4 ms·

You cannot possibly believe that you can confiscate all the guns in the US. So what magic wand do you have to make them disappear?

yongjik 9y ago
Why do malls have security cameras when they cannot catch all thieves? Why have a border control when you cannot catch everyone crossing it? If America gets rid of one million guns, that's one million less guns criminals can illegally obtain. This is not an all-or-nothing game. I'm sure even Japan has a few illegal guns hidden somewhere.
- GiorgioG 9y ago
  How’s that working out for cities that have ineffective (but hey they feel good ‘cause we gotta do something!) gun buyback programs like Chicago (with super-strict gun control laws to boot)?
  - GiorgioG 9y ago
    Stop being lazy and post some logical reasons for the downvotes
- gw 9y ago
  Your comments belie a pretty strong ignorance of American gun culture. This isn't a numbers game; there is a large portion of the population that would not comply with a confiscation program, and would resist using (you guessed it) firearms. Many of the strongest supporters of the second amendment are in the military and police. It boggles my mind that the same people who denounce involving our military in middle eastern quagmires, would propose igniting such a civil war domestically.
  - yongjik 9y ago
    This is a numbers game, and a long-term game. I'm sure there are Americans who would rather shoot a police officer than give up their guns, but I believe their numbers are dwindling. Societies change. After all, gay marriage or a black president was unthinkable only a few decades ago. Personally, I kinda see the point of having guns if you live in the middle of nowhere eighty miles from the nearest police station. So I'd say, let them keep their guns. No reason to give them more political ammunition. For the majority of Americans (by population, not area), guns make much less sense. If American cities are infested with shootings, it's not because gun control doesn't work. It's because the American government is bought out by NRA lobbyists so they don't try hard enough. It has proven be a tough battle for Americans to coerce the government into action. But, hey, nobody said fighting your government would be easy, did they?
    - LyndsySimon 9y ago
      > I'm sure there are Americans who would rather shoot a police officer than give up their guns, but I believe their numbers are dwindling. You're wrong. Furthermore, communities across the US are becoming more locally homogenous. It's not going to be a person here or there you'd have to deal with, it would be entire communities.
    - junkscience2017 9y ago
      we aren't interested in hearing who you think "deserves" a gun, it is a RIGHT
    - refurb 9y ago
      It's because the American government is bought out by NRA lobbyists so they don't try hard enough. If you mean "bought out" in terms of actually bringing voters to the polls over this issue you'd be right. Like it or not, people against gun control are more likely to vote on that issue in the US than people for gun control. The NRA has over 11 million paying members. That's almost 3% of the US population, probably over 10% if you just count adults. That's a powerful voting block.
      - GiorgioG 9y ago
        > Like it or not, people against gun control are more likely to vote on that issue in the US than people for gun control. This is why I voted for Trump. Hillary was guaranteed to shit all over my gun rights. Trump is proving me right - he's been largely ineffective and despite all the bellyaching, isn't really doing much harm (oh boy, I know I'm going to set off a shitstorm now.) But net-neutrality! But LGBT rights! If you look at what he's said and the practical effect of what he's done...it's basically a no-op.
        GiorgioG 9y ago
        Lazy downvoters who can't be bothered to explain the downvote - nice
    - GiorgioG 9y ago
johngruber 9y ago
Not sure if just trolling or willful ignoring the facts. There are so many articles about how this has happened in other countries: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 Basically: - Make it much more difficult to obtain. Those with legit reasons and determination still can get them. - Make it very illegal to possess without the proper channels. This will compel people to give them up. Impose hefty fines for those not complying. Somehow magically, with just those two steps, your average illegal gun price will skyrocket while the availability will plummet, making gun usage among criminals a lot lower. No, you won't confiscate all the guns, but you don't need to. Just most of them. It won't mean 0 deaths/year, but you can expect in the mid-term that they drop dramatically.
jdietrich 9y ago
>You cannot possibly believe that you can confiscate all the guns in the US. You don't need to confiscate all guns to practically eliminate gun crime. The UK didn't, we just adopted a harm reduction model, gradually controlling and then removing those weapons with the greatest risk for harm and the least legitimate use - handguns and semi-automatic centrefire rifles. It took decades, but it worked. Start with a serious federal licensing and registration system. Establish a national database with comprehensive ownership records, including private transfers; require firearm manufacturers to submit forensic samples of bullets and casings for all new firearms. Mandate firing pin microstamping. Fix the known shortcomings of the background check system. Close the gun show loophole. Instate the five-day waiting period originally proposed in the Brady Act. Require secure storage of all firearms in an approved gunsafe. Introduce mandatory safety training. Impose considerably harsher punishments for reckless or dangerous use of a licensed firearm. Once you've got all that in place, then you can start talking about buybacks, amnesties and outright bans, starting with Title II firearms. Mandate a legitimate sporting or professional justification for the purchase or transfer of any firearm. Ban large-capacity magazines, then centerfire handguns, then semi-automatic rimfire handguns, then semi-automatic rifles. After 30 or 40 years of incremental progress, you end up with a society that has a negligible number of handguns and semi-automatic rifles, while still maintaining the rights of sportsmen and farmers to own shotguns and bolt-action rifles in a properly controlled manner. You can do it, if you can muster a serious and well-funded opposition to the NRA.
- megaman22 9y ago
  I'm litearally rolling on the floor laughing at this naivete. Shit, I grew up in the woods where the semi-auto Remington 742 woodsmaster or the 1100 shotgun wasn't any different than the Ace hardware hoe or the Rotenone or Sevin bug dust; we used both to keep the pests out of the garden that fed us. I've bought one firearm, out of a dozen, from a licensed store. Almost all are private, individual to individual sales or inherited.
- GiorgioG 9y ago
  > Start with a serious federal licensing and registration system. Good luck getting that kind of law passed anywhere outside of NY/CA. Registration = Confiscation is a strongly held belief. See how many New Yorkers registered their AR-15 when the NY SAFE Act was passed in the middle of the night. > Close the gun show loophole. There is no loophole. Federally-licensed gun dealers must run background checks no matter where they sell their wares. Private transfers do not require background checks. > After 30 or 40 years of incremental progress What you call "progress," I call a city-slicker's fantasy paradise. I grew up in a nanny state (NY) and moved south in my mid-30s. It's refreshing to live in a place where guns are seen as tools and not as evil monsters that charge out of their locked cases and mow down innocent children all on their own without a human pulling the trigger. The sitting president (regardless of what you or I think of him) was elected on a base that believes in a different idea of progress. I voted for him stricktly because I believed he'd be largely ineffective and that he wouldn't shit all over my gun rights.

