Yes, yes because raising the prices, thereby making it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire whatever is being raised, ALWAYS fixes the problem. It worked with alcohol and drugs SO well!
No. Because of the simple fact that the criminal would try harder to hit their actual target and it is less likely of them to just shoot with cruel intent to hit others just because. A person would see more value in the bullet and use it for the purpose of the one it was intended for. Watch the skit. The way he explains it actually makes just a little sense. And he's easier to understand than what I just said.
Well the point I was making was that criminals would just find a cheaper way to get ammunition. As would I, which would unfortunately make me a criminal. Raising the price of ammunition would only affect law abiding citizens, the same way new gun laws would.
I don't really think that would solve the problem either. 1: people have to have their background checked to buy a gun already, so what's going to change in their background where they could've bought a gun, but not ammo? 2: I could just have a friend with a good background buy extra ammo for me if my background was "bad." 3: Putting restrictions on ammunition is pointless, because you can't DO anything with ammunition. It's the gun that propels the bullet. Bullets are harmless by themselves.
I'm being mostly facetious. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: nobody is talking about taking away guns. Nobody, that issue is not nor will it ever ben seriously on the table.
Restricting access to guns for people who have mental illness, and expanding background checks on potential buyers was put on the table. Anybody who talks about confiscating legally owned firearms is a fool. The problem is, whenever retooling gun legislation becomes a topic, the nuts come out the woodwork, talking about how Obama wants to take away guns and subvert liberties. Sandy Hook was supposed to be the learning moment about guns...instead, it turned into another reason for crazies to tout the "good guy with a gun" hypothesis.
Taking the comment as presented is no good. Raising bullet prices or requiring background checks won't accomplish anything. #1 criminals don't care about bystanders because they're bad people. (They also don't go get background checks when using stolen or black market weapons/ammo) #2 the people who want to stop the criminals may end up missing because they can't afford to practice with $5k bullets #3 people need to really understand the problem before making fixes for them. My 2 cents.
2
·
Edited 10 years ago
deleted
· 10 years ago
#1 Just because a criminal breaks the law doesn't mean they're murderers - most would avoid shooting people unnecessarily if only for the reason murder sentences are longer than felonies.
#2 I assume the charge would not apply to law enforcement and their training, therefore they would still have the necessary training and good aim - remember, it's not the price of bullet production going up but the bullet sale cost - the government could allow the ammunition to remain its current price for law enforcement.
So how is that fair to your average law abiding citizen that those police are trying to protect? If someone target shoots for a hobby is this fair? If you need to control game animals on your farm is this fair? If someone chooses to defend themselves from said bad guys before police arrive is this fair? Also look at every private industry government tries it's hand at running and Lmk how that's working. You shouldn't punish the innocent for the actions of a few.
The deer population would skyrocket. The increase would cause a smaller amount of food to be available to them, which would drive them to forage in fields. After a period of several years, there would be so much food consumed by these animals that the price of all foods, especially meat and dairy products. Instead of surplus there would be a deficit and an economic depression, perhaps surpassing the Great Depression of the nineteen thirties and the Great Recession of two thousand eight would occur, causing famine. All of this because people were forced to overpay for bullets.
#2 I assume the charge would not apply to law enforcement and their training, therefore they would still have the necessary training and good aim - remember, it's not the price of bullet production going up but the bullet sale cost - the government could allow the ammunition to remain its current price for law enforcement.