sirlynchmob wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?

the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.

thats not not so easy. The court has made its decisions and precedent has been set and incorporated to the states. You would need a new case on the subject that makes its way to the SC, the SC would have to agree to hear it (which they generally do not) and then vote to overturn that precedent. Not impossible, but practically so, and thats not getting into the value/weight/meaning/legal value of the preceding militia qualification and what purpose the amendment serves in that form (why would the federal govt need an amendment for its own ability to keep and bear arms?)

Even if you do that however, how do you collect 300 million guns when you have no idea where they are, what kind they are, who has them, etc? How much compensation do you provide for turning over that expensive property? If you do a flat $1k per gun as a general average, you're looking at over $300 billion on just that alone, to say nothing of enforcement/administration costs, or likely resistancr and noncooperation from elements of the population and local level law enforcement, etc. Even the most stringent bans have always grandfathered in existing weapons. The MG ban doesnt apply to pre-86 weapons for example, "assault weapons" owned prior to the enactment of bans have always been grandfathered in, etc. Theres lots of US law that basically says the government cant ban something and apply it post facto, and that would be an issue as well.

There's lots of interlocking and overlapping legal hurdles to overcome there, very little of it simple or easy.

You just stop selling the guns & bullets to civilians, so as the guns break, or get confiscated as evidence, they're removed from the pool 300 million is chump change really, they found 800 million to increase the militaries industrial complex budget. Then take away the cost of these emergency responses and the militarization of the police and the cost is nothing and that's buying them back at your suggested price. You could probably buy them back at 1/2 current value.

So now instead of turning 300 million people into criminals you want to force people who produce the guns and ammo, sell the guns and ammo out of work? Increasing the number of disgruntled people in the populace who would have the means to carry out shootings. Either way, you're increasing the likely hood of violence.

well if that's all it takes to turn "responsible law abiding gun owners" into violent criminals. then we can conclude they're already violent gun owners, and as such they should not be allowed near weapons of any kind.

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.

Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.

To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.

Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.

True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.

Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.

It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?

So? Doesn't make it less valid.

We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?

It would save lives, no doubt about it.

It wouldn't eliminate gun deaths, but it would reduce it by a significant margin.

Fewer suicides by legally owned guns, fewer passion crimes involving legally owned guns, fewer accidents involving legally owned guns.

Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.

Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...

Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?

It would save lives, no doubt about it.

It wouldn't eliminate gun deaths, but it would reduce it by a significant margin.

Fewer suicides by legally owned guns, fewer passion crimes involving legally owned guns, fewer accidents involving legally owned guns.

Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.

Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...

Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?

Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.

Simple question, simple answer.

You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

So now instead of turning 300 million people into criminals you want to force people who produce the guns and ammo, sell the guns and ammo out of work? Increasing the number of disgruntled people in the populace who would have the means to carry out shootings. Either way, you're increasing the likely hood of violence.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?

It would save lives, no doubt about it.

It wouldn't eliminate gun deaths, but it would reduce it by a significant margin.

Fewer suicides by legally owned guns, fewer passion crimes involving legally owned guns, fewer accidents involving legally owned guns.

Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.

Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...

Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?

Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.

Simple question, simple answer.

You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.

Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.

Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.

To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.

Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.

True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.

Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.

It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?

So? Doesn't make it less valid.

We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.

No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?

It would save lives, no doubt about it.

It wouldn't eliminate gun deaths, but it would reduce it by a significant margin.

Fewer suicides by legally owned guns, fewer passion crimes involving legally owned guns, fewer accidents involving legally owned guns.

Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.

Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...

Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?

Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.

Simple question, simple answer.

You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.

Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.

d-usa wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

So now instead of turning 300 million people into criminals you want to force people who produce the guns and ammo, sell the guns and ammo out of work? Increasing the number of disgruntled people in the populace who would have the means to carry out shootings. Either way, you're increasing the likely hood of violence.

"We can't regulate guns, because gun manufacturers will be out of work and kill everyone with the guns they now can't sell" may be the weirdest argument I have heard in all our gun threads to date.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?

It would save lives, no doubt about it.

It wouldn't eliminate gun deaths, but it would reduce it by a significant margin.

Fewer suicides by legally owned guns, fewer passion crimes involving legally owned guns, fewer accidents involving legally owned guns.

Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.

Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...

Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?

Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.

Simple question, simple answer.

You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.

Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.

come on now, gun owners support the #bluelivesmatter and preach obey the cops at all times. Surely the would never raise their guns to an officer, because they know that's what gets you killed.

 d-usa wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?

