I’m sure we’ve all been hearing various ideas for moving the needle on gun control in the US. Obviously the population is extremely divided on this so it won’t be easy. We’ve all heard silly schemes like making ammo prohibitively expensive. Make gun owners carry insurance for gun, etc, etc. And, of course, as always, there’s talk of what works elsewhere, though one can hardly believe those would work in America.
I think Biden has missed an opportunity to act quickly, while feelings are running high. I think he should have stepped forward, been frothing angry like that coach, then announce a buy back scheme, $100, for every AK47 turned in.
“Let’s take the weapons intended to kill people OUT of the hands of citizens with no need to kill people and put them into the hands of people who DO! That’s right, your weapon could help bring freedom to Ukraine. Take that weapon and give it a noble cause, TODAY!”
That’s the kind of thing that could maybe go viral, and BOOM! A big bunch of murder weapons off the street!
I kinda like it!
Just exactly how many actual AK-47s do you think are in the United States? For that matter, the entire Kalashnikov family? Similarly patterned semi-automatics sure, but getting rid of those is just another exercise in getting rid of scary-looking semi-automatic rifles.
I suppose we could go after these guns that are just killing people all on their own. Or maybe we could take a hard look at why Americans are so antisocial and maybe correct some of the problems that make us want to kill one another. That would be my nutty solution. You know, make the USA not such a hellscape in the first place.
Ban the manufacture and import of all semi-automatic center fire weapons that don’t meet the Curio & Relic standards. This caps the number of these weapons in circulation.
Offer a $3000 tax credit for every qualifying weapon turned in to Federal authorities.
Then, a few years later, prohibit the sale and/or transfer of said weapons outside immediate family.
Eventually you’ll be able to reduce the number of weapons available in the country.
A hundred dollars!!! For a $2 or $3000 gun that nobody knows I own, because there is no data base that tracks who owns what. It is in fact against the law for the government to keep such a list. There is not even a reliable number for how many guns are in private hands in the US, the 300 million number that is often quoted is at least 30 years of sales out of date. There are no reliable numbers for guns sales either, but we do have FBI NICS background check numbers. These are the background checks that are done at the point of sale for federal firearms dealers. 10 million so far this year through April. 38 million for last year.
This would just encourage people to sell these guns on the open market for whatever the market will bear, which will be considerably more than the govenment will offer anyone.
The US government just sent $40 billion dollars to Ukrane, it woulld take two or three times that much just to buy back all the evil looking black guns, erroniously refered to as assault rifles, leaving many times that number of semi-automatic rifles that don’t look scary still out there. And all the semi-auto pistols, the scoped hunting rifles, (soon to be called sniper rifles probably), and the shotguns.
There are just way to many guns to ever buy back in the US, more every day with probably a boost in sales coming up. And there is little support for such an idea.
Once again, “perfect” stands in the way of any progress at all. At this point, I don’t care about any of those scenarios, any more than I care about one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eaters from Arcturus landing and eating babies. Nor do I need my solution to apply to the myriad improvised weapons people have been killing each other with since Cain bashed Abel with a rock. We are going for machines that are designed for one purpose only, and that is to kill many people as rapidly as possible.
Sure, but a buyback isn’t an effective measure unless it complements other measures. I don’t want my tax dollars financing a buyback that gun owners just treat as government subsidy for an upgrade to their arsenal. An amnesty buyback of all unregistered weapons accompanying legislation requiring strict background checks and strict registration procedures, sure.
I agree. Which is why I specified a tax credit as opposed to cash. I also support intense background checks, mandatory registration and secure storage requirements and very flexible “red flag” laws as well.
Gun buybacks are pointless exercises in political posturing which serve to pay out public money for old junk, non-functional relics that somebody found in a deceased relative’s basement, and weapons used in crimes which can now be disposed of through anonymous surrender which breaks the line of provenance making it essentially useless as evidence. If you wanted a gun control measure that has no practical impact upon crimes committed with firearms while costing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars but gives you a big table of collected guns to pose next to in a photo op, gun buybacks are your go-to ‘low hanging fruit’ that is actually just rotted garbage.