yongjik 9y ago

Why do malls have security cameras when they cannot catch all thieves? Why have a border control when you cannot catch everyone crossing it? If America gets rid of one million guns, that's one million less guns criminals can illegally obtain. This is not an all-or-nothing game. I'm sure even Japan has a few illegal guns hidden somewhere.

GiorgioG 9y ago
How’s that working out for cities that have ineffective (but hey they feel good ‘cause we gotta do something!) gun buyback programs like Chicago (with super-strict gun control laws to boot)?
- GiorgioG 9y ago
  Stop being lazy and post some logical reasons for the downvotes
gw 9y ago
Your comments belie a pretty strong ignorance of American gun culture. This isn't a numbers game; there is a large portion of the population that would not comply with a confiscation program, and would resist using (you guessed it) firearms. Many of the strongest supporters of the second amendment are in the military and police. It boggles my mind that the same people who denounce involving our military in middle eastern quagmires, would propose igniting such a civil war domestically.
- yongjik 9y ago
  This is a numbers game, and a long-term game. I'm sure there are Americans who would rather shoot a police officer than give up their guns, but I believe their numbers are dwindling. Societies change. After all, gay marriage or a black president was unthinkable only a few decades ago. Personally, I kinda see the point of having guns if you live in the middle of nowhere eighty miles from the nearest police station. So I'd say, let them keep their guns. No reason to give them more political ammunition. For the majority of Americans (by population, not area), guns make much less sense. If American cities are infested with shootings, it's not because gun control doesn't work. It's because the American government is bought out by NRA lobbyists so they don't try hard enough. It has proven be a tough battle for Americans to coerce the government into action. But, hey, nobody said fighting your government would be easy, did they?
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    > I'm sure there are Americans who would rather shoot a police officer than give up their guns, but I believe their numbers are dwindling. You're wrong. Furthermore, communities across the US are becoming more locally homogenous. It's not going to be a person here or there you'd have to deal with, it would be entire communities.
  - junkscience2017 9y ago
    we aren't interested in hearing who you think "deserves" a gun, it is a RIGHT
  - refurb 9y ago
    It's because the American government is bought out by NRA lobbyists so they don't try hard enough. If you mean "bought out" in terms of actually bringing voters to the polls over this issue you'd be right. Like it or not, people against gun control are more likely to vote on that issue in the US than people for gun control. The NRA has over 11 million paying members. That's almost 3% of the US population, probably over 10% if you just count adults. That's a powerful voting block.
    - GiorgioG 9y ago
      > Like it or not, people against gun control are more likely to vote on that issue in the US than people for gun control. This is why I voted for Trump. Hillary was guaranteed to shit all over my gun rights. Trump is proving me right - he's been largely ineffective and despite all the bellyaching, isn't really doing much harm (oh boy, I know I'm going to set off a shitstorm now.) But net-neutrality! But LGBT rights! If you look at what he's said and the practical effect of what he's done...it's basically a no-op.
      - GiorgioG 9y ago
        Lazy downvoters who can't be bothered to explain the downvote - nice
  - GiorgioG 9y ago

