Dem congressman: Force gun owners to get rid of assault weapons

[Calista241]

Source: NBC News

A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.

In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

In the past, Democrats and gun safety groups have carefully resisted proposals that could be interpreted as “gun confiscation,” a concept gun rights groups have often invoked as part of a slippery slope argument against more modest proposals like universal background checks.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem-congressman-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066

[awesomerwb1]

1. Wow, that's bold.

Swalwell is great.

Apparently he has no presidential aspirations.

[Fred Sanders]

15. On the contrary, gun control may propel advocates to the White House. The spell is broken.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Australia did something very close to this

but I doubt it would play well here to say the least

[paleotn]

7. Since we worship our guns as gods...

and are scared little things who don't care one whit about the lives of school children, unfortunately, you're correct.

[NickB79]

12. Australia confiscated around 150,000 guns

So 1/100 the volume this Congressman proposed.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Wrong! 650,000. Per capita, same thing... not an obstacle, just a matter

of scale.

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

[NickB79]

47. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect

The Australian gun control legislation put into effect banned possession of not only semi-automatic military style rifles, but also almost all handguns as well as many semi-automatic shotguns, pump-action shotguns, lever-action rifles, and semi-automatic hunting rifles. Thus, they did collect 650,000 firearms total, but only 150,000 of those were military-style assault rifles.

Rep. Eric Swalwell's bill only addresses military-style assault rifles.

If you wanted to discuss enacting a copy of the Australian government's gun control legislation in the US (a true apples-to-apples comparison), you would bump the number of firearms confiscated up from the 15 million that Rep. Swalwell's proposal covers, to easily 100 million or more. Remember, there are an estimated 300 million firearms in the US, enough for every man, woman and child. Handguns are everywhere for self/home defense it seems, and semi-auto and pump-action shotguns are the most common things in the gun cabinets of every hunter in America.

At $1000 per firearm, that's one hell of a bill.

Your statement that it was also the same thing per capita is also confusing, as 650,000 firearms confiscated out of a population of roughly 20 million people in Australia (0.03 firearms per person) is almost half the 15 million firearms per 310 million people in the US (0.055 firearms per person) that Rep. Swalwell's bill would do. And again, that's assuming the comparison was valid, which I showed above that it was not unless you also proposed confiscating handguns and most other semi-automatic firearms. And in that case, 100 million firearms per 310 million people is whopping 0.35 firearms per person!

[Archae]

3. What an idiot.

Sure thing!
How's he going to enforce a rule like this?

Have the ATF go door to door ransacking homes looking for the "wrong" guns?

[Le Gaucher]

24. It should be voluntary- supported by Government Buy backs

along with

1) Liabilities - if the gun ever gets used in a crime
2) Ban on sale
3) Requirement to carry liability insurance

[oneshooter]

25. How can the Government "buy back" something they have never owned or sold? n/t

[Le Gaucher]

26. The government should offer to buy huns from citizens for full retail price.

Australians did it ..

[christx30]

4. "Wouldn't it be nice if unicorn farts cured cancer?" n/t

[atreides1]

5. That was stupid

Forced buyback or be prosecuted!!! He just gave the Republicans a gift...are we sure he's on our side???

[pazzyanne]

11. Agree with you

The Repubs now have something to run on for the 2018 and 2020 elections! They had nothing but Hillary, Hillary, Hillary before this. I can see this becoming a battle cry. Very bad timing in my opinion. That doesn't mean I support military style weapons. I don't!!!!

[scottie10]

36. Agree

I like Swalwell but this is a bad idea. This just reinforces the idea among gun owners that the government is trying to take all guns.It will help get more Republicans elected.

[FakeNoose]

38. It's their favorite deflection - the liberals are coming for your guns!

[pwb]

6. No Medicaid or food stamps if you own an expensive assault weapon?

Se how they would like that requirement for government assistance ??? Not much I bet......

[Jake Stern]

8. Just when we started making inroads with moderate and rural voters. . . . .

[alp227]

13. In order to have a "big tent".

I think the best political competition gives voters a clear choice between left and right (Democrats for reproductive choice/Republican against, Democrats for gun control/Republican for expanded gun rights, etc.) Would the Democrats really lose that many urban voters by NOT advocating gun restrictions compared to the moderate/rural voters lost by going for gun control?

