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.

 

 

While I am not sure if the technology exists, it seems like a logical proposal.

Perhaps not foolproof , though.

But new ideas should always be welcome.

My feeling is as long as there are guns, there will be people who use them to kill.

I mean, what else are they good for?

Chris Rock had a good idea, as usual:  Make every bullet cost $5000 dollars.

Lots of those drive-bys would be parked in a big hurry.

 

People share ammo all the time...  Millions of people re-load and make their own ammo.  Criminals and the mentally ill will, as usual, not care about whether or not the serial number on the bullet matches the intended gun.

If I have three .22 caliber guns do I have to list which bullets I'm going to use in which gun?? Some ammo I have is over three years old.  What if I forget which gun I bought the ammo for??

Gun owners who shoot regularly trade in and buy new guns....if I buy a thousand rounds of .308 but trade that gun in for a 30-06 do I have to re-register my ammo before I let my friend have it???

It's not a serious proposal.  I propose that mentally ill people and criminals be kept away from guns and that we stop punishing law abiding citizens.... 

In response to slomag's comment:

 

I like the idea.  I would also add that if the serial number is tampered with in any way, the bullet would fail to fire.

We are at a technological level nowadays where we can create handguns and semi-automatics of all types with identifying chips. We can monitor their location and use remotely, and if the chip is disabled the gun won't operate. Furthermore, the chip could render the gun inoperable remotely.  These are the types of solutions that need to be looked at.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

ammo might as well cost $5k....you can't buy it anywhere....

Gun control is about control not guns!

In response to macnh1's comment:

Once you purchase the ammo, you can do whatever you want with it, but if you give it to a friend, and it winds up used in a crime, you may be held accountable.  The idea is that it makes purchasing ammo for an illegal gun, or a gun you intend to steal much harder.  The onus on the law-abiding gun owner is minor - just a piece of paper or confirmation phone call before the order is placed.

 

In response to UserName99's comment:

I like that idea as a liberal, but it's too big-brother to get bi-partisan support.  

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.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

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.

 

In response to slomag's comment:

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.

 

In response to slomag's comment:

 

 

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 skeeter20's comment:

Good lord. The rank dishonesty of some people!

 

When someone posts about a proposition aimed at mass shootings, the response is "that doesn't do anything about all the other shootings"

When someone posts about a proposition aimed at all the other shootings, the response is "that doesn't do anything about shootings."

 

Fess up. You simply don't care about all the people slaughtered by gun loving Americans.

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

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.

Slippery slope.

I'm OK with a fire arms ID that requires a full background check in order to obtain one.

This would be required to purchase a fire arm.

I'm not OK with a fire arm registry or reporting of purchases to big brother.

The Feds could check shops and dealers for compliance just like they do with liquor stores checking for underage drinking violatins.

Curious and worth considering. Guns don't actually kill people, bullets do. Question is, how many bullets do you need? Might it not be possible to strongly regulate bullets? I'm not suggesting, a la Chris Rock, making them expensive. But, hear me out, perhaps in order to buy more, you must return spent shell casings? Again, hear me out, you might be able to own as many guns as you want. But you'll have to be responsible for every bullet you own/use?

In response to macnh1's comment:

Sure, you can.

 

It seems like the back of the bullet tends to stay somewhat intact.  If that's the case, the bullet could be branded uniquely with very little cost to the manufacturer.

Those look rather like hollow-point, though usually the tip peels back in strips (that may or may not curve back up towards the front at the end....    to enhance their "self-defense" capabilities).

 

Which raises another possible measure: Complete ban on bullets like hollow-point bullets that are designed to cause as much tissue damage as possible.

Stopping power is what matters for genuine self-defense. You want the person incapacitated. They don't need to bleed to death on your bedroom carpet.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

A normal bullet may not stop a drug crazed assailiant.

For a home invasion a shot gun could provide the best stopping power, messy though.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

If you're more worried about cleaning the drapes, a gun should be the last thing on your mind.

However, you're correct.  Most gun experts and law enforcement say if you're gonna have a gun, a shotgun is most effective for home defense.

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Tell me how putting serial numbers on bullets prevents mass shootings.

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 jedwardnicky's comment:

How many bullets do you need?

depends on the situation.  The recent break in where the mother was defending her young twins against a home invasion, six shots fired, five hits, and the perp STILL drove away.  So, I would say in that case, how many bullets are enought? something GREATER than 6.

I hear you on your desire to track ammo, but why are law abiding citizens in the cross-hairs?  How does this help prevent criminal activity?