johngruber 9y ago

Not sure if just trolling or willful ignoring the facts. There are so many articles about how this has happened in other countries: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 Basically: - Make it much more difficult to obtain. Those with legit reasons and determination still can get them. - Make it very illegal to possess without the proper channels. This will compel people to give them up. Impose hefty fines for those not complying. Somehow magically, with just those two steps, your average illegal gun price will skyrocket while the availability will plummet, making gun usage among criminals a lot lower. No, you won't confiscate all the guns, but you don't need to. Just most of them. It won't mean 0 deaths/year, but you can expect in the mid-term that they drop dramatically.

jdietrich 9y ago

>You cannot possibly believe that you can confiscate all the guns in the US. You don't need to confiscate all guns to practically eliminate gun crime. The UK didn't, we just adopted a harm reduction model, gradually controlling and then removing those weapons with the greatest risk for harm and the least legitimate use - handguns and semi-automatic centrefire rifles. It took decades, but it worked. Start with a serious federal licensing and registration system. Establish a national database with comprehensive ownership records, including private transfers; require firearm manufacturers to submit forensic samples of bullets and casings for all new firearms. Mandate firing pin microstamping. Fix the known shortcomings of the background check system. Close the gun show loophole. Instate the five-day waiting period originally proposed in the Brady Act. Require secure storage of all firearms in an approved gunsafe. Introduce mandatory safety training. Impose considerably harsher punishments for reckless or dangerous use of a licensed firearm. Once you've got all that in place, then you can start talking about buybacks, amnesties and outright bans, starting with Title II firearms. Mandate a legitimate sporting or professional justification for the purchase or transfer of any firearm. Ban large-capacity magazines, then centerfire handguns, then semi-automatic rimfire handguns, then semi-automatic rifles. After 30 or 40 years of incremental progress, you end up with a society that has a negligible number of handguns and semi-automatic rifles, while still maintaining the rights of sportsmen and farmers to own shotguns and bolt-action rifles in a properly controlled manner. You can do it, if you can muster a serious and well-funded opposition to the NRA.

megaman22 9y ago
I'm litearally rolling on the floor laughing at this naivete. Shit, I grew up in the woods where the semi-auto Remington 742 woodsmaster or the 1100 shotgun wasn't any different than the Ace hardware hoe or the Rotenone or Sevin bug dust; we used both to keep the pests out of the garden that fed us. I've bought one firearm, out of a dozen, from a licensed store. Almost all are private, individual to individual sales or inherited.
GiorgioG 9y ago
> Start with a serious federal licensing and registration system. Good luck getting that kind of law passed anywhere outside of NY/CA. Registration = Confiscation is a strongly held belief. See how many New Yorkers registered their AR-15 when the NY SAFE Act was passed in the middle of the night. > Close the gun show loophole. There is no loophole. Federally-licensed gun dealers must run background checks no matter where they sell their wares. Private transfers do not require background checks. > After 30 or 40 years of incremental progress What you call "progress," I call a city-slicker's fantasy paradise. I grew up in a nanny state (NY) and moved south in my mid-30s. It's refreshing to live in a place where guns are seen as tools and not as evil monsters that charge out of their locked cases and mow down innocent children all on their own without a human pulling the trigger. The sitting president (regardless of what you or I think of him) was elected on a base that believes in a different idea of progress. I voted for him stricktly because I believed he'd be largely ineffective and that he wouldn't shit all over my gun rights.