About gun "confiscation"

[DanTex]

There are a few posts in GD about this topic, probably due to the latest mass shooting. Just to clear things up:

Who talks about gun confiscation? Mainly gun nuts. They have paranoid fantasies that the government is going to send the military to break down doors and take people's guns by force. Nobody proposes or discusses this outside of the NRA.

How would a gun ban actually work? What would actually happen, in the highly unlikely event that the government banned guns, is that there would be buyback period after the law passed, whereby anyone with a gun that was banned would be able to turn it over to the police and get money in exchange. People who decided not to would simply keep owning their guns, but would be doing so illegally. Other countries, notably Australia, have gone this route.

What guns would be banned? Well, the depends, of course, but at most, the ban would cover semi-automatic rifles and handguns. The rest of the guns cause barely any problems at all and are mainly used for hunting.

Would it be effective? Yes. Most people would turn in their guns. A few would not, but those people would be now committing a crime just by owning it, which means that if the police ever searches their home, or if they get caught carrying in public, or anything like that, they go to prison. Gun violence would drop dramatically.

Would it be expensive? Yes. At about 300M guns and say $200 per, it's a $60B expense just for the buyback. Of course, the dollar costs of gun violence have been estimated at about $100B per year, but still it's not cheap.

Is it worth it? The benefits are significantly greater than the costs, so in that sense, yes, but it's overkill. Stringent licensing and registration requirements would get most of the benefits of reduced violence without an actual ban, while also preserving the benefits of legal gun ownership. There are countries that have gotten gun violence under control this way. Still, a gun ban is better than the status quo, but that's not saying much.

Is it ever going to happen? Nope. The country is just too right-wing and gun-obsessed even for universal background checks, so a gun ban is totally out of the question. Maybe in a generation or two things will change but not now. It's sort of like the single-payer equivalent in terms of gun policy -- it works in some other countries, and it might be useful to talk about, but it's not going to happen in the US.

[Duckhunter935]

1. 200 dollars

For a weapon that costs 500- 2000 dollars? Try making that cost 4-5 times that as you would have to pay market value. I agree it will never happen and most weapons would just be Los rain tragic boating accidents. What is the rate of compliance where it is the law, not very high unlike what you dream.

[edgineered]

4. That, plus too many other delusions is why

I think the ones without a clue are the actual gun nuts.

[Duckhunter935]

7. I do not agree with confiscation unlike you

I see you can not refute my argument but must just fall back to insults. That works well to get support, lol.

[edgineered]

23. I think you misunderstood the intent of my post

In trying to say the controller crowd is out of their collective mind, and therefore the actual nuts, I am caller the controllers gun nuts.

[randys1]

31. Calling people who favor gun regulation nuts, is like calling someone a racist

for pointing out racism.

[edgineered]

32. In this particular OP the subject concerned confiscation

Those in agreement with the specifics given are gun nuts. A fine tipped marker with a distinct point versus a broad brush.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. Wow. You found a way to work racism into a gun control post. Color me surprised.

[DanTex]

13. Obviously, more for expensive weapons, but most guns aren't high end.

The rate of compliance isn't the problem, most people aren't going risk a prison sentence to keep illegal guns, just some crazies, and eventually they'll get caught.

I get that this will never happen, since the country is way too right-wing. The same goes for things like single payer healthcare. And I'm actually not in favor of either a handgun ban or single payer. But it's still worth discussing policies that work well in other countries.

[lancer78]

19. like the 20%

Compliance in Australia?

[DanTex]

20. 20% is not the compliance rate, 20% is the fraction by which the gun ownership rate dropped.

They aren't the same because not all guns were affected by the buyback. There are various estimates of the compliance rate, ranging from sub-50 to close to 80 or 90.

In any case, Australia would be a great model for us to follow in terms of gun laws. In fact, any first world nation other than the US would.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

[EL34x4]

2. "Most people would turn in their guns."

Like Australians did?

Oh, wait, they didn't. Compliance was dismal. Authorities expected no less than 2.4 million firearms would fall under the ban. 635,000 were turned in, mostly .22 rimfires and pump-action shotguns.

[Logical]

3. There will never be registration as many gun owners are convinced....

The government will go door to door collecting guns. Not deep thinkers thst bunch.

The only tihing we might get is universal background checks even for private sales. And that will not stop mass shootings.

[DanTex]

14. There won't be registration any time in a generation, at least. Who knows, the country might

come to its senses in 30 years. But for the time being, we're basically stuck with the gun violence problem. Universal background checks would help, but registration would be needed to take a big chunk out of the gun deaths.

By the way, the same thing -- it will never happen -- goes for pretty much everything that Bernie Sanders is proposing. That doesn't seem to stop you from advocating for it. I wonder why you think gun policy belongs in the "don't talk about it" category.

[lancer78]

18. registration

Wouldn't stop mass shootings either.

[dairydog91]

5. What makes you think people will "turn them in"?

Compliance rates with the CT and NY state-level bans were in the neighborhood of 10%. You can always check out the percentage of Americans who've used illegal drugs or drank alcohol underage to see just how many people are willing to break the law.

