Banning handguns, specifically, is kind of pointless. A couple minutes with a hacksaw turns a long gun into a handgun.
The Obrez.
The Lupara.
Why don’t just go ahead and let the so-called “gun-banners” post their own ideas instead of you doing your mind-reading act, o.k.? Petty preemptive strikes don’t contribute much, in my opinion.
Can a large percentage of rifles sold today be converted in such a manner?
Sure. Basically anything that is manually operated, like a bolt or lever or single shot is easily cut down. Autoloaders aren’t quite so easy.
We’re responding to that exact thing, see BobLibDem’s post #56.
What kind of clothing could hide this type of weapon? Typical summer clothing? Jean jacket? Could you effectively hide it in your pants?
That can be restricted too. Here in France it’s perfectly legal to own a 12 gauge with barrel length so and so, but sawing through the barrel is an infraction, as is being nabbed with a sawed-off.
That would depend on the size of the gun you started with, how much you cut it down, and what clothing you are wearing.
It’s the same here. My point is that thinking that banning handguns will somehow cause small weapons to vanish is just wishful thinking.
Well, I know for certain you have a handgun secreted in the shed behind your house. Can’t wait for my check!!
By that rationale let’s stop hassling murderers, hoping that somehow murders will stop. It doesn’t work !!
Has anyone as of yet said that their plan would cause small weapons to just vanish?
Here is the Serbu Super Shorty. It is an extreme example of what can be done. In this case, starting with a Mossberg or Remington pump action shotgun exactly like they sell at Wally World. Those are not notably compact weapons.
If the intent is not to make them vanish, why are we talking about a ban?
If the intent isn’t to make crime just vanish, why do we have laws?
Vastly reducing the number of something isn’t as good as removing it entirely, but it’s still good to do. If you assume that the reduction is a good thing.
Haha, this is like that old saying:
“Give a criminal a meal and he eats once, give a criminal a gun and he eats…”
Wait, that isn’t how it goes?
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.
Once you have enough votes to amend the US Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment, getting people to voluntarily surrender their firearms isn’t going to be that outrageous.
Those who don’t turn in their guns promptly would have their guns confiscated gradually as law enforcement came upon them. A few violent resisters would put themselves in “suicide by cop” situations.
Probably a handful of “mountain men” would hole up in the boonies, daring the feds to come after them and make them martyrs like Randy Weaver. Unless they’re actively reselling guns to violent criminals, some localities might wink at it for a while; while others would make a point of exterminating them. I think either course of action is understandable.
Now, confiscating personal firearms in the present climate, against the will of the people? Yeah, that’s harder. First you need an army of conquerors who are more loyal to the new order than to the prejudices of the people. I don’t see one around.
I’m not saying a handgun ban is doomed, but it has to follow a sort of missionary effort to reeducate people away from seeing firearms as security and toward seeing them as an undesirable vector of escalation in criminal violence. This has already been done at least once before in much of the USA. But it’s a long game.
I’m very proud that I have never touched a gun in my life and don’t intend to. So I don’t know about the technical stuff. We’d have to regulate the bullet supply of course. These details can be worked out over time. I’m not even proposing starting in this century, it’s going to take that long for the demographics and attitudes to change to permit any of my ideas to see fruition.
Seriously, why is something like that a source of pride to you?