Unironically, Chris Rock said exactly this in his 1999 comedy special “Bigger and Blacker”.

Bullet Control

Exactly the thing I was reminded of

From my perspective both should be regulated.

ammo is much harder to manufacture

I’m not sure if that’s true. I don’t have any experience with it myself, but lead is notoriously easy to cast at home, because of its low melting point.

So it seems to me, all it takes to make some (shitty) ammo is some lead, a mould (which you can make from clay) and an explosive.

For a proper modern gun, that last piece is probably pretty difficult, and you would need to make casings somehow too (I’m not sure how difficult that would be). But if you were using some form of (possibly homemade) flintlock or similar, the gunpowder from fireworks should be enough.

I think regulating both guns and ammo is the way to go.

The primers are the only part that people don’t regularly manufacturer at home.

Smokeless and hopefully black powder don’t explode, they just burn quickly. The primer is a shock-sensitive explosive tho.

I wouldn’t say ammo is easier to regulate at all. The average gun owner keeps several boxes of handgun ammo and 500-1000 rounds of rifle ammo on hand to start so none of that ammo will be caught by your regulation.

If you outright banned the new purchase of ammo it would take years before the effects are really noticed, especially considering the rush to buy up every bullet on the market before the ban went into effect. Afterwords you’d see gun owners driving to a state without an ammo ban.

If you slapped a max limit on ownership, say you can’t have more than 50 rounds of ammo per gun, that wouldn’t have stopped almost any of the mass shooters in the last 10 years who almost all fired less than 50 shots on their rampages. Not to mention enforcing that law would be next to impossible because you’d basically need a signed warrant to check a house for illegal amounts of ammo or catch them in transit.

If you put a massive tax on ammo combined with a max purchase limit, let’s say 1,000% tax and a limit of 50 rounds per ID card per day, it would be business as usual, just more expensive.

One thing that might be worth exploring would be an ammo purchase registry. Gun owners haaaaaate their names on lists aand fight it tooth an nail on guns, but they don’t have the protection of the 2nd amendment for ammo. Who knows it might have a chilling effect. Or just drive more transactions through the gun show/private seller loop holes.

Gun owners haaaaaate their names on lists aand fight it tooth an nail on guns, but they don’t have the protection of the 2nd amendment for ammo.

Winds are blowing the other way: short barreled rifles and shotguns, as well as suppressors no longer go through the NFA process as of like two days ago, so details are in short supply.

Gun owners haaaaaate their names on lists

I maintain that lists of all kinds are the bigger threat to the country right now. With all the data that has already been gathered it’s just a matter of time before some upstart company tells a government agency that it can play the Kevin Bacon game with their database and produce a list of <trait> that will result in <adjuctive> results. Company gets to keep a local copy of the database because nobody thought about data privacy/protections when they cut the check.

If you slapped a max limit on ownership, say you can’t have more than 50 rounds of ammo per gun, that wouldn’t have stopped almost any of the mass shooters in the last 10 years who almost all fired less than 50 shots on their rampages.

It would; however, put a damper on anyone funding their own training. I doubt anyone’s going from nothing to being a crack shot in 50 rounds, or even 500.

chilling effect

Those are bad everywhere. I wish that court case in DC that decided a defacto ban (on guns) amounted to a for-realsy ban, and was therefore unconstitutional.

I agree with most of what you’re saying. OP asked so I tried to game it out the best I could. Personally I think we need to approach gun legislation like we do cars. License to carry in public, strict rules about thier usage, and automatic max penalties and enhanced charges for any crime committed while carrying a gun (legally or otherwise), which can include losing your carry license.

I would say though that your trainer wouldn’t be thwarted by a bullet ownership limit either, it would just slow down their training. They’d buy their 50, shoot them, then have to buy more all of which could be done at the range.

I broadly agree with you about lists, eventually they will be misused. But the chilling effort would be the point. A chilling effect isn’t universally a bad thing, modern HR practices had a chilling effect on sexual harassment in the workplace, banning nazi symbols had a chilling effect on the spread of fascist ideals in post war germany, etc. In this case the chilling effect of reducing the amount of ammo purchased might be beneficial.

Chilling effects also maintain sundown towns, keep LGBTQ people out of certain places, and the last time I checked nazi symbolism was back in vogue :-(

I think we need to approach gun legislation like we do cars. License to carry in public, strict rules about thier usage, and automatic max penalties and enhanced charges for any crime committed while carrying a gun (legally or otherwise), which can include losing your carry license.

