Gun control debate should be expanded
I just got done reading Robert Nekervis’ article on gun control. An idea that I haven’t heard much about in this ongoing debate is one of ammunition control.It seems fairly obvious that there are plenty of guns in this country in the hands of both criminals and law-abiding citizens. Even if you stopped the sale and manufacturing of all guns and managed to eliminate the smuggling of weapons into the country as well, there are still plenty of existing guns available out there. Guns are here to stay, until future technology renders them useless. So what do you do? First, keep a tight grip on new weapons technology. Control access to the advanced weapons. Second, control ammunition. The government can do this by stricter controls on ammunition producers and imposing heavy taxes on ammo. You could do away with gun registration, and track ammunition purchases. This will hit criminals harder than the good citizens, for the most part. A man can have a gun and a couple of clips at home and not draw attention, but flags will go up when some ATF guy says “Hey, who just bought forty cases of spent uranium tumbler rounds?”The biggest hindrance here would be hunters and gun enthusiasts. For shooters, computer simulations are getting better all the time, so target shooting will soon require no live ammo. (Sorry if the “feel” isn’t the same, but I imagine it will be better simulated all the time). Hunters can still get fresh meat and keep the ecosystem in check by using long bows, crossbows, and other low-tech weapons. Or, if they still want to shoot a lot of bullets, be willing to sacrifice some privacy and a lot of money, to diminish the criminals’ capacity to literally wage war in our streets.
John BryanSophomore
