It doesn't seem realist to me to ban guns in the US, the way it is banned in, say, France, given that there are already 270 millions guns in circulation, and given that it is, arguably, prohibited by the constitution. In short the US are so awash with guns that wanting to regulate them is futile at best.
A clever solution would be not to regulate guns but to regulate the bullets. That is the idea developped in this article by Eliot Spitzer in Slate :
There may be too many guns to rid the streets of guns, but there are not that many bullets, especially in the calibers needed for the types of weapons used in these shootings. Let’s create a regime that makes sale of bullets to anybody not licensed to carry a gun illegal, makes resale illegal, micro-stamps bullets so they can be traced. No Second Amendment issues here. This would have a remarkable impact on both violence and the capacity to solve shooting crimes. Let’s turn the NRA catchphrase that “guns don’t kill people” against them. Because they may be right: Bullets kill people. Regulate them and limit their sale.And by Philip Bump in The Atlantic :
Perhaps the best argument in favor of limiting ammunition, though, is this. The mantra of firearms advocates is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.It doesn't say a single thing about the right to own bullets. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, bullets were largely inert slugs, loaded into flint-lock muskets propelled with loose gunpowder packed into the muzzle. There was no need to assure the right to ammunition, which may be the loophole the government needs to dramatically curtail the scourge of gun violence.
Bear all the arms you want. Make your own at home. Without a bullet to fire from it -- or, at the very least, far, far fewer bullets -- we can achieve what the Founding Fathers really sought: a stable, secure nation.