Ya know. . .There are a lot of crimes commited by people with a car, too. . .

The reason computers become obsolete is that something better comes along and the world must change to keep up. If you are in business and running old, outdated software & hardware your competition has new, faster stuff they will process more orders and satisfy more customers and eventually take all of yours.

The only reason a particular caliber of gun falls out of favor with the consumer is if it fails to do the job it's intended to do as well as a different caliber.The same manufacturers that make the guns make the bullets. If they quit making bullets for a particular caliber of gun another company will come along and fill the need. And even then there's probably enough vintage gun enthusiasts out there for someone to make any type of ammo for them for the right price.

As for having the government limit the amount of ammo produced; the government can't stop illegal drugs from being imported into the country. What makes you think they would have any better luck with ammo?

When you can take your kids to school and commute with a gun, a gun might qualify as useful as a car. The only point of a gun is to injure or kill someone. And it does that quite well and often in the hands of idiots.To think that an oppressive government might be persuaded to behave with the pop guns available to civilians when it has tanks and air to ground missiles and helicopters is to live in a fantasy. But hell, considering the current duly elected present government, fantasy seems to be very solidly in style.

Either instrument is useful for it's intended purpose. I have been a hunter & gun owner for 35+ years and never in that time have I committed a crime involving a gun. Not even a misdemeanor. Most gun owners are responsible types. I think I am. I've been a auto owner for roughly the same period of time. Lost count of the traffic tickets in that time. . .

The point is that guns on their own do not jump out of the cabinet and commit crimes. Cars sitting in the driveway do not speed, operate recklessly, and are not drunk drivers; it takes the human element to make either of them instruments of injury and death. For that matter, there was just a double murder and suicide near here two days ago where the criminal used gasoline to ignite his ex-wife and her boyfriend. He got caught in the blast and died too. I haven't seen any letters to the editor of the local fishwrap demanding something be done to regulate the sale of gasoline & matches.

I've spent time in countries that have an outright ban on all firearms & guns, including paintball guns. People are still injured or killed in those countries by "criminals" who use guns. I do have to say it seems there are more assaults involving machetes than guns in those places but people are injured or die just the same. The criminals don't really care about the legal issues, period. And they won't care if ammo is regulated or banned or discontinued either.

I maybe wrong but in contries that have made it illegal to have guns it is now only the criminals that have guns. That being said the control of bullet production would only serve to create a blackmarket for bullets. Now next to your friendly neighborhood meth lab you would have bullet factories. There are already guys who load there own bullets so its really not that far of a stretch for normal guys to flip over to hardend criminals because something they used to love to do is now a crime and an easy way to make lots of money. Kind of like bootleggers during prohibition.

I agree that people should be able to own a gun. And I am not debating that criminals will still commit crimes. Ten years ago it was rare to hear about someone getting shot. Today, it's an everyday occurence. As far as people making their own bullets. There are only so many times a shell can be repacked for firing. Not trying to oulaw guns here people! Trying to use this site to see if some one out here may actually trigger a better idea. I own a gun. But at the same time if there was a way that made my current gun OBSOLETE and I had to go buy another one for protection, I would. I am saying that way too many criminals have guns. Try conceiling a machette in the mall, not so simple.

It seems that if bullets were upgraded in the way that you mention, then all the leftover bullets from the older versions would be more valuable, being out of production, thus a hypothetical criminal could sell them for above the original market value and probably make enough to buy the newer gun and some matching up-to-date bullets. Plenty of people would be interested in purchasing the older bullets if they couldn't afford the newer gun. plus to make this have a chance of working you would have to enact some sort of law that made it illegal to produce bullets that were not the current version, otherwise any entrepreneur could legally produce the out-of-date guns/bullets and reap the profits.

Also, I'm not sure the meaning of the second amendment is refering to the right to own a gun for which there exist no bullets. That would be like granting the freedom of sight to a blind person. I wouldn't consider someone "armed" unless he or she had ammo in addition to a gun.

I do not own a gun and I really do appreciate your intentions with this idea. Something should be done about gun control. What that is, I have no clue, but it is great that someone is thinking about it.

When you regulate things you CREATE a market for criminals

Hyenuf, I reject your point about people being responsible for killings, not because it is wrong, but because it is an argument that purposely dodges the ovious INTENT of a gun. The intent of a car is to carry people to a destination. The intent of a gun is to mortally wound a living being. Sure, you can misuse a car an kill someone at great expense to your car, but killing someone with a gun is much, much easier and cheaper. Thats what a gun is made for. That's all it's made for.

