Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:01 PM Dec 2012

Confiscate most guns in the country, and how it could be done

All guns must be licensed or would be considered illegal and a felony crime. There would be a grace period where people could voluntarily surrender their guns and get some form of monetary compensation, perhaps a tax break. After the grace period ended, hard-ass strict laws and rules would go into effect. In order to get a gun license, a full background investigation would be undergone and conducted, including a mental evaluation by a medical professional. Any warning signs or shaky background elements would disqualify the person from getting the gun license. And to procure a license would have to be for legitimate reasons such as necessary hunting or being in the military and having a weapon or being in some kind of security service or other kinds of reasons. You couldn't just own a gun "for the hell of it". Violations of having an unlicensed gun would be fully prosecuted and a serious offense.

Don't tell me it couldn't be done, because it could be. We went to the moon for gods sake, we could begin a gun round up and be successful. It would take time, but it would not be an impossible task.

115 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Confiscate most guns in the country, and how it could be done (Original Post) quinnox Dec 2012 OP
Highly improbable ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #1
the gun culture would take time to change but quinnox Dec 2012 #4
You minimize the legal hurdles which are massive ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #10
There would be the added benefit of thousands of angry freepers dying while resisting confiscation librechik Dec 2012 #2
if a few Waco style confrontations/occurances happened, then so be it quinnox Dec 2012 #5
Waco was an incredible tragedy that should not be repeated kdmorris Dec 2012 #15
Waco ending was chosen by David Korash, the starting of fires was at his orders. Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #103
I know that kdmorris Dec 2012 #112
25 children were murdered at Waco. Cool plan. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #17
I'm not endorsing Waco, just being prepared for the reality that some of quinnox Dec 2012 #20
Regrettable? Does that mean acceptable instead of absolutely horrifying? Killing more children? nt rDigital Dec 2012 #26
no, it would be a terrible event but the blame would of course be placed squarely quinnox Dec 2012 #32
You've dug yerself a hole. Saboburns Dec 2012 #63
I think my answers have clarified what I meant and have been reasonable quinnox Dec 2012 #67
not endorsing Waco Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #49
a "gun enthusiast" speaks.... mike_c Dec 2012 #76
Law enforcement gave Koresh 51 days to surrender. Instead, he continued hugging his guns and raping Hoyt Dec 2012 #31
What about the 25 dead kids? No sympathy for them either.... Disgusting. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #33
All you care about is your guns. Be honest. Hoyt Dec 2012 #34
No. rDigital Dec 2012 #35
Refusing to be honest? No surprise. ThatPoetGuy Dec 2012 #39
Pot meet kettle. See above. toodles. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #61
He should never have been able to stockpile those guns in the first place. CTyankee Dec 2012 #45
Good luck. Get to it. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #53
will do. and thanks. CTyankee Dec 2012 #85
Then what Amendment or laws get repealed next? atreides1 Dec 2012 #74
Oh, haven't you heard? There are already some people who want to repeal the Voting CTyankee Dec 2012 #86
Waco was not about guns. musical_soul Dec 2012 #68
OK, so why did Janet Reno go after them? nt rDigital Dec 2012 #70
She wanted to solve the problem....... musical_soul Dec 2012 #80
You think they sent the ATF in for an unstable man? DesMoinesDem Dec 2012 #83
what the fuck????? cali Dec 2012 #29
It wouldn't be "a few." Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #62
Funny joke... haha kdmorris Dec 2012 #23
Perhaps my reading comprehension skills are lacking geek_sabre Dec 2012 #3
with the full force of law and police agencies cracking down quinnox Dec 2012 #6
I love how gun people assume all the gun owners will just turn vicious felons alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #18
I agree quinnox Dec 2012 #25
If you pass the law, most people will comply with it. Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #51
Yes, I'm willing to experiment with it alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #65
The vast majority don't take illegal drugs. jeff47 Dec 2012 #88
I think the fog of anger over this tragedy has clouded a lot of otherwise excellent minds. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #71
Actually, you're not being respectful alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #81
Because guns don't use ammunition jeff47 Dec 2012 #89
At least ammunition AlexSatan Dec 2012 #96
If the vast majority used illegal drugs, you'd have a point jeff47 Dec 2012 #100
The problem is that AlexSatan Dec 2012 #101
Where do those illegally gotten guns come from? jeff47 Dec 2012 #106
Can you support that claim? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #107
Because Washington DC is a state jeff47 Dec 2012 #108
I appreciate the data AlexSatan Dec 2012 #114
" Because those laws allow us to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone." Ghost in the Machine Dec 2012 #110
