
No, Really, Regulate the Bullets - evo_9
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/no-really-regulate-the-bullets/266332/
======
Lazare
Technically, the article is flawed. It's easy to make your own ammo.

Legally, the article is flawed. The Supreme Court is very very _very_ clear
that restricting someone's ability to exercise a right is a restriction on
that right; they've said it over and over again about free speech, political
donations, the exercise of religion, the right to avoid self-incrimination.
and many other areas. Including the right to own and bear arms. Like it or
not, the Supreme Court has said - twice! - that you have an individual right
to own a gun for, among other things, self defence. That doesn't mean "so you
can bludgeon an intruder with it" it means "so you can shoot an intruder with
it". With bullets. And any law you make that meaningfully restricts the
ability of law abiding citizens to shoot an intruder in their home will not
fly without a constitutional amendment which is - needless to say - not
happening. And anything which does _not_ restrict the ability of a law abiding
citizen to shoot an intrude in their home will not stop future school
shootings.

(Yes, I know. It's crazy, and it's not how it is in other countries. But it's
also objective reality.)

~~~
Zak
_Technically, the article is flawed. It's easy to make your own ammo._

I've reloaded ammunition using commercially available components (cases,
bullets, primers and gunpowder). A complete black-market operation would be
quite a bit harder, but not harder than say... manufacturing designer drugs.

~~~
greyfade
You can even remove bullets from the market and still easily make your own. A
proper die can be machined by anyone with the proper tools, and lead can be
easily obtained from any auto repair or tire shop, as they frequently discard
large quantities of lead weights when rebalancing tires. Adding a copper
jacket is also very simple.

Primers and (smokeless) gunpowder are the only things that are unreasonably
difficult to manufacture at home. And even then, gunpowder recipes and
materials are easy to come by.

------
staunch
I wonder if the author would defend so gleefully the idea of the government
restricting access to newspaper ink? Anyone promoting the idea of subverting
the constitution through perceived loopholes should really question their
principles.

Also, the word "cartridge" or "ammunition" is what the author means to be
talking about here. Bullets are only the metal part that flies out of the gun,
not the whole cartridge.

~~~
rdtsc
> Anyone promoting the idea of subverting the constitution through perceived
> loopholes should really question their principles.

What is the purpose of the Constitution? Is it like the 10 Commandments that
have been passed down from the sky and now we have to worship it
unquestionably? There are large numbers of people in this country that seem to
believe so.

So take the gun issue. Why is that in the constitution? For hunting?
Protecting from bears? Foreign invaders? Maybe. Would it make a difference now
if anyone attacked us if we all carried guns? Probably not. We'll probably use
our drones and tanks to fight back. Maybe it was for people to protect from an
abusive government? Is that realistic today? You'd need to be able to bear
tanks, helicopters and fighter planes if this hypothetical militia is ever to
even register as a blip on government's threat radar. So why even bother both
defending the idea or trying to find a loophole to bypass it. Both seem rather
pointless to me.

Are people defending themselves better with guns? Canada and other countries
have legal guns and don't seem to have issues with such crimes as we saw
recently. Some countries outlaw guns and experience much worse violence. Is
there any credible study that shows a linkage between legal arms position and
violent crime?

~~~
Zak
It's about policy and mechanism.

Let's assume for a moment that severely restricting ownership of firearms and
ammunition is a good policy. The mechanism necessary to do it in the
straightforward way - a constitutional amendment - is almost impossibly
difficult. Perhaps a roundabout mechanism would be easier.

If that sort of thing was allowed by the courts (it isn't), similar end-runs
around the constitution could be used to do things you might not be so happy
about. The fourth amendment, for example says people have the right to be
"secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures". It doesn't say anything about tapping your phone or
using a laser microphone on your window, but the courts have held that it
means a warrant is required to do those things just as it is to search your
house.

