THE PROs AND CONs
In this section we provide information on the many pros and the relatively few cons of an ammunition ban by comparing the ban to existing and recently signed-into-law gun safety propositions.
1) Wouldn’t It Be Better To Just Ban AR-15’s To Get Them Off Our Streets?
2) The Biden Bill Strengthens Background Checks. Won’t That Help?
3) The Biden Bill Also Strengthens Mental Health Checks. They Say It Will Help Reduce Gun Violence
4) What About Cooling Off Periods? Don’t Those Help?
6) How Effective Do You Think A Selective Ammunition Ban Will Be?
7) How Can You Be Sure That All Other Forms Of Ammunition Won’t Be Banned?
10) What Are The Cons To An Ammunition Ban?
12) Is This Even Constitutional? (The Big FAQ)
QUESTION 1: WOULDN’T IT BE BETTER TO JUST BAN AR-15’s TO GET THEM OFF OF OUR STREETS?
THE PROS:
A ban on AR-15’s and related firearms would get a percentage of those guns off of the streets.
THE CONS:
First of all, it is extremely unlikely that Congress will ever enact a gun ban, especially while there are enough Republicans in Congress to prevent such a ban from passing. There is already too much opposition to this idea in both the political arena and the public sector. Furthermore, the recent and shocking assassination of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Japan demonstrates that even the most stringent gun ban can’t work if people are able to 3D print or otherwise manufacture their own guns.
THE ANSWER:
By “starving” AR-15’s and other High Power Semi-Automatic Rifles (HPSARs) of bullets, these guns will become useless as murder weapons. People generally don’t want to buy a gun they can’t shoot. By banning the specific ammunition for these guns, we effectively make them undesirable except as collector’s items, (the way the National Firearms Act’s machine gun tax did in the 1930’s) and they will disappear from our streets.
QUESTION 2: THE BIDEN BILL STRENGTHENS BACKGROUND CHECKS. WON’T THAT HELP?
THE PROS:
Background checks have historically proven to be somewhat effective in reducing gun crime.
THE CONS:
Background checks only work under ideal conditions. For example, when guns are being purchased through licensed gun shops. But those checks aren’t required and can’t be enforced in private peer-to-peer firearms transactions, black market gun sales, or ghost guns built from kits.
THE ANSWER:
An ammunition ban, specifically enforced on the ammunition used in AR-15’s and other HPSARs, would not require a background check or be dependent on one in order to be effective, regardless of who buys that type of gun. A ban on bullets and magazines for AR-15’s, etc. closes the loopholes associated with background checks on these specific guns.
NOTE: Background checks should still be performed on anyone buying any type of firearm, including hand guns, rifles, and shotguns.
QUESTION 3: THE BIDEN BILL ALSO STRENGTHENS MENTAL HEALTH CHECKS. THEY SAY IT WILL HELP REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE.
THE PROS:
Because mental health problems seem to be at the root of many of our nation’s most alarming mass shootings, mandatory mental health checks will help eliminate some of the threat.
THE CONS:
People slip through the cracks in the mental health system every day. The system, albeit well-intentioned, is not 100% foolproof. One of the great failings of this part of the gun safety bill is that there is no standardized, clear-cut set of assessments that can be used to identify who might be a danger to themselves or the public at large. Like background checks, peer-to-peer trading, black market gun sales, and the assembling of ghost guns can be performed without requiring or enforcing mental health checks. So a significant segment of gun sales will not involve mental health checks.
THE ANSWER:
Banning ammunition for AR-15’s and other High Powered Semi-Automatic Rifles prevents those people who the system has failed, and who may be dangerous to themselves and to others, from being able to carry out a mass shooting. This is because the bullets that actually do the killing are unavailable to them.
NOTE: Mental health checks should always be a part of every legal retail gun sale.
QUESTION 4: WHAT ABOUT COOLING OFF PERIODS? DON’T THOSE HELP?
THE PROS:
“Cooling off periods” have been instrumental in forestalling handgun crimes in the heat of passion.
THE CONS:
Research has shown that people who commit mass shootings do not do so in the heat of the moment. Cooling off periods are tailored mostly to the sales of handguns, as those are historically the guns a person tries to buy when they are angry at someone else. So a waiting period for someone intent on buying an AR-15 style gun usually has little to no effect because they are planning on committing one of these mass murders at another time in the future.