The USA is big, and not every county/town constablulatory has left the good ole’ boy network behind. You can get on the banned list by doing either the right thing or the wrong thing, and a towns full of grey men who can’t speak up isn’t an attractive future, and it’s some people’s realities. Those licenses to carry have to be approved by the locals after all.

I don’t disagree with the spirit of what you said about max penalties or enhanced charges, but there’ve been some serious injustices to lay down at Mandatory Minimum Sentencing’s feet when it’s been put into practice, and I don’t trust the current crop of people not to misuse it. We can’t even get enhanced charges for misuse of public trust positions right.

I would say though that your trainer wouldn’t be thwarted by a bullet ownership limit either, it would just slow down their training.

You took it wrong or I misspoke; I was talking about the ability for someone to go get practice on their own without having to ask for permission. A box of 50 .22 is like $10 and closer to the size of a pack of gum (or half the size of a harmonica, or whatever size comparison the kids are using these days). I couldn’t justify putting my name on a law that gave Keanu Reeves carte blanche to go train for a new John Wick movie when the average American is under greater restrictions. Where I am I learned from my father and there are ample public lands reserved for the purpose, plus any private land you can convince someone to practice at. Not every place in America has that luxury, though, and not every law is going to fit every place well.

OP asked so I tried to game it out the best I could.

Me, too. Good faith questions and answers are good things. As for strict usage, I think we already have that for the most part. Before adding any more laws I’d really like to see a national agreement on terminology as to what open carry, concealed carry, and all the terms really mean from a legal standpoint. I remember reading stories from when COVID was taking off that folks in California decided it might be time to get armed and didn’t realize what the process there really involves. I doubt there’s a real solid understanding of their gun registry system, either, and that’s without getting into the really weird stuff that’s been on the books.

In general I’m pro second amendment. It wasn’t until commenting in this thread that I realized the firearm used to assassinate Shinzo Abe is probably legal in the US now thanks to the recent NFA changes regarding short barreled shotguns^1,2^. So, pro second amendment enough to be uncomfortable adding a lot of new legislation that doesn’t seem to understand the underlying technology or what the second order effects might be, but not so second amendment that I’m going to lowe’s when they open to prove a point. I expect someone else will get there soon enough for the clicks, though.

• [1] Legal disclaimer: That is purely speculative on my part.
• [2] Constructing your own firearm in the US has always been legal, the issue isn’t making one, it’s the barrel length and selling one that isn’t serialized.

the key is to put a bright beautiful future ahead of a person, that could be lost if they commit a crime. simple as that.

Thank god the entire population has perfect emotional regulation. Id bet my kids lives on that fact. /s

good thing your in charge of very few things

Sweet summer child, reloading is a hobby with low level of entry.

The practical effect of any sort of gun (or bullet) control would be to disarm the working class. I, for one, will not be disarmed under any circumstances, and the vast majority of American workers, convinced communists or not, will agree with me on refusing to disarm.

“Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

It is absolutely insane listening to people in this thread talk about how the same people that rape girls on islands in all these countries political class should take total control of our ability to arm ourselves. It is either wicked evil or bottom of the barrel stupidity.

Too small, too prone to “spoilage”, and waaaayyyy harder to calculate existing stockpiles. It just wouldn’t be practical.

Mind you, that’s ignoring any of the should factor, and I am absolutely unwilling to engage in that debate

Edit: also, it’s too easy to improvise ammunition for simple firearms. You can’t really shove just anything into an autoloader and expect it to feed, but anyone with a machine shop could crank out something that would work, and the supplies just aren’t trackable the way something like ammonium nitrate is

IMHO what everyone thinks of when you say ‘regulate’ is ‘ban’, and it doesn’t necessarily mean the small things.

Regulation means adding legislation and requirements for ownership:

You must carry X amount of insurance for liability, etc. For each type of round…the more ammo you own, type, etc. The higher the premium.

Don’t have insurance? Thats probable cause for a search warrant and confiscation of any firearms in your home/work, etc. And a ban on you owning firearms.

Manufacturing ammo or ammo making supplies? Thats a hefty insurance premium as well, and it should be hefty to weed out individuals.

Licensing for ammo making and supplies should require courses (expensive) annual regulatory fees, oversight and limitations on quantities produced every year.