It's much easier to change policy than mechanism. You probably don't actually
want a mechanism for bypassing constitutional rights at will in place.

~~~
Lazare
Exactly. The point of the constitution isn't to protect the popular rights;
popular opinion will do that. The constitution is there to protect the
_unpopular_ rights; the ones that, for whatever reason, seem out of place,
outdated, downright silly.

(The same argument applies to individual rights. The right to free speech
protects both popular and unpopular speech, but you don't actually need
protections to talk about how awesome a cure for cancer would be. It's the
unpopular opinions that need protection. And people say "well, I support free
speech, but that shouldn't mean these people get to spill their filth and hate
in public venues!" But that's exactly what it means; the only purpose a right
to free speech serves is to protect what is (for now) deemed dangerous,
stupid, crazy speech. Because just because something is unpopular _now_
doesn't mean it will always be.)

There's always _some_ wonderful reason why abridging some fundamental right is
a good idea. Terrorists. Communists. Neo-nazis. Actual nazis. School
shootings. Pearl Harbour. The 1919 Anarchist Bombings. And in retrospect,
sometimes they were good reasons, but not always. And so we have
constitutional rights _specifically_ to stop us from enacting the really
obvious clever solutions to the problems of the day. That's the _point_.

~~~
rdtsc
Well ok but what is the purpose of the gun amendment?

This is getting back to my original question, do we know the purpose and use
of the Constitutions or are we just following it like a holy commandment
passed down from above?

I can see the purpose of the "Free Speech" it makes sense today more than
ever. What is the purpose of the "right to bear arms" how does it apply?

You say:

> The constitution is there to protect the unpopular rights

What if unpopular rights are those that kill children. What if there was other
crazy stuff written in there. Would you still defend it because it was signed
by a few guys that started a country a while back in 200+ year ago?

> And so we have constitutional rights specifically to stop us from enacting
> the really obvious clever solutions to the problems of the day.

> And so we have constitutional rights specifically to stop us from enacting
> the really obvious clever solutions to the problems of the day.

Ok but doesn't that imply that the founding fathers somehow foresaw the advent
of nuclear arms, school shootings, the internet and created a concise set of
laws that would prevent us from sneaking in laws by creating loopholes. I
doubt they did.

~~~
Zak
_Well ok but what is the purpose of the gun amendment?_

To reduce the likelihood of a totalitarian state. It was written by people who
had recently participated in a violent secession from the world's largest
empire. Self defense against ordinary criminals was another factor, and the
Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to own weapons for
that purpose.

 _I can see the purpose of the "Free Speech" it makes sense today more than
ever._

Limitations on the right to free speech are active political issues today.
There has recently been a major push to limit "blasphemous" speech in western
Europe and the US, for example. Source code as speech when the code does
something governments want to regulate, like cryptography or DRM circumvention
is not an entirely settled question, to provide another example.

 _What if unpopular rights are those that kill children_

I count at least six out of ten amendments in the Bill of Rights as likely to
have led directly to children dying. Free speech has led to violent action.
Availability of weapons makes violent people more deadly. Four more amendments
protect the rights of those accused of crimes, some of whom are required to be
released when they would otherwise have been jailed. Some of those have killed
children after their release.

Rights that are just a little unpopular don't need so much protection. The
important rights all have the potential to get people killed, as does the lack
of them.

 _Ok but doesn't that imply that the founding fathers somehow foresaw the
advent of nuclear arms, school shootings, the internet and created a concise
set of laws that would prevent us from sneaking in laws by creating
loopholes._

Of course not. That's why we have courts.

The courts try to apply the original intent of the Constitution to modern
situations. The authors of the Fourth Amendment probably couldn't have
imagined laser microphones, but the courts have held that using one (or
anything else high-tech) to eavesdrop on conversations you have in a private
place is just like a search and requires a warrant. In other cases, the courts
have limited the application of rights to new, unforeseeable technologies. The
Supreme Court ruled, for example, in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment
doesn't apply to unusual and dangerous weapons; it protects the right to own
handguns, but not nuclear warheads.

It is, of course perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about whether a
right protected by the Constitution has a place in a modern society or if it
should be eliminated or changed. My original point in this discussion is that
we should not want it to be trivial to bypass Constitutional rights, e.g. by
banning ammunition instead of guns because it would then become trivial to
bypass any of them, at any time, for any reason.