Because my post said laws were 100% effective in all cases. jeff47 Dec 2012 #111
Because politicians and elected sheriffs and judges in red states hack89 Dec 2012 #43
They weren't going to enforce integration either alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #66
It will never get to that point fortunately hack89 Dec 2012 #75
Great idea! AlexSatan Dec 2012 #95
That worked great with cocaine and marijuana, too (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #99
Ammunition sales. jeff47 Dec 2012 #87
How do you get around the courts? white_wolf Dec 2012 #7
my OP is predicated on the idea of the constituiton question already being decided quinnox Dec 2012 #9
When one starts in fictional territory indeed all things are possible ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #12
I'm not a Doctor Jim, I'm a pool man! nt rDigital Dec 2012 #19
I'm merely speculating and saying it could happen quinnox Dec 2012 #22
The SC has already ruled that the 2A is an individual right NickB79 Dec 2012 #109
Then I guess we'd better start nominating SC justices that are on our side. Change the CTyankee Dec 2012 #48
Now that I can get behind. white_wolf Dec 2012 #56
Remind the courts that "well regulated militia" appears in the 2nd amendment jeff47 Dec 2012 #90
If we quit the war on drugs and Afpak, we could do this Taverner Dec 2012 #8
That would probably work as well as the war on drugs. shraby Dec 2012 #11
One small difference being guns are an enumerated Constitutional right. Common Sense Party Dec 2012 #77
Only issuing licenses to security personnel or subsistance hunters? Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #13
no, it couldn't be done as you lay out. It's just a fantasy. cali Dec 2012 #14
Correct, but this is a women's suffrage type Constitutional project alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #16
If it takes more than one election cycle it won't work. rrneck Dec 2012 #21
Precisely. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #28
NRA propaganda. ThatPoetGuy Dec 2012 #41
Yes, let's not let this propaganda go unchallenged. Onward! CTyankee Dec 2012 #50
Stricter gun control and confiscation are two different things. rrneck Dec 2012 #58
Ah stricter gun control means confiscation of most guns. Glad you have clarified that. dkf Dec 2012 #60
I have firearms that nobody knows about. Throd Dec 2012 #24
You can build your own ARs with unregistered receivers and there is no Federal requirement to ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #27
And you guys tell us gun lovers are "law-abiding and responsible." Apparently, you don't even Hoyt Dec 2012 #36
Nothing I said was illegal in the least nor irresponsible ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #42
That the problem with a lot of gun folks -- Things can be legal, but immoral. Hoyt Dec 2012 #52
Nothing there is immoral either ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #64
No. I think most people realize guns contributed greatly to this tragedy. Hoyt Dec 2012 #73
The clear implication of your words quakerboy Dec 2012 #97
I and others have pointed out the fallacy of collection squads ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #98
You're just one of tens of millions. nt rDigital Dec 2012 #30
Guns no one knows about is not even the beginnnig of the problem. Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #40
Good barrels require specialized tooling to do the rifling ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #44
Then you're part of the problem. baldguy Dec 2012 #46
How? Throd Dec 2012 #84
So you are saying "self defense in my home" would not be a valid reason? Or target shooting? Logical Dec 2012 #37
I have not considered all details quinnox Dec 2012 #38
I think your collection of the current 300 million guns might be harder than you think..... Logical Dec 2012 #47
It would be a tax break for any returned weapons, not cold hard cash quinnox Dec 2012 #55
No way they could take guns and not compensate the owner for fair market value. Logical Dec 2012 #72
Its even worse than that. Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #91
People are not being realistic at this point. How has removing all illegal drugs worked? Logical Dec 2012 #92
Do you really want cops to be the only ones with guns? musical_soul Dec 2012 #54
me either-- take them away from cops, too.... mike_c Dec 2012 #78
So.... musical_soul Dec 2012 #82
with a trudgeon or other non-lethal means.... mike_c Dec 2012 #93
We have a couple rifles which we need when predators are going after our hens. peacebird Dec 2012 #57
that situation would fall under an acceptable gun license quinnox Dec 2012 #59
Because we don't have enough people in prison bluestateguy Dec 2012 #69
Banning drugs has worked out really well Recursion Dec 2012 #79
+1 Carnage251 Dec 2012 #102
I strongly dislike guns, but even more so, the idea that the populace would be unarmed and not the Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #94
All I tend to hear is we want to turn the screws to a level that won't be tolerated TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #105
It can't be done Carnage251 Dec 2012 #104
until the 2nd amendment goes away it cant be done rdking647 Dec 2012 #113
More pragmatic idea: let people keep them Nevernose Dec 2012 #115

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
1. Highly improbable
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:25 PM
Dec 2012

It would start with Constitutional changes and take quite some time to flow down, assuming of course they are not stopped cold in the courts.

