In an idealistic world why would anyone need any bullet or gun unless selfish?
Let's say for theoretical sake that there are different congress, different judges, different mindset of most of the people(a majority of the people as majority rules). And a zero tolerance to any breaker of the law like teenage drinkers have.
(Let's not argue about how that would occur here let's just say it did)
So that there are no more bullets in the street.
why would then anyone ever need another bullet, or a functioning gun whatsoever?
Unless one is selfish what would they need bullets for?
Without bullets no one is killed or harmed by a gun.
Yet, one can still collect, still use for sport, still hunt, and still get rid of rodents and even wild animals.(One can also have tranquilizer guns).
The only thing missing is the kill of many persons at one time.
and without bullets, it at least takes a little thinking and more time to do mass harm, or even fatal harm to oneself or ones spouse and family.
Of course, the rightwing extremists won't be able to delusionally think they can overthrow a government like they corruptly wish to happen, but that's a good thing, as there is no way anyone would go along with them. (Thankfully).
Break the cycle, get rid of the NRA and their rightwing million dollar suit talking points and well written paragraphs, and change the mindset of people. Just like happened with smoking,
and ironically, like THEY did to a woman's right to choice.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...how do we have no bullets but still allow for sport hunting?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)why would then anyone ever need another bullet, or a functioning gun whatsoever?
Because there will always be violent criminals armed with things other than firearms, or even just bare hands.
There will always be people who need to hunt to supplement their diets.
There will always be a need in agriculture to control undesired wild or feral animals.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)You blythly ignore the reality that a world without thousands of firearm deaths is real.
"Imagine" -- John Lennon
Violet_Crumble
(36,003 posts)The police are armed, and the strict laws ban semi-automatics and pump action shotguns only, not all guns. But it's the culture in the US that needs to change, because here I just don't know of people who see guns as an extension of themselves and *need* to own one to prove themselves as a person. That culture just doesn't exist here, as far as I'm aware...
btw, congrats to the hosts on getting this group up and running. It's been long overdue 
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)If you read the OP,Everyone of the NRA soundbytes, and yours above is 100% accounted for in the scenerio above.
There is ZERO reason to have a bullet. ZERO.
unless one wants to kill or harm another.
the strawmen about the government, or even a violent mafia GANG, are all bull.
You can't kill the Mafia. Because if you kill one, twenty will revenge it.
Foolish to think a gun does anything.
and wild animals I gave that answer and others in the OP
Being afraid of a Boogie men and paranoia strawmen most certainly would say to me, that person does not need a gun, as they would have the Twitchy,Itchy, Trigger finger, as such,
would be prone to shoot themselves, their children, their pets, their spouse, their family and friends, etc.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The idea of a mini tranquilizer gun that I could use on rats and rabbits sounds kind of amusing.
However, it's not clear what I would do with the tranquilized rodents.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and how does having bullets in the street out of your property affecting your being able to get rid of a rodent on your property
same old distractions 24/7/365 same old circular denying that guns are not needed in the streets with bullets
bullets are not needed.
A private person doesn't throw a bunker busting bomb on a field mouse.
Again, the streets would not be your farm should you have one or your crops, as that is your personal property
Read the OP. end of conversation as everything has been debunked
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)You're just indulging an impossible fantasy world free of violence and guns. It's not going to happen.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If the scenario ever comes true, I'll get rid of all my ammo. Until that day comes true (and it never will), then I'll keep my guns and ammo.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)So, you're doing away with criminals in your utopia?
Are you going to kill all the Coyotes, Mountain Lions and Bears in Colorado?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)are part of being human. Civilization and all of human relations are designed to equitably distribute resources. The best way to reduce selfishness is through education, compassion, and the civilized distribution of resources. But those tools will not fundamentally change the inherent flaws in the human species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Are you arguing that there is any single need for a bullet that can't be made obsolete and have a replacement for the cult of the bullet?
There is no education to stop it, no safe way, no nothing.
100% of every scenerio can be debunked in having any need for any bullet.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)nor should bullets. People have been violent since there were people. You will no more change the nature of people by eliminating bullets than by eliminating guns or any other weapon.
The reason guns are fetishized is to manipulate people for profit. They like 'em, we hate 'em. And there are organizations that profit from that attitude. Buy into that myth and you are not a citizen, you're a consumer. And that's how the 1% wins the culture war.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)No other form (except for a terroristic type) can in minutes kill a multitude of human beings of all ages.
