HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Proposed: A complete ban ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:31 PM

Proposed: A complete ban on civilian ownership of Firearms

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

(Read "civilian" in the headline as private civilian... excluding police, and other armed government personel. Headlines can only be so long.)

On the one hand, this proposal is extreme a flatly unconstitutional in terms of actual American law. (The state of the law is that there is an individual right to some sort of guns secured against all governments within the USA. I don't really agree, but they didn't ask me.)

On the other hand, this proposal has the virtue of not inviting all this tendentious crap about who "needs" X number of bullets, and whether purely cosmetic differences in rifles are a menace to our children, and the home-defense annecdotes, and the people hunting to feed their families, and arming teachers and the perpetual misuse of the term "semi-automatic" and all the other chaff this debate seems to always engender.


So PROPOSED: The US should have the same system of gun limitation as, say, Japan.



Agree or disagree?

And if impractical, agree or disagree in principle or with the intended result?




I will start. Assuming the Constitution is first amended to remove the 2nd Amendment, I am fine with a Japanese approach. (Actually, not approach but result, however accomplished.)

54 replies, 2717 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Proposed: A complete ban on civilian ownership of Firearms (Original post)
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 OP
rrneck Jan 2013 #1
AceWheeler Jan 2013 #37
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #39
rrneck Jan 2013 #40
snooper2 Jan 2013 #2
BainsBane Jan 2013 #3
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #4
Taverner Jan 2013 #5
HappyMe Jan 2013 #6
slackmaster Jan 2013 #7
RC Jan 2013 #14
slackmaster Jan 2013 #45
HappyMe Jan 2013 #51
hack89 Jan 2013 #8
bluedigger Jan 2013 #9
Blue_In_AK Jan 2013 #10
Animal Chin Jan 2013 #26
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2013 #31
Blue_In_AK Jan 2013 #41
One_Life_To_Give Jan 2013 #11
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #12
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #13
RC Jan 2013 #17
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #23
TeeYiYi Jan 2013 #42
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #48
Recursion Jan 2013 #16
Recursion Jan 2013 #15
RC Jan 2013 #20
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #21
Recursion Jan 2013 #22
Dpm12 Jan 2013 #18
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #27
Animal Chin Jan 2013 #35
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #50
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #19
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #24
Recursion Jan 2013 #25
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #32
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #36
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #34
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #30
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #33
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #44
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #46
Kali Jan 2013 #28
rightsideout Jan 2013 #29
MicaelS Jan 2013 #38
Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #43
dmallind Jan 2013 #47
Sissyk Jan 2013 #49
longship Jan 2013 #52
Ilsa Jan 2013 #53
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #54

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:33 PM

1. As soon as you teach the cops to jump through a rip in the fabric of time. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:42 PM

37. And you mention cops...

...why? They ain't civilians, so the original post doesn't apply to them. Oh, well, maybe it was something you ate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AceWheeler (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:47 PM

39. Actually, cops are civilians as they are not military.

However, distinguishing between cops and regular citizens can be useful at times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AceWheeler (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:48 PM

40. Because your average every day garden variety gun

is a solution to a disparity of force problem. People have guns to defend themselves because the police can't be there in time to do it for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:34 PM

2. These threads are funny, we can never have to many of them...

But for the folks saying Meh,

Enjoy the greatness that is!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:34 PM

3. non-starter

Heller holds that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns. This proposal would require repealing the Second Amendment. Besides, it only inflames the gunners. Let's stick with what can be done by supporting the President's proposals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:36 PM

4. I disagree

I am all for strict regulations, but not the banning of firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:37 PM

5. I think that's overkill

 

I think the President is going in the right direction - enforce existing laws and try to get rid of the high-capacity end of weapons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:41 PM

6. Stricter regulations and actually enforcing them

is the way to go.
I think that a complete ban is too extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:42 PM

7. Only if the ban applies to and is enforced on every person, including criminals and police officers

 

As soon as all the criminals and police have turned in their weapons, I'll give up mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:16 PM

14. If when a ban goes into effect and you do not turn in your weapons, you become a criminal.

 