Possible...yes, likely...not in several generations.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
4. the gun culture would take time to change but
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:32 PM
Dec 2012

in time, as the severe penalties hit home, and people realized the government wasn't fucking around as hard core gun neighbors went to prison, the culture would start to change and eventually could become a relatively gun free culture as kids were raised in the new environment.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
10. You minimize the legal hurdles which are massive
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:42 PM
Dec 2012

You would have better success with a social stigma approach. My firearms students who are mostly GLBTs have had to deal with stigma issues, but they overcame them in favor of their own personal safety.

librechik

(30,663 posts)
2. There would be the added benefit of thousands of angry freepers dying while resisting confiscation
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:29 PM
Dec 2012

at least that is how they imagine it would happen. Although I guess they wouldn't necessarily think of it as a positive result. That's just me. And of course I'm just kidding.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
5. if a few Waco style confrontations/occurances happened, then so be it
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:34 PM
Dec 2012

it would be high profile and demonstrate the government wasn't kidding about this new policy.

kdmorris

(5,649 posts)
15. Waco was an incredible tragedy that should not be repeated
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:46 PM
Dec 2012

Especially not to make a point. By being OK with the death of thousands of people and a repeat of Waco "a few" times, you sink to their level. Seriously, I thought DU was better than this.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
103. Waco ending was chosen by David Korash, the starting of fires was at his orders.
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:57 PM
Dec 2012

He had a very sick mind and abused those who stayed except the children did not have the opportunity to leave on their own, this is way different.

kdmorris

(5,649 posts)
112. I know that
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:05 AM
Dec 2012

But there is no excuse to be OK with "a few" other David Koresh's choosing the same fate for their children. It is absolutely no different. The children were innocent and it doesn't matter who took their lives or caused their death.

You obviously don't think that it's OK for 21 children to burn to death because their leader was a whack job. So, why did you post this as if it was different? Is that better or different in any way than 20 children dying to gunfire? The death of 20 children is the death of 20 children, who are completely innocent and at the mercy of the adults around them. I take exception to "joking" around about hoping that "a few" more David Koresh's instigate "a few" more Wacos to keep their guns from being confiscated.

I will never be OK with "a few more" Wacos just to prove that the US Govt is serious about gun control. The death of 20 children - NO MATTER WHO CAUSED THEIR DEATHS - is a terrible thing to be OK with.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
20. I'm not endorsing Waco, just being prepared for the reality that some of
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:52 PM
Dec 2012

the militia types would probably force a confrontation like this. Its regrettable, but a likely scenario to happen.

 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
26. Regrettable? Does that mean acceptable instead of absolutely horrifying? Killing more children? nt
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:04 PM
Dec 2012
 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
32. no, it would be a terrible event but the blame would of course be placed squarely
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:07 PM
Dec 2012

on the militia types or crazed paranoid government haters that provoked such a confrontation. I would hope they would at least have the decency to evacuate their kids before doing something like this.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
67. I think my answers have clarified what I meant and have been reasonable
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:51 PM
Dec 2012

I disagree with your comment.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
31. Law enforcement gave Koresh 51 days to surrender. Instead, he continued hugging his guns and raping
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:06 PM
Dec 2012

children. I have no sympathy for him.

But I agree with you that no one should be shot reducing the supply of lethal weapons in our country.

Surely all those so-called "law-abiding, responsible gun owners" that you guys tell us about would give them up voluntarily if that is what society decided is best.

ThatPoetGuy

(1,747 posts)
39. Refusing to be honest? No surprise.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:18 PM
Dec 2012

Please don't exploit children's deaths so soon after you helped cause more children to die.

If it had been harder for Koresh to get guns, then those kids you're trying to exploit wouldn't have died that day.

CTyankee

(63,771 posts)
45. He should never have been able to stockpile those guns in the first place.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:30 PM
Dec 2012

It should have to be too damn hard to do it, with hurdles to overcome every step of the way.

But I think it would be best if we just repeal the 2nd Amendment and join civilized societies around the world.

atreides1

(16,046 posts)
74. Then what Amendment or laws get repealed next?
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:07 PM
Dec 2012

I've been hearing this argument for years now...let's repeal the 2nd Amendment! Wonderful idea, but then someone on the opposite side decides that the Voter Rights Act needs to be amended or maybe repeal the 13th or 14th Amendments...

It's a slippery slope to go down...and once begun it might not be able to be stopped!

CTyankee

(63,771 posts)
86. Oh, haven't you heard? There are already some people who want to repeal the Voting
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:55 PM
Dec 2012

Rights Act.

I dunno about the 13th and 14th amendment. Haven't heard too much movement on repealing them. But I really don't think the the re-enactment of slavery and abolishing the right to vote for some groups have too much support, or at least none that I know of. I do know that there are people for whom the abolition of the 2nd amendment would be a popular idea, particularly here at DU, judging by comments I have been reading of late.

Then there are the families of people who have been slain due to gun violence. Betcha a bunch of those think abolition of the 2nd A would be a good thing.

musical_soul

(775 posts)
68. Waco was not about guns.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:51 PM
Dec 2012

It was a mentally unstable and/or evil man who had messed up followers. Add that to an anxious attorney general, guns really had little to nothing to do with this.

musical_soul

(775 posts)
80. She wanted to solve the problem.......
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:24 PM
Dec 2012

and truth is it looked bad that these religious nuts kept spitting in her face by refusing to surrender.

