General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTake Away All Guns If Posible - Agree? - 33,000 Lives Saved Per Year Worth It?
I was just wondering. How many people would choose to have all guns rounded up in America if it was possible. I know it is not possible, and I am a gun owner who likes to plink from time to time. I am just wondering if it could be done, how many Americans would support doing something similar to what Australia did, and round up all guns. Except for police and military. If the "bad guys" couldn't get guns because there were none, police wouldn't even need them.
I would love to see a poll.
Never happen.....
2013 - Wikipedia
"33,169 deaths related to firearms"
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and I and the majority of Americans would be very much against it and any political party that tried to pass such legislation would be in the wilderness for decades.
BTW, Aus. didn't round up all the guns, they just rounded up certain firearms, civilians are still allowed to own firearms.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)with lethal weapons, ammo, and lethal accessories.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)it must really bug you that I own that many firearms.
Response to GGJohn (Reply #6)
Yallow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)IMO, I don't have everything I want yet, but I'm working on it.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)All it takes is one.....
Let's start the conversation.
America obviously can't handle 300 million guns without 33,000 people dying per year.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and Americans can quite obviously handle firearms, as evidenced by the low rate of homicides per capita.
Those 33,000 deaths a year by firearms? 2/3rd's of those are suicides and don't give me this crap about no firearms would reduce suicides, Japan, which has a near virtual ban on private ownership of firearms, has one of the highest suicide rates per capita in the world, they seemed to have found ways to off themselves without a firearm.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)They drink heavily and got in an argument.
Son said go ahead and shoot me. Dad shot him in the gut.
Son very bad shape for life. Dad in prison.
Lived 3 houses away.
They are drunks, not crazy people.
Should they own firearms?
If they weren't allowed to have guns their family would be a lot better off.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Like a knife, a baseball bat, etc?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but you already knew that.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Tell that to the person who was killed by a knife, bat, run over by a car, etc, Sorry I killed you, but it was harder because I didn't use a firearm.
beevul
(12,194 posts)With firearms, theres LOTS of classes of prohibited persons, felonies, domestic violence convictions, restraining orders, and a few others. And theres background checks at retail.
With alcohol, no such thing exists. Any legal adult regardless of criminal record, can walk into a store that sells alcohol and buy it without even a background check.
And between alcohol and guns, only one of the two diminishes judgement and decision making by design, and becomes physically and mentally addictive, at the cost of 88+ thousand lives a year.
Bet you don't want to say 'easier' any more huh?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Next question.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Kind of like it's guns that kill people when used by shooters. Got it.
beevul
(12,194 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Next question.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Exactly.
Power, with no going back.
Waldorf
(654 posts)
EX500rider
(10,902 posts)....to kill themselves.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)I had a very good friend try to commit suicide and fail.
She was really committed, and made an effort to "get together" with all her close friends, once we thought she had "recovered". My mom and I were some of the friends. Calling people out of the blue to go to lunch with them.
She then went out and blew her brains out.
Game over.
Maybe if such lethal methods weren't available she would have failed again and she could possible still be alive.
The whole town showed up to honor her.
No one more loved ever lived.
One gun......
EX500rider
(10,902 posts).....jumping off high building/bridges....carbon monoxide.....stepping in front of trains/trucks....high speed auto crashes...etc..
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Their suicide rate per capita is one of the highest in the world, and all this with a near virtual ban on the possession of firearms.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,272 posts)It is really the only method that is immediate, thus no opportunity to change ones mind. That's why I will never own one. Even hanging, you have to get the rope, find a sturdy place to tie, get yourself up to the noose ....
I've had 2 high school classmates that shot themselves.
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)It has similar preps as a gun. People can make a snap decision and just jump from railings or balconies. I witnessed that once after a couple broke up. The guy just went out the window. The act of jumping is the same as pulling a trigger, irreversible once done.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Gun is now, and dead.
In most cases.
When gun suicide doesn't work, it is a real mess.....
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)A person who really intends suicide will not draw public attention.
As I said earlier, I saw a man kill himself by jumping. He didn't wait.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)So to speak.
Just ask Hollywood. They never jump. The always blow their brains out.
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,272 posts)He probably couldn't handle a gun.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,272 posts)Firearms are the cause of suicide in just over 50% of the cases.
Death by hanging/suffocation is half that.
Poisoning, mostly by drugs, is about 18%.
Falling/jumping is 2.3%.
All others combined add up to around 5%.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)where private firearm ownership is, for all intents and purposes, is banned, yet they have a higher per capita rate of suicide than the US.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I'm sure most people will say 'not possible, how well did probation work, and I would agree.
Gun deaths will never be 0, neither will alcohol deaths.
Most of gun deaths are suicides, some (although not all) will find other ways even if you could ban all guns.
Also, AWB and mag limits do nothing to address suicide.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)that.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)What a lame tactic. 
If we want to save lives we should ban both. Why save 33,000 lives when we can save 120,000.
