I don’t think it’s realistic. Not just politically, but physically. How could it be done? Why would it be any easier than confiscating/buying/melting all illegal drugs in America?
Let’s assume the 250 million guns is a reasonable number. How do we get rid of them?
1- Stop the number from going higher. Put a ban on the sale, manufacture, or importation of guns. The number of people with the equipment and expertise to make their own guns out of raw materials is rather small. There will be some smuggling. But to draw a rough parallel, the flow of weapons would go from Niagara Falls proportions to fire hose proportions.
2- Money talks. How much is a handgun worth? Suppose the government offered $1000 for each handgun brought in for melting down. Would it get rid of every gun? No, but it might make a rather large dent in the numbers. Best case, maybe we’d spend $250 billion. More likely we’d see half of that. How to get rid of the rest?
3- Offer a $10,000 bounty for turning in gun owners who refused to turn their hanguns in. Now what to do with the gun owners?
4- Ten year prison terms for handgun possession.
Weapons like those used in the CT murders would be eligible for higher purchase offers, higher bounties, and longer prison terms.
A perfect plan? No. But decidedly more effective than lying prostrate at the altar of the NRA.
This one is physically possible, and politically not possible at this time.
Interesting idea- I think it would make a dent (physically). It’s probably not politically possible at this time. It would also leave hunting weapons, which I don’t think it will ever be politically possible to restrict in America.
I don’t really like this- turning people against each other. A bounty for turning people in just for having guns might cause a lot more violence than it would stop. Obviously not politically possible at this time.
I also want the NRA’s influence to wane- it’s an excellent example of the “all causes and movements eventually devolve into rackets” principle- the NRA seems to exist for no other reason than to fund itself and feed millions of dollars to Wayne LaPierre and company.
Right now, it is unlawful for convicted felons to possess firearms. California, for example, mandates the following:
from here. The other states have similar laws. An important question is “how often in our overburdened court system and bulging prison system does any of that ever actually happen?”
Several times in these gun threads lately you’ve stepped up to the plate with all sorts of quaint ideas about bounties and draconian punishments with never even a hint of an idea how any of it is to be funded and put into practice. Today, though, is going to be different, I’m sure; so how do you propose funding all this and housing all your new prisoners?
Guns are harder to make, harder to hide, aren’t addictive, and are harmless if kept hidden. If some gun nut hides his weapons then that’s almost as good as melting them down; if some guy uses drugs while hidden then prohibition has failed. The two aren’t really equivalent.
I don’t think guns are harder to hide (they don’t rot or physically degrade except in the very long term; they require far less protection against the elements). But I think they’re equivalent in the sense that a gun ban without draconian elements (lots of searches and siezures, random stops, profiling, etc) would not be any more effective at stemming gun crime then drug bans without draconian elements.
That’s not terribly difficult. Levy a dedicated tax for this purpose and sell bonds for prison construction. Between the prison construction jobs and the prison employees and the guys who take the place of the imprisoned gun owners on the job, the unemployment rate will drop and increase the tax base.
A “dedicated tax” on what?
Income. Or a national sales tax. Doesn’t matter.
The Constitution can be amended.
They are also solid objects, not powder or liquid. Metal is also easier to detect.
Your plan would be workable, except you left out a key step: Establish authoritarian government.
In theory, yes. In the real world, the Second Amendment is not in any danger of being repealed, and any idiots that make a serious push to do so will be voted out of office.
The individual “right” to buy guns only exists because of the 5-4 Heller decision. With no imminent danger of a Republican administration for decades, the right wingers on the Supreme Court will retire or die off and be replaced by Democratic appointees. Then Heller can get the overturning that it so richly deserves and gun nuts can stop pretending that it says what it doesn’t.
And most of the handguns used by criminals in Canada are obtained by smuggling from the US. If not for the proliferation of handguns south of the border, we’d have a much easier time controlling handguns.
Incidentally, there are about 80 guns/100 people in the US and about 30 guns/100 people in Canada. A significant difference but not a huge one.
Only a tiny, tiny minority ever talks about “banning” all guns. The issue is controlling the guns that are in society, using reasonable means. Certain types of guns really have no business being owned by anyone other than law enforcement or a very small number of specialty collectors. IMO, guns whose sole purpose is killing large numbers of people in a short time belong to the military who know how to use them.
That being said, the US is “special” in the sense of how it came to be. Canada was formed peacefully by diplomats who wanted peace, order and good government. The US was formed in a violent revolution. This essential difference continues to reverberate down to today.
The solution? There isn’t one. Learn to live with an increasing number of mentally ill people with free and easy access to military grade weapons. Learn to live with random slaughters in your schools, malls and workplaces. Barricade yourselves behind metal detectors. Give more guns to regular people “for protection” - guns that will be used for suicides, murder of family members or for accidental shootings by 5 year olds.
Eventually you’ll all just become numb to it all.
And drug-sniffing dogs make it easier to detect drugs. This isn’t a particularly important point (whether guns or drugs are easier to hide), so I don’t think there’s much point to dragging this out.
I’m not an advocate of a gun ban as such.
What I do think is that the “well regulated militia” provision of the 2nd Am isn’t being implemented correctly.
Basically, I think every gun owner/purchaser should be required to possess a special police officer’s license. SPO’s are armed security guards with arrest powers (but usually only in the place where they are employed). Depending on the jurisdiction, they undergo 40 to 100 hours of training, pass a background check, written exam, physical, psych eval, and qualify on the gun range.
http://www.siriusintel.com/trainingeducation/dcspo.html
SPO’s have to recertify periodically, and they can lose their certifications if they are found in violation of the rules. Their names and other identifying information are in a database, of course. Overly intrusive? No. Well regulated, yes.
This is basically the same way that we regulate operators of heavy vehicles, through commercial drivers’ licenses. You can’t just walk in off the street and (legally) drive a semi-truck or a school bus. Everyone recognizes that it would be way to fucking dangerous to allow untrained, unexamined, unidentified people to operate heavy vehicles on the road. Not a controversial regulation at all.
Basically, anyone who’s over 21 and not a felon or mentally ill can own a gun, but they have to work for it, prove to the society as a whole that they’re responsible, rational, and disciplined enough to complete a simple training course.
No. It does not.
[QUOTE=2nd Amendment]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[/quote]
This has been interpreted to mean that you have the right to own guns, but that’s not exactly what it says.
Let’s compare this to the First Amendment.
[QUOTE=1st Amendment]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
[/quote]
I have an absolute right to free speech. An absolute right to free press. No law, NO LAW PERIOD END OF STORY, can abridge that right of mine.
Except that it can. Because case after case from the Supreme Court has carved out exceptions to this “no law” hardline. There are times when there’s a substantial governmental or public interest in limiting speech or press, even though it says right there in black and yellow that they can’t do it.
And I accept it.
So I ask, Oakminster, why exactly can’t we discuss limiting access to specific guns again? Please explain to me why the Second Amendment is crystal in its clarity and absolute in its interpretation while the First Amendment has a natural built-in wiggle room.
I’m all ears.
You can discuss any stupid idea you like. What you can’t do is ban guns.
Good discussion. Thanks.
I’d really caution you against using absolutes, because I think you’ll be in for disappointment.