Please forgive me. I like Clinton, but I think he messed up big time choosing her. I always thought how they handled Waco was wrong.

 

DesMoinesDem

(1,569 posts)
83. You think they sent the ATF in for an unstable man?
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:33 PM
Dec 2012

Think again. The ATF deals with Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Not unstable men and their followers.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
62. It wouldn't be "a few."
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:43 PM
Dec 2012

Please believe me on this point. There would be massive, widespread, violent resistance to forcible confiscation of weapons. The police are not even remotely adequate to this task. It would require the military...and the military would, in very large numbers, refuse such orders. Today's US military has a markedly conservative flavor and the majority of its members would oppose such laws.

I cannot adequately state what a terrible idea this is.

geek_sabre

(731 posts)
3. Perhaps my reading comprehension skills are lacking
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:32 PM
Dec 2012

How, exactly, would you confiscate weapons from the likely 80%+ of gun owners who don't "surrender" their weapons for a pittance?

How can that be done?

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
6. with the full force of law and police agencies cracking down
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:35 PM
Dec 2012

any gun owners could avoid any trouble by complying with the new laws and applying for a gun license.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
18. I love how gun people assume all the gun owners will just turn vicious felons
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:50 PM
Dec 2012

If you pass the law, most people will comply with it. Those who don't can be prosecuted.

The passage of laws does indeed incentivize behavior.

 

Trunk Monkey

(950 posts)
51. If you pass the law, most people will comply with it.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:35 PM
Dec 2012

How's that working out with drugs?

Seriously, are you ready to bet your country on it?

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
65. Yes, I'm willing to experiment with it
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:48 PM
Dec 2012

The status quo is intolerable, and for all the histrionic melodrama of "betting the country on it," I think I'm right. There was a lot of melodrama about closing the bathhouses ("sexual fascism!" "concentration camps!&quot during the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but we did it and were non e worse for wear. We're in another public health epidemic now, and the gun culture crazies will go the way of the bath house crazies: they'll have to change their culture for their own good and for the public health. Let's get some real restrictive gun laws in place and move forward.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
88. The vast majority don't take illegal drugs.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:00 PM
Dec 2012

So it's working rather well, if your goal is to dissuade people from taking drugs.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
71. I think the fog of anger over this tragedy has clouded a lot of otherwise excellent minds.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:57 PM
Dec 2012

You love how people make assumptions, you say... well you're making one too. A very big assumption indeed. You're assuming enough LEO's will support such a law so as to make it necessary to comply with in the first place. I must respectfully state I don't think that's the case.

Just think of the logistics necessary for what is being suggested here. There are over 80 MILLION gun owners in the country. How many LEO's and military personnel are there combined? 5-6 million tops? What will they do, go door to door?

I'm sorry to be argumentive, but DU has some of the most brilliant people I've ever encountered. I certainly pale in the shadow of most. It seems to me though that anger over this inconcievable tragedy has pushed some of them into extreme thinking that simply isn't withing the realm of the reality of the situation.

From everything I've ever learned, the Supreme Court is loathe to revisit what it considers to be settled law. As discompassionate as this sounds, I doubt this is enough to change that.

Please understand I say this with all due respect.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
81. Actually, you're not being respectful
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:27 PM
Dec 2012

Your initial claim is that my position is "clouded" by "anger," and therefore not rational. That's not respect. It is an out and out insult. I don't respond to you by saying you're just a fanatic and dupe of the gun manufacturers, and then say, well, with all due respect. I should immediately cease conversing with you on that score alone. But, I will say the following:

In a free society, we do not make laws based on whether we think law enforcement officers will enforce them. That's their job: they are not the final arbiters of the laws we make, and the minute they are, we live in a fascist state.

I'm talking about a Woman's Suffrage style Constitutional project - two or three generations of ceaseless activism. Integration seemed impossible in 1925, and Plessy was "settled law." Shit changes. WE change things. That's the essence of progressive government. And shit needs to change. That's for the big stuff.

For the little stuff, we need immediate action to deal with what is obviously a public health crisis. In 1981, the problems of HIV/AIDS ran deeper than simply the amplification effect of the bath houses. The problem was complex and multifactorial and required numerous comprehensive and connected approaches. It was not just the bath houses. But we closed the bath houses, and that helped. A lot. It helped in changing the culture, and helped in changing individual practices, and it slowed the spread of the virus. And don't think there weren't thousands who viewed the closure as an affront to liberty. They slowed closure by three years in the midst of the epidemic, and cost many thousands of people their lives, just as the gun manufacturers and their flunkies are doing today. We are currently in a public health epidemic as serious as that. Of course the problem is multifactorial. Who doesn't know that? That doesn't mean we don't act meaningfully. It means we act in multiple strategic and interconnected ways.