What then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:00 PM

45. I don't own any weapons

 

I used to, but lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:23 PM

51. I'm sure that some might turn in their guns.

But it's ridiculous to assume everyone will. What would have to happen would be a search of every apartment, house and garage in the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:43 PM

8. Are you going to adopt the Japanese system of policing?

why stop at one civil liberty if it will make us safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:46 PM

9. Considered, and dismissed.

Conditions here are in no way comparable to Japan, and their approach is completely inappropriate as an example of a solution to our problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:48 PM

10. Disagree.

I can understand how people living in rural Alaska, for instance, might want a weapon for protection. Bears (and occasionally people) break into people's houses or caches, go after their chickens or whatever, and a weapon is a good way to chase them away or take them out, if necessary. Unfortunately, violence takes place out there where troopers or other law enforcement are hours or even days away. Having a weapon in such an instance could save a person's life.

I don't see any need for magazines with 30 rounds anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:31 PM

26. But they might be attacked by Russia!

The folks in Alaska need guns more than anyone...bears, feds and Ruskies!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:35 PM

31. And Sarah Palin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:50 PM

41. Ah, Sarah Palin, the joke that refuses to go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:49 PM

11. Those who build subs deep in So Amer jungle vote Yes

How long does it take a Triad member to obtain one in Tokyo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:52 PM

12. I think it's useful to have someone pushing for extreme measures on the left

God knows the right never ever stops with pushing the most extreme measures they can think of. Without a counterweight on the left their ideas get more and more traction and drag the entire political conversation to the right.

The center and the right both shout down the left in America, the end result is where we are now politically, at least partially by design I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:06 PM

13. I think extreme anti-gun arguments do less violence to civil rights overall

We have seen, and will continue to see, guns as an anchor tied around the neck of all civil rights.

Ban them or don't ban them, but please don't tell me what someone does or does not *need.*

I heard it all before, about free speech zones.

The crafty strategic erosion of a right is despicable.

If a right deserves such erosion then it ought not exist, because no actual right deserves such erosion.

The problem is that guns are classed as a right. I support declassification of guns as a right.

But I cannot support patently unconstitutional measures being presented as "reasonable" because that approach will destroy all rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:20 PM

17. Like the 4th Amendment isn't already quaint and non-functional.

 

Along with whole sections of the rest of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:28 PM

23. I think the very idea of civil liberties is a quaint remnant of a bygone era.

We live in an era now when the President can order a citizen killed with no judicial review and we aren't even told what the criteria might be.

I'm reading a book right now called "To Engineer Is Human, the role of failure in successful design". I think I have found the key paragraph in the entire book and I think it relates to politics and society every bit as much as engineering.

The paradox of engineering design is that successful structural concepts devolve into failures, while the colossal failures contribute to the evolution of innovative and inspiring structures. However when we understand the the principal objective of the design process as obviating failure the paradox is resolved. For a failed structure provides a counterexample to a hypothesis and shows us incontrovertably what cannot be done, while a structure that stands without incident often conceals whatever lessons or caveats it might hold for the next generation of engineers.


I'm starting to think the second amendment may be a failed structure, on my bleaker days I think our entire society may be a failed structure.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:50 PM

42. Thought provoking paragraph, Fumesucker...

Kind of depressing, really. Thanks for posting. (I'm still mulling it over...)

TYY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:14 PM

48. I fear I'm coming to your second conclusion, myself.

The increasing obsolescence of civil liberties is, perhaps, merely a symptom of the systemic failure of the societal structure in which they exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:19 PM

16. It's certainly refreshing, at least (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:19 PM

15. Japan doesn't have 2.3 billion acres of farmland

I don't think that's a good idea. There are a lot of people who do legitimately own guns. As long as we have livestock, people will need to protect them from predators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:24 PM

20. By killing off the predators preferred food, so the cows have more to eat.

 

Maybe an adjustment to the number of cows allowed per acre should be in order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:25 PM

21. So you thinks your cows are more valuable than my kids?

Joking! (Unless I am a goat rancher.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:27 PM

22. Well, I was thinking more of chickens.

I used to have to shoot weasels and martens (that is apparently a thing) when they would get into the chickens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:22 PM

18. Extreme

Stricter gun laws, yes. Banning guns and weapons outright, no. You DO need to protect yourself, but you could always use a handgun. If you were to ban ALL guns, you might as well ban bladed weapons as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:32 PM

27. If I DO need to protect myself then

the whole gun control conversation falls apart.

