Face it, the U.S. was a whole lot safer when everyone had guns

[Q Classic]

i suppose. but i think the us would have been a lot safer if they'd become followers of k'ung fu-tzu.

look at the east asian countries. far fewer guns, and a far lower crime rate.

[mrmitchell]

His solution: ban bullets. Seriously. Ban the sale of handgun bullets to everyone but licensed law officers, and have law officers get them through tightly-regulated government distribution.

It isn't that difficult to produce bullets is it? (I'm not a gun nut/expert). If it's just metal melted down and molded to x shape then it shouldn't be that hard.

Another reason a ban would be useless: Prohibition didn't stop alcohol did it? A ban just makes something more attractive and more desired. I'll bet within weeks you'd see people who had figured out how to make guns and bullets in their basement, and of course, the cost of enforcing such a ban would be in the stratosphere.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
GePap, at least we have no fear in going to a park.
Do you often tramp through Central Park at night with no fear?

Yeah, right.

And....? Next time say somehting that means something.

[Drake Tungsten]

look at the east asian countries. far fewer guns, and a far lower crime rate.

The low crime rate in East Asia is due to the nature of society, not the lack of guns.

[Pekka]

Banning bullets leads to same as banning guns. This way criminals STILL have all the bullets they need, but regular citizens don't.

[Q Classic]

chris rock mentioned banning bullets. make 'em 5000 each, and you won't have any innocent bystanders, and people will have to really hate someone if they're gonna shoot 'em.

[Pekka]

I don't think that would still work. It's not like criminals pay 600000000 dollars for stolen cars either.

[Pekka]

But of course these are more criminals vs. citizens scenario. citizens vs citizens in different little conflicts, that I don't know.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

It isn't that difficult to produce bullets is it? (I'm not a gun nut/expert). If it's just metal melted down and molded to x shape then it shouldn't be that hard.

Another reason a ban would be useless: Prohibition didn't stop alcohol did it? A ban just makes something more attractive and more desired. I'll bet within weeks you'd see people who had figured out how to make guns and bullets in their basement, and of course, the cost of enforcing such a ban would be in the stratosphere.

I don't know how hard it would be to manufacture bullets; shotgun shells are dead easy, but something requiring a mold would certainly jack the price of the product up.

As for the Prohibition analogy: It's important to remember that, with Prohibition, the vast majority of people who wanted alcohol were respectable, law-abiding middle-class types (including Pres. Harding, who had wiskey delivered to the White House throughout his presidency). I think law-abiding types would probably respect a gun or bullet prohibition, which would mean you wouldn't have an economy of scale. And once bullets are costing a piece what they used to cost for a gross, your average street thug may have a different, less lethal weapon of choice.

That's the theory, anyway.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Pekka
Banning bullets leads to same as banning guns. This way criminals STILL have all the bullets they need, but regular citizens don't.

I think the idea is that guns are reuseable, but bullets aren't. Ban guns and, even if no one ever makes another one, you still have millions of guns on the street. Ban bullets and, if no one makes any more, you run out very quickly.

Again, it probably wouldn't work, but it's an interesting idea.

[GePap]

Criminals are citizens most of the time.

[alva]

Look at the 19th century. Crime was almost non-existant.

you are also not counting for the fact that there was no CNN & Co. to report every little incident that happened worlwide and therefore it didn't happen, something that is still true to this day.

No camera's in Africa means there is no famine...etc....

Yeah right...

[Proteus_MST]

In Germany it is regulated by small and normal Weaponlicenses (kleiner und großer Waffenschein).
Both of them are issued by Federal authorities and require a thorough Backgroundcheck wether you have commited any crimes in History and AFAIK also a psychological Examination.

With the small Weaponslicence you may carry Gas- and Boobypistols in public (you are allowed to posses and use them without a Weapons Licence, as long as you do it in your own home or in Places where it is allowed [for example a Rifle club])
With the normal Weaponslicence yu are allowed to carry small arms (like Pistols) for your Self Defence in public. But there are certain Limitations on this, as, on the one Hand they won´t be issued for more than 3 years (and can be revoked twice for other 2 * 3 years), you have got to pass a tst, where you´ve got to show that you can handle the weapon and of course you need a very good reason why you need to carry a weapon in public.

