Some states already do restrict both the amount of ammunition a person can purchase as well as setting limits on how much ammunition an individual can have on hand. The problem with that is while the limits are more than strict enough to totally disrupt a competitive shooter or even those of us who simply shoot a lot, on the other side of the coin, the limits in place really do not do much, if anything, to reduce the potential for a 'shoot 'em up' situation anyway.
For example, let us suppose a state or the federal gov't limits private persons to less than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. That poses a really serious problem for many of us who buy ammunition or especially ammunition components (for reloading) in lots of 1,000 and 5,000 at a time. It would greatly increase shipping costs, as well as the actual ammunition costs buying in, say, lots of only 500 at one time. On the other side of the coin, is there really any safety provided to anyone by limiting a 'wing nut' who is hell- bent on misbehaving with a firearm to limit that person to ONLY 1,000 rounds? Really? Is it OK for said wing- nut to have 900 rounds of ammunition? So there is the basic problem from both sides: the honest, average consumer is not hindered, limited and restricted in his / her behavior while at the same time this type of rule provides absolutely zero safety for the general public, at least as far as I can see. If the amount of ammunition is cut back considerably further to, say, 100 rounds purchased and / or in an individual's possession then it would virtually wipe out many forms of legitimate shooting competition. There are several different types of competition I participate in that cannot be done with 100 rounds of ammunition. And again, is society really safe given the 'wing nut' in, say, a school with ONLY 100 rounds of ammunition?
To the best of my knowledge, the only country that has had what appears to be some success in limiting access to firearms and ammunition in recent times is Australia. They did this by virtually banning the private ownership and possession of almost all firearms. Many of us do not believe that could ever work in the US for several reasons: 1) as Mike pointed out, the US is awash in firearms already so getting them just cannot happen, at least the majority of them. 2) Many Americans feel it is a right to own / posses firearms and will not yield them to any law(s) banning them; all it would do is make many (the majority?) of the population criminals, exactly as Prohibition did nearly 100 years ago. 3) the technology now exists to manufacture the critical part of a firearm pretty easily while the great majority of a firearm can be purchased freely as those parts are merely 'machine parts', not a firearm per se. An entire industry would crop up to supply the equipment if not the actual receivers to make firearms as a cottage industry and finally, a really huge problem 4) Australia used a 'buy back' program to remove many or most of the firearms from the public. I do not believe the gov't of the US could even begin to afford such a thing simply due to the sheer value of the firearms in the public's hands.
So now I would love to propose something that would actually work and still allow us to enjoy the rights we now have but I cannot because I just cannot think of anything that I believe would work.
That leaves us with exactly what we have in the entire world today, ever- increasing security and an ever- more repressive society. As some have speculated, I absolutely believe there will now be layers of security in hotels throughout the US and it will simply be more difficult for the average, law- abiding population to use them. New security measures <may> stop some misadventure from hotel room windows for example but how about office buildings..... better throw some security around them before someone shoots up NYC from the Empire State Building. How about Central Park where people gather, should we put security around that and screen everyone entering?
One of the things that really struck me as odd when the Sandy Hook event took place was the fact that the school was on "lock down". As an old man, I could not even think of what "lock down" might be for an elementary school. ?? ?? ?? When I went to elementary school, and later when my children went to elementary school, there was no status such as "lock down"; one entered by pulling on the door handle. So the world is quickly changing and each one of these unfortunate events spurs on those changes to happen faster, in new and unexpected places, and some places where it should not even be needed at all in the first place (such as hotels and public schools IMO).
Brian
whilst it may not be practical/desirable/publically acceptable to introduce gun controls (& lets be frank, the genie is out of the bottle here in terms of how many firearms you guys have out in the wild) maybe the sale of the ammo will become more restricted/heavily taxed.
Ok wouldn't stop people stockpiling but it might be a start and doesn't take away anybodies "right" to own a firearm.
But Brians right, these sort of events only lead to the intorduction of new measures. s he said its highly likely hotels will start taking more interest in what people are bringing in (hmmm waits for the first person to sue the hotel for letting this nutter check in with 29 firearms and various tripods after all what valid reason is there for that?)
Correction, it was 23 firearms in the hotel room plus 10 suitcases, who travels with 10 suitcases??
