This is a queston but I didn’t post it in the GQ section because I’m pretty sure it would turn into a debate and be moved here.
This question is for all of the gun control proponents out there. Assume your wish is granted and our country outlaws the use of guns completely - hunting, collecting, recreation, etc. How do we execute this plan?
Should the feds come marching into every home, car, truck, office, wharehouse, shed, garage, etc. and do a thorough search for every gun? I doubt people would be willing to let that happen.
Should we rely on people to turn them in? It seems those are the folks we needn’t worry about.
Should we wait until a crime is committed, then seize it? Appears we are doing that now.
SO what do we do? It’s easy to spout out rhetoric and pass laws to win votes and make yourself feel better, but if the purpose is to stop crime, then what is the solution?
Hey, we should think happy thoughts and dance the smiley dance and know that the criminals are finally going to pay attention to gun control and turn all their guns in and never bother anyone again!!! I know that all those gun control laws have cut back on criminals…that said, a full gun ban is going to get rid of them once and for all
As a part of the new service economy, you can rest easy knowing I will do my part to help. MikeG’s Gun Elimination Service
Simply send all you guns to me. I will take care of them and ensure they are disposed of in a proper manner.
Plain boxes please!
Don’t bother with serial numbers because you won’t be getting them back either.
Ammo will be accepted as well.
Oblong:This question is for all of the gun control proponents out there. Assume your wish is granted and our country outlaws the use of guns completely - hunting, collecting, recreation, etc.
First off, which “gun control proponents” do you imagine you’re talking to? I’d describe myself as in favor of increased gun control, but never for a minute have I dreamed that it would be either possible or desirable to “outlaw the use of guns completely” even for self-defense, much less for “hunting, collecting, recreation, etc.” If you can find a “gun control proponent” who does indeed advocate such a draconian policy, I’ll be very interested in reading your discussion with him/her on the topic, but you needn’t kid yourself that his/her views represent mine or those of “all of the gun control proponents out there.”
I am a staunch gun advocate. That being said, there are several ways to remove the country from it’s weaponry. The first is in effect as I write this: Take every attempt to sensationalize acts of violence and try to link them to the gun owning, law-abiding citizenry. Since the world will never run out of crazies pent on causing trouble, this approach will work eventually. The majority of people will become jaded to the gun owners who have never committed a crime more than jaywalking or speeding. Laws will easily pass and guns will effectively be banned. The problem is that this method takes time, possibly a generation or two. The “antis” don’t want to wait that long. Segue to method #2:
Pass a law banning all weapons overnight. Give 48 hours for all people to turn them in. Anyone caught with a weapon after that time will be arrested on site and instantly convicted of a class A felony with a minimum of 10 years in the big house. Offer rewards to family members and neighbors for turning in friends and loved ones that refuse to comply. This would effectively ban guns as anyone who possessed one could never hunt with it, target practice, or even clean it without the constant threat of being turned in.
Banning all ammunition and components for making ammo would work also.
These methods have been used in other countries to disarm their citizens with varied success. I say good luck to anyone who attempts a total ban. What is never considered in the equation is that the armed citizenry outnumbers and outguns all members of all police forces and military combined. Do not be fooled into thinking that the majority of the Police or Military would be content to follow orders and attack the very same people that they have sworn to defend.
It isn’t a complete straw man. At least one regular poster, whose name escapes me at the moment, argued with me and several other posters for several days in the Pit recently. He definitely stated that he advocated the banning and destruction of every single firearm. As a general proposition, of course, it doesn’t apply to “gun control proponents,” so to that extent you’re both correct.
Ok, so there’s not that many people supportive of a total ban. That actually makes me feel better.
But I’ve seen plenty of people propose a ban on handguns. How do we execute that?
Or consider banning of any types of guns. As far as I know, the gun that guy in Massachusets used on Tuesday was illegal. That didn’t stop him. What is the point then? What will be accomplished?
I just get tired when something like this happens and someone blurts out “why don’t they get these guns off the street” or “what does he need an AK-47 for”. The answer to that is, he didn’t need one. But he wanted one, he got one, and killed people. What can be done to stop it that is practical. How can we “get guns off the street” when we can’t get drugs off the street.