Also for every live weapon sold, a Certifikate is filled out, where things like the owner, Details about the Weapon (including manufacturng number) and the like are noted.

Doesn´t prevent Criminals and the like from buying their Weapons on the black market, but makes Weapons to be very rarely seen in Public (outside of Rifle Clubs or the Hands of Policemen and Security Personnel)

[St Leo]

I am far more afraid of being killed by an idiot shooting guns every-which-way in self-defense than by a criminal going on a rampage.

Anyways, do you honestly believe that anything near the majority of crimes were reported in the 19th century? That's like saying that there were no rapes in the 10th century because there is no documentation to support their existence.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pekka
Banning bullets leads to same as banning guns. This way criminals STILL have all the bullets they need, but regular citizens don't.

The counter argument to that is, when everybody has guns, criminals will upgrade to assault rifles.

[MrFun]

Who knows what it would be like to have even more idiots in United States than we have now, to own a firearm.

[mrmitchell]

Well, I see the point of banning bullets: certainly eventually existing stocks will run out, and producing them illegally would be more expensive so there would be less of them. But they'd still be around, so repeating what Pekka said, this way criminals would still get bullets but regular citizens wouldn't.

Rufus
Respectable citizens will probably want them too. (Well, it depends on if you can call Southern huntin' hicks respectable )

[Az]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The counter argument to that is, when everybody has guns, criminals will upgrade to assault rifles.

They already do so whenever they can afford it and/or put their hands on them.

[Odin]

I am against the banning of guns, but I am for STRICT gun regulations. Require the guns to have features so only the owner can use it.

BTW: Minnesota is the only place in the US where a person is a member of the Sierra Club and the NRA at the same time.

[Dis]

Originally posted by axi
Stupid White Men...

you just naturally assume I'm white?

now who's the racist? I know many black men who enjoy guns.

[Dis]

btw guns can be banned successfully.

The solution is have the goverment perform door to door searches and remove all guns. This would eliminate crime from our society

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun
Who knows what it would be like to have even more idiots in United States than we have now, to own a firearm.

well I won't deny there will be millions of deaths if everyone had a gun.

But once that bloodbath is overwith. Things should be very peaceful

[Dis]

I do think we need better background checks.

In our state we have a criminal background check.

But currently insane people can still get guns if they have no criminal record.

Just the other day a guy who had mental problems for 8 years shot and killed mexican in my city. He also shot a cop between the eyes! And the cop survived with no serious injuries!! It was only a .22 caliber

They are calling it a hate crime.

First of all can a black man commit a hate crime against a mexican? I thought hate crimes only applied to whites .

And second, can an insane person be capable of a hate crime?

[DanielXY]

Yeah great plan. Dead ppl. dont shoot at each other... hmmm ... what will the US do with all the free property once the smoke fades? ...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Dissident
Look at the 19th century. Crime was almost non-existant.

Have you seen Gangs of New York?

Crime has been with us since the days of Ancient Rome. Rome itself never had a police force and the army was outlawed from entering the city limits. It was a haven for some the same kind of wretched scum we see in today's metropoli.

[Dis]

gangs of new york seemed overly violent.

I have trouble believing things were that bad in a civilized city like New York.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by GePap


And....? Next time say somehting that means something.

You'd have to do two things.
1) Lose some of your arrogance
2) Work on your comprehension skills

I see neither happening.

[SlowwHand]

And Dissident, you're funny as hell.

Civilized, like NY.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And Dissident, you're funny as hell.

Civilized, like NY.

As if Texas was ever civilized -- isn't it still a backwater province of roving white barbarians??

[Ben Kenobi]

The counter argument to that is, when everybody has guns, criminals will upgrade to assault rifles.

Or grenade launchers.