Do you think an alcohol ban would work?
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Want professional treatment?
Good luck.
(I am in recovery btw)
Look at progress on smoking
http://www.livescience.com/48923-usa-smoking-declines-to-lowest.html
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Yallow
(1,926 posts)Ads, you name it.
Party, party, party.
Kinda makes it harder to quit.
Funny all the girls down at the tavern don't look like the ones in the Heineken commercial....
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Distract, distract, distract.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Pure comedy gold.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I've long ago come to the conclusion that most of what Hoyt posts about guns and gun owners is an odd sort of self-parody. It does no harm (and, in my case, entertains).
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)that's the pure comedy gold part of it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)etc., you are a Zman, Dunn, or even worse, waiting to happen. Sorry, that's obvious to everyone but those callous enough to tote and accumulate tons of gunz and ammo.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)You're on fire
Yallow
(1,926 posts)For carrying a can of Arizona Tea.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You don't punish the majority for the actions of a tiny minority.
But you never did answer my question,
Would you be willing to be on the confiscation teams that go door to door taking away law abiding American's firearms?
Or would you leave it to others with firearms to do your dirty work?
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Do you really need your guns if the nut jobs and criminals can't find, or have them?
Imagine how much safer all Americans could feel if none of their neighbors were armed, heavily armed, loaded for bear, weaponized, carrying, displaying, etc.
Imagine.
I know you have the capacity.
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)Our Democratic Republic form of government gives all the right to vote, but it has rules to prevent a majority from disenfranchising a minority. For instance, a majority cannot vote to confiscate property from a minority, the right to property in the 5th and 14th amendments prevents such a thing.
Majority Rule, Minority Rights.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Having rights is one thing.
Letting crazy angry people have unlimited access to unlimited weapons I don't think is a right.....
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)so again, why should the majority be punished for the actions of the minority?
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)If you don't like our Democratic Republic, leave.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Pretending that there is any "unlimited access to unlimited weapons" doesn't help.
A pretense. A specter. Without body. So is the pretense that it would matter even if it were true. A committed individual or group, will get what guns it wants when it wants them. One need look no further than France for an example.
That being said, the civilian legal trade in Arms in America is anything but unlimited, and the arms which are legal within it, are far far from unlimited.
Its aweful hard to have a discussion unless you're able to acknowledge reality first.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I hunt for our food, I control the predators from taking our livestock, I enjoy shooting targets, so I do need my firearms.
I notice you refuse to answer my question about volunteering to go door to door, why is that?
Yallow
(1,926 posts)You can eat your cows.....
BTW without deer hunting they would all overpopulate and die of starvation.
I know it isn't simple.....
But for 229 Billion a year, we could find some solutions other than Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. happening over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and overv over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I hunt for food because I don't support the factory farms, and unless you are a complete vegan, you do, so shame on you for supporting torture of animals.
If a predator is going after my livestock, I don't trap it, I kill it, but if it's just passing through, they get a free pass.
It's not up to you to decide whether or not I need my firearms, it's up to me and I deem it that I do.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)You have zero responsibility?
It is not a 100% / 0% decision for only you to make when it is your stolen gun killing innocent folks.
I have hunted, and probably will hunt again. I am a gun owner. My point is if I had may way, and it was my decision, I would make all guns in America disappear.
I just want to start the conversation so we can get some movement on this issue.
As of now no one has the courage to do anything, even background checks.
It is insane.
I started this thread to see if others felt the same way.
Very interesting conversations if you ask me.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)That's what you accused me of, so that would make you a hypocrite.
My firearms are kept locked up in very sturdy safes that are very hard to break into and they're secured to the concrete floor, in addition, I don't live in any city or town, I live out in the country where crime is minimal, so I don't worry about break in's.
Seems you're in the tiny minority here, even on a progressive board, that should tell you something.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)I like to hunt.
I am just looking for solutions to an insane problem.
That, and I want to see the conversation started.
No mentally unstable person should be allowed access to any firearm.
Ever.
Kinda hard to impose, but should be reality.
Not even having that conversation.
Let's git er done.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)to own firearms.
I'm not about to jettison the procedural or substantive due process or any other constitutional protections to address firearm issues or anything else, no less give government bureaucrats the discretionary power to determine who purportedly is "mentally unstable." Never forget that wide swaths of the country possess many people, including government employees, that have very different ideas the liberal Democrats. I shudder to think what would happen if people like Kim Davis were legally able to determine who could exercise certain constitutional rights.
if the conversation you want to start involves eliminating or limiting constitutional rights and protection, you will not be talking to me and a great many other Americans from across the political spectrum.
Waldorf
(654 posts)Now that would be a beautiful world.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yeah, that sounds like a good idea... 
EX500rider
(10,902 posts)You mean like in gun free Mexico? Yes..
Waldorf
(654 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)
Packerowner740
(676 posts)
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Anything like being a "former robber"???
Waldorf
(654 posts)millions of gun owners to come to that conclusion. Or was it just plucked out of the thin air?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)36. Simple -- Most gunners are a Zman waiting to happen.
I have always loved the comic relief provided by Hoyt's gun posts.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Millions of gun owners would refuse, and the combined law enforcement personnel in the entire country are not remotely enough to aggressively enforce such a ban (and the average cop would likely oppose such a law and may or may not obey orders to enforce it).
I'm 5'3" tall and weigh 112lbs. The average street criminal (statistically likely to be a young-ish male much, much larger and stronger than I am) doesn't need a gun to be a deadly threat to me. I also suspect that if I were black, I'd be even more dubious about a society in which only the cops were armed.
Rex
(65,616 posts)ing 300 million firearms all at once and not miss a single one! If anyone knows how, I am all ears.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Gun violence costs 229 Billion a year.
Lots of money saved to spend on logistics.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4
Rex
(65,616 posts)Currently all I hear is *crickets*.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Give all the gun owners $$ from the 229 billion saved.
1 year to turn them in for cash to gun stores.
Melt them down.
Selling, hoarding, manufacturing etc. 20 years in prison.
There, no crickets.
Possession 1 year and one day away 20 years in prison.
Put it on a ballot, all guns taken away, I would vote yes.
Won't happen, because we are all cowards, but I would still vote yes.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Stick them in camps? That would probably finish off the already overworked judical system. Simple ideas won't work here. I wish they would, but not in America.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Why not.
Once upon a time it was not possible to talk about interracial marriages, gay rights, slavery.....
Start the conversation.
Americans obviously can't handle guns.
Milita = Join military
2nd amendment satisfied.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Yallow
(1,926 posts)For the rest of us.
229 billion a year spent/lost so we can have our precious little toys.
With all the psychopaths born and bred in the nation, it is obvious they shouldn't be armed.
Taking away "their" guns isn't right.
Taking away "all" guns would fix many problems.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)From where does the $229b come? Please provide a link to an objective news source.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Here it is. #1 on Google. Not hard to find.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That is, the majority of that enormous cost lies in medical and legal/court costs, both industries that have enjoyed horrendous, astronomical price inflation over the last three decades or so.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)The cost isn't ever discussed, even though you Google "gun violence cost per year" it is the #1 search result.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)So why haven't you turned them in to have them melted down?
Yallow
(1,926 posts)I am just saying if I could wave my magic wand, and every single gun in America disappeared in one day would I wave it.
The answer is yes.
Zero guns = Safer America = Obvious = No Conversation
Zero cars=Safer America=Obvious=No Conversation.
Zero knives=Safer America=Obvious=No Conversation.
ETC.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Bad argument.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Again, why are you refusing to answer my question about confiscation?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I bet mexico and Honduras are very safe with their strict gun laws.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)80,000,000+ US gun owners. A tiny faction of that number of firearms crimes. There is little, if any, objective support of your claim. The vast, vast majority of US gun owners handle their responsibility of owning a deadly weapon just fine. How about we focus on the fuck-ups, instead?
Yallow
(1,926 posts)How many parents of the kids at Sandy Hook owned firearms?
All or none.
I say none.
Americans, living in fear, and being fed fear every day by politicians, the NRA, and the media are all time bombs.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But nice take on an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. That's a subtle variation I hadn't seen previously.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Would you be looking for answers?
The conversation is a million miles from where it should be.
Let's start with confiscate all weapons, then find a middle ground where unstable people can't get within 100 miles of a weapon.
Isn't that how politics works?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)To wit:
If you start with something like that, you don't get anywhere. Again, any attempt to aggressively enforce gun confiscation will not only fail, it will end in widespread bloodshed, and very likely cost far more lives than it saves. Make no mistake, either: only aggressive confiscation would ever come close to achieving more than very minimal compliance.
That's only "how politics works" in dictatorships and failed states.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Is it because you didn't get the support you thought you would get on a progressive board?
Did you learn anything at all?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Because that's when the Constitution was written.
Hint: One need not take part in weekly drills or any other drills.
EX500rider
(10,902 posts)Since the American homicide rate is both below the world avg and median I'd say that is not obvious.
http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
Waldorf
(654 posts)you run the statistics you find out that 99.9..% of firearms are not used in a criminal activity.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)With promises that door-to-door searches will be allowed or else.
EX500rider
(10,902 posts)Since the biggest chunk of that is "Long-term prison costs: Keeping individuals charged with a gun-related crimes..."
Most of those criminals would still be criminals with guns and still be going to prison.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And how would you seal the borders against smugglers?
I can flat guarantee that these RW militias, and probably millions of firearm owners would just ignore any such law, as evidenced by the compliance rate of gun laws in CT, NY, L.A.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And as you say, compliance rates in jurisdictions that have enacted measures which require turning in banned items provide clear evidence of how such efforts would be received on a national level.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The idea is too simple. The issue if far more complex than simply expecting people to turn over their firearms.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Bans will be largely ignored, period. It's long past time ban advocates abandon that approach and address efforts that might actually succeed in reducing gun-related violence.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Might as well work on a time machine so you can go back in time and stop the proliferation of firearms in early America (and guess what, you would be shot dead within 5 minutes of suggesting such a thing).
America and firearms goes so far back, that people should understand the history first. 2015 doesn't change that imo. If we want real gun control, it will have to be found outside of confiscation or mandatory turn ins.
That is a fantasy.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Stick them in camps? I know people want a simple solution to the problem, but it will never be that easy.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)If it is a law, enforce it.
80% of Americans don't own guns, and live in terror of the 20% that do.
Time to change the narrative.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Law to take away all guns would help.
Would remove the NRA's number one defense.
Right wing politicians are always blabbing "no proposed law would have stopped this".
How about no guns.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Oh, and perhaps you "live in terror" of the 80 million gun owners in the US (your ratio is way off), but I see no reason to extrapolate that to anyone else.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Gallup says 41%. I believe the percentage is much higher than that. Asking a poll question on something that many people would rather not disclose is going to get skewed results.
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)We don't have the prison space nor the courts to handle the number of people who would be arrested. And if you make possession a felony, many people will fight rather than surrender, meaning far more bloodshed and lost lives.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Better check those stats again.
The lowest estimate is that 1/3 of American households have a firearm in it, and that's just those that admit it, there are probably millions of Americans who refuse to divulge if they own a firearm.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)would comply with the law. So the "law-abiding" bit is just gunner bunk, like most of their rationales for arming up.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts) Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Shocking, no?
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)Wherein Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.
Newsflash - People disobey unjust laws. Just what do you think the BLM movement is doing? Some of the biggest civil liberties victories in the History of the United States started as civil disobedience.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)It's about disobeying the law if one considers it unjust. It was written to jusify helping slaves escape to freedom in violation of the laws of the time. It has been used to justify multiple civil rights movements. The sitting at lunch counters in the 1950s-60s was a classic example.
It's not about armed resistance.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)It just means people will disobey laws they see as unjust. Normal human nature frankly.
Malum prohibitum only gets one so far. Just ask a stoner...
Throd
(7,208 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)The number is never going to go down, just up.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Outright confiscation just isn't going to happen.
The other avenue and more travelled path, a 'movement' advancing restrictions incrementally, with the same end result in mind, is equally doomed to fail.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Watch 100 gun deaths a day.
Get the popcorn?
I say bullsh*t.
Gun nuts don't get their guns without paying for the $229 billion they cost society.
Make the bar so high for owning a gun, and penalties so strict for misuse, and insurance premiums to cover the $229 billion, maybe we could have a start on reducing gun deaths / violence.
Let's start somewhere......
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)pay for the irresponsible or illegal use of firearms?
Once again, you're attempting to punish the majority for the actions of a tiny minority.
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)Waldorf
(654 posts)they don't seem to be prosecuted.
The rest of the stuff, no way. Good thing we have a 2nd Amendment to prevent that kind of stuff.
Want to start somewhere? Enforcing the current laws would help.
beevul
(12,194 posts)99.9x percent of gun owners, and 99.9x percent of the guns they own, do not contribute to gun violence.
That's not opinion, thats fact, and I'd be happy to go through the math with you if you disagree.
Yours is a solution to guns, not a solution to gun violence.
Reasonable people will never agree with your solution, seeing as you fail to correctly identify the problem.
Yep. No mention by you, of the people that actually commit gun violence, or their role in paying for what they've done. But we who generally don't should made to PAY.
Yeah. NO.
The guns owned by those who do not commit gun violence, cost society 0 percent of that 229 billion.
Start somewhere else, like with the people who do commit gun violence.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The style of writing and the way of phrasing sounds like someone else. Someone who was given a large pizza a year or so back. I just can't quite remember the name used then.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We don't want the entirety of the US firearms market to be under the table. I'd like guns to remain legal but be harder to get. (Think about how it's easier for a teenager to buy weed than alcohol; that's kind of my point.)
Most importantly we need it to be less culturally acceptable to own guns, but that's a long road...
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...concept than a modern one. It hasn't really sunk in to most people yet how affordable those printers really are over the long term or how powerful a concept they are.
The days of banning anything are coming to an end (which is why there's such a push for the world-control global-elite authoritarianism right now; a dying organism always thrashes in its final throes of paroxysm). Criminalization can still exist of course, but one simply can not 'ban' something that literally any person in the nation can print out at their leisure for under a thousand dollars.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)what the public can own. There is no reason for an ordinary citizen to own a weapon used in a war. I was thinking about the latest murderer. If he had been carrying a Smith & Wesson .357, someone could have tackled him when he went to reload after 6 shots. So many deaths could be prevented by scaling back the weapons allowed. It might also be nice to bring back the notion of a "well regulated militia."
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)If so, how would that be implemented?
Vinca
(50,358 posts)It's above my pay grade to figure out how to do it.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Vinca
(50,358 posts)Look at that poor waitress the other day. Gathering up guns is a job for law enforcement, not older women with hip replacements.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)thousands of LEOs in harm's way? How considerate of you.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)I know . . . I was one in my younger days.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and -4th Amendements? Unbelieveable.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, for example. But, whatever. Some people never get it until it's their loved one's gray matter splat on the ground as a result of another shooting. Then they lament why we haven't done anything.
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)Brandenburg v. Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Vinca
(50,358 posts)Anything goes in the United States of Weaponry.
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)of the carnage that would happen if there was an attempt to forcefully attempt to confiscate all cjtizen-owned firearms in the U.S. I'm quite sure that many LEO agencies would refuse to enforce such a law.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)You'd think doing something that would save so many lives would be reasonable, especially since the majority of firearms are owned by a minority of the people. Those of us not supported by the NRA get short shrift. We're forced to exist in a society where both good guys and bad guys have weapons and we're somehow supposed to figure out who is good and who is bad. I really don't get it.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)I am in favor of a UBC law, even though I do not believe it will affect crimes involving guns. It might reduce accidental gun deaths or spur of the moment illegal uses of firearms.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Any proposal to eliminate them would run afoul of massive non-compliance. That's a huge deal-breaker. Not only would it mean that the effort failed, it would erect a not-insignificant barrier between tens of millions of people and law enforcement, a barrier that largely didn't exist before.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)There are many, many sensible gun control regulations that fall far short of a total ban on tens of millions of guns already in civilian hands.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)If JFK gave his "moon" speech today he'd have to say, "we'll never get to the moon and back in this decade or any decade thereafter." I think there are enough like-minded people in this country (those who are not crazy about the idea of themselves or their loved ones being shot) that it could be done. All other options can be tried too. Something has to be tried. Anything. This country is insane and the worship of guns has just about ruined it. I'm an older person who is childless by choice. I always wondered if I would regret not having children and I have to say that now I not only don't regret it, I'm relieved. I would worry night and day about children and grandchildren in this paranoid, gun-toting country.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If so, you certainly didn't understand it...
You posed a false dichotomy. I pointed out its falsity. That is, that there are a multitude of reasonable, potentially effective gun control measures that fall far short of an outright ban. I'll add here that such proposals also have the advantage of actually being enforceable.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)Did you read my post? I said we should try what you're suggesting. We just shouldn't settle for it. It's mind boggling how defeatist people are when it comes to gun control. We might not get what we want, but not to try is to say it's just fine for waitresses to be shot for telling a customer to put out his cigarette.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If "the top" is a complete ban then I am not remotely interested in reaching the top. I would most emphatically not feel safer under such circumstances. Eliminating guns entirely simply means that big, strong, ruthless people rule. Screw that. I have the vote, birth control, and a means of defending myself against brute force. Not interested in going back, thanks...
Vinca
(50,358 posts)If you feel safe in a world where everyone walks around with an assault rifle, good for you. Most of us don't.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)who in this country is walking around with assault rifles?
Vinca
(50,358 posts)Haven't you seen the photos of fellows shopping at Walmart or at the grocery store toting around their assault rifles? I suppose you never know when you might be attacked by an artichoke. Our local hardware store had to put up a "no guns" sign to keep them out.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Did I say I'd "feel safe in a world where everyone walks around with an assault rifle?" Here, I'll answer for you: nope. Those reasonable regulations I mentioned? Well, my city and county both prohibit open carry. I have no problem with that (open carry is stupid on multiple levels).
But no worries if you want to stop...we both have better things to do. Like supporting the best candidate for the presidency, which your avatar tells me is at least one thing we agree on. 
forthemiddle
(1,384 posts)Almost 600000 hunters"open carried". A majority of those were semi automatic weapons, yet there was not even one intentional shooting of a violent intent.......go figure?????
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Basically, I like for a local jurisdiction to have the right to make its own call on open carry. What's a really bad idea in one place may well be common and harmless in another. In some rural areas, open carry is fairly commonplace, whether for hunting or just a common, day-to-day practice. It doesn't draw much notice, and these places aren't commonly hotbeds of violent crime (or at least shootings...domestic violence stats can be another matter).
In other places, open carry is genuinely jarring, since it's basically never seen. Open carry in such places seems to be done largely as a political statement...and it's laughably counterproductive. And obviously as a personal security measure, it's tactically mindless ("hey, Mr. Person-with-Bad-Intent, you'll want to shoot me first!"
. My city (Portland) and county (Multnomah) prohibit open carry, but it's legal by state law. Local jurisdictions have an explicit exemption from state-level gun law preemption specifically for open carry, and are free to ban the practice. This policy works for me...
Vinca
(50,358 posts)There must be ferocious deer in Wisconsin.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I also own an AR-10 chambered in .308 for hunting, I have a 5 round mag for it, which makes it AZ compliant.
The AR platform makes for a very good hunting rifle.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)Kind of takes the sport out of it if you ask me.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The .308 is a standard hunting round very suited for deer/elk hunting.
Who has to aim?
Any responsible hunter tries to make sure that their first round kills the game quickly and cleanly so the animal doesn't run off and suffer, so it behooves us to aim very carefully before pulling the trigger.
What? You think that just because it's an AR platform that we just spray and pray that we hit the target?
Vinca
(50,358 posts)I come from a long line of hunters who hunt as you describe, but WITHOUT assault weapons. It's not necessary. They are made for one purpose: to kill a large number of creatures - usually humans - fast. I'm not opposed to hunting . . . unless it's humans being hunted and that's the primary purpose of an assault weapon.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)which makes it very suitable for hunting.
Waldorf
(654 posts)And the platform is very popular because its accurate, less recoil and very modular. And a lot of fun to shoot at the range.
Waldorf
(654 posts)does it for me. Most bolt guns hold 5 rounds.
forthemiddle
(1,384 posts)The fact is that the AR 15 is one of the most popular guns out there.
It must be doings the job right.
Vinca
(50,358 posts)They discovered, among other things, a large cache of weapons including an AR-15 which was loaded and had blood on it. No sign of the guy. Isn't popularity great?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #27)
Lizzie Poppet This message was self-deleted by its author.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)conceal for robberies and use for suicide (although both have been done).
TexasBushwhacker
(20,272 posts)The easier it is to use the firearm, the harder it is to get a license. Rifles and shotguns require a license also, but it is easer to get than a handgun license. Those are pretty much restricted to security and law enforcement.
BTW, suicide by firearm has fallen by 2/3 in Australia.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)True, but it has gained in other methods.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,272 posts)The rate in 1997, which was when gun buyback program was happening, was 14.6 per 100K. In 2013 it was10.9 per 100K, a drop of 25%. Considering Australia has around 23 Million people, that's over 650 fewer suicides per year.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)This "talk" reminds me of prohibition!
What do you plan to do with people that scoff at the law, and simply says "come and take them".... I can assure you that "rounding them up" will cause bloodshed all over this nation, is this what you want?? I know many peaceable folks that simply "will not comply" with a "turn them in" sort of law.
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/New-York-SAFE-Act-gun-registration-numbers-are-6343080.php
If New York State a state that is friendly territory for gun control, cannot even register more than 10% of "so called" assault weapons with the SAFE act, what makes you think you can get people to hand them in, in say a North Carolina??
Or do you plan to eliminate them?
What about the vast swaths of the nation, that are extremely pro gun, with very pro gun legislators, and more importantly, very pro gun law enforcement?? Who will you get too "round them up" in those areas?? New York has areas where law enforcement is ON RECORD as saying the SAFE Act is a "very low priority wink wink" and that was just for registration, what would they say if asked to enforce a ban?
Let me put this a little more succinctly.. As a lifelong Democrat, I have "mine" and I "WILL" keep mine, and frankly, no law, or threat of punishment will change that. If we start going door to door, to collect firearms from people, it is past time for a revolution in this nation, we are not Australians, or complaint Europeans, we are Americans. It simply is my right, as such to own these firearms, If you want it, come and take it.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Not rounding them us is causing 33,000 deaths a year.
What would be worse?
Millions would have to get a hobby besides stroking their weapons out of fear.
Petting their pretty little guns, like they were a lover.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And to think you started so well, so reasonably and rationally...
You have fun with insults and (inane) telepsychoanalisis, m'kay?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)or second, or third, for that matter.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)It would be a lot worse, if only 1% of people that owned the "newly restricted guns" opened fire on the very ill informed people that showed up to "try" to take their guns...Please do the math on that one, your very questionable number of 33,000 would look like a skinned knee.
Come and take them... The problem would be solved very quickly.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Are you going to be on the confiscation teams?
Or are you going to let others with guns do your dirty work?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Calling those who don't agree with you childish names is incontrovertible evidence your OP was intended to stir up a hornet's nest and nothing more.
Granted, you've been treading a fine line since you posted the OP; but this last post proves beyond a shadow of a doubt WHY you posted it.
I'd put you on ignore, but I'm afraid if I do I'll miss some seriously comedic shit. And I love comedic shit.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Yallow
(1,926 posts)I am a gun owner, and I would gladly melt my guns down if no other Americans were allowed to have them.
I don't think I am alone.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)If I thought that giving up my guns would save a single life. I would give them up.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Great response!!!
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)I do not believe my firearms are a threat to anyone.
beardown
(363 posts)So you want your guns so you can be safe and you want to keep your guns until every other American gives up their guns?
Let's set aside that banning guns in America will instantly make gun running the biggest business since boot legging was during booze prohibition. Let's set aside the recent reported thefts of guns from police and armories. Let's set aside 3-d printers.
