I don’t see that as a realistic possibility, unless the lead up to this was measured in decades. I doubt all the gun manufacturers in all the world (I get a figure of 11 million or so manufactured a year, but I didn’t really search hard) could retool to meet several hundred million weapons demand in anything less than that time frame. As to buy back…leaving aside the comical logistics of just trying to gather that scale of weapons up on anything less than, again, a decade or so time frame by LEO or even the federal, state and local governments, at anything like fair market value you are talking 10’s or even 100’s of billions of dollars. Yeah, the US is rich and we could absorb that especially over time, but it’s a lot of money to be shelling out. I’m not sure who else would trade for them, if they are all going to be illegal or whatever, so it would have to be the government buying them up.
Well, I never said any of this is possible. My thinking is that nothing can be done to improve anything and it’s just a matter of time before some dickwad shoots me. And a bunch of kids get to die too, of course, though that probably doesn’t matter either.
This may be by long-standing precedent the effective truth, but it’s still in contradiction to how we originally set ourselves up as a country. The very concept of a privileged government elite was anathema to the values Americans held at the founding. If that egalitarian principle is abandoned, and Robert Peel’s Principle #7 no longer applies-
- then we have something less than a civil police force and more like the semi-military gendarmerie of Europe.
America is already acclimatized to a police force that vacillates between semi-military and full-on military. The horse you’re discussing has already left the barn, galloped to the factory, and been made into glue.
That said, if we magically poofed all civilian firearms out of existence I’d be fine with beat cops going unarmed as well, at least on a firearm front. Armed swat teams would still be necessary for extreme situations.
The English have some situation where neither the criminals nor the police carry firearms. The USA obviously does not. I wonder how much that shapes attitudes about firearms.
I would really rather have the semi-military gendarmerie of Europe than the scattered, disorganized, fragmented and inconsistent system of police in the United States. The police should be more like the military, not in the sense of using the same equipment and tactics but in the sense of being more organized and having standards enforced from the top down.
All the individual police officers I know are great people, but the overall police system in America is horrible, for a country that considers itself so great and so modern. Canada’s model would be far better.
Which from my libertarian-leaning viewpoint is damned sad. Like someone born in Soviet controlled eastern Europe saying “Oh yeah, all that ‘freedom’ stuff Grandpa keeps going on about”.
I’m not talking about Eastern Europe, I’m talking about Western Europe. The police in the UK and France WORKS PROPERLY. The “yellow vest” protests, for instance, have been ongoing for months, the total death toll so far has been 9, and almost all of them were traffic accidents. Imagine a similar sustained civil disobedience going on in America for the same amount of time, especially in the inner cities - the death toll would probably be much 5 times that. Again, I’m not some “fuck the pigs” guy, there are good cops and bad cops just as there are good people and bad people in every occupation. But there’s no standardization of policing in America. It varies so drastically by region, and the proper de-escalation procedures cannot be maintained everywhere, so that people are shot to death constantly when they could in all likelihood be either talked down, or incapacitated with less lethal means, by better trained police. You know, like soldiers in the military.
Which military is this?
You say that like it’s somehow worse. You do realize that the US population is somewhere between four and five TIMES larger than the French population, right? Just by scaling it up, the same ratio of deaths to population would figure out very near to about 5 times what we’d see in France.
I didn’t read the whole thread — it’s all too disheartening and exasperating.
This is today’s Gotcha, hunh? Rigged in advance since anyone will be ignored unless he/she includes a litany making clear he/she understands the differences among different types of .22 caliber bullets.
Binary gotchas are so much fun! Just recently we learned we either have to melt the glaciers or return to the caves! Some choice, hunh?
If you think bakers should be forced at gunpoint to sell cakes to homosexuals, what about being forced at gunpoint to sell cakes to Islamist terrorists. Hunh? (Of course, Islamists toting AR-15s would be OK — the AR-15s prove their American good ol’ boys.)
Robert Peel, hunh? What would he say about “police are responsible for about 8 percent of all adult male homicide deaths in the U.S. each year” … over 1100 fatal police shootings per year, mostly blacks and Latinos? Contrast that statistic with the rhetoric of your words just quoted. Innocent unarmed blacks are shot dead. Blacks who inform a cop they have a gun in glove compartment and a permit are sometimes shot just for having that gun!
Hunh? Hunh?
What’s the threshold for admitting that America’s police do not really behave as civilians?
What’s the threshold for finding Robert Peel quotations uproarious in this context?