THE ANSWER:
Banning the ammunition for AR-15’s and similar style weapons makes it so that even if the would-be killer wants to perform that act of violence several weeks or months following the purchase of his gun, he can’t. No bullets = no mass homicide.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
QUESTION 5: IF PEOPLE KNEW AN AMMUNITION BAN WAS IMMINENT, WOULDN’T THEY STOCKPILE AMMO BEFORE THE BAN TAKES EFFECT?
ANSWER:
There is that risk. However as part of our BAN THE AMMO recommendations, we advise that the government enact an immediate cap on the amount of that type of ammunition an individual can buy, in the same way as the government has put a cap on certain over-the-counter and prescription drugs. The plan would include a one-per-customer limit on ammunition magazines, and in order for a customer to purchase another magazine, the old one would have to be returned empty. In this way, every household where there is an assault type rifle would only be able to have one magazine at a time within a specific timeframe, which would dramatically cut down on the number of shells that can be fired.
We also recommend that serial numbers be mandated on each magazine manufactured so they can be recorded, and any un-numbered magazines would be returned to the manufacturer for numbering. By recording serial numbers, the one magazine per household rule can be more effectively enforced.
If the cap is left to the states, then it is strongly advised that the FTC makes it illegal for ammunition and guns to be sold to people who do not reside in the state where they are being purchased. This will cut down on interstate transport of weapons and ammunition. In states where individual communities have enacted a ban on certain types of firearms, it should be made illegal to buy those firearms and corresponding ammunition outside of the community where the purchaser lives.
QUESTION 6: HOW EFFECTIVE DO YOU THINK A SELECTIVE AMMUNITION BAN WILL BE?
ANSWER:
The reality is that no ban on guns or ammunition will ever be 100% successful. However, an ammunition ban can be as near 100% effective as humanly possible, more so than all of the existing Gun Safety Bill measures, because an ammunition ban removes the thing that does the actual killing from the equation. Guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people.
QUESTION 7: HOW CAN YOU BE SURE THAT ALL OTHER FORMS OF AMMUNITION WON’T BE BANNED?
ANSWER:
Excellent question! BAN THE AMMO seeks to have it written into our bill that traditional (legacy) ammunition for all other classes and types of firearms will be protected. We know that Americans cherish their guns and want them for the protection of their homes, families, and property, as well as for hunting purposes. BAN THE AMMO only seeks to permanently ban the type of ammunition used in high power semi-automatic firearms, and other firearms which have been developed for military and police use. America is unique in both the availability of these weapons of war to citizens, and the tragic consequences of that availability.
Think of it this way. If you have a case of appendicitis, your surgeon does not also remove your stomach, liver and intestines. He only cuts out that organ which is causing the problem. We will advocate that traditional legacy ammunition remain protected, and only the ammunition used in HPSARs will be banned.
QUESTION 8: WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THAT AN AMMUNITION BAN IS TRAMPLING THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS?
ANSWER:
It’s a bogus argument, and a childish one as well. Banning the specific ammunition for guns that are being used to slaughter American citizens and their children is a protective act that will have no effect on the use of other firearms. Obama, Hillary, George Soros, the Democrats and the Liberals aren’t going to come for their guns. Their Second Amendment rights will be protected and intact. Many types of bullets, and even guns, have been discontinued or banned over the decades. This will just be another group of projectiles that are banned, specifically because of how they are being used.
QUESTION 9: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH ALL OF THE AR-15’s AND OTHER HPSAR’s ONCE THE AMMO IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE?
ANSWER:
First of all, people can keep them as collectors’ items. Many people have collections that contain items that no longer can be used. It’s not at all unusual.
Secondly, we can encourage the Federal government to implement a buy-back program, as other countries have, so that the guns can either be transferred to the military or melted down to make into other things, other guns.
QUESTION 10: WHAT ARE THE CONS TO AN AMMUNITION BAN?
ANSWER:
One of the downsides of an ammunition ban is that while it has the potential to be successful today, individuals may someday be able to 3D print their own bullets and cartridges. At that point, new solutions will have to be developed. Hopefully by then our nation will have developed other means to identify and treat the mental health issues that seem to ignite the anger in those who seek to kill scores of innocent people.
Another downside is that such a ban will probably not be well received by the owners of AR-15’s and other similar guns. That is an unfortunate aspect of our proposed ban, but we feel that the health, safety, and freedom of ALL Americans is far more valuable than being able to buy ammunition for firearms that belong on the battlefield, and not on Main Street, USA.