But don't tell me stuff is not "realistic" or "impossible."

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
89. Because guns don't use ammunition
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:04 PM
Dec 2012

nor are they obvious when fired. Why, there's no indication whatsoever that a gun went off, and there's no need for illicit gun owners to get replacement ammunition.

There will be a small number of people who refuse to comply with such a law. There will also be a small number of people who manage to stockpile millions of rounds before such a law goes into effect. But since their numbers are small, such a law will significantly improve the situation.

As for law enforcement refusing to enforce the law, there's already plenty of procedures in place for that. It's not like gun control laws would be the first controversial law.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
96. At least ammunition
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:11 PM
Dec 2012

could not come over the border illegally.

We've done a great job ensuring drugs don't....

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
100. If the vast majority used illegal drugs, you'd have a point
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:41 PM
Dec 2012

They don't.

Again, the goal is to make the situation better. Not make the situation perfect.

Drunks still drive. Should we repeal all drunk driving laws a futile? No, that would be monumentally fucking stupid. Because those laws allow us to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone.

Similarly, it's monumentally fucking stupid to not enact any new gun laws because a minority wouldn't comply with the law. The fact that the majority complies would make us all safer.

At this point, I expect you'll leap to the next stupid argument, where the new laws ban all guns. Nobody's talking about that. We're talking about laws such as requiring guns be stored in a gun safe, either at home or at a range if you can't afford your own safe.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
101. The problem is that
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:46 PM
Dec 2012

93% of gun crime is committed by illegally gotten guns.

The vast majority of guns are obtained legally.

So, who would be getting that illegal ammunition? Those who are criminals.

So your solution doesn't do much to solve the problem.

And would a gun safe have prevented the most recent tragedy? Unlikely. Most likely the adult kids would have the combo to the safe.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
106. Where do those illegally gotten guns come from?
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:37 PM
Dec 2012

I'm having a lot of trouble believing you haven't connected these two tidbits:

93% of gun crime is committed by illegally gotten guns.

The vast majority of guns are obtained legally.


"Illegal" guns start as legal guns. Restrictions on legal guns result in restrictions on illegal guns. And restrictions like mandatory gun safes make it much harder to convert that legal gun into an illegal gun.

That's why states with stricter gun control laws have less gun violence. If you were correct, there would be no difference.

Most likely the adult kids would have the combo to the safe.

The kid was 20. It was not legal for him to have unsupervised access to a gun in CT. That happens at 21. As such it's dumb to assume he'd have the combination. Especially when Mom knew he had mental issues. She wasn't willing to buy a safe on her own, but you're assuming a lot that she would give the combo to her mentally ill son if she had been required to get one.

So your solution doesn't do much to solve the problem.

Your argument against it is utterly pitiful. You seem to think illegal guns appear out of thin air.
 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
107. Can you support that claim?
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:44 PM
Dec 2012


"That's why states with stricter gun control laws have less gun violence. If you were correct, there would be no difference."

In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation and ranks #1 in robberies and #4 in both violent crime and murder.268 . The robbery rate is 70% more than the national average.

In 2000, 20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. – most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns

Washington, D.C.'s 1976 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation's capital.

New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation – and 20% of the armed robberies.

In analyzing 10 different possible reasons for the decline in violent crime during the 1990s, gun control was calculated to have contributed nothing (high imprisonment rates, more police and legalized abortion were considered the primary factors, contributing as much as 28% of the overall reduction). - Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s, Steven Levit, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 2004

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
108. Because Washington DC is a state
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:36 AM
Dec 2012

and doesn't suffer from having VA's lax gun laws 5 minutes away.

Btw, you managed to post an awful lot of stats, yet you didn't manage to post an awful lot of sources.

As for mine, point 9 in this article.

You're free to explain how we manage to shoot each other to death far more than, say, Canadians. Or Europeans. Or anywhere else in the developed world. You know, countries where there are strict gun control laws - according to you, they should be suffering the same rate of gun violence, because gun control laws do nothing. Yet they aren't.

Also, you probably need to look up the definition of "death". Neither robbery nor "violent crime" are death.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
114. I appreciate the data
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:37 AM
Dec 2012

Unfortunately in point 9, it doesn't appear to break out suicide from homicide. This is a big distinction in my book and can severely distort the data.

Yes, we do shoot each other a lot more than Canadians but also Switzerland. And their gun ownership (percent of population who own guns) is in the ballpark of ours but yet their homicide by gun rate is much lower (close to that of Canada)

On the other hand Mexico has a much, much lower ownership rate but 3 times higher homicide by gun rate.

As for the difference between death and violent crime, yes there is a difference but both are bad and should be minimized.

