It came right from the mouth of a fictional character, in an episode of West Wing when Josh responded to a question about his candidate's position."How will you control arms?" was the question. "We won't," was his response. "We won't control arms at all," he said. "The guns are already out there. There's no way to get them all back. But - we can control the bullets."
And instantly I saw that he was right.
It would be virtually impossible to reclaim all of the countless guns already distributed among the population. And all the large bullet magazines as well. Trying to limit guns is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has left the barn.
But control bullets? How absurdly simply. An assassin can't do much with his AK-47 without bullets other than use it as a clumsy club. Bullets run out and must be replenished. Bullets can be monitored. They can be distributed under the auspices of rifle ranges, hunting clubs, farmers organizations, even survival groups, if need be. Each organization would bear responsibility for its members. The officials of each organization would need to explain the distribution of bullets within it. And although ballistic fingerprinting isn't as infallible as human fingerprinting, it is sufficient enough that most bullets can be traced.
A fallacy with many gun control proposals is the assumption that the people we are today are the people we will be tomorrow. But people change throughout their lives. We experience emotional and physical trauma, bitter disappointments, self-esteem and social issues, and body chemistry changes. Any of these can alter our personalities, sometimes to a serious degree. Good gun legislation must be elastic; it must have the capability to tighten when necessary and ease up when not. This can be done with the flow of bullets.
If an individual should enter into a concerning state, whether it be mental health, drug use, or legal difficulties, the supply of bullets to that individual could be interrupted for a period of time. This will require good communication, of course (not a small issue, I know). The responsibility for this communication should be given to doctors and other care takers who are immediately concerned with the individual in question, as well as to members and leaders of the communities where alarming changes might be noticed soonest, and even to families. Loyalty considered, it's still better to stop the flow of bullets than to lose a loved one.
But those who are not dealing with such issues can carry on as if nothing has changed, purchasing and using bullets for their guns and their legitimate purposes uninterrupted. Those who wish to have and to hold a collection of weapons may do so. But a stockpile of bullets and bullet cartridges for those weapons would be prevented.
Is bullet control an absolute answer? Of course not. Any comprehensive gun control plan must have many facets, ranging from education to re-registering (as you do for your drivers license.) But bullet control is a strong response to the huge number of guns already in (and out of) private hands.
It's sad, but our world today is just too crowded and too vulnerable not to put some limitations upon the use of arms, just as we put regulatory limitations upon other potentially dangerous items.
Note: My focus has been elsewhere lately, a result of writing deadlines in other areas. My intention is to return to this blog with more consistency. My plan is to post at least once month and, if issues prompt me to do so, I will post more often.
Great blog, Rich. Makes me wonder why I didn't think of it earlier. But it will be a hard sell for this reason: These huge magazines have little or nothing to do with self defense--they are bullet hungry monsters. Large magazine equals bragging rights at the shooting range; large magazine also means that that one dosen't quit until the magazine is empty. Hence more ammo sales by--yes, the same companies that sell firearms and control much of Congress.
ReplyDeleteAll the same, ammo control is a cause that shluld be pushed.