On the theme that “nothing can be done, because Constitution, so go ahead and figure out how to repeal the second Amendment – ha ha!” the Constitution was not a major obstacle to gun control until the Heller ruling put their own lunatic spin on what the second Amendment “really” meant to say, but for some reason didn’t actually say it.
This article by John Paul Stevens, adapted from his book and published in the Atlantic, is a very good read:
The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure
Pretend for a moment that there is political and societal will sufficient to enact your proposal. What do you do with the 300M+ extant firearms?
Stevens still sucking on sour grapes it seems. I’m not so much a fan of Chevron, but Kelo was an abomination and that case was what originally sparked my interest in SCOTUS. Pretty much fuck everyone who voted for that turd.
‘…and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.’
Offer tax credits for their surrender.
What I’m asking is, there will certainly be a non-insignificant amount of people who own firearms and disagree, even if there is a sufficient majority to enact your plan. Then what? These firearms will be functional for hundreds of years, and they are just about everywhere.
Social change is slow. I don’t expect to achieve 100% compliance overnight. But 25% in first 10 years would be nice. 50% in 20. So on.
Let’s say any amount of time you wish has passed and you’ve achieved as much compliance as you’re going to get. You will still have some non-insignificant amount of people who refuse to comply. Then what? Would you kill these people? Imprison them? Raid their houses? Seize their assets? You’re willing to propose ban them all, so I’m trying to understand what you are willing to condone in order to enforce that decree.
I am not advocating for jailing people who do not commit crimes with their guns.
I’m primarily advocating for banning all sales of guns, public and private. Also no gifting because no licensing of most firearms (with the exception of aforementioned hunting rifles.) A national campaign to encourage “mandatory” surrender of guns with a motive of tax credites, making it worth people’s while. By “mandatory” I mean confiscation if a gun is found in the course of a traffic violation or some other circumstance under which the police may reasonably find a weapon on your person or in your home.
Depending on the rate of decline of gun violence, adjust strategy that does not include jailing or search and seizure without just cause (imminent threat). Perhaps fines if your weapon is stolen and then used for a crime.
Actually the murder and non-negligent homicide rate per 100,000 in 1999 was 5.7, and in 2014 was 4.5. I for one would rather not see that stop. Unless you think whether or not someone is murdered is less important than how they were murdered. Which I don’t think is a well-thought out position.
Regards,
Shodan
Two points do not a graph make, so let’s look at those points you skipped over:
1999 5.7
2000 5.5
2001 5.6
2002 5.6
2003 5.7
2004 5.5
2005 5.9
2006 6.1
2007 5.9
2008 5.4
2009 5.0
2010 4.8
2011 4.7
2012 4.7
2013 4.5
2014 4.5
Here is a proper graph that goes all the way to 2016…that might explain why you stopped at 2014.
No, what I think is that you’re failing to realize a rather ironic fact: that the failure of gun violence rates to track falling rates of general violent crime, and gun violence rates even substantially increasing in years when other crimes rates were falling, indicates that guns are a special problem, and totally obliterates whatever argument you thought you were making.
So if today 1000 people are murdered, 300 by guns, and ten years from now 500 people are murdered, 400 by guns, we need to change the way things are going? I don’t agree.
Regards,
Shodan
You started a discussion about “the way things are going” with respect to gun violence. From that perspective:
If the above situation is occurring, you need to understand that you have a serious gun problem.
If all other economically and culturally similar countries have a population-adjusted average of, say, 10 murders by guns instead of 400, you need to understand that you have a serious gun problem.
And if the above facts are actually true in reality, with different numbers but exhibiting that same pattern, you need to understand that you have a serious gun problem, and it isn’t hypothetical.
Well, let’s put it this way… I’d want to be REALLY sure that those guns were the cause of the reduction in non-gun murders from 700 to 100. Because, if they weren’t, then guns are seriously reducing the effectiveness of whatever program made non-gun murders drop by so much, and maybe we need to rethink whatever is going on with guns.
Whatever other programs get implemented to reduce violence, you can reduce the impact of guns on violence at the same time.
You mis-spelled something there. What you mean to say is that some non-insignificant amount of people are felons who continue to break the law with impunity.
I agree, it’s a conundrum… what do you do with people like that 20 years after the law was implemented? Can’t treat them like criminals… a bunch of them are white, religious and conservative. There must be something else we can do, maybe ignore their crimes completely and pretend that it’s an unworkable law?