[ryan_cats]

6. Who

Who talks about gun confiscation? Mainly gun nuts. They have paranoid fantasies that the government is going to send the military to break down doors and take people's guns by force. Nobody proposes or discusses this outside of the NRA. \

Take a stroll through recent threads and tell me again who it is who wants to ban guns?

[Duckhunter935]

8. the OP does

Lol, easy find

[beevul]

21. Right? The NY times is a gun nut publication. Who knew... N/T

[pipoman]

9. All complete pretend fantasy silliness

Only believed by those completely ignorant of what they are talking about.

Until there is a constitutional amendment that 2/3 of states would ratify any such talk is just anti-constitutional wet dreams...

That said most of your screed is ridiculous.

[DanTex]

15. You missed the part of the OP where I said it would never happen.

I agree, we're stuck with massive numbers of gun deaths for the forseeable future. The country is way to right-wing to hope for reasonable gun policy.

Actually, we're way to right-wing for reasonable policies in a lot of areas, for that matter.

[krispos42]

42. And stupid attempts at "gun culture" wars put more RWers in office.

Your side manages the twin vices of a) passing laws that don't really affect the crime rate while b) insuring that RW socio-economic policies that will increase the crime rate get put into effect.


Consider the state's that make abortion and birth control difficult to obtain. Well, in a generation there is going a long-term increase in crime due to more babies being born into situations conducive to careers in crime. Combine that with school cuts, soaring college costs, the infamous "McJobs" RW economy, and the private prison complex, and states like Texas are going to SUCK. There will be lots of crime, including gun crime.

And your hardware-centered culture war will do absolutely nothing to solve it.

[DanTex]

44. The same fallacious argument could be made about any other issue.

You happen to believe that guns have nothing to do with gun violence, and that gun control is useless. From that perspective, it's obvious that you would want to abandon the fight for effective gun laws. If you thought that global warming was a hoax, you probably wouldn't be very keen on expending political capital on that either. If you thought that abortion was murder then you would say, just give up and let the right win that one, and focus on what's "important."

And so on.

[GOLGO 13]

10. If you think only right-wingers are into guns your unfortunately mistaken.

There are lots more than you think.

[ileus]

11. 200 bucks won't touch any of my firearms.

I don't buy Hi-points or Jennings.

[SpookyDem]

12. my median gun value is around $7-800, $200 is a joke no one would turn them in for that

[hunter]

24. Seriously? Why?

[NutmegYankee]

36. Higher quality.

The machining tolerances are tighter and the balance is better. If you want to target shoot, a tight barrel to bushing fit is a key factor. A $200 handgun is just a piece of trash.

[SpookyDem]

37. my guns are either custom, high quality, or collectors items. Life is too short to shoot cheap guns

[ileus]

38. Cheap guns are good to leave in the vehicle

when entering "gun free" zones.

I'd never leave my P220 in the vehicle, but the taurus...

[SpookyDem]

40. well I do have a wasr for a truck gun

[MohRokTah]

16. This has my vote for all time most ridiculous DU post. eom

[lancer78]

17. your 4th point

Is not correct as out of roughly 3 million guns, australians only turned in 635,000

[hunter]

25. The effective part is that now they have to keep it to themselves.

Playing with your big gun in public is no longer respectable or safe.

Gun love is annoying, just as guys masturbating in the subway are annoying.

More importantly, too many of those fools (of both sorts) are actually dangerous.

[Blecht]

28. K and a big virtual R

If we could recommend replies, this would get a big one from me.

[MeNMyVolt]

33. +1 Biting, but to the point.

[Township75]

22. So we support more prisons and more felons now

You would have to in order to support gun confiscation. Otherwise it is a law with no teeth.

[hunter]

30. Confiscating their guns, and denying them further gun purchases is probably enough.

I don't think fondling handguns or semi-or-fully automatic weapons is a reasonable hobby.

Hell, I love rockets and explosives (in my reckless youth sometimes one-and-the-same), but I'm okay with laws that interfere with my expression of that peculiar fetish.

My parents used to own a small farm. As a sixteen year old with a drivers license my dad would send me out to the farm supply place to pick up a few hundred pounds of urea and chicken shit and such. A few times in such chores, I'd pretend to have forgotten a bag or two of things like potassium or ammonium nitrate, and pay with them in cash so my dad wouldn't see them on his account.

Sugar rocket fuel is awesome, but only idiots use PVC pipe as casing.

Like this:

[Township75]

35. So the confiscation works how, because if it is violated and there is no prison threat

How do you know if someone turned in their guns or never had them ?

[Buzz Clik]

26. Not gonna happen, but I totally support it. n/t

[Blecht]

27. Nice post

It really brought a bunch of gun humpers out of the shadows (and onto my ignore list).

Let's try gun confiscation and see what happens. It certainly couldn't be any worse than what is happening now on a nearly daily basis.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Some rather surprising ones rose up out of the mud.

[Skittles]

39. the usual

sickening

[Waldorf]

29. That's odd, because pretty much every thread I have read here lately that mentions

confiscation is not by the gun nuts, as you call them, but the gun grabbers.

[Duckhunter935]

41. yep

Nobody is talking about taking your guns,