Why should I be outgunned by criminals in my (legitimate, in this hypothetical) need to defend myself?

If I DO have a need to defend myself against the 300 million guns already out there then I should be able to at least get guns like those I am defending myself against, right?

Acknowledging a legitimate self-defense need changes the whole argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:40 PM

35. Handguns should really be what we're talking about

They are a much bigger part of the problem than assault rifles and hi-cap magazines. The deaths from assault rifles are much rarer, but they are more troubling because more often multiple deaths, more random nature, victims may be more innocent, and they occur in suburbia, academia and otherwise typically affect white people. but it's the handguns that are killing us in such disturbing numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:18 PM

50. Exactly.

"Assault weapons" account for less than one percent of all US homicide. They have figured, recently, in some high-profile incidents (with adorable white children victims). Drug-related handgun homicides are literally orders of magnitude more prevalent...but it happens disproportionally to young brown-skinned males. I guess they don't matter...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:23 PM

19. Nope.

Nope, I don't think that one is going to fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:29 PM

24. Your OP is what's known in the parlance as "zealotry trolling"

Nice try, but I don't think anyone's going to fall for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:30 PM

25. I think it's also an example of not all trolling being bad

Thought-experiments are a kind of trolling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:37 PM

32. It is not any kind of trolling

I am not seeking to upset anyone.

And it is a policy I support. I would like to see the 2nd Amendment done away with, and a relatively gun-free America.

It is the opposite of trolling, and the trolls, the posters who cannot see anything except in terms of inflaming idiot opinion don't know what to make of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:41 PM

36. Really.

You honestly support outlawing all guns- that puts you in a distinct minority, I hope you realize, even among people who support some forms of gun control.

I misinterpreted your intent with the thread, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:40 PM

34. No, it's "you unreasonable people who want to outlaw AR-15s and high magazine clips, hey-

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

sure, lets OUTLAW ALL TEH GUNS, AND THROW ALL TEH GUN OWNERS IN JAIL JUST LIKE YOU WANT!"

It's the same thing as calling the ACA "Socialized Medicine", or asserting that a 3% increase in the top marginal tax rate is somehow the vanguard of creeping Stalinism.

It's not a "thought experiment", it's a desperate attempt to derail some commonsense shit, i.e. stopping the sale of fucking ASSAULT WEAPONS, which would not be the same thing as TAKING ALL OF OUR GUNS!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:34 PM

30. Your inability to follow simple rules of decency is noted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:37 PM

33. Sorry

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:54 PM

44. Alert results







At Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your OP is what's known in the parlance as "zealotry trolling"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2208964

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

The poster's allegation of trolling is 1) a lie, and 2) a brightline, undeniable violation of DU rules. I do think, in fact, think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, and that view is reasonable and common and offers no exception to DU rules.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:51 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yep - We'll get civility in this forum, one way or the other. Tired of the sacred cows given free passes. Hide this shit.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Is this an example of "zealotry alerting"?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If you're going to propose a sensational idea defend it, don't alert when someone calls it zealotry.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:09 PM

46. Pfffffft. I'm a "sacred cow"?

That's CLASSIC, especially given some of the ridiculous justifications for hides on my posts that I've seen.

thanks for the laugh, juror #3! "Mooo!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:33 PM

28. disagree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:34 PM

29. Nope, banning firearms will never happen in the US

That only happens in civilized societies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:45 PM

38. If every gun is civilian hands was picked up and destroyed..

Then Americans would revert to killing each other with edged weapons, most popular of course would be pocket knives. Then we would have another mortal panic about knives, like we did with the stiletto switchblade back in the 1950s. There would be cries of