[appal_jack]

39. That's not a big tent; it's a narrow lane.

Last edited Sun May 13, 2018, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

With your notions of a "big tent," how should a rural, pro-choice gun owner vote?

I prefer to vote for candidates that support all Constitutional liberties: the right to free speech, freedom of religion, privacy (and reproductive freedom as part of that), the right to keep and bear arms, etc.

Usually, Democrats offer a better choice on this front, but with the gun-grabbing ideological avalanche as of late, (never mind those Democrats supporting the NDAA, FOSTA-SESTA, etc.) it's getting harder to make such a distinction. The last thing we need is a clueless California rep suggesting a literal gun grab.

-app

[House of Roberts]

9. Why not class them the same as Thompson machine guns circa WW2, etc.

It would require a higher level license but wouldn't have to be a ban.

[7962]

22. Because they're not the same & it would apply to too many weapons.

The only way to really be able for it to work would be a mag capacity ban. Because the AR15, as an example, is really not much different than a hunting rifle. It just LOOKS a lot scarier. But limit the amount of rounds would make a difference. If you ban a specific model, the companies will just change the name. If you specify the style, companies will just slightly alter whats in the law. and on and on.

[procon]

28. I have no problem with that.

The government changes the classifications of lots things and strangely enough life goes on, yeah?

Drugs are in constant flux, plants, pesticides, medical equipment, and even guns are re-evaluated and their commercial status is altered. Since those the AR15 type guns were already banned once, this isn't a legitimate problem. Coming up with the funding might be an issue, at least while Republicans hold the house, but it could be managed. And carve out permits should apply to certain collectors, shooting demonstration show, or guns that can be owned by special groups like gun clubs and shooting ranges.

I disagree that you need a specific model identified since other categories of proscribed and controlled items are often listed by their function, purpose or intent because there are many different manufacturers involved that are all making similar products. Think of the general warning based on size that applies to banning thousands of unsafe children's toys to avoid choking hazards. See, getting rid of those guns is quite doable.

[7962]

34. Back when we had the original ban, the mfgs did what I mentioned; made cosmetic changes.

And continued to sell what was NOT called an AR15, but performed the same way.
If you describe the weapon that the AR15 is, that description will also fit a ton of other guns normally used for hunting and rarely used in crimes. The high capacity mags are what makes these so bad. The Waffle House guy stopped the shooter when he went to reload. You should have to reload MORE OFTEN, instead of being able to fire 30 rounds at a time. A similar thing happened with the guys on the French train jumping the attacker.
Get rid of the mags, its a lot easier and much more probable. This proposed law in the OP wouldn't even be passed by a Democratic Congress

[Mopar151]

40. High capacity mags make it difficult to fire from prone position, for fixed defense or terrorists

(Dad was a "BAR Man" in WW2) And there are many tactical reasons that make magazine size the dividing line between a military weapon and a terror weapon to be used against the unarmed. ("Technical" vs Humvee metaphorically) , centering around Dad's sage observation"Carrying your own ammo will get you over full-auto real quick!" They were taught to use the burst-fire technique with the full-auto setting, long before it became a selective mode. Machine gunners are trained similarly, to do 6-8 round bursts.

[7962]

45. Which is why the military version still has the "burst" selection. Your dad is right!

I think the current model M-16 is a 3 round burst.
I remember a trainer back in basic showing what happens to accuracy when you fire on full auto. It goes in the crapper because of the recoil. Unless you're Rambo and can hold a .50 cal steady as it fires a few 100 rounds!!

[NickB79]

10. At least he's honest enough to admit it would cost tens of billions

[Fred Sanders]

17. At a saving of thousands of lives and billions in medical costs...fair trade. Not to mention the

end of the American horror show of gun deaths.

[Calista241]

18. It would do no such thing. He's only talking about assault rifles.

Which is less than 5% of all gun deaths a year. People would use other types of guns for their killing.

[Fred Sanders]

19. 33,000 gun deaths per year...5% prevented is 1,150 lives saved. Per year. A great start, agreed?

Not to mention the wounding and maimings.

[hack89]

20. Because rifle owners don't also own handguns or shotguns?

It won’t prevent anything.

[Calista241]

23. 33,000 includes suicides, of which almost none are committed with assault rifles.

of the 11,000-ish murders committed by firearms, 374 people were killed by all types of long guns in 2016.

Personally, i think $15 billion and going to the mat against gun owners, republicans and sacrificing potentially winning back the House is too high a price to save 374 people who could very easily be killed by some other type of firearm in the absence of rifles.

And yes, i think it's crass to evaluate life and death like i've done here in this post, but as the quote goes, One man's death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic.

[Kaleva]

33. Spend 15 billion to save possibly 1,150 lives per year?

"The researchers calculated that in 2005, lack of health insurance resulted in 44,789 deaths of Americans age 18 to 64."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/us-healthcare-republican-bill-no-coverage-death

[NickB79]

48. Most people aren't committing suicide with AR-15's

It's almost all handguns and shotguns.

The reason the Australian gun buyback program dropped the suicide rate so much is that most of the guns collected were HANDGUNS.

[spin]

49. Almost 2/3 of the 33,000 firearm deaths in 2013 were suicides. ...

Half the suicides in our nation involve a firearm. (Ref: https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/) However the fact that there are somewhere around 75,000 nonfatal firearm injuries and 11,000 homicides by firearms is unacceptable.

One factor often ignored is that firearms are used for legitimate self defense and consequently often save lives. Some suggest banning most or all civilian ownership of these weapons but that might actually lead to unintended consequences such as an increase in crimes by the criminal element who by definition do not obey laws.

In my opinion we can improve our current gun laws in this nation to make it far more difficult for violent criminals and people with serious mental issues that might endanger themselves or others to be able to legally purchase firearms. We can also better enforce our laws against the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling and sale of such weapons to our inner cities. We also need to improve our mental healthcare system in our nation which would reduce the number of suicides and mass murders.

Gun violence in the United States

Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[4] Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.[1][6] The ownership and control of guns are among the most widely debated issues in the country.
(.....emphasis added)

In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[7] In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.[8] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[9] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[10]

Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide.[11] Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011. This number includes all deaths resulting from a firearm, including suicides, homicides, and accidents.[11]

***snip***

Gun violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males.[14][15] Although mass shootings have been covered extensively in the media, mass shootings in the US account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths[16] and the frequency of these events steadily declined between 1994 and 2007, rising between 2007 and 2013.[17]

***snip***

The effectiveness and safety of guns used for personal defense is debated. Studies place the instances of guns used in personal defense as low as 65,000 times per year, and as high as 2.5 million times per year. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year, but noted this was likely to be an overestimate.[40](.....emphasis added)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[krispos42]

27. Yeah, no.

When the type of gun is known, ALL rifles are used to murder about 300 people a year. The same as shotguns, and about 1/25th of handguns. Practically speaking, one person per day is killed with a rifle, So maybe 2-3 per week are killed with an AR-15?

And since people will buy tactical rifles that aren't "assault weapons" with their money, you'll wind with Republicans running things for years while saving no lives. None. In fact, considering how crappy they run things, far more people will die from toxins and disease and botched illegal abortions than can be saved by banning "assault weapons".

IT'S NOT A HARDWARE PROBLEM.

AR-15s are not possessing the souls of sick people and making them commit random mass murders. Getting rid of them will not make these sick people stay home and pout. I know you desperately want to smash gun culture and will grasp at any straw to do so but this is just grandstanding and feeding some red meat to pay off the Democratic base.

[procon]

29. Gun culture... LOL! You said, gun culture.

Sorry, not sorry! There's just something very unhealthy about that sentiment.

[Fred Sanders]

41. Some should be aware the usual gunner talk is boring, illogical and yesterday's broken record.

[krispos42]

42. Yeah, all those facts and stuff.

But keep screaming into the echo chamber. The nice thing about your outrage is even when you get what you want, because it doesn't address any kind of fundamental problem, the thing you're outraged about is still there!

[Fred Sanders]

44. David Hogg has some facts and stuff to ponder about GUNS and DEATH in America:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210575925

Outrage? Yes, absolutely!

[krispos42]

46. Still avoiding my other post, huh?

I understand why.

I also understand why the chart includes suicides... to make the numbers look bigger and more impressive. How many of those were done with the guns you seek to ban?

[Mopar151]

43. 1000% correct

The way to deal with "gun culture" is not with high-profile "compliance actions" - it only plays into the "white wing" understanding of the world.

