General Patton » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:47 pm wrote:PufPuf93 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:10 pm wrote:T
First, our law enforcement should back off to the UK model where cops are back on the streets without firearms or heavy armor; as face to face public servants doing public service. The entire culture of law enforcement needs to be changed and different personality types employed in the profession.
Any word on when the police unions will back this? They're not gonna be a problem right?
Second, control fire arms violence by the tight control of ammunition. We have the technological means to track every bullet. Going forward it is much easier for ammunition control than gun control. Why not do it?
Misuse of ammunition or use of non-registered ammunition would have swift and unambiguous severe penalties.
If ammunition is registered and misused inappropriately, the "perp" and the registered owner (if different) would be criminally liable. If unregistered ammunition was used or in possession, there would be confiscation and a life long ban on gun possession as well as swift and unambiguous penalties.
As in anything political and human, the crux of the problem is to get from status quo to a better situation.
Do you know how collectors of rare and antique guns get ammunition for their weapons even though there is no brass available?
I mean, we could just install bodyscanners at malls, universities and movie theaters if you want to feel safe in certain public places.
Edited to add:
In the event of an actual civil war, ammunition can be manufactured or imported from Russian/Chinese stock, so I support an ammo ban as well.
For sure police unions would vigorously oppose a major shift in the philosophy of policing particularly as what is described would be perceived at putting beat cops at more risk with less firepower.
I have no idea how collectors of rare and antique guns get their ammo but would wager that there are specialty dealers that can provide the rare and unique for a price. Anything can be custom made especially if someone is willing to pay.
I am all for less scanners and other intrusive monitoring. The various post 9-11 security measures breed attempts to sneak around them, cost money, and make life inconvenient for most.
The gun problem in the USA will only be solved by a social shift in perception about guns. Making more rules only acerbates the divides and dysfunction. Any solution will have dead enders.
I did not suggest an outright ammo ban but rather that strict ammo control was a logical pinch point to leverage control. A gun is mostly harmless without ammo. More expensive ammo means less hobbyists. One item is that ammo reloaders would be heavily impacted in that reloading would either no longer be an option or reloaded ammo would need to be labeled and registered to protocol.
People that are gun fetishists or think they need guns for personal safety disturb me. But I grew up in a gun culture, have guns, and think people should be able to have guns if they so desire. I have not shot a gun since 1983 and that was to shoot twigs or cones out of trees to sample insect populations. I have not hunted since age 17 in 1970. The guns I have are all family hand me downs except a deer rifle given to me new for my 16th birthday. My maternal grandparents had a hunting and fishing lodge for 35 years and that is where I first lived as a baby. I had 14 guns that were my father's that were stolen from me in two events. I recreated and worked for years in what most folks would consider wilderness or actually legislated Wilderness and never felt the need to carry a gun. The only time I ever worked with a gun for protection was in Alaska where when we worked in brown bear areas we were required under contract to have an armed escort. Far too many people into guns for whatever reason are creepy about their relations to firearms IMHO.
If there is a civil or other shooting war, ammo will find its way to the battlefield.
