• Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
    Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something … Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
    And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
    So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn’t have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like “I believe you got my property.”

    ― Chris Rock

    • Arbiter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This is pretty fucking elitist.

      If you don’t want guns go all in and ensure the elites cannot have them either.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Same can be said for OP and Steve over here, the former of whom posted it presumably because they take it at face value as a good idea, and the latter defending it because he clearly does.

            In times like that it can be a worthy pursuit both to refute the premise, as the poster who said “this is pretty fucking elitist” was doing, and to remind people of the nature of comedians, as you have done.

        • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Except the top voted comment for being the answer is a joke says a lot about how much people are willing to actually think about a solution that isnt something far fetched.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          It’s a simple, easily enforceable policy, with no constitutional hangups.
          Gun deaths will absolutely plummet. Lives will be saved.
          But sure, lets not do that because the rich yada yada yada.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        It’s a simple, easily enforceable policy, with no constitutional hangups.
        Gun deaths will absolutely plummet. Lives will be saved.
        But sure, lets not do that because the rich yada yada yada.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Except that bullets are a hell of a lot easier to make than guns are. Black market bullets would be rampant and it would be difficult to do anything about it.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Black market bullets would also be very expensive.
            Why sell them for 1$ when the alternative legal option is $5K?
            They’d sell for something like $4K, because why not?

            • SeaJ@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              That’s not how supply cost and pricing work. Basically it would be cost of material + cost of capital spread out over life of equipment + labor costs + cost of being caught multiplied by risk of being caught + a profit margin. The risk of being caught would likely be pretty damn low so you might increase their cost by 25-50% if you’re lucky but it sure as hell will be nowhere near $4000. Demand would be different but likely not enough to matter much.

        • Arbiter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes, let’s further consolidate power for the rich, give them even more tools for oppression.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Since when do the rich use guns for oppression?

            They use money, not guns.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            In exchange for thousands of lives? Thats an easy trade.
            We can use other, far more effective means, to limit the power of the rich.
            The power of the rich doesn’t even have anything to do with their access to bullets anyway.

            • Jax@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Those thousands of lives will be consumed by the rich, they don’t need guns to accomplish this.

              Those thousands need guns because it’s the only way to stop the rich.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Iirc that’s how Australia does it. You need the whole strict background check and training and I believe you can only get ammo at the range.