481
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Steve@communick.news 90 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This is pretty fucking elitist.

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

[-] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago

Yes, but it's also a joke. He likely doesn't believe what he says. He's trying to make people laugh.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Some people really do forget that a comedian isn't a well-versed expert in the shit they talk about, and their primary intent is entertainment.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 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 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

A world where only the wealthy elite have guns?

What could go right?

[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

A sword is a noble's weapon and you will be killed for so much as touching it.

[-] Steve@communick.news -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 5 points 6 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 -1 points 6 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 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 4 points 6 months ago

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

[-] lud@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

Since when do the rich use guns for oppression?

They use money, not guns.

[-] Arbiter@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

That money funds police forces and private security companies.

Guess what they have.

[-] Steve@communick.news -3 points 6 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 5 points 6 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.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 6 months ago

What effective means do they have against the rich?

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 points 6 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.

this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
481 points (93.5% liked)

News

23406 readers
2005 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS