Handgun ban...how would you do it?

[Kobal2]

@Icarus

That would not work, everyone would go into the manufacture of of cheap handguns 24/7. Make gun for $5, turn in to government for $1000 - PROFIT!

Tax the rat farms.
I mean the weapon manufacturing tools (but kudos if you got the reference).

Anyway, for a superbly original answer on the how of banning guns - do it like every other country did that was flooded with guns (see: Europe, 1918). Set a deadline after which any unlicensed firearm found on or around one’s person equals beaucoup jail time ; tell people they can go and dump their guns for subsequent destruction at their local fire stations and police stations and army bases in exchange for a token check. Or a tax rebate. Or a Big Gulp.
I don’t see why what has worked fine everywhere else wouldn’t work in the US.

[XT]

I appreciate all the responses so far. I’m mostly going to keep out of the discussion for a variety of reasons, the top most being I want to learn and read the responses. They have been fascinating so far. Just to reiterate, I’m looking for hard nosed practical speculation, not pie in the sky. You have to think in terms of political realities as well as cultural ones of US citizens.

A final thought on making the guns illegal and having harsh fines and such. Think in terms of something between the current war on drugs and Prohibition…how willing would US citizens (we are talking about the majority of citizens) be to do something illegal yet obviously something they want to do. What percentage of the population IS willing to do something illegal such as use illegal drugs or illegal alcohol (when Prohibition was in effect)? Also, considering the scale of things, how effective are the police going to be in pursuing citizens who won’t give up their handguns? How WILLING will they be (i.e. how many will look the other way, or be sympathetic towards a citizen who decides to keep a gun)? My thought here is that in most cases, I don’t think citizens would have to hide their guns under porches or take extreme measures to camouflage their weapons…I mean, I know people who live in DC who actually have guns, and that’s one of the strictest gun control cities I know of. They aren’t worried about the police raiding their apartments or condos and searching for guns. And we’d be talking about the entire country here.

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks again for the comments…please keep them coming in. Also, feel free to expand the discussion to all guns…I know a few people have mentioned that, so knock yourselves out. All I ask is to try and keep it real, and let’s try not to get anyone banned over this, ok?

[Der_Trihs]

@Kobal2

I don’t see why what has worked fine everywhere else wouldn’t work in the US.

American exceptionalism - of the “America is uniquely incompetent” variety. Just like we “can’t” implement UHC while pretty much every other non-failed-state has.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Let the market do the work: a buyback program, coupled with criminal penalties.

[YogSothoth]

Other than Prohibition, I don’t know of any other situation in which an item/service/behavior was completely banned, and it lead to an increase of that item/service/behavior.

Reasonable people can agree that there will never be 100% compliance of any ban, because its simply too hard to do. But to get close to it, or simply to move towards its elimination without completely succeeding, is not a failure.

If handguns are banned, and of course the first thing to do would be to outlaw it in every jurisdiction, with no exceptions except to law-enforcement officers (I’d limit it to police and military), it would decrease the number of guns, period. There’s no reason that it would lead to an explosion of handguns if suddenly overnight it’s a lot more difficult to get them. I think that’s a logical conclusion to assume.

I wouldn’t worry about illegal trafficking. Sure, I’d toughen up whatever measures we have in place, but I expect we’ll always miss some coming over the border, and that’s ok, because ultimately by making it harder to get guns and jailing the people who do it leads to a better result than openly allowing it.

I don’t expect or hope that the hundreds of millions of handguns out there will simply be turned in, but if one cannot use it openly for defense anymore, then a hidden gun is almost as good as no gun at all. Right now, most people don’t fear their guns being confiscated. They use it for personal or home defense, for hunting and shooting, etc. But if it became the law overnight that you cannot use it for these things, people aren’t suddenly going to pretend like the law doesn’t exist and use it for defense. They’ll be more careful about using it knowing that if a criminal is shot in the course of a robbery or something, the police is going to arrest the homeowner as well as the robber for gun possession.

I also don’t think this can be done immediately, it must be done incrementally. Including the massive PR campaign, the government should emphasize in schools as early as possible how guns aren’t part of your natural rights and that its not a big deal if you don’t have it. Just as civil rights, women’s rights, or gay marriage wasn’t won overnight, we’ll need more of a generational shift.

Incremental incursions are also preferable. Basically, make the nightmare of the NRA come true by banning parts of guns here and there, slowly, then moving on to more restrictions.

I really don’t see why practicality enters into the equation at all though. I get that it is the belief, and probably rightly so, that people here in the US love their guns so much and have a pretty visceral reaction to being disarmed that it would be difficult to get rid of handguns, but if we’re discussing how a law could be implemented, then that sort of concern isn’t something that needs to be addressed. The issue, I think, is how it would work. Not if you think it could work. If one is just going to assume that through some kind of popular uprising gun rights will always be preserved by the people, I could simply counter and say that the government would just send the military after people who won’t comply if the police isn’t up to the task

And please, no accusations of authoritarian fascist BS by that last remark. Its perfectly fine to use the military to help out law enforcement if regular law enforcement can’t do the job. Lets stick to the debate here, k?

[Kobal2]

@Ethilrist

I think there might be a problem with that… gang bangers probably don’t use their guns enough to wear them out in any reasonable time frame

If my extensive field experience in the American urban criminal mindset (read: I watched The Wire a couple of times) can be trusted, gang bangers don’t really hang on to guns that have been used in crimes. They dump them ASAP.
I think we can rule that glocks sitting on the bottom of the Potomac or down storm drains may be filed in the “destroyed” column.

@Der Trihs

It’s not at all “obvious” that is so, especially if a reward is being offered.

I think that can’t be emphasized enough. Above all else, the #1 criminal motivation is easy money. Doesn’t get much easier than a government check just for showing up. Hell, they would even steal all the guns in the neighbourhood (including their own buddies’ if they thought they could get away with it) just to turn them at the station !

[Bryan_Ekers]

It’d probably be easier to ban hands.

[YogSothoth]

@XT

A final thought on making the guns illegal and having harsh fines and such. Think in terms of something between the current war on drugs and Prohibition…how willing would US citizens (we are talking about the majority of citizens) be to do something illegal yet obviously something they want to do. What percentage of the population IS willing to do something illegal such as use illegal drugs or illegal alcohol (when Prohibition was in effect)? Also, considering the scale of things, how effective are the police going to be in pursuing citizens who won’t give up their handguns? How WILLING will they be (i.e. how many will look the other way, or be sympathetic towards a citizen who decides to keep a gun)? My thought here is that in most cases, I don’t think citizens would have to hide their guns under porches or take extreme measures to camouflage their weapons…I mean, I know people who live in DC who actually have guns, and that’s one of the strictest gun control cities I know of. They aren’t worried about the police raiding their apartments or condos and searching for guns. And we’d be talking about the entire country here.

I think your error is assuming that there will be widespread significant opposition, to the point where police and/or military are mutinying to a degree that threatens the stability of government. That’s your belief, and by posing that, you know that there is no concrete way of arguing against you. So I’ll simply say that that scenario won’t happen, that opposition to the law will be vehement but containable, and police and military won’t refuse to enforce the law to some wide degree. We’re both right, and we’re both wrong, and since there’s no way to know for sure, I propose we drop such fanciful scenarios in which the population rises up to support our side

The police and military will enforce the law. They will confiscate and go after guns where they can and dwindle the supply down to a manageable number. Like Der Trihs said, people can hide and bury their guns, and that’s almost as good as confiscating them because then they won’t be using it to shoot anyone

[TriPolar]

@Little_Nemo

Even if the Second Amendment were reversed (I don’t think just a repeal would cover it) I wouldn’t favor a general prohibition of handguns or other firearms. I’d look for about the same level of scrutiny we give driving licenses. My general principle would be that you’d be allowed to own a firearm unless there was some specific reason for that privilege to be denied or revoked.

Yes. Reasonable regulation makes sense.

[colonial]

@Der_Trihs

It’s not at all “obvious” that is so, especially if a reward is being offered.

Oh, I think it’s pretty damn obvious.

And of course, the black-market price of a gun will certainly wind up being able to outbid
the government.

@Der_Trihs

That’s impossible. As long as the general public has handguns, criminals will have all they want by simply stealing them.

“Concentrate on keeping them out of criminal hands” does not mean the same thing
as “It is possible to keep all criminals from obtaining guns.” It only suggests we can
do a better job of it if we avoid creating a new class of criminal numbering in the 10s
of millions in one fell swoop with some idiotic buy-back law.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Assuming that the Second Amendment has been repealed, I would obey whatever laws were passed. That is, after all, what is required of a law-abiding citizen. Implementation is easy-simply pass the law banning handguns. Enforcement? Not my problem. In a few years, when the law doesn’t work, I would expect more such laws until such time as firearms are universally illegal, with negligible effect for the first decade and modest effect for the first 30 years, though the situation will never be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction.

[YogSothoth]

@colonial

“Concentrate on keeping them out of criminal hands” does not mean the same thing
as “It is possible to keep all criminals from obtaining guns.” It only suggests we can
do a better job of it if we avoid creating a new class of criminal numbering in the 10s
of millions in one fell swoop with some idiotic buy-back law.

Isn’t this the same thing as the pro-gun people saying that if you ban guns, only criminals will have it? The exact logic applies here: if pro-gun people can say banning is not going to do anything against the tide of illegal guns, then Der Trihs can apply that same logic to say that as long as you allow guns for law-abiding citizens, criminals will steal it from them

[XT]

[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
I think your error is assuming that there will be widespread significant opposition, to the point where police and/or military are mutinying to a degree that threatens the stability of government. That’s your belief, and by posing that, you know that there is no concrete way of arguing against you. So I’ll simply say that that scenario won’t happen, that opposition to the law will be vehement but containable, and police and military won’t refuse to enforce the law to some wide degree. We’re both right, and we’re both wrong, and since there’s no way to know for sure, I propose we drop such fanciful scenarios in which the population rises up to support our side
[/QUOTE]

I think that there would be significant opposition is a given, unless there is some sort of fundamental shift in attitudes by the majority of Americans. I’m not suggesting that the military and/or police would mutiny or threaten the stability of the government (that could happen, but wasn’t what I was getting at)…merely not enforce the laws with any great fervor. Let me give you a quick example…I know many police officers. I know many who would look the other way if they saw someone smoking a joint, because they feel their time is better spent in more serious pursuits. If you waved the smoking joint under their nose, especially in public, they would certainly arrest you…or at least roust you. However, they aren’t going to go out of their way to hunt down every person with a baggy of weed in their pocket. That’s the attitude I’m getting at here.

My own take on this, FWIW, is that it would be impossible in the current political climate to enact a meaningful ban on even a subset of any given ‘firearms’ category (i.e. even trying to ban completely certain TYPES of handguns across the board in the US would be impossible, let alone all handguns in the US). Trying to put heavy fines or even criminal sentences on the possession of a handgun would certainly have some results, but I think less results than criminalizing illegal drugs has had…i.e. people still do it, despite the risks and the fact that it’s illegal. And I think in the case of handguns, you would see a larger percentage of the population being willing to do something they know is illegal, because for one thing they know that the scale is too much to seriously enforce (you simply can’t lock up millions of otherwise law abiding citizens…and even fines would be overwhelming to enforce in a meaningful way. Make them too harsh and you will get a huge backlash…make them too easy and folks will simply take the chance and pay the fine if they are caught…sort of like the speeding laws).

The police and military will enforce the law. They will confiscate and go after guns where they can and dwindle the supply down to a manageable number. Like Der Trihs said, people can hide and bury their guns, and that’s almost as good as confiscating them because then they won’t be using it to shoot anyone

I actually agree with Der Trihs on most of his post (well, the less over the top parts of it), but I don’t believe people would need to do this. Yes, the police and military would enforce the laws…but there aren’t enough cops, even if they spent every waking second for every cop out there, to enforce this law. It would be on par with Prohibition and much, MUCH worse than the war on drugs from an enforcement standpoint. They would make examples of some, sensationalize some cases…and mostly turn the other way, or even collaborate in similar ways to how the police collaborated with the moonshiners and rum runners.

I don’t believe that the numbers of weapons would decrease in any sort of meaningful way…at least not very rapidly. There are more guns in the US than there are citizens, and I don’t see most gun owners giving up all or even most of their guns. Some wouldn’t give up any at all. Even if you had the police doing as good a job as they do about illegal drugs coming into the US, you are talking about a few percentage points…out of hundreds of millions, and millions of people.

[Lobohan]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Assuming that the Second Amendment has been repealed, I would obey whatever laws were passed. That is, after all, what is required of a law-abiding citizen. Implementation is easy-simply pass the law banning handguns. Enforcement? Not my problem. In a few years, when the law doesn’t work, I would expect more such laws until such time as firearms are universally illegal, with negligible effect for the first decade and modest effect for the first 30 years, though the situation will never be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction.

I’ve asked this a couple times, and I’m honestly not sure. Why would outlawing handguns in particular be against the second amendment? We’ve already decided that some kinds of firearms are strictly limited (fully automatic, I’m thinking of). If smaller concealable handguns were banned, it would still allow rifles and shotguns, wouldn’t that satisfy the second amendment?

[Chronos]

How much does a pawn shop typically pay for a gun? People are clearly willing to part with a gun for that amount of money. If you prohibit the pawn shops from buying, but instead have the government paying the same amount to take it for destruction, then down-on-their-luck people will just go to the government gun office instead of to the pawn shop.

[Lobohan]

@XT

I think that there would be significant opposition is a given, unless there is some sort of fundamental shift in attitudes by the majority of Americans. I’m not suggesting that the military and/or police would mutiny or threaten the stability of the government (that could happen, but wasn’t what I was getting at)…merely not enforce the laws with any great fervor. Let me give you a quick example…I know many police officers. I know many who would look the other way if they saw someone smoking a joint, because they feel their time is better spent in more serious pursuits. If you waved the smoking joint under their nose, especially in public, they would certainly arrest you…or at least roust you. However, they aren’t going to go out of their way to hunt down every person with a baggy of weed in their pocket. That’s the attitude I’m getting at here.

My own take on this, FWIW, is that it would be impossible in the current political climate to enact a meaningful ban on even a subset of any given ‘firearms’ category (i.e. even trying to ban completely certain TYPES of handguns across the board in the US would be impossible, let alone all handguns in the US). Trying to put heavy fines or even criminal sentences on the possession of a handgun would certainly have some results, but I think less results than criminalizing illegal drugs has had…i.e. people still do it, despite the risks and the fact that it’s illegal. And I think in the case of handguns, you would see a larger percentage of the population being willing to do something they know is illegal, because for one thing they know that the scale is too much to seriously enforce (you simply can’t lock up millions of otherwise law abiding citizens…and even fines would be overwhelming to enforce in a meaningful way. Make them too harsh and you will get a huge backlash…make them too easy and folks will simply take the chance and pay the fine if they are caught…sort of like the speeding laws).

I actually agree with Der Trihs on most of his post (well, the less over the top parts of it), but I don’t believe people would need to do this. Yes, the police and military would enforce the laws…but there aren’t enough cops, even if they spent every waking second for every cop out there, to enforce this law. It would be on par with Prohibition and much, MUCH worse than the war on drugs from an enforcement standpoint. They would make examples of some, sensationalize some cases…and mostly turn the other way, or even collaborate in similar ways to how the police collaborated with the moonshiners and rum runners.

I don’t believe that the numbers of weapons would decrease in any sort of meaningful way…at least not very rapidly. There are more guns in the US than there are citizens, and I don’t see most gun owners giving up all or even most of their guns. Some wouldn’t give up any at all. Even if you had the police doing as good a job as they do about illegal drugs coming into the US, you are talking about a few percentage points…out of hundreds of millions, and millions of people.

One difference between this and prohibition is that you can enjoy booze in the comfort of your home. Are you suggesting illicit speakeasy handgun ranges would form up?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Lobohan

I’ve asked this a couple times, and I’m honestly not sure. Why would outlawing handguns in particular be against the second amendment? We’ve already decided that some kinds of firearms are strictly limited (fully automatic, I’m thinking of). If smaller concealable handguns were banned, it would still allow rifles and shotguns, wouldn’t that satisfy the second amendment?

The big reason is that the Supreme Court specifically referred to handguns as a protected class of firearms in their gun decisions. Also, restrictions are not bans, automatic weapons are not banned. In fact, no class of firearm is banned. Last, handguns, like any other weapons, are limited in size. You can only make them so small, you have to be able to manipulate and hold them, right? As a practical matter, they cannot get any smaller than they are right now, and the smallest ones are manufactured right here in the US since foreign weapons wouldn’t get enough import points. The domestic manufacturers have a good bit of pull, and so a ban would never even get off the ground.

[Ethilrist]

@Lobohan

I’ve asked this a couple times, and I’m honestly not sure. Why would outlawing handguns in particular be against the second amendment? We’ve already decided that some kinds of firearms are strictly limited (fully automatic, I’m thinking of). If smaller concealable handguns were banned, it would still allow rifles and shotguns, wouldn’t that satisfy the second amendment?

INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

How does outlawing any kind of “arms” not count as infringing peoples’ rights to own them? The 2nd amendment exists specifically to KEEP the government from telling people they can’t buy (certain kinds of) guns.

[Lobohan]

@Ethilrist

INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

How does outlawing any kind of “arms” not count as infringing peoples’ rights to own them? The 2nd amendment exists specifically to KEEP the government from telling people they can’t buy (certain kinds of) guns.

Okay, so why can fully automatic weapons be banned? If banning any type of arm is infringement, why can’t I have artillery?

[Lobohan]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

The big reason is that the Supreme Court specifically referred to handguns as a protected class of firearms in their gun decisions. Also, restrictions are not bans, automatic weapons are not banned. In fact, no class of firearm is banned. Last, handguns, like any other weapons, are limited in size. You can only make them so small, you have to be able to manipulate and hold them, right? As a practical matter, they cannot get any smaller than they are right now, and the smallest ones are manufactured right here in the US since foreign weapons wouldn’t get enough import points. The domestic manufacturers have a good bit of pull, and so a ban would never even get off the ground.

I don’t doubt that it wouldn’t happen, and as I said, I wouldn’t support such a ban, but I was particularly curious why limiting a type of gun wouldn’t be allowed constitutionally.

Also, I didn’t see your post when I responded to the above.