In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

What if ammunition purchases required the serial number and proof of ownership of the gun they are intended for?

Assuming the technology exists, we could also require the ammunition manufacturers to include a serial number on the bullet that can be used by forensics to track a bullet back to the initial sale.

Well, I'll assume that you are making a serious proposal, and respond approriately.

This does nothing to protect people from mass shootings.  The ammo is not in question, the person shooting is.

Bullets are generally deformed or splinter dramatically.  Any serial number would likely be obliterated.  I imagine their could be some sort of metalurgy signature, but to do that on a per-sale basis , if possible would be cost prohibitive.

But, again, the largest problem I see with this is that it only further incumbers lawful gun owners with a meaningless burden.  That is the problem with most if not all of the gun control advocates ideas.  they don't apply to crimminals or insane people.

It might not do much for a case like Newtown, but it could have stopped something like Columbine, where the guns where sold by an unlicensed dealer and the ammo was sold over-the-counter at K-Mart.

I think it would be most effective in curbing gang violence and crimes committed using hand-guns.  If the bullets could be uniquely identified, it would certainly help the police solve crimes.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Please highlight the portion of the original post in which the author claimed the purpose of his proposal was restricted to preventing mass shootings.

Sniveling turdlet....

In response to skeeter20's comment:

How do you think criminals get most of their guns?

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

What if ammunition purchases required the serial number and proof of ownership of the gun they are intended for?

Assuming the technology exists, we could also require the ammunition manufacturers to include a serial number on the bullet that can be used by forensics to track a bullet back to the initial sale.

Well, I'll assume that you are making a serious proposal, and respond approriately.

This does nothing to protect people from mass shootings.  The ammo is not in question, the person shooting is.

Bullets are generally deformed or splinter dramatically.  Any serial number would likely be obliterated.  I imagine their could be some sort of metalurgy signature, but to do that on a per-sale basis , if possible would be cost prohibitive.

But, again, the largest problem I see with this is that it only further incumbers lawful gun owners with a meaningless burden.  That is the problem with most if not all of the gun control advocates ideas.  they don't apply to crimminals or insane people.

It might not do much for a case like Newtown, but it could have stopped something like Columbine, where the guns where sold by an unlicensed dealer and the ammo was sold over-the-counter at K-Mart.

I think it would be most effective in curbing gang violence and crimes committed using hand-guns.  If the bullets could be uniquely identified, it would certainly help the police solve crimes.

I don't see how it would have helped in Columbine, or any other mass shooting.  The perps typically intend on takign themselves out or dying by cop.  Serial numbers on bullets are pointless in these situations.

On your second point, it presupposes that the criminal is leagal in his gun purchases.  I find that unlikely.

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

They'd have to find a better way to keep the serial numbers on guns, since criminals do a good job scraping them off. The more dedicated ones would probably spend the time scrping them off the bullets as well.

That's the point, though - if you don't know the serial number, you can't buy ammo.  It targets the criminals, and is only a minor inconvenience to the law-abiding gun owners.

It might drive up the cost of bullets, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, as pointed out in other posts.  It could open up a new non-lethal ammo market that does not have the requirement.

Well, the trouble would be legal owners selling to others who then scrape off the serial numbers.

It would seem to require not only a careful tracking of all transfers, but also actually checking up on people to make sure they still have their guns. Which still wouldn't get rid of "it was stolen/lost".

Throw up enough requirements and it would start to look just as dirty as Republicans undermining Roe by trying to make it as difficult as possible to get an aboriton (wait periods, requiring doctors to give false medical advice, counseling requirements, etc).

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Is it not a mass shooting that has brought about this latest surge in attempts to more tightly control guns?

Please highlight the portion of the original post in which the author claimed the purpose of his proposal was restricted to preventing mass shootings.

So, this proposal dropped from the sky? Show me where he specified any specific I situation.   would a reasonable person asume that his post is driven by shootings in Chicago?

your attempt at boxing is weak.  Any honest debater would admit when they are wrong.  The entirety of the current gun debate is driven by one event, a mass shooting at an elementary school. To claim otherwise is the height of dishonesty.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Is it not a mass shooting that has brought about this latest surge in attempts to more tightly control guns?

Please highlight the portion of the original post in which the author claimed the purpose of his proposal was restricted to preventing mass shootings.

So, this proposal dropped from the sky? Show me where he specified any specific I situation.   would a reasonable person asume that his post is driven by shootings in Chicago?

your attempt at boxing is weak.  Any honest debater would admit when they are wrong.  The entirety of the current gun debate is driven by one event, a mass shooting at an elementary school. To claim otherwise is the height of dishonesty.

The aim of the proposal is to affect a decline in the US per-capita gun homicides, which currently sits between Costa Rica and Zimbabwe.  Considering the low impact to law-abiding gun owners, even a small change in this statistic would sem worthwhile.

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Is it not a mass shooting that has brought about this latest surge in attempts to more tightly control guns?

Please highlight the portion of the original post in which the author claimed the purpose of his proposal was restricted to preventing mass shootings.

So, this proposal dropped from the sky? Show me where he specified any specific I situation.   would a reasonable person asume that his post is driven by shootings in Chicago?

your attempt at boxing is weak.  Any honest debater would admit when they are wrong.  The entirety of the current gun debate is driven by one event, a mass shooting at an elementary school. To claim otherwise is the height of dishonesty.

The aim of the proposal is to affect a decline in the US per-capita gun homicides, which currently sits between Costa Rica and Zimbabwe.  Considering the low impact to law-abiding gun owners, even a small change in this statistic would sem worthwhile.

Sure.  (Eye roll)

anyone believe him?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Is my point not valid?

Wow you just caught on to my drift.

No, your point is not a point.

The fact that people started talking about gun violence after watching 20 children be slaughtered does not mean that nobody is allowed to talk about ways to reduce violence in general.

Go f@rt into the couch while watching football and guzzling your budweiser.

Or, as I suggested, at least find a soul to rent.

There is nothing general about this thread.  ALL these gun control threads are due to the latest mass shooting.  If you can't see that I question your sanity.  I guess I should put up a thread about snow melt, as if a 60 degree day has nothing to do with it.

That putting serial numbers on bullets won't stop mass shootings, becasue the shooter usually shoot himself or is shot by cops.

Wow.  That's not relevant.

I guess you have lost your mind.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Therefore, nobody is allowed to talk about measures to reduce gun violence in general, even though when they talk about mass shootings specifically you whien and complain that they aren't talking about overall gun violence?

Shut up and have another beer. (Or find a soul. Rent one, at the very least).

In response to UserName99's comment:

In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

Just curious. Where do people acquire "illegal" guns? Is there some sort of store you can go to? Because it seems to me that they must come from somewhere, right? Simple question. Any takers?

They are stolen and sold.  The collective group of legal gun owners have failed miserably to keep their guns safe and secure, or worse, they sold them themselves to make a buck.  Either way, the problem is out of control.....we have millions of illegal guns out there.  Its time for the legal gun owners to collectively accept a little responsibility for the issue by agreeing to further regulation.

How is further regulation going to get those already millions of illegal guns off the streets? How is further legislation going to make all current gun owners lock up their weapons? Many do, but many still don't. You can't teach/regulate common sense.