"We have to do SOMETHING to get these terrible knives off the streets. No one NEEDS a knife outside of their home. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Automatic_knives_1900-1945

In 1950, an article titled The Toy That Kills appeared in the Women's Home Companion, a widely read U.S. periodical of the day. The article sparked a storm of controversy and a nationwide campaign that would eventually result in state and federal laws criminalizing the importation, sale, and possession of automatic-opening knives. In the article, author Jack Harrison Pollack assured the reader that the growing switchblade "menace" could have deadly consequence "as any crook can tell you." Pollack, a former aide to Democratic Senator Harley M. Kilgore and a ghostwriter for then-Senator Harry S. Truman, had authored a series of magazine articles calling for new laws to address a variety of social ills. In The Toy That Kills, Pollack wrote that the switchblade was "Designed for violence, deadly as a revolver - thatís the switchblade, the 'toy' youngsters all over the country are taking up as a fad. Press the button on this new version of the pocketknife and the blade darts out like a snakeís tongue. Action against this killer should be taken now." To back up his charges, Pollack quoted an unnamed juvenile court judge as saying: "Itís only a short step from carrying a switchblade to gang warfare."

During the 1950s, established U.S. newspapers as well as the sensationalist tabloid press joined forces in promoting the image of a young delinquent with a stiletto switchblade or flick knife. While the press focused on the switchblade as a symbol of youthful evil intent, the American public's attention was attracted by lurid stories of urban youth gang warfare and the fact that many gangs were composed of disadvantaged youth and/or racial minorities. The obvious offensive nature of the stiletto switchblade combined with reports of knife fights, robberies, and stabbings by youth gangs and other criminal elements in urban areas of the United States generated continuing demands from newspaper editorial rooms and the public for new laws restricting the lawful possession and/or use of switchblade knives. In 1954, the state of New York passed the first law banning the sale or distribution of switchblade knives in hopes of reducing gang violence. That same year, Democratic Rep. James J. Delaney of New York authored the first bill submitted to the U.S. Congress banning the manufacture and sale of switchblades.

Many U.S. congressmen viewed the controversy as an opportunity to capitalize on constant negative accounts of the switchblade knife and its connection to violence and youth gangs. This coverage included not only magazine articles but also highly popular films of the day including Rebel Without a Cause (1955), Crime in the Streets (1956), 12 Angry Men (1957), The Delinquents (1957), High School Confidential (1958), and the Broadway musical West Side Story. Hollywood's fixation on the switchblade as the sadomasochistic symbol of youth violence, sex, and delinquency resulted in renewed demands from the public and Congress to control the sale and possession of such knives. State laws restricting or criminalizing switchblade possession and use were adopted by an increasing number of state legislatures. In 1957, Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee attempted unsuccessfully to pass a law restricting the importation and possession of switchblade knives. Opposition to the bill from the U.S. knifemaking industry was muted, with the exception of the Colonial Knife Co. and Schrade-Walden Inc., which were still manufacturing small quantities of pocket switchblades for the U.S. market. Some in the industry even supported the legislation, hoping to gain market share at the expense of Colonial and Schrade. However, the legislation failed to receive expected support from the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Justice, which considered the legislation unenforceable and an unwarranted intrusion into lawful sales in interstate commerce.

While Kefauver's bill failed, a new U.S. Senate bill prohibiting the importation or possession of switchblade knives in interstate commerce was introduced the following year by Democratic Senator Peter F. Mack, Jr. of Illinois in an attempt to reduce gang violence in Chicago and other urban centers in the state. With youth violence and delinquency aggravated by the severe economic recession, Mack's bill was enacted by Congress and signed into law as the Switchblade Knife Act of 1958. This U.S. federal law was closely followed by the UK Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act of 1959 and the inclusion of new-production automatic knives in the 1959 Criminal Code, Revised Statutes (Canada) as prohibited weapons banned from importation, sale or possession within that country. These laws did not distinguish between utility blade and stiletto or offensive switchblades, instead banning all switchblade knives as a category, including utility and general-purpose automatic knives not generally used by criminals. Curiously, the sale and possession of stilettos and other offensive knives using fixed or locked folding blades remained legal in most jurisdictions. As an anti-violence measure, the legislation clearly failed in the United States, as youth street gangs increasingly turned from bats and knives to handguns and rifles to settle their disputes over territory as well as income from prostitution, extortion, and illicit drug sales.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:52 PM