I’m sure there are more hurtles that can be thrown up there, but the current administration has proven that regulations don’t mean shit (unless, of course, you mean cyclospora).

So yeah you can fire a bullet so many different ways, a rusty nail and hammer will do the trick.

Well, there’s also the not-small matter of aiming, or firing again if the first shot didn’t put a satisfactory hole where you wanted. Or just getting the bullet going fast enough to do damage, without a barrel to channel and contain the blast.

It’s not like the whole history of firearms after the cartridge was invented was a waste of time.

You can make guns easy peasy

Ehhh… You can make guns. Metalworking in general is beyond most people, though. And, if you want to rifle a barrel, it’s not clear if standard machine shop equipment will be enough (that’s a pretty small, tight space for a lathe tool). Easy peasy is a bit of a stretch.

but ammo is much harder to manufacture and easier to regulate

People can and do reload their own ammo. I don’t know if anybody DIYs their own smokeless powder, and that would probably be highly illegal, but I’ve heard of people making their own black powder.

Isn’t the real problem the frickin bullet?

Terminology is going to matter here. Modern ammunition that you’re probably thinking of is sold as a self contained cartridge with a bullet (the projectile part only) at one end, some powder inside a case (brass or steel or aluminum most of the time), and a primer at the other end. You poke the primer in a very specific way which lights the powder which builds up pressure which causes the bullet to leave the case and down a barrel. The terminology matters because in the past there have been attempts to regulate the bullets by giving them each an individual serial number, or by using “microstamping” on the firing pin of the firearm to mark the case. Those proposed technologies won’t work because just standard usage of the firearm would cause any marks or microstamping to become useless very quickly, and very often the first level of argument against such a law is that the person who wrote it didn’t know enough about the technology to be trying to legislate it.

So yeah you can fire a bullet so many different ways, a rusty nail and hammer will do the trick.

Please don’t try this. Firing a cartridge this way without the structure of the firearm around it will cause it to go off in a completely uncontrolled fashion. It’s a recipe for risking losing fingers or an eye, or worse.

ammo is much harder to manufacture and easier to regulate.

The person who assassinated the former PM of Japan assembled all of the gear he had from hardware store level parts, even making his own blackpowder. That’s in Japan where gun ownership isn’t common. Since he accomplished it there it’s unlikely to be able to prevented in the US.

The kinds of laws/regulations you’re proposing are currently being used in California with regards to 3D printers. They were unworkable crap that invited government insight into everyone’s home if that person happens to own a 3D printer, and they’ll create a lot of privacy issues without solving any gun problems (the laws mandated 3D printers reject printing anything that might be a “gun part”).

You’re really proposing mandating a firearms technology level at no better than sometime in the late 1800s which won’t work to solve any societal problems we’re having now, but will hamper people banking on having them around for self defense.

Maybe consider the problem from another perspective when considering firearms regulations? Also consider that the internet just estimated that there are at least several hundred billion rounds of ammunition in the US. You won’t design a process that effectively regulates them all without moving everyone into open air prisons devoid of their possessions, and you’d not be able to pull off something like that without a bunch of said ammo. You didn’t get rid of it; you just took it out of one group’s hands.

That’s pretty epic. Didn’t know the Japanese guy built everything from scratch

It’s not intended as an epic story, rather a story about how a lot of people seem to think there’s a huge moat to creating a firearm, but there really isn’t.

I mean I didn’t agree with the whole assassination deal, but the method is interesting

There seems to be some idea that firearm manufacturing is some version of witchcraft when the reality is that it’s closer to the professor with his coconuts on Gilligan’s Island. The arguments tend to go something like: “That’s impossible” when actually it really isn’t. “That’s illegal” when not only is it not, but it’s specifically protected. “You shouldn’t do that” when some people just like to tinker. “That should be banned” without understanding that the regulatory framework to truly ban it would require tracking everything and every one at all times.

That last one is where you get into a lot of very hairy issues. Apps to track women’s periods have been datamined, and some states propose using the data to look for possible pregnancies and termination of pregnancies. You can track every purchase of barstock, milling machines, routers, tampons, router bits, buckets, bags of salt, car batteries, and every web page access, and you’ll still not stop it, but the amount of privacy you lost in trade for the attempt is staggering.

The best comment in this thread, by far, is this one as a proposed solution to the problem, but of course nobody wants to try that. Instead we want to throw regulatory spaghetti against a wall and demand that people accept less durable materials to work with or demand that people be less innovative. History suggests those approaches won’t work.