I think a better argument for gun ownership is controlling the population of wild animals. But I don't agree that every yahoo who wants to should be able to do it. I think there should be a profession of licensed hunters who hunt all year round and thin out the weak and diseased animals.

I'm not a gun owner, but I think it's hopeless to try to outlaw them at this point. I'd rather see the owners held accoutable for accidental deaths due to improper loading, storage, or use. Anybody who leaves guns and ammunition outside of lock and key should be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter when their kid shoots himself with it. Same goes for hunting accidents...

But it'd make it so much harder for morons like you to commit suicide.

Or how about we MAKE everyone carry guns, so that noone is willing to step out of line and needlessly endanger someone else's life. Humans will always find ways to hurt other humans if they feel they can get away with it. Instead of removing protection of the innocent, remove the protection of those that would intentionally cause others harm.

Personally, I'd never think of robbing a bank if I knew half the people in there were carrying a lethal weapon.

The best idea I heard about gun control was from a comedian.Make bullets cost $500 a piece. I know hunters would be up in arms.

Jeffery Dahmer was killed by a toothbrush. A pencil would have done just as well. A cricket or baseball bat likewise serves nicely. As do shoestrings and neckties. A vehicle, a passenger car, is a weapon of mass destruction when used properly, say for instance, by an elderly man driving through a farmer's market.

Point being, as stated in heartfelt comments above, a weapon is something used as such. In my hands, my firearms are no more a danger to someone than are my cats. Probably less so, on account of allergies.

Are people idiots? Even if ALL guns were confiscated and destroyed, a new weapon would be developed. People are inventive. They will find a different way to harm others. Maybe the answer is to enforce the laws that are on the books. Get rid of some of these marshmallow-spined judges that fall for first time offender sob-stories. Society as a whole tends to blame other people or situations for violent crimes committed by a few wicked individuals. How about some personal and community responsibility. Unfortunately, until society cracks under the stress of anarchy under the guise of equality for the underprivilaged, things will not change. Even then, history shows that anarchy is replaced with totalitarianism. Society is on a downhill slide. Have a nice day!

Nobody says guns commit crimes by themselves, but it is a technical fact that there are certain crimes that cannot be committed without a certain type of gun. As an example, if you want to rob a liquor store in South L.A., the concealable handgun is the only way. It's concealability and it's ability to kill repeatedly and at a distance cannot be matched by any other device.

Gun owners say cars can be used to commit crimes, so we shouldn't have any controls on gun sales (background checks). What is the TSA looking for in your luggage at the airport? A car ?

even if you stop making ammo for what ever guns you dont want ppl to shoot ppl with, its not very hard to make your own bullets. and as soon as you outlaw something, it becomes the next drug. people will just make and sell it on the streets. there will never be an end to anyone being able to use a gun. so just quit. you cant win

I'll agree to this "logic" when the following question(s) have been satisfactorily and legitimately answered:

1) When will we all be secure against the government from it attacking our rights any further? (Short guessed answer: never!)

2) When will we all be secure from ANYONE, ever, regardless of the situation? If ONLY the government gets to regulate the bullets (or guns, or whatever), who's "regulating" the government. The citizens of this country are too busy to give a damn about what's REALLY going on in this country; the likes of having someone like Hillary and/or Obama (and even McCain) as legitimate claimants to the White House are proof positive of that!

3) When will those that should NEVER have a gun be FOREVER PREVENTED from having a gun in the first place? Who makes the decision as to who is and who is not okay to own a gun (and the bullets, etc)? I know this for certain: there is NO ONE on the payroll of the federal government with the competence to legitimately answer this question. The CLOSEST ones plausible for answering these types of questions are Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, but the "jury's still out on this" for everything overall!

patience it will come.(if i think it someone will do it)

Here's a way to cut down on shooting deaths--maybe. It would be worth a trial. Have the government of some small jurisdiction hand out free high-power (police-grade) tasers to gun owners or the public at large and promise them that there'd be no penalty, or only a fine, for using them. That way, when the urge to zap someone overcame them, they could do it relatively harmlessly.

There'd be obviously many cases of abuse, but these would weigh less than deaths. And victims could be given $1000 (say), to ease the indignity. It might well be that the downside would outweigh the upside--but we won't know until we try.