Like I said, I’m pretty sure AK-47s are illegal. If they are not, then just piss on everything I said and I’ll shut up and get back to work here.
Fair enough, Phil. It seems pretty clear that oblong was tarring all gun control advocates with the same reductionist brush; it was this sentiment toward which my starw man comment was directed.
I am a very strong supporter of our individual and inalienable right to keep and bear arms (NRA member, life member of GOA, etc.).
There is no doubt in my mind that many - if not most - of the socialists / liberals want an all-out ban on gun ownership. Hell, many have told me as much right to my face. We even have Congress people who have supported the idea of a ban on handguns.
They tried incrementalism, but it hasn’t worked very well. (Too slow!) They’ve also tried the “legal” route, only to have it back-fire on them on more than one occasion.
So what is their latest tactic?
I think JJohn is basically correct, in that there would have to be an abrupt ban on all firearms. And I’ve said this before: There is absolutely nothing to stop a left-leaning Congress to pass a law banning all firearms. Nothing. A Bill Clinton-type Prez would certainly sign it, and a Supreme Court full of Ruth Ginsburgs would find it “Constitutional.” Then it would be Good-bye guns, hello tyranny.
Will this happen? I don’t know if an all-out ban will occur in my lifetime, but I believe it will occur sometime in the next 120 years. And when it does happen, it will be Civil War II. (Good; an ban on guns should start a war…)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Oblong *
Like I said, I’m pretty sure AK-47s are illegal.
Oblong, true enough, actual AK-47s are quite illegal and quite rare also. The AK-47 is a select fire rifle used by Communist Bloc countries and is full auto or a “machine gun.” What this sick fellow used was commercial variant of the same rifle that was semi-automatic only. Most likely a MAK-90 or an SA-58 etc. Since neither of those names conjure up scenes from RAMBO or some other movie they are conveniently discarded and changed.
I mention this only because I hate mis-reporting by the media. It only flames the fires on an issue that I take to heart. This guy was carrying illegal guns, all of them. Illegal in that he had neither the permits nor the state of mind to be owning such things. No background check saved these peoples lives, no waiting period stopped MUCKO from buying his guns either. He bought (as all criminals do) his weapons of choice through illegal sources. By doing so he thumbed his nose at all of those who feel that tightening gun control restrictions will actually accomplish something. Here is proof folks, it dont work.
So short of an outright ban and total confiscation, what tighter methods of gun control are previos posters talking about here? Those who do not want ban guns but want to control them more, need to be specific.
Your assertions and opinions are logical and correct. But it doesn’t matter. This latest shooting will certainly prompt a new wave a gun control legislation, facts-be-damned. Why? Because gun control laws make people feel good. It doesn’t matter that gun control actually kills people - it only matters that they feel good.
Hey, Crafter: My eyes are rolling so fast that they’d win an international competition (which would be sponsored, of course, by the United Nations and its shadowy one-world government[sup]TM[/sup]). Thanks.
You gotta love these “They are taking away my right to own automatic weapons…pretty soon they will be coming after my hunting rifles” arguments! Crafter_Man’s scenario gives paranoia a bad name. My imagination boggles at the thought of a Congress / President / Supreme Court so liberal that they would want a complete ban on firearms! Geez, give me a break!
Three other comments on Crafter_Man’s diatribe:
(1) You oughta get out and travel a little more. There are countries out there that are not exactly “tyranny” and which have tighter gun restrictions than anything that is ever going to happen in a million years in the U.S. And, how is exactly that your ownership of guns is preventing tyranny at the moment?
(2) Do you have evidence that gun control actually kills people (in net)? Because, I for one, have heard statistics like some study where it was found that a handgun bought for protection was 6 times as likely to be used against a friend or family member than against a thief or what-not. Now, I don’t know how reliable this statistic is…But, I do know for example that in societies that are quite violent in many ways but have strict gun laws (stricter than anything we will ever have), like Britain, murder rates are considerably lower.
(3) Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg now considered the epitome of liberalism in the judiciary?!? Boy, how far this Supreme Court has tilted to the Right! I yearn for the days of Brennan and Marshall!
Gotta go…the black helicopters just flew overhead!
If there had been an armed person on the train when Colin Ferguson did his deed, there would have been fewer dead people (not counting Colin).
Common sense and gun control are contradictory.
That’s something the pro choice crowd has in common with gun control opponents. But that’s a different argument.
“Bad guys” don’t care what the law says. Making new laws doesn’t stop them. Those people who would listen to the law are the ones we don’t have to worry about.
Which scenario would be more effective in stopping crime and murder?
A: “I better not shoot this person with a gun because it is illegal and I might go to jail”
B: “I better not shoot at this person because he may have a gun too and might shoot back”
Here in Michigan we had the tragic case where a 6 year old shot another 6 year old in school. Right away all the liberals were crying about trigger locks and gun control. The kid got the gun from his home that served as a crack house. I guess we can expect a crack dealer to obey trigger lock gun laws. Yep, that would have stopped it.
Gun Control proponents never answer the question of what practical uses do gun laws serve? Those people we need to worry about are the ones who don’t pay attention to the law. If your purpose is to make yourself feel better and for politicians to claim they did something about crime, then congratulations.
I still haven’t heard anyone cite any statistics which demonstrate the level of political support, either as a percentage of the American people or a percentage of members of Congress, for banning or confiscation of guns.
I mean, how many Americans identify themselves as “socialist/liberal”.
The issue, as usual, is what people do and what they think they mean by doing it. Twenty years ago I think we’d have in this thread “You can’t take away my assault rifle.” For the “gun-control proponents” that don’t think ALL guns will get banned: you’re fooling yourself.
As for “who calls themselves liberal/socialist” no one does, of course, because they’d hate to tell the truth.
Gun control, like many things, is a pretty cut and dry issue. Regulation leads to ban. You raise one generation under a regulation with propaganda skewed to more regulation, and within another generation that propaganda becomes law. No one notices it happening (unless you are affected by the ban, of course). And those of us who are affected are deemed paranoid. Yeah, that’s it. :rolleyes:
Every time more gun regulations are enacted in this country we move one more step away from the America that was founded. What more is there to say?
Hey Crafter_Man, while I’m considered by my friends and myself to be pretty liberal, I’m also a strong supporter of a private-citizen’s-right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I’m not alone, there’s a organization called “Democrats for the 2nd Amendment” with plenty more like me. Still, sometimes I feel like pro-choice Republicans must feel - the party’s position has been taken over or pushed to an extreme by a vocal minority of fanatics. Frankly, I don’t understand how this particular issue ended up split between Democrats and Republicans the way it has. Democrats traditionally support far stronger individual intrepretations of the Bill of Rights (free press, free speech, limits on police powers, strong 9th amendment) than do Republicans. So how they end up reversed on the 2nd, interpreting it as a state’s-right thing, is beyond me.
And BTW, Liberal is NOT synonymous with Socialist anymore than Conservative is equivalent to Fascist.
Before we continue, can we be honest with one another in here?
We are not talking about banning ALL firearms, we are talking about banning private ownership of firearms. The issue is not whether or not we would be safer without any guns, but whether or not we would be safer if only the government had guns. Nobody thinks the police or the military should disarm. The equation is not about if guns are good or bad, but rather it is about who should hold the power, individuals or the government. Who should make decisions, individuals or the government.
Yes it is:)
I see you are not familair with firearms. You should educate yourself on a particular topic before you debate it.
China.
Laos.
Germany.
Russia.
Rawanda.
I think Amnesty International has the number of people murdered by their gov’t last century somewhere around 100 million.
While I will not pursue the fantasy that gun control always equals genocide, I will say that every genocide has been preceded by disarmament of the masses. This goes back way before firearms. Even the Romans put slaves to death if they carried weapons.
We can all pretend that genocide and oppression are far fetched fantasies and strawmen in this debate, but the ugly fact about human nature is that we take a lot longer than 100 years to evolve, and the last hundred were fairly brutal. SXXT…Rawand was only a couple of years ago and close to a million people were butchered there.
Please show me some evidence that the nature of man has changed and I will be happy to discuss disarming.