Ghost in the Machine

(14,912 posts)
110. " Because those laws allow us to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone."
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:05 AM
Dec 2012

Please come explain that to my two kids, plus my niece & nephew, who have lost 7 friends to drunk drivers in the past 3 years. Four of them (5 actually, since one girl was pregnant) were killed in one car... minding their own business, coming home from the lake, where they had spent the day swimming and hanging with friends.. when they were hit head-on by a speeding drunk driver who didn't have a license due to multiple other arrests for DUI. I don't recall right offhand whether the vehicle he was driving was stolen, or just "borrowed without permission" (the same as stolen, in my book).

Are you interested in having this talk about "those laws allow us to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone." with my kids??

Thanks in advance,

Ghost

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
111. Because my post said laws were 100% effective in all cases.
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:14 AM
Dec 2012

Please point to where I said laws were 100% effective.

Alternatively, you could actually pay attention to what I wrote, since the primary thrust was making the situation better and not perfect.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
43. Because politicians and elected sheriffs and judges in red states
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:28 PM
Dec 2012

will fall right in line? All those RW cops are not going to look the other way?

Pull the other one.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
87. Ammunition sales.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:58 PM
Dec 2012

Guns don't work very well without bullets. So those illegal guns are going to result in ammunition purchases.

That's not to say such a law will be 100% effective, but it doesn't have to be to make a very large difference.

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
7. How do you get around the courts?
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:36 PM
Dec 2012

I'm sorry, but purely from a legal perspective I don't see how this would work. The current SCOTUS would strike it down in a heartbeat.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
9. my OP is predicated on the idea of the constituiton question already being decided
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:40 PM
Dec 2012

in favor of strict gun controls. I'm not arguing for a total ban. If the court struck down some of my provisions, then of course it would not work and would fall apart.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
12. When one starts in fictional territory indeed all things are possible
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:43 PM
Dec 2012

How about something really cool like warp drive instead?

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
22. I'm merely speculating and saying it could happen
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:57 PM
Dec 2012

Whether it ever does is an open question. I hope it does, frankly. People might eventually reach a breaking point with these gun massacres happening so often and a new social movement could arise, along the lines that I'm speculating about.

NickB79

(19,114 posts)
109. The SC has already ruled that the 2A is an individual right
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:44 AM
Dec 2012

And has set precedent against many forms of gun control on the premise people have the right to own firearms for self-defense in the Heller case of 2008.

Hell, just before the school shooting, the 7th US Appeals court struck down Chicago's ban on concealed carry as violating an individual's right to bear arms in self-defense due to the Heller precedent: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/illinois-concealed-carry-_1_n_2311130.html

So, it's no longer a question of whether or not the constitutional questions will be answered. They already largely were answered. Virtually every one of your suggested provisions would create a potential Supreme Court fight, and precedent isn't on your side.

CTyankee

(63,771 posts)
48. Then I guess we'd better start nominating SC justices that are on our side. Change the
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:33 PM
Dec 2012

court. Then clean up the guns. And start the process to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
90. Remind the courts that "well regulated militia" appears in the 2nd amendment
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:06 PM
Dec 2012

You write the laws such that you regulate the militia. Requiring training courses, refresher courses, mental health evaluations, stringent storage requirements, and so on.

That's just part of keeping your militia well-regulated.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
8. If we quit the war on drugs and Afpak, we could do this
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:38 PM
Dec 2012

Don't get me wrong, it would be a HUGE HUGE HUGE undertaking

And I'd be lying if I were to say there wouldn't be a few casualties

But we have an apparatus in place that can detect whether you are growing pot within your walls - if we can do that, we can find guns.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
13. Only issuing licenses to security personnel or subsistance hunters?
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:45 PM
Dec 2012

That dooms any such plan to failure right there, I suspect. It would in effect prohibit gun ownership for at least a hundred million or so Americans. Such a prohibition, if not actively and aggressively enforced, would be a joke. People would ignore it, and the main result would be an enormous barrier between law enforcement and millions of Americans. It would create a barrier to cooperation with the police that was not there before.

Active enforcement caries its own set of problems, and they're even worse. For one thing, do not for even a moment think it wouldn't be forcibly resisted. It would be, period. I'd also caution against thinking that the police are even remotely up to the task of forcible confiscation. They are vastly outnumbered and for the most part outgunned. The "us vs the world" insular police culture probably means they'd try to carry out such orders against fellow Americans...but they'd fail

That leaves the military. Assuming that you started with repealing posse comitatus, you'd still be faced with the fact that the US military these days has a noticeably conservative leaning to it. The majority of is members would oppose disarmament of US citizens and if ordered to do so, I have no doubt vast numbers would refuse. US military training and discipline, while effective, very deliberately avoids creating cop-like insularity (because that leads to things like coups and military juntas...). Under such circumstances, this would fragment the military. You would have to figure out a way to fundamentally change US military culture, and that would likely be the work of at least a generation.