Therefore, in a nation of 100 million Americans owning hundreds of millions of guns, your plan only works if every single one of these 100 million gun owners gives up their guns at the same time. With a talent like this you shouldn't be railing against guns and gun owners. You should be walking on water.
2naSalit
(87,186 posts)gun owner-they were gifts, I could go for that were it possible.
BUT we also have to clean up the police forces by getting rid of the KKK units.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Guns don't help against police, even today.
Taking to the streets has some effect though......
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)2naSalit
(87,186 posts)mine are a primitive type... black powder... haven't even looked at them in years and I don't keep any ordinance around with my tiny cabin and a wood stove! I could use the cash, though.
I have been an activist in the past by getting out in the streets and wouldn't rule that out in the future based on circumstances but I am so far away from any place where protesting in the streets would be effective that I try to do it through other means like actions in not contributing to capitalism and by voting in EVERY election for which I am eligible to do so. Getting old with no safety net or nest egg, so I stay home a lot.
Good OP, BTW.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Abolish the 2nd amendment, ban sales of new guns and transfer of existing guns, eventually the existing stockpile will succumb to attrition.
It's a long term project, to be sure.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Militia = Military
Redefine 2nd amendment.
It requires passing another amendment. This is difficult, but obviously can be done.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Probably not going to happen in any of our lifetimes (nor should it...), but it's absolutely possible.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)I have fully functional firearms that are 120 years old...I, and many other make own ammunition.
But hey, you can "try" to un-invent something!
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Do you really need your guns?
I really don't need mine, and haven't touched any of them in a year.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Its simply my right to own them. No matter what any suit in a far off city says...
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)That's what I mean by attrition.
Won't ever be 100%, but could be close if it was a national priority (like it should be).
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And I assure you that tens of millions of people would, in the face of such a plan, ensure that said entities don't know about them.
Fortunately, none of this is going to happen in the near- to mid-term. This nation will have ceased to exist as curretnly constituted long before such a societal shift occurs.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Haven't bought a gun from a dealer in nearly 10 years, their is no registration in Virginia. And besides, how do you plan on dealing with my kids, who share the same views as me?
As I said, Come and take them....
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)Upon death the property goes to the next of kin or by will to whomever is specified. The property cannot be confiscated or collected without due process and fair market payment as a "taking". Due process alone means a court case for every decedents property, with again, no legal basis to stop the succession of property.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)The entire project would obviously require a lot of legislation.
NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)It could for instance pass a law to hand over any person with a melanin content above some amount to aliens. (Space Traders)
Now, whether such laws can survive a court challenge is an entirely different matter. The laws you proposed would need some serious "Hail Mary" passes through the courts.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)You'd have to knock out the state Constitutions also. There are also other rights that need to be taken (right to property and right to due process).
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document. It's right there in the preamble.
The right would go from being explicitly protected to being implicitly protected by the ninth amendment.
Goddamn, folks need to take a civics class these days.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Than they will run into the issue that most state constitutions have the right to bear arms in them as well..
I really like how Maine's Constitution puts it:
But their glaring lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, works to our benefit.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)As if the whole philosophical underpinning of our western system of government (the enlightenment) never happened.
Just sad.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)"Setting a precedent" means..
If it is ok to restrict the 2nd in these over the top ways, what argument can they use against restricting other civil liberties the same way?
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)Licences, insurance, taxes.... Get a vision checkup.. Get a new sticker every year. Emissions check. I'm sure you all can think of more things that we are already used to.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)If they purchased a license?
Na.....
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)Why not a test for gun ownership? And a tax to pay for the damage due to guns.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Not true. You have to pass a test to drive a car ONLY IN PUBLIC. The rough gun parallel is a concealed carry license.
Driving on private property requires no such license.
Nor does simply owning a car.
I'm all for teaching gun safety in schools.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...we insist on killing too many people.
If people were like DUers, I doubt if guns would be much of a problem. We know they are FAR from the "brain waves" of the people on this forum.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,272 posts)They were able to do the buyback and then control the import and sale of new weapons. Over 5 million guns are manufactured in the US per year
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'd rather see private ownership allowed, but storage at public armouries, so that you 'checked out' your weapon for use at firing ranges, competitions, and during hunting season.
But I'd love us to get to the point at which people carrying guns was so rare that police didn't routinely carry them either, and only specialty SWAT units had them for use when a verified armed suspect was being apprehended.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)These ideas sound good until you actually have to implement them. The truth is, nobody is giving up their guns no matter what law is passed. We have a gun culture that is unique in the world.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I'm sort of late to the game on this thread so I'm sure my points have been made by others, but I just wanted to toss in my $0.02.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Can you imagine how powerful they'd become if you talked about criminalizing 80 million people that just want to protect themselves and their families? If even a small minority of those gun owners who didn't vote last time, show up to vote the next time, the Dems would have effectively committed political suicide.
Besides being blatantly afoul of the constitution, the Supremes have already made their position on guns in this country clear. Everyone talks about how conservative our court is, yet we have the ACA, we still have Roe v Wade, we have gay marriage and interracial marriage. A more liberal court would be exceedingly unlikely to reverse itself on guns.
gopiscrap
(23,770 posts)If you own a gun, you're part of the problem!!!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)What utter bullshit.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)So mear ownership is the problem? Not misuse??
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...the problem would be exponentially grater than it is, given that there are c. 80,000,000 gun owners in the US.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And 2/3 of those are suicides. I guess none of of those tens of thousands will not find another way. Pipe dreams are always nice.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)you won't be able to round up all guns.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I also have inherited firearms that nobody knows about. I imagine many others do as well. Short of a house-to-house searched conducted by people ironically equipped with 'teh gunz", they can't be rounded up.
sarisataka
(19,056 posts)by installing cameras everywhere, in public and in homes to constantly monitor people. If we implant RFID chips in everyone and include telemetry in the cameras we could record make crime impossible. Any criminal act would be recorded and the chips would positively identify the perpetrators.
Simple
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)choose to own or not own guns. I do, wholeheartedly, support the 2nd Amendment simply for that freedom. But I support ALL of the 2nd Amendment, including the "well regulated" part of it.
There was a time when getting one's driver's license was easy-breezy. That's no longer the case in the State of California. The rigorous driving test (mine was exactly 55 minutes!) with parallel parking - three times, just to make sure I wasn't just lucky - and two times the two-point turnabout, plus driving up the I-10 during high traffic, made that one tedious driver's test. But considering the high traffic in SoCal, especially the Los Angeles area, it was necessary to ensure they didn't give me a driver's license for kicks and giggles even though I drove in the Netherlands for eight-plus years - even in Amsterdam and Utrecht, and any Dutch auto-driver will tell you those two places have horrible traffic.
So I believe it wouldn't be too much to ask people who wish to buy and own guns to go through rigorous testing as well. When our Founders mentioned "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment, I'm assuming they didn't mean a simple background check and a few minutes of our time for registration.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)What does that tell you?
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Nothing new.
We obviously can't have every crazy angry American armed to the teeth.
What are we doing about it.
Zip.
Gonna rec that?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)We're not "afraid of doing what needs to be done," we're rejecting that it (a complete gun ban) does indeed "need to be done."
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Most people cherish their second amendment rights, whether they exercise them, or not. Proposing to confiscate all guns is what's crazy.
uppityperson
(115,683 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)and our suicide rate is comparable to other countries with much stricter gun control, and significantly lower than gun control havens such as Japan and South Korea.
Australia also didn't round-up or ban all guns, and the number of firearms in Australia is now about the same as before the ban.
Lastly, although I've never owned firearms, I see no reason for a ban and confiscation. Only a tiny minority of legal firearm owners ever engage in criminality, and firearms have perfectly legitimate uses, including self-defense, hunting and sport. Notably, with respect to self-defense, all a firearm ban would accomplish is ensuring the small, frail, and outnumbered would almost always be disadvantaged against mainly young male criminals. Most importantly, as you acknowledge, such ideas have nowhere near the requisite democratic support and are entirely impractical.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Never ever even spoken.
Plain, simple language.
branford
(4,462 posts)I don't think you can even do that with a constitutional amendment...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If the question is some kind of "wave a magic wand and all guns in the world disappear" hypothetical, then that's one thing, though I'm still not sure where I would fall on that.
Snow Leopard
(348 posts)Took away all the guns. But in answer to the question, I can't see that happening EVER in America.
SadWingsOfDestiny
(21 posts)I would hand it over peacefully.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You can give it to me. I'll be collecting.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,212 posts)Totalitarian states love people like you - the common phrase was "He'd shoot his own mother if ordered to". Good obedient workers who don't cause trouble for the elites.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I don't know why I even bothered to respond with this sentence.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Waldorf
(654 posts)canosoviejo
(15 posts)Yallow
(1,926 posts)Sensible communication may start sensible movement.
How many deaths will it take to start the sensible conversations?
I just don't believe "nothing can be done" attitudes.
The biggest problem we face is half of America could be considered disturbed.
Possibly even all of us.....
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I hope that's not what you're saying.
Logical
(22,457 posts)You really have no clue.
Pure comedy gold.
Logical
(22,457 posts)would never admit it.
We are a really violent country when it comes to guns.
Compare us to other countries. Countries we admire.
I imagine you would vote GOP over DEM over the gun issue.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)As I said, you really have no clue, and I don't have to explain myself to you.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)I meant something like the poll where over 50% of the people in Texas said the world was only 6,000 years old.
Great conversation.
May see you on a trail someday.....
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yet here you are, yourself, expressing one. If you can't make positive change by going after guns, you aren't interested in making positive change at all.
So transparent.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Panich52
(5,829 posts)IOW, all black market, underground, and as prevalent as before banned
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Try a reasonable measure backed by the vast majority of legal owners.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.