ETA: The reason police “need” to shoot unarmed blacks is that they might have a gun. What does this tell you about America’s obsession to possess guns?
It was a simple and honest question. Many people say they’re OK with some types of guns; I was asking what makes the difference and why. And several people have responded with their reasoning.
I presume he would say that American police have miserably failed to follow his guidelines for a non-tyrannical constabulary. Perhaps to some extent because they do see themselves as an elite with greater powers than the mere hoi polloi; which was kind of my point about police being legally distinguished from the general population in what guns they’re allowed.
That’s not the same thing. What I’m getting at is that if you lived in parts of the West in 1870, you were in real danger of being attacked by hostile Native Americans.
And in many cases, you lived in literal wilderness, where the wildlife was all too eager to snack on your livestock. So guns were a vital part of defending your homestead for the settlers of that era.
Contrast this with say… 1870 France, where there had been bounties on wolves for centuries, and there was no such thing as hostile natives showing up and raiding. The need for firearms was much less- maybe a shotgun for controlling nuisance animals and maybe to scare off outsiders is about it, and even then, that wasn’t a necessity I suspect.
So when we move forward into the 1970s-1980s, we have a set of voting-aged people in the whose great-grandparents were adults in that era, and whose grandparents were children in that era. It’s not surprising that their attitudes on guns and the necessity of defending one’s home would be transferred down to them.
Who needs to think about it? Just turn on the news.
I think it’s sad that the american police have become as militarized as they have; I don’t think it’s bad that they’re given special training and held to different standards that justify treating the job title itself as an official license to use specialized equipment that is denied to the average unlicensed person.
As for it being sad that this translates into cops always being loaded for bear, that’s an unfortunate side effect of how pro-gun people are fiercely determined to maintain an environment where it’s trivially easy for a criminal to get a gun, resulting in cops having to arm as well in self-defense.
So, you are saying two magazines that hold 10 shots each is functionally every bit as good as one magazine that holds 20? That a shooter (any shooter) can operate with either equally well and to no discernible difference to the targets being shot at.
And you are also saying a person can carry every bit as much ammo in 10-shot magazines as they can in 20-shot magazines, on their person, with the same ease?
Why no. It’s, oh, say a 2 second difference between the magazine that has 20 shots and changing out clips of 10 shots each. Maybe…3 seconds if you are inept. If you are REALLY inept it might even be 5 seconds.
Sure, a person can carry every bit as much ammo in multiple clips as opposed to a few higher capacity clips. It will just be more bulky, but the weight will be pretty close as the clips, even large clips are not very heavy. Not sure what you are asking me, to be honest…this seems a water is wet series of questions, to be honest. I could link you to a video where the Mythbusters, not exactly gun-slinger types, show that they can reload clips with minimal time (and a really cool fire arms instructor that can do it so fast they have to slow down the speed). I could show you that larger clips also come with more jamming potential, and how easy it is to carry multiple clips, but I’m not sure what you are after here. Is it more convenient to have (1) 20 round clip instead of (2) 10 round clips? Yup…it is. That’s why people like them. Is there some sort of real difference in a mass shooting event between some guy with his 20 round clip verse some guy with 2 ten round clips? Yeah…about 2-5 seconds difference. Which is really no difference at all. It’s a meaningless statute that plays well to the faithful and has the real world effect of making law abiding gun owners lives a tad more miserable while ramping up their paranoia, since it’s such a stupid thing and they have to think…what are the gun regulation people REALLY after??
Covered in Snakes.
That in no way answered the question.
Yet you thought it was worth an OP somehow.
Put it this way - implicit in your OP was the assumption that some level of dangerousness should be acceptable. Well, what it is it and how? It’s your question, what’s your answer (and claiming to be a libertarian isn’t it)?
**Kearsen **ducks it too:
A tool for the purpose of what? The other items you mention can be dangerous but those are incidental, unintended things that we take serious measures to prevent, knowing of those tools’ constructive and useful purposes. Guns are *intended *to be dangerous. That’s the purpose of those “tools”. So how much of that dangerousness should be accepted in order to maintain their alleged constructive and useful purposes?
Your avoidance of the true meaning of “just a tool” is disingenuous beyond the point of absurdity, even if it’s a pretty common claim from the gun side.
So why use large capacity magazines? If they were banned you would not miss them either since the smaller ones do not hinder you at all when it comes to bullet output compared to the bigger ones.
Big magazines are functionally no better than smaller capacity magazines according to you. Yeah…a second here or there but your take is that is of little consequence. Why would anyone even make large capacity magazines that gain the shooter nothing?