Going around taking peoples guns or making it illegal to own them is never going to happen, it is also not necessary. Making it A LOT harder for people to obtain new guns is the only solution, it will just take a very long time to fix the problem.
For me, just as the only way the laws would be changed is if there was a huge shift in the public opinion about the ownership of guns, the only way to get the guns away from the populace is if they wanted to give them up. I could see something like the Australian solution getting semi-automatic rifles, shotguns & pistols turned in… in another two or three generations.
Highly implausible. It’s much more likely that people would rant and rave - and then hand over the guns. And if they really tried to play Rambo they’d be crushed like bugs; in the real world the idea of guys with rifles fighting off a modern military just doesn’t work.
Nor is it necessary to go straight for such a blanket ban. For example, the previously mentioned idea of a fine on gun ownership would work; or just call it a tax. Make their hobby expensive enough and most people will give it up regardless of whether or not it’s technically made illegal.
And once the gun manufacturers lose most of their income the political machine they are propping up will rapidly die, as well as the artificial “gun culture” they’ve created. I give it a generation or so before most people regard the idea of owning a gun as something weird that their ancestors did.
As for the Constitution, it’s effectively implied by the hypothesis in the OP that either the Second Amendment has been repealed, or the Supreme Court has changed its mind on how to interpret it again.
I’m not sure how well this would work in America, but amnesties are usually one avenue that seems to garner results.
Finally, someone mentions the Constitution.
Yes, I agree, if you eliminate all guns, then there will be no gun violence. If you drastically reduce guns, then gun violence will decrease.
And, if someone is charging at you in vicious anger and with malicious intent, and waving a large knife and a baseball bat, I’d rather have a gun to protect me than a knife and bat.
Besides the background checks, mandatory 3-page essay. If it includes anything remotely biblical, the applicant receives a slingshot. (Hey! Worked for David, right?) If the essay includes anything like, oh, “must stop the Muslim in the White House from selling our country to China”, then the applicant is flat out denied.
The license is good for one year.
At the end of one year, the applicant starts over from scratch. Background checks, mandatory 3-page essay, and examination of the gun the applicant bought the previous year.
Excessive? Maybe, but that $35 application fee collected from all accepted and denied can pay for a hell of a lot of gunshot wounds in healthcare.
Goliath had only his armor and a javelin. The sling can “reach out and touch someone,” so to speak. So can a gun.
In a society where guns are trivial to obtain, that person is not going to be charging at you with a knife or a bat.
Here’s a list of concrete legislative changes that could be made:
- Ban production and sales of handguns and ammunition
- When someone commits crime, automatically confiscate and destroy all handguns in that persons possession (including running a red light, you get stopped by the cops with a gun in the car, gun goes bye bye)
- Create a national “buy back” program where people can hand in their guns in exchange for cash
That might solve the problem over time without having to resort to raiding peoples homes or invading anybody’s privacy.
I’d suspect that black market production (or recycling) of ammunition might be a problem, but that would be just another police issue.
The data might not support your assertion.
You think? This source indicates that quite a lot of people are killed with weapons other than guns. Knives and blunt objects are used more often than long guns which are the easiest type of gun to obtain.
Your 2nd 3rd and 4th statements I pretty much agree with.
Your 1st statement however, I’m not certain is true. There are examples from around the world of very similar, if not the same thing, happening. The experience of the USSR in Afghanistan comes to mind. In my neck of the woods, there are plenty of folks who would take violent and deadly exception to any government agent trying to take away their guns in the situation as posted and implied in the OP.
Some of these folks are tools and would indeed be crushed in the course of their resistance, others would NOT be and I think, would be able to resist for quite some time. My thinking is that, successful or not, at some point, there would be armed resistance (some will call it civil war or rebellion) and it would cost this nation dearly if not destroy it outright.
The more I think about this, the more I wonder if the US is approaching the divide between the Western and Eastern Empire, both philosophically and politically.
An ex-colleague posted an interesting graph on Facebook: under Reagan there were apparently 11 mass shootings, 12 under Bush the elder, 23 under Clinton, 16 under Bush the younger, and 162 under Obama so far. I find that difficult to believe, but is it true? Is it a reaction to a regime in favour of gun control?
Interesting. It seems true, IMO, but it’d be good to get the facts.
Bolding mine. And assuming this is true …
Or is it a reaction by some marginal personalities to a raging paranoia campaign professionally created and managed by the NRA and certain hard-right factions?
Assuming again the numbers are true … Over Obama’s ~7 years we’ve had ~150 “extra” shootings over the historical norm. That’s ~20 per year. It’s not hard to believe that given 300 million Americans an aggressive nationwide propaganda campaign could shake 20 nutbags annually out of that much woodwork.
Assuming all your assumptions are true, then what?
I think a good first step is to make gun owners liable. I grew up in the country around guns. The cornerstone that just about every gun owner agrees with is that “you are responsible for your piece”, “always assume the gun is loaded”, “never shoot at anything if you don’t know what is behind it”, etc.
The broad strokes (and let’s not nit pick away please) are:
- firearm liability insurance is mandatory. It’s akin to private automobile insurance.
- firearms are registered to an owner, who is then responsible for that piece until there is a clear transfer of ownership. In other words, you loan it to your cousin and it’s used illegally by your cousin (or your cousin’s “friend”), then you have criminal and/or civil liablity. If you transfer registration then of course the new owner is the one that is liable. Of course there will be exceptions like some perp threatens your family unless you hand over the glock, and then that perp goes and shoots up the mall before you report it to the police or some such scenario.
- No one tells you how to secure your piece in your home. However, you are criminally and/or civilly liable if there is a gun accident in your home. Or if there is a young child tragedy. Or if your piece is just lying next to the bedroom and it’s stolen, you have some kind of liability as you didn’t properly prevent it from being stolen. Again, not here to dictate what is safe or how to store it in your home, but no free pass if tragedy happens. I think that’s a fair deal. You’re confident the piece is “secured” (however you define it) and if it’s not then it’s on you.
IMHO the above is a pretty American solution. You own a piece, you are responsible. Full stop.
The argument made by the OP’s friend doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny. He says that stricter laws wouldn’t do anything… so why not have the stricter laws? If half the country thinks a law will do absolutely nothing, and the other half thinks it’ll have a beneficial effect, then we should pass that law. Maybe the side that says it’ll do nothing should ask for something else in compromise, but what’s the harm?
Back in the land of reality, gun manufacturers are still in business, despite how many guns we already have. Apparently there’s some non-negligible fraction of the population for whom the existing supply is not adequate. If new guns were not available, it’d be at the least harder for those people to get a gun, and at least some of them who would own a gun would end up not owning a gun. And at least some of those people who would find themselves not getting a gun would be criminals.
Why? If someone’s charging me with a baseball bat, and I have a bat too, I have at least some chance of blocking. How the heck am I going to defend myself with a gun? All I can do with the gun is shoot the guy, but that’s not going to stop him from whacking me over the head.
People using clubs, spears, swords, and such typically fare badly against people armed with guns. If you shot at him and he still hit you with the bat, I’m going to suggest you didn’t use your gun correctly. Did you maneuver in order to keep space between you and your opponent or did you just stand there like a knob? Did you hold the gun in both hands, aim for his COM, and press the trigger or did you just stick the gun out there and keep yanking the trigger til it quit making loud noises? If you hit him with your first shot, did you keep shooting him until he stopped pressing his attack, or did you wait for him to fall down like people in movies do when they get shot? Did you remember that the gun is not your only weapon after you (apparently) burned through your ammo without ending the incident?
Sounds reasonable to me.