~~~
rdtsc
> To reduce the likelihood of a totalitarian state.

That is my beef with that Amendment -- it doesn't apply anymore. It will not
make a difference. One can say we have been slowly sliding towards
totalitarianism (plutarchy maybe) and the fact that some people in Michigan
are gathering regularly, putting face paint on and then shooting beer cans
from AK-47s doesn't make a difference at all.

As you agreed Founding Fathers could not have predicted massive surveillance
that would make Gestapo proud, satellites, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. So in
their time 100 militia people with rifles could take 100 government solders
with rifles and it would be a nice match.

> Of course not. That's why we have courts.

Alright I agree only if the courts would correctly reinterpret the amendment
and let me have a couple of nuclear weapons, some drones with weapons, tanks,
and fighter planes. Because what is really meant by "arms" these day. But I
can't even buy a fully automated machine gun.

To me personally, most times guns are used in this country against someone by
a civilian they are used either by drunk family members against each other or
by criminals.

> The authors of the Fourth Amendment probably couldn't have imagined laser
> microphones, but the courts have held that using one (or anything else high-
> tech) to eavesdrop on conversations you have in a private place is just like
> a search and requires a warrant.

But their hands are tied. So they can reinterpret the Second Amendment (which
I have concluded they haven't as citizens don't get access to matching arms as
the government does) but only up to a point. Like it can't reinterpret it so
take away the guns. At some point if it is written it is followed blindly like
some magic book from the sky.

The original article was trying to use the "reinterpretation loophole". I
don't agree with using loopholes. But I agree with the intent (remove the
weapons) by do it by fixing the Amendment. If Amendments can't be passed
anymore (practically) then there is something broken about this country.

The way it is now, the Amendment does more harm than good.

~~~
Zak
_it doesn't apply anymore. It will not make a difference._

The continuing difficulty the US military is having subduing militants in
Afghanistan armed with relatively unsophisticated weapons suggests otherwise.
A subtle, boiled-frog style slide in to totalitarianism is still possible, of
course, but the direct approach would likely bring reasonably effective armed
resistance.

A nuclear weapon, tank or drone is effective against an isolated base or
compound, but when insurgents are mixed in with the population of a city,
soldiers go after them with rifles. Very similar rifles are sold at
Walmart[0].

That said, the self defense argument is more applicable to a modern society.
Unfortunately, it turns out to be really difficult to evaluate its
effectiveness. Comparisons to other countries are problematic due to the huge
number of variables involved. Every study I've found purporting to offer a
number of self defense incidents is severely and obviously flawed (studies
with low numbers only count incidents where the police took a report of a
crime; studies with high numbers include self-reported incidents of dubious
veracity). The number of violent crimes in which a criminal was visibly armed
falls between the high and low numbers for self defense, so it is not possible
to say whether guns are used by civilians to stop crimes more often than to
commit them.

One less-problematic correlation I've been able to find is that states
enacting right-to-carry laws generally saw their murder rates fall faster than
the national average afterward - often substantially faster, suggesting that
the perception that any person might be armed provides a deterrent effect.

 _I can't even buy a fully automated machine gun._

The Supreme Court has not made an unambiguous ruling on whether or not you can
have a machine gun. As the law is currently written, you cannot own a newly-
manufactured machine gun as an ordinary civilian. DC v. Heller established a
minimum level of protection - that guns in common use for lawful purposes
cannot be banned - but not a maximum. US v. Miller suggests that guns suitable
for militia purposes cannot be banned. Given that (selectively) fully-
automatic rifles and light machine guns are the standard weapons for infantry
soldiers, it is very likely that a legal challenge to this prohibition would
succeed.

 _If Amendments can't be passed anymore (practically) then there is something
broken about this country._

The last amendment was 20 years ago. That's not an unusually long time. I
didn't mean that all amendments are impossibly difficult; I meant that a
repeal of the Second Amendment would be impossibly difficult.

[0] [http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sig-Sauer-M400-Enhanced-Carbine-
OD...](http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sig-Sauer-M400-Enhanced-Carbine-ODG-with-
Rifle-Bag/21677318)

------
bridanp
It all feels a little like handwringing, doesn't it? We think we can solve the
problem by gun control but then you realize there are too many guns out there
already that it won't work (or at least not for many years).

So we go for the bullets, but then people who grew up around sport shooting
can tell us it's nothing to sit down and create dozens of rounds in a free
night. My own experience reminds me of loading a dozen shells with my Dad when
I was 10 in just a couple hours so we could hunt the next morning. So the idea
of limiting the bullets (or at least shells) won't work unless the materials
are also regulated.

The mental health aspect seems to be one of the best ideas but then that might
just depend on universal health actually being put into place. Without it,
many people will go without due to the expense of mental facilities.

So yeah handwringing. We want someone to do something and fast but none of the
options seem easy, quick, or realistic. So we might need to pick the one or
two that will work eventually, maybe 5-10 years down the road, and take it
from there.