That moon launch you mention is a simple task compared to what you propose, frankly.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
14. no, it couldn't be done as you lay out. It's just a fantasy.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:45 PM
Dec 2012

first of all, you have to get laws passed. And if you think the laws you propose have a snowball's chance of passing, you're living in fantasyland.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
16. Correct, but this is a women's suffrage type Constitutional project
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:48 PM
Dec 2012

It can be done, and it likely will be done, but it will be a long struggle on the order to two generations. The gun nuts, like those who opposed women's suffrage in 1848, seem to have the upper hand now, but they have no future.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
21. If it takes more than one election cycle it won't work.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:55 PM
Dec 2012

Any politician that proposes firearm confiscation will be handed a one way bus ticket to the political wilderness, and more than one will take their entire party with them.

ThatPoetGuy

(1,747 posts)
41. NRA propaganda.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:24 PM
Dec 2012

More than half of Americans, according to Pew, want to see stricter gun control. And that was before we reached this tipping point.

Most Americans are sick to death of children dying so you can keep your toys.

Before the tipping point, we already saw the NRA rendered powerless in this election; we already saw more than 90% of avid gun supporters voting Republican.

If 93% of avid gun supporters can't defeat a Democrat, then 100% won't either; the numbers of avid gun supporters are actually fairly small.

And our kids keep dying because of you.

CTyankee

(63,771 posts)
50. Yes, let's not let this propaganda go unchallenged. Onward!
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:35 PM
Dec 2012

Our society needs to keep up with more modern, humanistic and enlightened ones. We should emulate those and rewrite our constitution accordingly.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
60. Ah stricter gun control means confiscation of most guns. Glad you have clarified that.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:42 PM
Dec 2012

I own no guns so I have no vested interest, but I don't think gun owners are going to roll over and give you their guns. That's a fantasy. Just like the fantasy you can keep women from having abortions.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
27. You can build your own ARs with unregistered receivers and there is no Federal requirement to
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:05 PM
Dec 2012

register them or in many states.

The other thing that few outside the shooting community understand is the interchangeability of the upper receivers. That the same rifle with the same look and feel can go from .22LR up to .50Beowolf would cause heads to explode.

I have preached to all sides to understand the details since the details are important and matter. Few seem to care or listen.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
36. And you guys tell us gun lovers are "law-abiding and responsible." Apparently, you don't even
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:10 PM
Dec 2012

believe that BS.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
42. Nothing I said was illegal in the least nor irresponsible
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:24 PM
Dec 2012

Its bubbas like you who know little to nothing about the tech or laws that get so bent out of shape over perfectly legal things and miss the key points.

I have lost track of how many times I have urged you to learn something about the topic, but you continue to wallow in your ignorance and then you make foolish posts like the prior one.

Unregistered AR lower receivers are legal under certain circumstances. BATF opinion supports that. AR upper receivers are not required to be registered in any state, are many are not serialized. They can be configured to shoot different calibers off of the same lower receiver. Been that way since the beginning and is one of the reasons the AR is so popular is it modularity.

Nothing illegal nor irresponsible about any of the above.

Yes there are irresponsible people with guns. Most of them would fail a background check. It starts with street thugs. Look to where the issues really are.



ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
64. Nothing there is immoral either
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:48 PM
Dec 2012

Its older tech operating well within the law.

We have had AR like weapons in civilian hands since WWI. We have not had any where near this level of violence until recently. What has changed? How do we get back to where we were?

To claim some sort of immorality here places you in the company of those who claim taking God out of schools caused the shooting.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
73. No. I think most people realize guns contributed greatly to this tragedy.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:02 PM
Dec 2012

Only those who live by guns, seem in denial. Heck, even some of the staunchest Gungeoneers realize it's time to bite the bullet and do something.

quakerboy

(13,901 posts)
97. The clear implication of your words
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:49 AM
Dec 2012

Is that all these law abiding good folk who own guns would not chose to remain law abiding if that meant not owning guns.

That all these responsible gun owners would turn around and make their own guns if their factory built supply ran out due to becoming illegal.

It seems to me that a person who only follows the laws that happen to suit them is not exactly a paragon of law abidingness.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
98. I and others have pointed out the fallacy of collection squads
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:44 AM
Dec 2012

Some here have even suggest vigilante action.

My point is it will be hard if people choose not to cooperate. Not unlike the war on drugs

Lurker Deluxe

(1,031 posts)
40. Guns no one knows about is not even the beginnnig of the problem.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:23 PM
Dec 2012

I am a first class machinist, with a pretty much funcional shop in my garage. All it would take is a set of prints ...

A medium sized shop with CNC machines could crank out parts faster than you could count them. True military weapons would be out there in a matter of weeks. The laws now make it so people would not risk being in possession of a fully automatic weapon, the punishment just isn't worth it. As soon as the penalty for having a bolt action 30-06 and a full blown M16 are the same, M16's will be on the streets.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
44. Good barrels require specialized tooling to do the rifling
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:28 PM
Dec 2012

The rest of it can be done on a CNC machines with very little hand fitting required. The AR design was done that way to lower costs. With some of the newer 3D printing technology, it may get even easier.