There’s a pretty massive difference between “I managed to build a simile of a single-shot rifle from scrap and kill a person with it” and “This legal assault rifle allowed me to perform mass murder in a public space”.

You talk about arms for self defense, but the rest of us don’t go around worrying about not having a 9mm or rifle in our car or next to the front door. You guys have built a problem with arms over there, and until something radical is done you’ll keep having an arms problem.

Pretty easy to make bullets tbh. And honestly I’m pro-gun. Arm the homeless. Arm trans people. Arm migrants.

Everyone needs to arm now. I did 2 years ago as a gun hating leftist, if I can, you can too.

I’ll do you one better.

We should regulate barrels.

A gun rifled barrel is the only part of a gun that can’t be reliably and descretely be made at home. You can make your own ammo essentially from house supplies and spent brass casings. With the upsurge of small desk lathes, CNCs and 3D printers you can also fabricate most parts of the receiver at home (which they now regulated too).
But a barrel however, you need very specialised heavily machinery to make a rifled barrel in a way that makes the gun not blow up in your face or be able to hit the broad side of a barn.
The barrel would also tell you a lot about the gun owners habits. If somebody goes through several barrels in a few years, they are probably using the firearm a lot and are therefore well trained and capable.

In my opinion serial numbers should also be stamped or laser engraved on the barrel not the receiver. People would also think twice before filing off the serial number and ruining the structural integrity of the barrel.
Technically you can slap together a home made rifle, as long as it uses a manufactured barrel it will be somewhere in the realm of precision of a fully manufactured firearm, reliability however may differ.

That’s why countries like Germany legally define a “firearm” as “A device that expels a projectile through a barrel”. The receiver or more precisely the mechanism of operation is herby completely irrelevant (there are exceptions for muscle powered devices).

This would also call for a revision on the idiotic suppressor regulation, which is in essence limiting the use of a device to further protect your hearing. Instead you either register a barrel with a fixed muzzle device or a barrel with a threaded end and you can put whatever you want on it. The government is happy, because it can assume you are a dead silent killer with a scary silencer, and you are happy because you don’t have to wait 6 months for a glorified propane tank on the end of your gun.

Some people collect guns like Pokémon cards. Imagine if you can get 1 to 3 barrels and then 40 different receivers without having to register any of them. A lot of AR platfrom barrels are interchangeable, so you can have as many colors, setups from as many different manufacturers as you want. In the end even if somebody decided to go lulu and shoot up a place, they can’t use more than 3 of them at once.

Collectors would also profit since now they can have as many historic firearms as they like as long as they all have a dummy barrel. No need to destroy the beautiful mechanics of the gun to deactivate it. And if they decide to actually fire it for demonstration, they can register a separate real barrel.

Edit: English isn’t my first language so I mixed up threading and rifeling. Fixed that.

The FGC 9, for example, has a barrel that one can electro-chemically machine with 3d printed jigs, wire, salt water, hydraulic pipe, and a 12v battery

electro-chemically machine

3D Printing Enthusiasts and Second Amendment Supporters should’ve been a natural fit, but instead we got CA banning plastic rope and requiring 3D printers to reject building certain designs. I don’t unerstand why they didn’t gel.

You mean EDM wire cutting the rifling? You could technically angle the wire inside the barrel to achieve the proper pitch. But your pitch will be limited by the length of the barrel. Also is you angle a straight wire inside a tube and cut slots into it, the bottom surface of your slot will be parabolic. Not ideal for rifling since the pressure inside the barrel will steadily grow as the projectiles moves towards the middle of the barrel and then decrease past that. You got a video of somebody attempting that. I’d love to see that. Also EDM wire cutting at home is doable, but far from easy.

It’s more like rough etching away

thefirearmblog.com/…/make-a-factory-quality-9mm-r…

You do not need specialized machinery. Any metal working lathe will work.