Personally, I think that the gun culture needs to be challenged to come up with solutions, instead of reciting the slippery slope/2nd amendment mantra. Fer-instance: What should the penalty be for leaving any firearm accessible to a child, with a round in the chamber? I would think something like drunk driving, maybe?

As for the dedicated "assault rifle" shooters: What is the best way to protect your rights, while keeping the mayhem out of the hands of the zombies? Should there be a Federal license, with a (simple) test on responsibilities, maybe some storage safety requirements?

[hack89]

14. Stupidity has always been bipartisan. Nt

[Jedi Guy]

21. This would be a disaster.

Does he propose that ATF agents would search homes to confiscate these guns? If so, he's setting the stage for gun battles galore. The "molon labe" crowd would not just meekly hand over their guns, and he's a fool if he imagines they would. This would result in plenty of deaths, agents and civilians alike.

This is also a lovely gift for the gun fanciers, since the gun lobby will point and scream "See, we were right all along!"

[christx30]

30. And those people are big fans of preemptive war.

They wouldn’t wait for the Feds to come knocking. Political assassinations, murders of anti-gun celebrities, shootings at ATF offices. A ban like this would do way more harm than good.

[Jedi Guy]

37. Unfortunately, all those things are possible, even likely.

A move like this could easily spiral out of control and morph into a second civil war, particularly if some state governments refused to fall in line. A nightmare scenario, but I think it's a possible outcome.

[appal_jack]

31. This is a fuckwitted and unconstitutional proposal.

The government is required to pay a fair market value for anything it confiscates, and many (many) of these so-called "assault weapons" cost more than $1,000 each. Try telling an owner of a Polytech milled double-underfolder or a match barrel AR-10 that you want to pay them a mere grand for either rifle, and they will laugh before telling you that said rifle was lost in a tragic boating accident.

As has been said by others before me, this proposal will save no lives. Yes, 0.

This proposal will inflame Republican voters like no other.

C'mon people, think these things through. Please.

-app

[7962]

35. Yes, the number of reported boating accidents will skyrocket! nt

[ExciteBike66]

32. A good idea, but they really need to start with handguns...nt

[NickB79]

50. Focus on the magazines instead

If you're going to ban something, ban high capacity magazines instead. Anything over 10 rounds, let's say. Offer $50 per magazine (a new AR-15 mag costs $10-$20 now), and enact a national 2-cent-per-bullet tax to help fund it. I've read that US shooters buy 5 billion rounds per year, so that's $100 million annually. Two pennies extra per shot is nothing at the range or on a hunt.

Hand out gift cards at local police station for magazines, no questions asked. Enact a 3 year grace period to get as many as possible. You could take a lot of high-capacity magazines off the streets with that kind of cash if carried out for a few years, while not infringing in any way on gun owner's 2nd Amendment rights.

[Fire Trump]

51. Won't work ;(

This would not work. The gun huggers would not sell their magazines for 50 a pop. Look at what happened to the ban on full autos. All it did was take a 1500 gun and turn it into a 15-20,000 gun. You ban high capacity mags all it will do is make them even more valuable. It's a sad world we live in.

[marble falls]

52. The more valuable they are, the fewer there are, the fewer have them. Go after them like...

meth labs and punish them like meth labs.

[NickB79]

54. California, New York and several other states already outlaw their sale and manufacture

You can still legally own the magazines in some of these states, but they are non-transferable and die with the owner. No used-magazine market.

My proposal is to go one step further, and outlaw their possession altogether. Provide 3 years to turn in magazines with no questions asked. After that, possession of one becomes either a gross misdemeanor or felony, punishable by hefty fines or even jail time. If you operate a shooting range and someone is caught by an officer using a high-capacity magazine, the range owner is held partially liable as well and subject to fines.

It won't get all the magazines out of circulation, obviously. A lot of owners will simply squirrel them away in attics, bury them in backyards, etc. There won't be ATF agents searching houses. But this in itself will help keep them off the street and out of the hands of new gun owners. Your example of the 1986 ban on new manufacture of full-auto firearms is actually a good one for my argument. The number of crimes committed with fully automatic firearms has been minuscule, largely because only the really rich can afford to purchase the legally held ones still in circulation, and most criminals aren't stupid enough to have anything to do with illegally made ones since the penalties for possession are so high.

[Politicub]

53. Change I can believe in