Any other form can hurt one person in a crowd, but the rest of the crowd has time to react.
With a bullet, the entire crowd is at risk, with more than one gun, everyone in a greater perimeter is in mortal danger.
Take away the bullet and well, the whole town is safe even if one person might be hurt(and there is no assurance in a stab wound that it would be fatal. As oppposed to shooting in an area with mega people.
Bullets in streets can indeed be gotten rid of.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)If you want workable public policy to reduce violence in society, forcing those with a propensity to violence to band together is probably the wrong way to go about it.
Ever heard of wilding?
Of course cooperation, like any other tool in our evolutionary toolkit, can be used for good or ill. We don't need guns to do evil. All we need is injustice. Jared Diamond in Collapse shows that the Rwandan genocide had more to do with the inequitable distribution of inherited land than with ideology.
Take a away all the guns and you will have a Sandy Hook every day from people who could not defend themselves or were percieved as defenseless by others who don't really need a gun to brutalize them. The difference is that it won't become a "national debate". They will just be a statistic. Most people understand that. That's why the current gun control initiatives are have such a hard time in congress. Real people in the real world will not willingly give up the option of self defense without some assurance that we can provide it.
You want gun control? Solve the self defense problem.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Forever.
These are the good times IMO.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)another nra sound byte hits the dust
Freeing the mind of those chains, makes life more pleasant for the world from this second forward.
Guns and bullets are a prison one becomes beholden to. A false icon so to say.
Like a fairweather friend, the gun shall desert you in that supposed faux moment of need.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Frankly I'm depending on other people to defend me...hopefully they step up.
Natural disasters, a collapsed financial system, global warming, food shortages, maybe even riots by people who protest over inequality, all are possible.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Selfish in that we just want to have something (collect, fun, hunting, sport, hobby, new, enpowerment...); or selfish in that we need something due to fear (self-defense, home defense, common defense, wild animals, the govmint...).
Of course it's selfishness. How many times have we heard 'the 2nd amendment isn't about need' as the NRA argument against the question 'why does anyone need an AR'? (though of course the 2nd was all about need - a well-regulated militia was at one time thought "necessary"
.
THE problem is getting past that selfishness. Getting gunners to feel a diminishing of their own perceived needs because they realize the damage guns cause when too many others have the same access. The selfishness in wanting unfettered access, the fear of confiscation re:registration, the selfishness/fear of controlled capacity, the fear of being a victim, &c have to be reduced however/whenever possible,
Unfortunately it takes a massive dose of tragedy to cause that to happen even just a little bit. While a few are re-examining their needs, the rest are stocking up and getting them while they can.
"why would then anyone ever need another bullet, or a functioning gun whatsoever?"
Selfishness, and fear.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Kingofalldems
(38,572 posts)numerous violations and violators on this thread alone. At least the way I read the SOP. Looks like we have a few NRA supporters.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)per the OP;
"Without bullets no one is killed or harmed by a gun.
Yet, one can still collect, still use for sport, still hunt,
and still get rid of rodents and even wild animals."
So in the theoretical fantasy world that you describe in the OP, do bullets still exist to be able to be used for sport, to hunt or to kill rodents and wild animals? It would appear that they would if I'm reading that statement correctly, if that's not the case, please correct me.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)Thanks for the suggestion, I already do, both a recurve and a compound, as well as a crossbow. I was simply asking for clarification in your hypothetical, was there an exception for sport shooting, hunting and predator control in terms of access to bullets or were they eliminated from existence completely? From the wording of your post, it was unclear.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)People could still hunt. Sport shooting would still be permitted. But the infantile cowboy culture mentality of packing heat would be over, and nobody would be legally possessing military style weapons.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)But practical application would be unworkable. How do you control predators both human and animal?
And do we really think that criminals will follow this law if they don't follow the laws we currently have?
And how do we adequately protect a disarmed society?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Why are you wanting to control all those that don't want the NRA or guns/bullets in the street,
when the last thing you profess to want is to have controls put on your precious bullets and false icon guns?
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Assumptio.s? I never said any of that in my reply.
I just brought up somethings that need to be considered when making such a huge change in our society. I didn't even bring up hunting. Are we going. To ban that, too?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Assuming all your other criteria are met, there really wouldn't be any reason to own a firearm.
Now we just have to work on getting your prerequisites taken care of