~~~
whatshisface
Maybe, instead of universal healthcare, we could have a program that tried to
fix people that were a danger to society? It would function like a cross
between police and public broadcasting, both things already accepted by mostly
everyone.

------
c0ldfusi0nz
The author of this article seems to be under the impression that 3D printing a
firearm is easy while loading your own ammunition is difficult. With the
proper equipment (less than a thousand dollar investment), loading ammunition
is only slightly more difficult than baking a cake.

------
mikeryan
Seriously, I'm pretty damn solid on the need for gun control, but this plan
seems pretty half baked. Trying to regulate the primary components of a bullet
seems like it would be a practical impossibility. You thought the war on drugs
was a losing battle, try the war on gunpowder.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Not has hard as you think really. Have you tried to buy more than one box of
cold medicine that contains certain elements used in cooking meth? Buy too
many and you get flagged. Maybe that isn't the policy everywhere, but it
_could_ be.

------
tsewlliw
That article is utterly unimpressive, and its attempt to be smug at finding a
"loophole in the constitution" is absurd.

------
foxhop
How would we regulate bullets? People have been packing their own bullets
since guns were created.

~~~
Wingman4l7
One proposal has been microstamping[1] the bullet casings, although this was
really meant for forensic identification, not regulation. I don't know how it
could be used to prevent home handloading[2] though.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping>
[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading>

------
aantthony
Doesn't 'arms' include both the weapons and ammunition though?

~~~
staunch
define:arms

    
    
      arms plural of arms (Noun)
      Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

------
endianswap
My problem with this is two-fold: 1\. Spree killings still happen without guns
(see the similar school attacks in Asia where bladed weapons were used.) 2\.
This focuses the conversation on the tools used in the incident instead of the
source of the problem: mental health.

~~~
bonaldi
1\. Those attacks were rather less lethal than the ones involving guns.

2\. It focuses the conversation on achievable solutions. No country on earth
has managed to solve the identification, treatment and care of mental health
issues enough that would prevent one slipping through the net. Many, many
countries have managed to reduce gun deaths to very low numbers indeed.

~~~
sarvinc
1\. I don't think the argument is that firearms are less lethal only that
attacks and death will still occur.

2\. It focuses the conversation on, what I think is, the actual problem rather
than something that is achievable but clearly does not solve the problem.

~~~
bonaldi
1\. The argument is "how about we have less children dying". Which every other
comparable country manages.

2\. The problem is "being are being murdered with guns in astonishing
numbers". You say mental health is the root cause, which may be correct. But
the root cause is effectively unsolvable, and other countries show that the
_problem_ can be fixed by addressing contributory causes, like the widespread
availability of bullets.

