots and lots of hunting rifles. What of the rounds used for other hunting rifles? Will they be banned, too?