this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
50 points (84.7% liked)

Asklemmy

55888 readers
341 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

So yeah you can fire a bullet so many different ways, a rusty nail and hammer will do the trick. Isn't the real problem the frickin bullet?

I swear in Sweden or something, you can take a gun home but ammo is only sold and consumed at the range and not for taking home.

Sure, you can make this a hollistic approach regulating guns and ammo, but the ammo seems to be the bigger issue here. You can make guns easy peasy, but ammo is much harder to manufacture and easier to regulate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Too small, too prone to "spoilage", and waaaayyyy harder to calculate existing stockpiles. It just wouldn't be practical.

Mind you, that's ignoring any of the should factor, and I am absolutely unwilling to engage in that debate

Edit: also, it's too easy to improvise ammunition for simple firearms. You can't really shove just anything into an autoloader and expect it to feed, but anyone with a machine shop could crank out something that would work, and the supplies just aren't trackable the way something like ammonium nitrate is