As for the specific scheme of the OP, AK-47 (and Kalashnikov pattern rifles in general) are rarely used in crimes; similarly, while AR-15 pattern rifles have been used in numerous mass shooting events, they are not the primary firearm used in most crimes because they are large (even with a compact ‘arm brace’ stock and short barrel) and difficult to carry. Most weapons used in crimes are cheap semiautomatic pistols that are either stolen or purchased through ‘legitimate’ buyers who resell on the private market and illegal interstate transactions.
If you actually wanted to do something about crimes committed with firearms the real targets should be:
Restrictions on sales or unsupervised possession by minors with strong penalties for violation
Vigorously prosecute the small number of FFL holders who are responsible for trafficking weapons used in crime
A thorough background check including a mental health evaluation, requirement for basic gun safety and marksmanship training, annual requalification
Require that weapons are stored in a gun safe at home or else off-site in an approved facility.
Have specific restrictions regarding the presence of both firearms and ammunition together (loaded or in immediate proximity without one being in a secure container); essentially only at gun ranges, hunting areas, and exigent circumstances in the home for legitimate self-defense
Concealed carry should be limited to people who have fulfilled both actual tactical and legal training akin to that required for law enforcement (i.e. the subset of POST requirements regarding firearm use and self-defense)
Would this stop all crimes with firearms? Certainly not; as long as there are firearms in society and as long as there are criminals there will always be firearm-related crime. But it would reduce the ready availability of firearms by people who are just casually interested in owning a gun because it is ‘sexy’ or to be like characters in movies and video games, and by younger people who are not cognitively capable of grasping the consequences of using a gun. It will allow people who want to possess guns for legitimate recreational, conservation and varmitting, and defensive use to do so without undue restriction while creating a clear framework for enforcement of firearm-related crime. And all of this is still way less restrictive than pretty much any other modern developed nation while still being more effective than gun buybacks and other dog & pony projects made for political showboating.
The reality is that none of this will happen because buy-back schemes are at least tolerated by the NRA and other ‘gun rights activist’ organizations (and probably even favored by manufacturers because they get rid of old firearms in favor of new, not that this booming industry needs much in the way of promotion or motivation) whereas anything that makes purchasing a firearm or ammunition in any way is a hard pass for them even as public opinion turns against firearms ownership. As a long time gun owner and (former) pistol instructor I think gun owners and the industry as a whole should be demonstrating the responsibility by ensuring that firearms are only used for legitimate purposes and accessible to trained, responsible people to the extent practicable. The reality is that there are some very vocal gun owners who are encouraged by the NRA and firearms industry lobby to argue against any restrictions whatsoever regardless of how bad this affects public opinion about gun ownership.
Of course, none of this addresses the larger problems of mental health and bullying, the paramilitarization of society and the rise of white nationalism/superiority that is behind a number of recent shootings and attempted insurrection, unrestrained violence by police who are not held accountable for their actions, et cetera. Gun advocates often transition into advocates for mental health treatment following a public mass shooting event and then curiously pivot away once the actual issue of publicly-funded mental health support comes into the legislature, which is a particular bit of hypocrisy that should be vigorously highlighted.
You know what I’m “just curious” about? The last time someone committed a mass shooting with a 2 inch J-frame .38 Spl, or killed 15 people with a pump action shotgun, or attempted a monumental feat of sharpshooting by sniping at people from the “top of a building” with a bolt-action .22 LR. Perhaps you’ll enlighten me.
I give some credit that the comment was one step up from suggesting that in the absence of guns these determined mass killers would achieve the same results by crashing a car into a building and leaping out armed with a sharpened pencil.
@pkbites : I have a sincere, and – IMHO – reasonably appropriate question, if you’ll answer it.
ISTR that you own a firearms store. Would you be willing to say what % of your gross annual income you derive from that store ownership ?
Also, do you believe that there are any ‘gun control’ proposals that have been generally put forward with a substantial measure of support (ie, not a total ban with confiscation) that would increase your profits from owning a gun store ?
Or is nearly any probable/likely gun regulation highly likely to adversely affect your income ?
IOW … I’m interested in a disclosure of the extent of your financial interest in this issue.