43. I disagree with a complete ban.

Why should we restrict lawful gun owners from owning guns when stricter laws in other countries that fall far short of a complete ban (Australia) have shown to drastically reduce the violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:12 PM

47. Well obviously impractical here, but let's hypothesize

IF you could do the following:

Repeal 2A (politically nigh impossible)
Effectively discover and destroy all existing guns (politically and technically nigh impossible, and almost certain to involve a body count worth a few years of gun deaths)
Find some way to prevent the thousands of capable gunsmiths in the US making more from widely available plans, normal steels, and modest machine shops (nigh impossible in almost every way)

THEN yes you would improve homicide rates - quite significantly. I'm perfectly fine with RKBA but it would be insane to suggest that there are not quite a few murders where substitute weapons would either not be employed or not be successful.

However it would hopefully equally obviously be insane to suggest that we would get even close to Japanese levels. We have greater wealth inequality, greater racial and social inequality and diversity, a greater drug problem, and a cultural attitude that values conformity far less.

Really the only murders even successfully banning guns would prevent would be those of passion and opportunity (find out wife is cheating, get mad and shoot her but not be willing to stab/beat her to death); those of random mayhem (mass shootings and gang war bystanders); those where the weak kill the strong who could not otherwise do so.

Most US murders are criminal on criminal violence. Most of them are likely to happen by knife or club. Yes you'd see a bit of a drop at the expense of more attempted murders, but not huge I wouldn't think. The next biggest section are arguments and emnities escalated out of hand. Here you'll see a reduction, but by no means an elimination. If I truly wanted person X dead and were willing to risk prison for it sure I would choose a gun now, but if I couldn't get one I have many other options. It would only save person X by banning guns if I didn't really want to kill him but merely got irrationally angry with a gun near at hand. Breakdown? Not a fricking clue. 30% drop in this group alone at a guess? Obviously if I'm killing him for money or considered vengeance or insanity I still have those causes without guns, and a more difficult opportunity is still an opportunity.

The only serious likely drop is in the crimes of passion. They however are not a majority of murders. Not by a long way.

What would the homicide rate be without guns from the 4.8/100k it is now? No way to know. But we'd still not have the safety net of Europe, the homogeneity of most other nations, the culture of much of Asia. My best guess is that we'd resemble a fairly stable South American nation more than the 0.4 of Japan or 1.2 of the UK. Argentina's 3.2 perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:15 PM

49. Disagree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:25 PM

52. Impossible under the Bill of Rights.

No court would uphold such a ban, and there would be armed insurrection in the streets long before the courts got around to it.

Cthulhu, surely you know this. I guess I don't know where you're going with your post. My friend, what is your premise here? Is this a contrafactus?

Thanks.

On edit: Nevermind. Got it from one of your responses.

I guess I have to stick with: it will not likely happen and any attempt to repeal 2nd Amend would result in civil conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:37 PM

53. Have you ever had to shoot a six foot rattlesnake

just to go onto your front porch to enter your home?

Believe me, that's not a creature you want to run off in hopes of never seeing again. You want it Dead, not showing up under your car or truck ready to strike when you're on your way to drive to work. And a shotgun is the safest way to handle it. Yes, a hoe might work okay for smallest pit vipers, but not a large rattlesnake.

Some citizens live in the country. We need shotguns and sometimes rifles and occasionally pellet guns to kill animals that might be carrying rabies, or might be poisonous, or are tearing up our property.

Ban the assault rifles, large magazines, and make hoarding large amounts of ammo a crime. But some people need weapons for personal safety and defense of their pets, farm animals, and property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:50 PM

54. How about devoting this energy toward something possible, like fighting poverty

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread