# Handgun ban...how would you do it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316 "2012-11-27T22:19:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/161 "2012-11-29T16:59:43Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I presume it has to do with the ease of concealment. Batman massacres and presidential assassinations aside, most not-so-petty crimes involve handguns (or sawed-off shottys) over duffel bags filled to the brim with AR-15s. > The reason being, people tend to notice people walking around with rifles slung over their shoulders. You might even say the police has an uncanny knack for singling them out of a crowd 😛 It’s going to be interesting when law abiding gunowners switch to open carrying long guns, which is legal in many states. I wonder what type would be the most common? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/162 "2012-11-29T17:02:30Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Maybe the trouble is that it shines a light on the fact that your position is absurd? > > If weapons can be restricted, then the question is where the line is drawn, not if the line can be drawn. There it is again. If weapons can be restricted? When did we agree to that? I refuse to begin the discussion with nukes because there are none in private hands. There never have been any in private hands, The majority of nations do not even possess them. You start with this absurdity and then want to segue into “well, since we agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to own a nuke, then that sets the precedent for you not being allowed to own a handgun because a weapon is a weapon.” No. I refuse to take part in another debate featuring that greasy, disingenuous argument. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/163 "2012-11-29T17:05:10Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > It’s going to be interesting when law abiding gunowners switch to open carrying long guns, which is legal in many states. I wonder what type would be the most common? Y’know, it might actually lead to less crime if a person’s personal defense was out for all to see. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/164 "2012-11-29T17:06:23Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > There it is again. If weapons can be restricted? When did we agree to that? I refuse to begin the discussion with nukes because there are none in private hands. There never have been any in private hands, The majority of nations do not even possess them. You start with this absurdity and then want to segue into “well, since we agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to own a nuke, then that sets the precedent for you not being allowed to own a handgun because a weapon is a weapon.” No. I refuse to take part in another debate featuring that greasy, disingenuous argument. So you’re okay with debate as long as your position isn’t made to look silly? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/165 "2012-11-29T17:07:24Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > It’s going to be interesting when law abiding gunowners switch to open carrying long guns, which is legal in many states. I wonder what type would be the most common? I would think that open carry isn’t the problem, concealment is. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/166 "2012-11-29T17:08:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Y’know, it might actually lead to less crime if a person’s personal defense was out for all to see. I agree. If this situation should come to pass, though, would you not expect a reaction from the gun manufacturers siimilar to what the did with pistols during the Assault Weapons ban? Pistols got smaller and lighter while still using full-powered ammo. I would expect long guns to be improved in similar ways to make them more convenient to carry on a daily basis. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/167 "2012-11-29T17:10:41Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > I agree. If this situation should come to pass, though, would you not expect a reaction from the gun manufacturers siimilar to what the did with pistols during the Assault Weapons ban? Pistols got smaller and lighter while still using full-powered ammo. I would expect long guns to be improved in similar ways to make them more convenient to carry on a daily basis. Probably true. If handguns were banned via fiat, then I’d assume that there would be requirements for minimum length and operation, but within those limits they would be made as ergonomic as possible. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/168 "2012-11-29T18:02:29Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Because if you are going to debate something, it helps if you have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject you are debating. If nothing else, you aren’t constantly being dinged on the fundamentals and basic aspects, and you sound more credible in a debate. I agree with you, in principle. However, we are not debating the merits of barrel length, or the technical details about bullet stopping power. We are debating whether or not an objectively dangerous object should be regulated and restricted. In that discussion, all I need to know is one thing: is it dangerous? And then I can debate on how much of it should be allowed with or without restrictions. If this was about any other dangerous object, a knife, cars, exploding cigars, I wouldn’t need to know how they work in order to feel that the rest of us should have some protections against them > [@XT](#): > > At any rate, again, let’s stick to the topic if you would. I know you’ve made some good posts that ARE on topic, so just ask that we all stay focused here. Algher has made a good on topic post that has some interesting ideas, but no one has followed up and instead we are talking about tangential things. K > [@Scumpup](#): > > I didn’t address any of that because, until you brought it up, nobody had mentioned any of those things. The only irrational pride under discussion was at having never touched a gun. FTR, I agree that pride in nationality, race, or other things over which you had no control is silly. I did bring up the pride on nationality, race, etc. specifically but my point was pride in general, and that was brought up by **BobLibDem**. I simply responded that I see nothing wrong that he was proud of that. Anyways, lets take XT’s suggestion and talk about some of the interesting ideas. I’ve already given my point of view on how I would ban handguns, I can respond to Algher’s ideas since you feel they merit discussion > [@Algher](#): > > My proposal that I don’t support at all: > > 1. Outlaw the manufacturing and import of all handguns. Handgun definition would need to be done by somebody who actually understands firearms (probably a combination of barrel length and overall size I would guess). Agree with both. Politics aside, if we’re sticking to the letter of the topic and just trying to ban handguns, we need a definition of them, and to make sure nobody here can manufacture them > [@Algher](#): > > 1. Outlaw the manufacturing and import of all standard handgun caliber ammunition. This will impact a lot of rifles that use the same ammo, but that is an unfortunate side effect. Agree. Err on the side of caution and all that jazz > [@Algher](#): > > 1. Outlaw ownership within 1 year of of #1, with a legit buyout on all existing firearms. This will be costly, since you will get some beautiful weapons and some $50 pieces of junk. The one year window is to allow people to sell / ship out of country. I would push for something more immediate, though it may be less realistic. As for shipping things out of country, I believe US law has some regulation that says you can be held accountable if you break US laws even if you’re not within US jurisdiction. The example I’ve always heard used was that you cannot escape US anti-pedophilia laws even if you go somewhere where that’s ok. This ban should extend not simply to US jurisdiction, but US citizens. I wouldn’t want people shipping guns out of the country for storage, I think US citizens should not be allowed to own handguns period, wherever they are. I can acknowledge that there are other parts of the world where its probably more needed, but I’ll leave those prosecutions up to local law enforcement because I don’t want a loophole > [@Algher](#): > > 1. Mere possession becomes a huge fine (5x the buyout rate). Use is 10x the fine (hits people who hide one for self-defense). Use in crime is a 25 year sentence minimum. Fine and jail time, not just fine ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/169 "2012-11-29T18:15:06Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > There it is again. If weapons can be restricted? \*\*When did we agree to that? \*\* I refuse to begin the discussion with nukes because there are none in private hands. There never have been any in private hands, The majority of nations do not even possess them. You start with this absurdity and then want to segue into “well, since we agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to own a nuke, then that sets the precedent for you not being allowed to own a handgun because a weapon is a weapon.” No. I refuse to take part in another debate featuring that greasy, disingenuous argument. You agreed to it. Either as a debate tactic or a serious belief, but you said we should restrict nukes. It might be silly to you, but **Lobohan** is trying to get to the heart of the matter which is what, if any, restrictions should be on weapons. Joke or not, you’ve agreed that there should so it follows then that the next step of the debate is simply where the line is drawn and why, not whether there should be a line in the first place And if you want to take that back, by all means do so, but then we’ll ask again: do you think nukes should have no restrictions at all? Sometimes using an absurd hypothetical is the easiest way to get to the heart of a situation ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/170 "2012-11-29T18:29:51Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > What in the name of Aïsha do guns have to do with meditation ? Is it the exam for level 5 black belt of Zen, “Can you keep focusing on inner peace while under suppressive fire, grasshopper ?”, that sort of thing ? > > (Bonus questions: since when is meditation fun ? And wouldn’t that defeat the purpose ? Discuss. You have 4h.) Do you shoot? I personally find shooting to be very helpful in meditation, as I don’t shoot well unless I block everything else out but the target, sight picture, and what my body is feeling. Be fully immersed in the activity, IOW, which sounds a whole lot like Zen to me. I don’t see target shooting with firearms as that different than [Kyudo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABd%C5%8D). Kyudo isn’t Zen, although one can find elements of both in each other. For shooting and archery, there are a specific series of movements, done in a precise order, so that one can hit the target repeatedly in the same spot. I too wouldn’t call meditation, “fun”, but I would call it a desirable activity. Read that way, I don’t find **Academented** ’s post inconsistent. As far as the OP, IMHO you could do it, provided you allocated sufficient resources. But, as many of you have already stated, it would require such an Orwellian intrusion into privacy, as well as Draconian penalties for handgun possession, that you’d make the U.S. unrecognizable to this middle-aged American. I do not think Americans would acquiesce anywhere near as readily (nor as peacefully) as, e.g., Australians did to their ‘assault weapons’ ban, post Port Arthur. The idea that criminals will go along with a handgun ban is, well, an interesting one. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/171 "2012-11-29T18:40:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > There’s no such thing as “handgun ammo”. Of course there is. 9mm ; .45 ; .357 ; .38 ; .50 ; .40… in fact, Wikipedia only lists [4 types of cartridges](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dual-purpose_handgun/rifle_cartridges) as specifically “dual-purpose handgun/rifle”. Do (some) long guns and (a great many) sub-machine guns also fire these rounds, or can be modified to fire them ? Sure. Hell, you could even categorize any of them as “zip gun ammo” if you really wanted to be a derailing dillhole. Still sucks to be them when the cartridge calibres that are _overwhelmingly_ used to feed pistols get restricted, limited, registered, serial numbered or what the hell ever because lawmakers ain’t give a shit about splitting your semantic hairs. [QUOTE=PatriotGrrrl] It’s going to be interesting when law abiding gunowners switch to open carrying long guns, which is legal in many states. I wonder what type would be the most common? [/QUOTE] I’d presume that’s the point where criminals start openly carrying long runs too. Then the point where long guns get restricted, since the point of restricting handguns in the first place ostensibly would have been to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If the wheat deliberately sets out to make it easy for the chaff to pass for wheat just to be contrary or assert its pointless, dumbass wheat rights, the milliner starts getting cranky. That metaphor is so strained, it could file for a workman’s comp. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/172 "2012-11-29T18:50:04Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Of course there is. 9mm ; .45 ; .357 ; .38 ; .50 ; .40… in fact, Wikipedia only lists [4 types of cartridges](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dual-purpose_handgun/rifle_cartridges) as specifically “dual-purpose handgun/rifle”… Your wiki article is woefully short. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/173 "2012-11-29T18:51:25Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Do you shoot? I personally find shooting to be very helpful in meditation, as I don’t shoot well unless I block everything else out but the target, sight picture, and what my body is feeling. Be fully immersed in the activity, IOW, which sounds a whole lot like Zen to me. I don’t see target shooting with firearms as that different than [Kyudo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABd%C5%8D). Kyudo isn’t Zen, although one can find elements of both in each other. For shooting and archery, there are a specific series of movements, done in a precise order, so that one can hit the target repeatedly in the same spot. > I too wouldn’t call meditation, “fun”, but I would call it a desirable activity. Read that way, I don’t find **Academented** ’s post inconsistent. I get what you mean but that’s not what I would call meditation, just deep concentration. The point of True Zen meditation (as I understand it - I’m no practitioner myself) is to [del]wear a kilt[/del] not focus on anything, nor feel anything, nor think of anything at all. Up to and including a pink elephant, which is really tough if you ask me. IOW, to be absolutely empty and one with the void and…something zazen something wisdom something something enlightenment. And such. Which sort of precludes having emotions about it or while doing it. Anyway, it was just a dumb corny joke on my part 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/174 "2012-11-29T19:47:41Z")
> [@XT](#): > > \This debate is all about banning handguns, and the realities and logistics of doing so. That’s the premise here, though feel free to describe things in your own terms of how it would happen. Thanks in advance. 🙂 It’s been an interesting discussion and I’ve followed it from the OP (above). I ask a ‘point of information’ here, since the debate appears to be conflating two very different futures. It strikes me that there are two mutually exclusive scenarios with dramatically different ways of playing out. One possible instance is, may I call it perhaps the “evolutionary ban” in which, over some period of time, the legal impediment of 2nd Amendment is nullified by a constitutional modification, making an outright ban legally feasible. The other possibility is the “immediate ban” wherein some omnipotent power (aliens! OMG!) :)) simply casts aside the 2nd and institutes an immediate ban. In the former, resistance to surrendering weapons should not be a major factor, given the population’s acceptance of a constitutional change having already been accomplished. So this scenario probably just involves practicalities like incentives for surrender, and a speculative timeline for acquisition of all the handguns already in circulation. In the later case though, resistance would likely be a much more problematic factor. Present attitudes to gun ownership would continue, despite whatever _deus ex machina_ takes the 2nd out of the picture. Surely this scenario plays out very differently from the first. OP, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask the participants in this thread to explain which of these hypotheticals (or neither!) they are using in their arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/175 "2012-11-29T20:03:42Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If weapons can be restricted, then the question is where the line is drawn, not if the line can be drawn. Yes, but not in the way you probably meant. If weapons can be restricted, what’s to stop the government from restricting them to “none”? I mean, if the whole point of government is to force people to do or not do things against their will, then what’s the deal with this “liberty” talk anyway? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/176 "2012-11-29T20:17:56Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > It’s been an interesting discussion and I’ve followed it from the OP (above). I ask a ‘point of information’ here, since the debate appears to be conflating two very different futures. > > It strikes me that there are two mutually exclusive scenarios with dramatically different ways of playing out. One possible instance is, may I call it perhaps the “evolutionary ban” in which, over some period of time, the legal impediment of 2nd Amendment is nullified by a constitutional modification, making an outright ban legally feasible. The other possibility is the “immediate ban” wherein some omnipotent power (aliens! OMG!) :)) simply casts aside the 2nd and institutes an immediate ban. > > In the former, resistance to surrendering weapons should not be a major factor, given the population’s acceptance of a constitutional change having already been accomplished. So this scenario probably just involves practicalities like incentives for surrender, and a speculative timeline for acquisition of all the handguns already in circulation. In the later case though, resistance would likely be a much more problematic factor. Present attitudes to gun ownership would continue, despite whatever _deus ex machina_ takes the 2nd out of the picture. Surely this scenario plays out very differently from the first. > > OP, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask the participants in this thread to explain which of these hypotheticals (or neither!) they are using in their arguments. Good points. I think the argument being made over whether or not Nukes can be banned is a complete hijack. But even in the evolutionary ban, I can see this (unlikely but possible, and I think just about the only possible way to get this ban in America) occurring due to a wave of public reaction to some horrible massacre/mass killing. However, after the ban (just like with Prohibition), people may well rethink things. And even if 60% of the public demands a BAN, RIGHT NOW! That doesn’t mean some 30% or so isn’t deeply resistant to a ban, which would cause significant resistance to surrendering all weapons. ---
**Author:** ![ed\_anger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bbce88/32.png) [@ed\_anger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ed_anger)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/177 "2012-11-29T20:20:04Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > We’re talking about the USA, right? This is still a democratic republic. If you want to do it without some sort of coup, you have to try change the law by the democratic process. > > I think I have to concede that to do it, you have to repudiate the Second Amendment; and by extension, you would be seen as repudiating by implication the Bill of Rights and the Framers. That’s hard in the present climate. Banning handguns does not equal banning all firearms. There’s absolutely no reason you have to revoke the Second Amendment, many jurisdictions already have strict handgun controls. Expanding this to the rest of the country would require a lot of political capital for a Federal level ban, and a sympathetic Supreme Court. I’ll agree that this is a good way to go about it: > [@Max\_Torque](#): > > I posted this in a thread back in 2002; I still think it’s the most realistic scenario. > > * * * > > First thing to do is to increase the cost of gun ownership. I reckon the best place to begin with this is at the source. Start passing a series of technical laws that require gunmakers to change their gun designs, perform extensive safety tests, install new features, what have you. The manufacturers will pass on the cost to the consumer. Before long, only the very wealthy will be able to afford guns. > > Next, target the sellers. Impose restrictions on storage, store size, zoning/location of business, hours of operation, and minimum levels of store security. Basically, make owning a gun store so expensive and troublesome that no one will want to do it. Of course, all these rules will be done in the name of “safety”. > > Having practically eliminated commercial sales, the next step is to restrict private sales. It’s really hard to go after person-to-person sales, so instead, go after gun shows. First, bump up the space rental fees for any organization hosting a gun show. Better yet, require them to purchase a license. Increase the fees annually. Require that all purchasers at the show go through a criminal background check. If you can’t afford the equipment to do the check, even if you intend only the one gun you’ve ever owned, sorry, you can’t. Of course, there should be police to oversee all this, and I reckon the promoters should pay for that too, don’t you? > > And you know, those gun ranges are a nuisance. There’s noise, there’s the problem of lead in the air and ground…they should pay some heavy usage fees, property taxes, and EPA cleanup penalties, don’t ya think? > > So now we’re at a stage where guns are very expensive, very hard to get, and very hard to shoot. Passing a tax on ammunition should be easy by this point; you could almost call it a “sin tax”, like taxing cigarettes or alcohol. And since no one but the very rich can afford guns, most people won’t care. Keep jacking that tax up, every year. > > Now that no one has guns anyway, and no one can afford to shoot, we might as well repeal the CCW license law; there weren’t many renewals anyway, after the fees started doubling every couple years. > > By now, the only guns that are out there are getting pretty old, probably starting to break. Time to crack down on the parts-makers and gunsmiths. It’s a precision job, and boy, you know how dangerous guns are, so for safety’s sake we’d better impose some minimum education requirements and a licensing system for anyone who repairs or makes parts for guns. That should take care of 'em. > > Wow, almost no one has guns now. And those that do are the cultural elite, the people with loads of cash to throw around. They’re the only ones with guns?! Well, that’s just a nightmare! The aristocracy has an armed advantage! We’d better keep track of them! Registration! And the gunless majority will support it. > > Now, when the ban is passed in another decade, you know which doors to knock on to pick up the last guns. > > This is how I see it happening. The first step is to make owning a gun so expensive and such a hassle that people will throw up their hands and give up. From there, the rest is easy. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/178 "2012-11-29T20:23:49Z")
If you coupled any handgun restrictions with deep discounts on and next-to-free training with rifles, it might go over easier. A substitution instead of a subtraction. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/179 "2012-11-29T21:03:47Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > OP, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask the participants in this thread to explain which of these hypotheticals (or neither!) they are using in their arguments. For me personally, its a combination of the two. An immediate ban, but supported by the majority. Someone in another topic once proposed that the most likely way the American public would accept a serious ban on guns is if there was a widespread coup attempt against the US government that lead to a government crackdown. I sort of base my hypotheticals on that, though not specifically. In mine, the US public, in general, accepts a handgun ban that happens immediately ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2012, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316/180 "2012-11-30T00:18:15Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > It’s been an interesting discussion and I’ve followed it from the OP (above). I ask a ‘point of information’ here, since the debate appears to be conflating two very different futures. > > It strikes me that there are two mutually exclusive scenarios with dramatically different ways of playing out. One possible instance is, may I call it perhaps the “evolutionary ban” in which, over some period of time, the legal impediment of 2nd Amendment is nullified by a constitutional modification, making an outright ban legally feasible. The other possibility is the “immediate ban” wherein some omnipotent power (aliens! OMG!) :)) simply casts aside the 2nd and institutes an immediate ban. > > In the former, resistance to surrendering weapons should not be a major factor, given the population’s acceptance of a constitutional change having already been accomplished. So this scenario probably just involves practicalities like incentives for surrender, and a speculative timeline for acquisition of all the handguns already in circulation. In the later case though, resistance would likely be a much more problematic factor. Present attitudes to gun ownership would continue, despite whatever _deus ex machina_ takes the 2nd out of the picture. Surely this scenario plays out very differently from the first. > > OP, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask the participants in this thread to explain which of these hypotheticals (or neither!) they are using in their arguments. Nope, don’t mind at all…have at it. I’m still following along, but for several reasons I’m not posting as much in this thread right now (or in many other threads either). If you can get them to explain their arguments, more power too you! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handgun-ban-how-would-you-do-it/642316.md?page=10)