Sorry, English isn’t my first language. I just realised that what I ment by “thread” was actually called “rifling”. And, as far as I know, they either use a button broaching or a cold-hammer-forge (CHF) machines. Both not exactly cheap, easy to obtain or easy to operate. An older, much simpler method was to take an octagonal stock pipe and twist it to get the rifling. But this method is way less effective and less reliable. It was also mostly used for revolvers since it’s very complicated to machine the chamber directly into the octagonal pipe.

youtu.be/gtLYnqZQHCY It’s a lot easier than you think it is. Guns are a simple mechanical technology. Any Machinist, mechanic, welder, most carpenters, would have the tools on hand. The barrel blank and springs for mags/recoil management are the hardest parts to manufacture. Which is why most home made firearms are bolt action or slam fire while the more refined ones use blowback operation.

archive.org/details/homeexpedientfirearms9mmsmg

Its much harder to cobble together a decent zipgun or slamfire than it is to reload a casing, not that either are particularly hard.

The brass is going to be the hardest thing to manufacture in bulk. You can cast your own lead, mill your own powder, and refill primers at home in your kitchen.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

Duuur we need moar guns! Our society is the free-est! My little cousin shot his sister dead when he was five!

Narrator: There are more guns than people in the US.

And?

Narrator: It didn’t solve the problem, it became the problem.

I don’t think he said we need more. He said don’t give up what you have. I don’t like the number of people with guns… but I do have to admit, if noone but the gov had guns. I think we would be in trouble. Nature requires opposing forces to establish equilibrium. Maybe there is another opposing force, but I can’t think of it. Admittedly, people having guns isn’t really stopping ICE from it’s rampage. But I can imagine it would be a lot worse if they had no need to fear armed resistance at all.

We live in a fascist hell hole surrounded by mentally unstable people with guns. Guns are the fucking problem, they have not solved any of our issues. They support the abusive government, not keep it in check. I am so sick of violence and the reality that every pearl clutching gun nut is only one step away from killing someone.

As they say… violence is never the answer… looks at history… uh oh… oh shit… well maybe it is.

Sounds like what you are saying is that then issue isn’t people with guns, it’s the wrong people with guns. And I very much agree. But if you take them from “the people” and leave them in the hands of groups like ICE. You have just increased the percent of people who have guns that are the wrong people.

If I could snap my fingers and make them all go away, I would. But that just ain’t possible. I support requiring licenses to have guns, and training being required for those licenses. I also support safe storage laws. But bans and restrictions that don’t actually stop anyone from having the gun they claim to control access to are pointless theater that needs to be replaced with useful legislation.

Sounds like you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. If you think violence and murder makes us better then maybe… just maybe… You should take your own advice.

If you ignore the 2nd amendment people are fighting for the government and guns are the oppressive force then you clearly are a gun nutter, no reason to talk with you anymore.

Please just stop with the nonsense about restricting rights and bans. They work, they always have. We can ban transgender but we can’t ban a gun highlights the stupidity we face.

Ok, I get it. Your mind is made up, don’t confuse you with facts. You aren’t even reading what I am typing.

How many people have you lost to gun violence? I have lost several. How many woman do you know who were raped by gunpoint? I know several. How many people that have guns don’t properly store them? Everyone I have ever met save a couple responsible ones. For every responsibile owner there are a hundred that keep their guns loaded under their pillow.

I have read what you are saying thousands of times. It gets old.

Lol trying to take away a womans only practical, effective option to repel a man who wants to rape her, I don’t know if you realize this, but if you snapped your fingers and guns dissapeared, women would be more fucked, not less. Try stopping a 250 pound man with a knife or no weapon at all with a puny little 120 pound body. Good luck. Firearms are the great equalizer.

You guys are fucking clueless. Women are oppressed by guns every single fucking day. Millions of women live in fear of their partner because they have a gun. So stupid it hurts.

A bigger, stronger man doesn’t need a gun to oppress someone smaller and weaker than them. You’re just ensuring the imbalance is permanent if you magically made effective weapons dissapear. But maybe that’s what you want deep down.

Oh God help me. If every women in your made up scenario pulled the trigger against a man SA or raping them there would be 90 million+ dead men.

My grandmother, mother, my wife, and my daughters have all been SA and raped in their lifetime. Every single women I have ever had the privilege to talk to about this has also been. I am a social worker by trade so I have talked to several hundred.

Right now there are over four million women that live in fear of gun death everyday. We have lost more civilians to gun violence in the last thirty years than every single soldier we have lost in every single war we have ever been in.

Not just heterosexuals either. I have met several gay men that fear their partner. If they leave them they are worried they would kill them.

This is our society. Have fun living with your defense fantasy larping imagination guns solve our problems bullshit.

