This is the fundamental problem with gun regulation at the state level – they can be effectively abrogated by neighboring states with more lax regulation. FiveThirtyEight did a piece on this a while ago. In that article they show how strict gun laws in Illinois, California, and Maryland are defeated by guns flowing in from the surrounding states with more lax laws. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with guns which are illegally possessed, but were initially obtained through legal means.

Wait… You’re telling me that they continue to do crimes with guns even when the guns are illegal? Criminals? Really? I refuse to believe it.

the guns i see the criminals use

Are you running up to folks during a bank robbery and asking them for receipts?

Or is this, like, guns you saw criminals use in a cartoon show?

The point of most gun control is to reduce the amount of guns not necessarily remove them all.

Of course at least some criminals will always have guns but lots of deaths could be prevented by just reducing the amount of people with illegal or legal guns.

It’s also much more likely for a potential criminal to become a criminal with a gun if it’s really easy to get guns, especially if they or someone they know (like parents) already own one.

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.

This is a great idea. The flood of illegal and stolen weapons wouldn’t be taxed but they all need ammo to do harm.

I know home made ammo exists but I find it hard to believe it would ever be more than niche

Hey pal, let me let you in on a secret – bullets have already been getting more expensive, especially since COVID.

https://publination.co/cost-of-ammunition-skyrocketing-in-2024/

Maybe a comedian doesn’t have the secret key to gun control after all…

You’re gonna see a drop in gunshots if every bullet costs $1k.

First of all, that’s simply not true. Do you have any idea how easy reloading is? You seriously think these criminals are gonna just stop shooting people because they can’t buy bullets at wallmart no more? Even with that aside, the last thing we need is giving the rich and powerful gangs a monopoly on firearms.

Common sense gun control isn’t that hard, instead of pushing things that don’t make any sense we should be pressuring the GOP fascists more.

In the US, especially in this polarised climate, the vast majority of changes to law start with one state, and then another, and then another until slowly it gets adopted around the country.

california is big. It may work better than other places, but a fed licensing program would be ideal

Of course, it’s illegal for an FFL to sell a handgun to anyone with an out of state license unless they ship it to an FFL in the person’s home state for the NICs check and to make sure it complies with local laws. As for rifles, while there is no federal requirement stating the same, you’d be very hard pressed to find an FFL that is going to sell one to a person with an IL license unless it goes through the same system, all FFLs especially in border states know IL laws and are obviously hesitant to run afoul of them, iirc there is actually a local IL statute prohibiting the buying of long guns out of state without sending them through an FFL (like federally for pistols but for IL specifically with the long guns too) in it’s own that the neighboring FFLs would get in trouble with the ATF for violating, not to mention FOID and standard capacity mag bans

This is the case for basically every issue, yeah, this is generally why telling people to start with politics at the local level isn’t really a great suggestion for most people.

You can’t fund inter-city trains at the local level, really, that has to be done at the state level at the very least, usually in a state like california, only, and usually it has to be done with federal funding. If you don’t have inter-city trains or public transit, then it’s hard to make a walkable city. Basically what I’m saying is that it’s not atomizable, it has to be integrated with the rest of the network, which is why even the best US cities are pretty car-centric.

This is true for a litany of other political issues besides just public transit.

That’s the real point. This will have no impact on violence, let alone make a dent. It’s about the controlling class disarming the working class. If only Marx had said something about this.

Smoking is so much more prevalent in other states than it is in California. Even vaping has been dropping off recently. California overall has less binge drinking than other states but I’d attribute that as much to good weather and lots to do instead of just taxes.

Both of those are way down from when I was in my twenties.

That’s not an issue. Reduction is the goal, not elimination.

Yeah, it will accomplish ensuring poor people have a harder time exercising their rights. Apparently that is something California is very interested in.

A demonstration that the laws work, but need to be implemented at a national scale.

Right. Which brings prices up. Which decreases sales.