~~~
sarvinc
To be clear you replyed to a previous poster who made two points. I defended
those two points. These are two new points that I'll attempt to address.

If there's one argument I cannot tolerate it's a "for the children" argument.
Yes great lets have less children die. How do we do that? Killing sprees in
China show that you can kill several children with just knives and gasoline.
So after the guns we ban knives, we regulate gasoline, we restrict the press
and instill a curfew because "for the children." Better yet, while we're just
naming stuff that will make us feel better, why not a TSA-like agency for all
public places, a Patriot Act to protect us from killing-spree and more
warrant-less wiretapping because "for the children." Pedofiles on Facebook;
regulate the Internet "because for the children." Can we please find a
solution that does not strip freedoms from the sane and law-abiding among us?

It won't solve the problem because we are not other countries. I don't say
this out of hubris. Without addressing things like the gun-culture we have
here or the irrational fear of crimes we have here people will find a way to
procure firearms. I'm pretty sure in 10 years 3D-printing will have advanced
enough for us to make upper-receivers. What then? Do we regulate computers
"for the children?"

~~~
bonaldi
Fine, /s/children/people. Argument is precisely the same. And you have less of
them dying of gunshots wounds by having fewer guns/ammunition. That won't stop
knife crime, sure, but let's revisit that discussion when as many people are
dying of knives in the US as die of gunshot wounds.

And, yes, addressing the gun culture will have to be a component of this. But
violent cultures can be changed. The US is a past master at it -- look at the
post-WWII reconstruction it orchestrated in Japan.

~~~
sarvinc
I agree that if we limit firearms we limit harm from firearms. Tell me why we
should stop at firearms? Fewer children would meet pedophiles online if we
didn't have an Internet. Fewer people would die in car accidents if we didn't
have cars. 35.9 million people died within a year of being in a car accident
[0]. Lets revisit this discussion when as many people are dying of gunshot
wounds in the US as die of a car accident.

[0] www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf

~~~
bonaldi
In all these cases, you measure benefits against costs. Costs (eg negative
impact, not price) of limiting firearms: low, mostly political. Costs of
limiting cars: catastrophic, economy-devastating. That's why we should stop at
firearms.

~~~
sarvinc
> Costs (eg negative impact, not price) of limiting firearms: low, mostly
> political. Costs of limiting cars: catastrophic, economy-devastating.

Not sure where you get the idea that the cost of limiting firearms is low or
that the cost of limiting cars is high. Mass transportation, tele-
communication etc. seem like viable solutions and because "for the children."

> That's why we should stop at firearms.

That's why we should stop giving our rights and freedoms away.

------
Trufa
What I really don't understand about this argument, is if hard to regulate
guns/drugs or anything illegal, it seems completely impossible to actually
stop a bullet black market! If you could get your hands on 20 bullets (a
really tiny amount!), you could most definitely cause a tragedy.

I'm not saying regulating guns is the solution, it may or may not be, but
regulating bullets? That seems naive.

~~~
greyfade
What people don't seem to realize is that ammunition is simple to manufacture
at home with untraceable materials.

Lead bullets? Go down to the auto shop and ask for a stack of their discarded
wheel balancing weights. Take them home, melt them down, and pour the molten
lead into home-made dies.

Casings? Gather discarded casings and reload them. Dies and tools are
commercially available. If there's a shortage of casings, appropriate dies can
be relatively easily made and brass can be molded as needed.

Gunpowder? People have been making black powder at home for centuries.
Smokeless powder is more difficult, but nitrocellulose is not that complex.

Primer? Boxer primers are US Patent 91,818. Berdan primers are patents 53,388
and 82,587. Active ingredient is potassium perchlorate, which is easy to get.

Regulating bullets will have negligible effect _anyway._

------
duopixel
If you don't destroy the firearms you aren't destroying the demand. Everybody
who has a firearm will probably start by hoarding existing bullets and this
will create a black market for ammo. When the local cache is over, it's
obvious who is going to fill that need.