It would save lives, no doubt about it.

It wouldn't eliminate gun deaths, but it would reduce it by a significant margin.

Fewer suicides by legally owned guns, fewer passion crimes involving legally owned guns, fewer accidents involving legally owned guns.

Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.

Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...

Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?

Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.

Simple question, simple answer.

You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.

Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.

Well, of those people love the constitution like they say they do they would surely honor any constitutional amendment that repealed the 2nd.

But yeah, it comes back to the observation that many gun deaths are caused by legally owned guns. The two deadliest mass shootings, both committed in the past two years, were conducted by legal gun owners who decided one day that they were going to break the law that day.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.

Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.

To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.

Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.

True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.

Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.

It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?

So? Doesn't make it less valid.

We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.

No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?

Prestor Jon wrote:



It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.

Prestor Jon wrote:

It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.

Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.

To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.

Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.

True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.

Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.

It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?

So? Doesn't make it less valid.

We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.

No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?

It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.

 d-usa wrote:
Yeah, the wackjobs will always be there.

And yes, any reduction in legal gun ownership will not have an initial impact on illegal guns. It will result in a reduction down the line, as guns used in crimes are taken out of circulation, and the lack of available guns in circulation to replenish the illegal stock makes an impact.

Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control>

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Whenever I hear gunfire I am always slightly alarmed by how innocuous the sound actually appears.

Its almost disturbing in a way. 'Firecrackers' is always something that I hear gunfire compared to. This event was no different.

Anyway. The media is being its usual vile self. the desperation from some reporters in trying to find an angle is particularly reprehensible.
I feel for the victims but also the brother and family of the shooter. being hounded so soon after the event.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:



It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.

yes it's hard, it's harder when nothing is done to even try because way to many accept the violence. Heck we can't even an awareness campaign, "shoot yourself, not other"

vehicle homicides though are proof regulations save lives. mandatory seat belts, crumple zones, and other safety features will prevent the death of anyone in the car.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yeah, the wackjobs will always be there.

And yes, any reduction in legal gun ownership will not have an initial impact on illegal guns. It will result in a reduction down the line, as guns used in crimes are taken out of circulation, and the lack of available guns in circulation to replenish the illegal stock makes an impact.

Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control>

not so much, no one who studies gun crimes get's federal funding. the CDC was even asked to look into it by Obama, because it is a public health hazard, but nothing as of yet from them.

What is known, when you have a gun in your house, it is far more likely to be used against someone in your house than used to prevent any sort of crime.

 d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:



It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.

yes it's hard, it's harder when nothing is done to even try because way to many accept the violence. Heck we can't even an awareness campaign, "shoot yourself, not other"

vehicle homicides though are proof regulations save lives. mandatory seat belts, crumple zones, and other safety features will prevent the death of anyone in the car.

They will reduce the risk, but they won't prevent.

But there are fewer constitutional protections for cars than there are or guns, so there's that as well. And cars as a whole kill more people than guns, so the drive to regulate is stronger there. Last year 8,000 people died from gun homicide, but 40,000 from car accidents.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?

It would save lives, no doubt about it.

It wouldn't eliminate gun deaths, but it would reduce it by a significant margin.

Fewer suicides by legally owned guns, fewer passion crimes involving legally owned guns, fewer accidents involving legally owned guns.

Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.

Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...

Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?

Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.

Simple question, simple answer.

You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.

Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.

come on now, gun owners support the #bluelivesmatter and preach obey the cops at all times. Surely the would never raise their guns to an officer, because they know that's what gets you killed.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.

Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.

To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.

Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.

True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.

Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.

It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?

So? Doesn't make it less valid.

We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.

No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?

It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.

But yet there are laws requiring life guards to be on duty at public swimming pools. There are laws that heavily punish drunk drivers and seek to find them by traffic stops on busy roadways. Laws that require bartenders to cut off patrons and supply them with coffee and food if they need it. Laws that require cabs to be called if a driver is too far gone.

It is sad that is your argument. Gun tragedies will not happen because not enough people in Congress share my opinion. It isn't about what the public thinks, it is about what their representatives think. Representatives who really do a piss poor job of following the opinions of their people.

Just remember, Trump lost the Popular vote and he is now representing the US, while the majority of people disagree with him. But yet he won. That alone shows your argument holds no water.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?

the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.

thats not not so easy. The court has made its decisions and precedent has been set and incorporated to the states. You would need a new case on the subject that makes its way to the SC, the SC would have to agree to hear it (which they generally do not) and then vote to overturn that precedent. Not impossible, but practically so, and thats not getting into the value/weight/meaning/legal value of the preceding militia qualification and what purpose the amendment serves in that form (why would the federal govt need an amendment for its own ability to keep and bear arms?)

Even if you do that however, how do you collect 300 million guns when you have no idea where they are, what kind they are, who has them, etc? How much compensation do you provide for turning over that expensive property? If you do a flat $1k per gun as a general average, you're looking at over $300 billion on just that alone, to say nothing of enforcement/administration costs, or likely resistancr and noncooperation from elements of the population and local level law enforcement, etc. Even the most stringent bans have always grandfathered in existing weapons. The MG ban doesnt apply to pre-86 weapons for example, "assault weapons" owned prior to the enactment of bans have always been grandfathered in, etc. Theres lots of US law that basically says the government cant ban something and apply it post facto, and that would be an issue as well.

There's lots of interlocking and overlapping legal hurdles to overcome there, very little of it simple or easy.

You just stop selling the guns & bullets to civilians, so as the guns break, or get confiscated as evidence, they're removed from the pool. 300 million is chump change really, they found 800 million to increase the militaries industrial complex budget. Then take away the cost of these emergency responses and the militarization of the police and the cost is nothing and that's buying them back at your suggested price. You could probably buy them back at 1/2 current value.

 d-usa wrote:
Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control

 Frazzled wrote:


Do you want another US civil war with spillover into Canada? Because thats how you get a second civil war.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yeah, the wackjobs will always be there.

And yes, any reduction in legal gun ownership will not have an initial impact on illegal guns. It will result in a reduction down the line, as guns used in crimes are taken out of circulation, and the lack of available guns in circulation to replenish the illegal stock makes an impact.

Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control>

not so much, no one who studies gun crimes get's federal funding. the CDC was even asked to look into it by Obama, because it is a public health hazard, but nothing as of yet from them.

What is known, when you have a gun in your house, it is far more likely to be used against someone in your house than used to prevent any sort of crime.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I used homicides because it's the homicides that drive the call for more regulations.

People ignore the fact that suicides are by far the biggest cause of gun deaths, and that the vast majority of those are done with legally owned guns. But you don't hear people call for reform because another veteran blew a hole in his head, you hear it because someone shot up a night club, a school, or an outdoor concert.

So honestly that was my reason for using homicides for that number, because it's the homicides that are driving that conversation.

And yes, legal gun reduction would not make much impact (at least initially) on homicides committed with illegal guns. But they would reduce the deaths from suicides and accidents involving legally owned guns.

Spetulhu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control

IIRC when guns are discounted the USA is still a very violent country. You have more gun crimes because, duh, more guns, but you also have more violence in any case. It just happens to involve more guns because people have them.

Ofc, one thing that no one seems to have any stats on is how many crimes are stopped without shots fired when a legal gunowner displays or threatens to use a gun. It's just not listed because no shots were fired.

But statistics is a funny business anways and not made easier by having a Federal govt and 50 states that all collect only whatever data they feel is relevant and publishing it in whatever form fits their agenda. Even getting a picture of actual police firearm use is difficult because some count "threaten", some count warning shots, some count total shots fired and some count only hits. Or a combo suiting their needs.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I used homicides because it's the homicides that drive the call for more regulations.

People ignore the fact that suicides are by far the biggest cause of gun deaths, and that the vast majority of those are done with legally owned guns. But you don't hear people call for reform because another veteran blew a hole in his head, you hear it because someone shot up a night club, a school, or an outdoor concert.

So honestly that was my reason for using homicides for that number, because it's the homicides that are driving that conversation.

And yes, legal gun reduction would not make much impact (at least initially) on homicides committed with illegal guns. But they would reduce the deaths from suicides and accidents involving legally owned guns.

I know that, I've even suggested to our vets on this site to turn in their guns for that very reason.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Do you want another US civil war with spillover into Canada? Because thats how you get a second civil war.

obeying the law causes a civil war? interesting.

keep it on your side of the fence though, don't make us burn down your white house again.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Do you want another US civil war with spillover into Canada? Because thats how you get a second civil war.

obeying the law causes a civil war? interesting.

keep it on your side of the fence though, don't make us burn down your white house again.

That was the British. Your epic moose and maple syrups have no power here... *

*Just trying to keep the thread from not getting hot.