Gun death is a made up term, there is no practical difference when people get shot to death, stabbed to death, strangled to death, bludgeoned to death. Your obsession with a single particular weapon in extremely unhealthy and points to other issues. People are killed with anything that can be used as a weapon. Acting like you have authority over someone who arms themselves for protection because your family experienced rape is like telling a holocaust victim it was better for them to comply and be murdered in a chamber than having had the chance to fight back because my grandmother got SA’d? You make no sense, the software that has been downloaded into your brain needs a rewrite

Full on gun nutter nonsense. I grew up poor, I know what happens when you put a gun in a young man’s hands. You are fucking clueless, you truly are about the horrors of gun proliferation. We have tens of millions of civilians that know to duck and cover at any given moment because of constant violence. They live in a continuous state of stress.

The US has been in a constant state of extreme violence because of gun proliferation. Over a million women have been shot by their partner, but don’t worry your solution is they shoot back. Double homicide assured.

I will never forget this family whose father came downstairs and blew his brains out in front of them on Christmas Day…so many stories of tragedy always because of one easily accessible tool. If it were any other product it would have to be safe, but not firearms. At any rate, come back when you grow the fuck up sir.

Gun nuts, totally freaked out when Obama won. They were convinced he would takr thier ammo…

You can pack your own ammo pretty easily

You make your own powder? And primer?

No, but I feel like it’s easier to get those than a gun

People are working on it.

No, the real problem is neither the gun nor the bullet.

Either one, by themselves or together, are harmless until someone with poor training, education, and/or mental health gets involved.

American detected

There are many countries with many guns and substantially less gun violence than America. The common thread is not the weapon.

Just to have fun by being a bit pedantic, the a bullet is a possible source of toxic lead, and if you are using the colloquialist ‘bullet’ to mean a charged cartidge containing a bullet, the gunpowder charge makes it a tiny bomb, which can be dangerous as well, even without a gun, especially when exposed to idiots with hammers or fire.

Playing along…

If a lead bullet in a charged and primed casing sits undisturbed in a crowded room, it will neither poison people nor discharge itself

‘Undisturbed’ is doing a bit of lifting there. The same could be said of a person, generally speaking. Leave most people in a room, they won’t hurt anyone either. It’s just a matter of what circumstances make each dangerous. If you put bullets in a room and set the room on fire, they act as little bombs. If you do that with a person, it makes them less dangerous, because they’re dead. If you put a person in solitary confinement for years on end, they’ll come out mentally disturbed, and possibly violent. Do the same with a bullet, and it comes out presenting the same hazards as when it went in.

Sure, and you can walk down the road and get struck by lightning with the same odds of a bullet randomly firing on its own and injuring or killing you.

On the flip side, the reality (to the significant digit) is that a person with a gun but no bullets can hurt you. A person with bullets but no gun can also hurt you. In fact, a person with neither a bullet nor a gun can hurt you too! It happens all the time.

But you know what doesn’t happen all the time?

A loaded gun discharging itself without a person attached.

The common theme is not the guns, it’s the people. Let’s fix that part.

Yeah, I’m with you on the direction to approach from, if slightly different in tack. I was just amusing myself. Hopefully I wasn’t causing you too much annoyance.

Nah, not annoyed. Tbh, fixing the people is going to be much harder than just regulating the implements of their destruction.

It has to be possible, though. Some places seem to manage some kind of sanity, at least.

You mean places that support their societies with things like affordable health care? Not sure that type of progressive governance is going to be a reality in the US for some time

Never impossible, but not happening yet. I have a suspicion things will shift more as the cold warriors inevitably succumb to the limits of mortality. All the power and money in the world still can’t stop the power of time.

Yep… time heals all wounds, it’s up to us to make new ones (and we make them like this)

That’s completely backwards. The people who use the most ammo are generally the responsible gun owners who practice regularly. Meanwhile, you only need a handful of bullets to kill a lot of people, and one is enough to cause an accident. It punishes the gun owners you least want to punish while doing absolutely nothing to address the actual problems.

This is not how it works in Sweden, if you have a license for a gun you are allowed to buy the ammunition for the specific caliber and have at home.

This is literally a Chris Rock joke from the bigger and blacker tour.

youtu.be/VZrFVtmRXrw?

It’s not the gun that kills you.

It’s not the projectile that kills you, it’s the impact.

Norm Stamper, former Seattle Police Chief, was recommending this 20+ years ago. Its slightly more viable than trying to get the massive quantity of guns off the streets.