Is your goal really just to have a reason to arrest certain people? Because if someone is planning on committing a crime, they sure as hell aren't going to be deterred by having to buy lethal bullets on the black market. Seems like a lot of work just to accomplish absolutely nothing.
No my goal isn't to arrest certain people. My goal is to make it harder for people to kill others, while still affording people a feasible means of self-defense involving guns.
no you're not. how often does someone that wants a gun for self-defense fire a bullet in self defense? i'd say the mode would be never. you wouldn't need much a supply to keep up with that rate of use.
by the way, your no hunting thing kinda throws me for a loop. i thought your whole idea was to propose a less radical, more feasible solution to reduce the lethality of gun violence than restricting gun ownership. yet you want to eliminate the largest, most popular activity for which guns are used? i think the only poster here advocating a more radical, less feasible solution is sd. if you're going that far, why not just advocate rounding up guns? at least guns are harder to smuggle than ammo.
Under my theory, people could still legally defend themselves using guns and legally carry and possess guns for sport (which includes, according to gun advocates, things like target shooting, clay pigeons, etc.). It seems to me that the only thing we'd immediately sacrifice is hunting. I'm not diametrically opposed to hunting, like I said, I'm all for bows and arrows. Hunting isn't an unrestricted right as it stands anyways. We already restrict where and how and when and what people hunt.
If there is a way people could continue to hunt without using ammunition that can instantaneously kill humans, I'm all for it.
This is a compromise.