The real issue is and remains the level of violence in society. We have had these kind of weapons in civilian hands since WWI, but no where near the level of violence. Somehow I don't think its just the inanimate machines to blame.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
38. I have not considered all details
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:17 PM
Dec 2012

such as recreational sports like target shooting. I'm thinking that would be ok, provided the gun owner passed the licensee requirements.

Self-defense would be tricky, because a lot would try to claim this reason. It would have to be looked at in a hard way, on a case by case basis. If the person was really scared and frightened for their well-being, then it could be granted, but only in certain cases.

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
47. I think your collection of the current 300 million guns might be harder than you think.....
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:32 PM
Dec 2012

and the cost would be 90 Billion dollars to buy them back at $300. Most guns cost more than that.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
55. It would be a tax break for any returned weapons, not cold hard cash
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:39 PM
Dec 2012

and be conducted by the government. The exact details of what kind of value the weapons would be given is not something really all that important. The weapons would not be given full market value in all probability however.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
91. Its even worse than that.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:42 PM
Dec 2012

Lets say you pass a law, and agree to pay 300 per gun turned in. The law doesn't take effect for 90 days. I own a glock that is worth 400. I'm not going to turn it in for 300. I'll sell it. (probably for 600-900 if a law like that passed.

I guarantee there would be people willing to buy guns if a law like this was passed, and I'm willing to bet somebody would not buy a gun with the intent to turn it in 90 days later.

mike_c

(36,214 posts)
78. me either-- take them away from cops, too....
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:14 PM
Dec 2012

Seriously. Gun violence by police is just as big a problem as gun violence among everyone else. Lock up law enforcement weapons in an armory and open it only when absolutely necessary. But no cops carrying guns around publicly.

musical_soul

(775 posts)
82. So....
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:28 PM
Dec 2012

How do cops get the criminals when the criminals are insisting on running, are getting overly violent, etc?

I'm not going to say something cheesy like "guns don't kill people, people do."

However, let's face it. People know how to kill before guns. We need to handle people.

mike_c

(36,214 posts)
93. with a trudgeon or other non-lethal means....
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:13 PM
Dec 2012

We've simply gotten used to the notion that cops should carry guns. Nine times out of ten they likely shouldn't. Yes, it's a dangerous profession. Taking away their guns will probably make some folks that shouldn't be cops think twice about it.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
57. We have a couple rifles which we need when predators are going after our hens.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:39 PM
Dec 2012

I agree assault weapons and the megaround holding clips need to be done away with, but not all guns.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
59. that situation would fall under an acceptable gun license
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:41 PM
Dec 2012

I don't see any problem with keeping guns in this case.

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
69. Because we don't have enough people in prison
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:52 PM
Dec 2012

I am all for an adult conversation about guns.

This is not it.

 

Fire Walk With Me

(38,893 posts)
94. I strongly dislike guns, but even more so, the idea that the populace would be unarmed and not the
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:18 PM
Dec 2012

tyrants. Checks and balances, until the day we have created a society which does not require self-defence against the greedy and sadistic.

TheKentuckian

(24,949 posts)
105. All I tend to hear is we want to turn the screws to a level that won't be tolerated
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:26 PM
Dec 2012

with an armed populace. Of course there would be mile wide exemptions for "private security" forces, hell, they are apparently indispensable to the US government so the Pinkertons will be able to squeeze unchecked.

Tools available determine tolerance.

6,000 years of history strongly support your position which I see no evidence to disagree with. Evolution does not occur in a lifetime, or if it does I'm not betting on the tiny sample used to support.
Shit, I think the little peace is fixing to fail as is. The shock doctrine crew never rests, they are running test markets already.

Carnage251

(562 posts)
104. It can't be done
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:06 PM
Dec 2012

I don't like the nra and I always thought that their fear mongering about the govt coming to take people's guns away was crap.

A gun roundup would turn out much worse than alcohol prohibition or the drug war.

There needs to be a push for commonsense gun laws, and not a massive "gun round up" that is surely a wrong and a losing issue that would do nothing but strengthen the nra and gun nuts.

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
115. More pragmatic idea: let people keep them
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:46 PM
Dec 2012

But, in a date twelve months off, make it illegal to buy, sell, trade, manufacture, or import them. Ten years after that, it becomes illegal to buy, sell, trade, manufacture, or import replacement parts. In the meantime there will be horrific mass murders, but within a generation they'll be gone, or most of them will.

We could also just go down the list of gun laws the NRA is opposed to, such as mandatory reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and get a bunch of those through state legislatures. And we could start shaming gun-nuts, constantly asking them why they're so afraid of the world.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Confiscate most guns in t...