Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Question for the pro crowd [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A little bit.

This isn't mine, but, mine looks similar:



If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Question for the pro crowd [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
A little bit.

This isn't mine, but, mine looks similar:


The ones I've seen and been to look like this as well. Most are pretty far out in the country so the noise is not a factor. So now there are other issues like how to get power to a location to run the metal detectors.

If the goal is to make it so expensive that nobody would be able to afford the gun range then the ammo sheds and metal detectors may be the way to go.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: Question for the pro crowd [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheRef65 wrote:
If the goal is to make it so expensive that nobody would be able to afford the gun range then the ammo sheds and metal detectors may be the way to go.

My thoughts exactly.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Question for the pro crowd [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
A little bit.

This isn't mine, but, mine looks similar:

On the other hand, this is what the closest range to my office looks like:


Basement of a building at MIT. It's pretty locked down
Quote Reply
Re: Question for the pro crowd [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ok the confusion came from you referring to police emptying 17 or so rounds routinely. The initial assumption of mine being that you were arguing cops can’t operate on a ‘single hand’ amount of ammo (as though I was suggesting a one for all solution). I believe now that the point you were trying to make is that often this many rounds are required to be effective? I would suggest that they empty the clip regardless of how many are in it. Perhaps they are less focussed on accuracy based on having more chances. They didn’t always have so many rounds. How effective would you be on say 6 rounds?

Out of curiosity how standardised is ammunition in terms of compatibility across brands / models?

Noted about the range discrepancies. So we can’t cover all bases. Does that mean we shouldn’t cover any?

People keep saying bad idea because of x, y or z. I’m not really hearing any ‘good ideas’ to the contrary. I’ve heard people say there are enough laws and checks in place. Focusing on individuals is too time consuming and has proven again and again to be ineffective to date. There needs to be a capture all approach. Unfortunately that would put restrictions on responsible people too but as I’ve pointed out before it happens across many aspects of our lives.
Quote Reply
Re: Question for the pro crowd [mv2005] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mv2005 wrote:
Ok the confusion came from you referring to police emptying 17 or so rounds routinely. The initial assumption of mine being that you were arguing cops can’t operate on a ‘single hand’ amount of ammo (as though I was suggesting a one for all solution). I believe now that the point you were trying to make is that often this many rounds are required to be effective? I would suggest that they empty the clip regardless of how many are in it. Perhaps they are less focussed on accuracy based on having more chances. They didn’t always have so many rounds. How effective would you be on say 6 rounds?

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make.

I have never had to shoot at anyone with a pistol. At the range, if you give me 6 rounds, I will hit the red zone with all 6 (most of the time). Put me in a real life and death situation and, I dunno. I bet a lot of those officers who dump a mag could go 6 for 6 at the range as well.

As to how many you need - my dad is a retired FBI agent. He carried a .38 revolver (6 round capacity) for the first several years of his career. He was ecstatic when he finally was issued a Glock (15 rounds).

mv2005 wrote:
Out of curiosity how standardised is ammunition in terms of compatibility across brands / models?

Any 9mm pistol will fire any 9mm ammo. Now, ammo ranges greatly in terms of quality. Cheap ammo will jam, fail to fire, etc., etc.

Most common pistol rounds are: .22 caliber, .38/380, 9mm, and .45 caliber. There are others, 10mm, 40 S&W, 5.7x28, etc.

Most common pistols are 9mm then .45 caliber.

But, as you can see, there are a lot of variants.

mv2005 wrote:
Noted about the range discrepancies. So we can’t cover all bases. Does that mean we shouldn’t cover any?

Well, you have to show a reason for why you want to do what will cost a tremendous amount. Then, you have to decide who is covered. If you cover only certain types of establishments in a geographic area, what you will most likely do is kill their business as people go to other, unregulated locations. If you pick geographic locations, how do you decide which ones?

mv2005 wrote:
People keep saying bad idea because of x, y or z. I’m not really hearing any ‘good ideas’ to the contrary. I’ve heard people say there are enough laws and checks in place. Focusing on individuals is too time consuming and has proven again and again to be ineffective to date. There needs to be a capture all approach. Unfortunately that would put restrictions on responsible people too but as I’ve pointed out before it happens across many aspects of our lives.

The biggest issue is - we have so many laws on the books that are not being followed. Opponents of new laws just want to see the current laws enforced first.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Question for the pro crowd [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Apologies for delay in responding to this one - I had thoughts at the time but was flat out at work.

Regarding the restriction of ammo and some of the points you made (paraphrased from recollection of discussion):
  • You can buy ammo cheaper online - noted. In your earlier example you cited online purchases at $0.18-0.19/round vs cheap range rounds at $0.24 ea. Say $0.05/round. 500+ rounds equating to $25 per visit, in your case $50 per month. Do you pay shipping on top of the per round figure (I just did quick check on N+1 online store which ranged between $20-$40 for 1000 rounds). That would appear to eat away a decent portion of the online vs at site discrepancy. Factor in arranging for someone being present to receive order, lugging it around etc. Is the difference really that great all things considered? Introduce heavy fines and/or loss of licence to run a range to protect against price gouging. If ammo restrictions (of sorts) were introduced then online sales to private residences could plummet but at the same time ranges could increase their buying power, possibly attain even better prices from suppliers and therefore offer better prices at site than currently exist. I am not sure using current pricing is fair.



  • Ordering and sending ammo to a range requires vast storage - noted. However I suppose it depends on what you are shooting? Yes, and where (I'll get to that later - the shed and berms example). As you pointed out there are a lot of consistencies in terms of the ammo that the wide variety of guns can fire. I assume urban ranges already carry a fair variety of the most common ammo that caters for most. So (in my hypothetical scenario - ignoring the pricing which was discussed above) do you really need to be sending vast quantities of ammo to the range to shoot? For the most part it would seem that they could cater to the needs of the majority of clients. If you need something more select then ok you'll likely get hit with a premium to send and store, but on the basis that this is not the norm then storage requirements would not seem to be a significant change on existing conditions.
  • Regarding the shed and earth berm example, I'm guessing these are a 'bring your own' facility? I agree that this would make things more difficult, but I am sure that in the same light you could agree that it would not be insurmountable. New businesses could be created in the same way armoured trucks deliver cash to banks. Mobile ammunition supplies at rural ranges. I acknowledge it would be a PITA to have to go back and forth for a handful of ammo at a time. Perhaps you pay a hefty deposit to take a large amount to your bay. How are rounds dispatched, Who collects them? I see online there are a number of different devices that cover collecting through to sorting etc. So as long as you return the same number of casings (within an acceptable tolerance) you get your full deposit back. Outside of the full deposit tolerance there's a small penalty and your details get forwarded to a police data base. Multiple violations (of being outside the returned casings tolerance) results in any combination of a visit from the police, range bans and gun forfeiture.



  • Regarding the íllegal' removal of ammo from any range, the larger urban ranges ideally have the metal detectors I discussed earlier but failing that could also use the rural ranges methodology of the returned shells described above.

Rather than just point blank say it couldn't work consider saying something like "that bit will cause problems because of x but I suppose if instead you did y then it's possible'. Granted I don't know how ranges work hence why I'm throwing out ideas. There's a good deal of smarts in this room (even amongst the pro crowd ;-) ), tell me how to make this hypothetical solution more feasible. There are always solutions to problems, often without consequences as dire as some would have us believe simply to maintain their position.

Not that it is my immediate problem (as a non-resident) but the more I think about it the more I am convinced that the compromised solution lies in shifting focus from the actual gun to the ammunition which it fires (and ultimately causes the fatalities).
Quote Reply

Prev Next