How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps

[Jimmy Higgins]

Requiring all drivers to be adults; to be licensed via a written and practical test to demonstrate their competence to drive; to be insured; and their cars to be registered, will have no effect on the number of illegal cars in society.

How would the authorities find all the unregistered cars that people have hidden? What would stop outlaws from simply driving unlicensed, unregistered or uninsured?

Sure, cars are dangerous; but requiring licences, insurance and registration would just drive the problem underground. Anyone who wanted an unregistered car would have no problem obtaining one.

The whole idea of closely regulating cars is just unworkable.

Sorry, did I say 'Cars'? Of course, I meant 'Guns', because those arguments are fucking insane if applied to anything other than guns.

Apparently.

The use of a car is obvious, you can't realistically hide one.

The use of a gun is pretty standard too. It is a bit easier to hide a gun though. Which explains why it is in our best interests to open up the floodgates and let firearms drown us all in the peaceful bliss they provide. Of course, this will require compulsory firearm ownership, training, and use in case of crimes to help stop crimes before they get out of hand.

 

[bilby]

The use of a car is obvious, you can't realistically hide one.

The use of a gun is pretty standard too. It is a bit easier to hide a gun though. Which explains why it is in our best interests to open up the floodgates and let firearms drown us all in the peaceful bliss they provide. Of course, this will require compulsory firearm ownership, training, and use in case of crimes to help stop crimes before they get out of hand.

It's pretty easy to hide a car, as long as you never use it. A large shed, barn, or garage will conceal a car pretty much indefinitely.

It's also pretty easy to hide a gun that is never used; but when used, it makes a lot of noise, and is likely to be noticed.

Of course, if someone has an unlicensed and/or unregistered gun, they could avoid detection by never using it; but that would likely dramatically reduce their effectiveness as a marksman when they finally do decide to use it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The use of a car is obvious, you can't realistically hide one.

If someone drives a car past my house, I will barely notice. If someone fires a gun outside my house, you bet I will notice - they make a very loud 'bang' noise when used.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

But the cop will notice the car missing the plate.

- - - Updated - - -

The use of a gun is pretty standard too. It is a bit easier to hide a gun though. Which explains why it is in our best interests to open up the floodgates and let firearms drown us all in the peaceful bliss they provide. Of course, this will require compulsory firearm ownership, training, and use in case of crimes to help stop crimes before they get out of hand.

It's pretty easy to hide a car, as long as you never use it. A large shed, barn, or garage will conceal a car pretty much indefinitely.

It's also pretty easy to hide a gun that is never used; but when used, it makes a lot of noise, and is likely to be noticed.

Of course, if someone has an unlicensed and/or unregistered gun, they could avoid detection by never using it; but that would likely dramatically reduce their effectiveness as a marksman when they finally do decide to use it.

But you can carry a gun around without the cops noticing. You can't drive a car around without them noticing.

 

[bilby]

If someone drives a car past my house, I will barely notice. If someone fires a gun outside my house, you bet I will notice - they make a very loud 'bang' noise when used.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

But the cop will notice the car missing the plate.

- - - Updated - - -

The use of a gun is pretty standard too. It is a bit easier to hide a gun though. Which explains why it is in our best interests to open up the floodgates and let firearms drown us all in the peaceful bliss they provide. Of course, this will require compulsory firearm ownership, training, and use in case of crimes to help stop crimes before they get out of hand.

It's pretty easy to hide a car, as long as you never use it. A large shed, barn, or garage will conceal a car pretty much indefinitely.

It's also pretty easy to hide a gun that is never used; but when used, it makes a lot of noise, and is likely to be noticed.

Of course, if someone has an unlicensed and/or unregistered gun, they could avoid detection by never using it; but that would likely dramatically reduce their effectiveness as a marksman when they finally do decide to use it.

But you can carry a gun around without the cops noticing. You can't drive a car around without them noticing.

A gun that isn't fired, like a car that isn't driven, is no danger to anyone.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

A sensible reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment fixes the problem.

Are you in a well regulated militia? Cool, then you can own a gun that you have to sign out from an arms room. You also have to state why you're taking it and then you'll be told what time to bring it back--and cleaner than when you picked it up. You'll also have to show up for training on certain dates in order to be able to fulfill your duty as a well regulated militia-person. Your duties as a militia-person will be outlined for you, so that you're aware of the scope of your duties.

That's the way it works in the military--the thing that used to be the militia.

But if you're not in the militia, then you have no right to bear a firearm. In the meantime the sales of ammo and spare parts will no longer exist for people who already own guns. They can keep what they have, but the ability to use them will quickly disappear

I wonder how many gun nuts would go for that. About 3? Maybe 5?

 

[DBT]

Are all gun owner to be classified as 'gun nuts?'

 

[Frikki]

Hang on. Didn't the government make drugs illegal? Why do we still have them? Why aren't people following the law?

- - - Updated - - -

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4[/youtube]

How does disarming law-abiding citizens make them safer?

View attachment 4366

Well criminological research has shown that the availability of firearm, especially pistols is a driver in violent crime. Decrease the supply of guns and you will decrease gun crime. A limited supply of guns drives up the price of black market guns so that they are not readily available for criminal use. The price of a black market pistol in New Westminster BC was around 2000$ while down in Seattle that has a larger supply of pistols the price on the Black market is around 300.

The real question is if it is feasible to reduce gun ownership in the States.

 

[bilby]

In 1945, the United Kingdom was positively awash with guns. The authorities asked people to hand them in for destruction; many people did, but many did not.

Over the next few decades, police forces around the country had occasional amnesties, whereby citizens who had found the pistol or rifle dad had 'souvenired' during the war could hand them in, no questions asked.

Nevertheless, many guns from that period are still out there in the UK, and occasionally one is used in a crime, or found when clearing a deceased estate.

Simply declaring that you must either register or sell your guns to the government (as we did in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre) would certainly make a massive impact - the idea that if you can't get every single unregistered gun then there is no point getting any of them is, frankly, insane.

But then, sanity and the US gun lobby are not really related concepts.

If you got just a 10% reduction in the number of guns in circulation, that would be a big positive. Do that a few times, and guns become uncommon. Do it a few more times, and guns become rare.

The idea that buy-backs, confiscations or amnesties cannot work because some people will keep their guns anyway is like the idea that it is impossible to walk from New York to Los Angeles, because you can't get there by sunset. You don't have to get there today; all you have to do is move slowly but relentlessly in the right direction.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are all gun owner to be classified as 'gun nuts?'

Considering how often people seem to like to whitewash an entire group based on the actions of a small minority of that group, I would say yes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In 1945, the United Kingdom was positively awash with guns. The authorities asked people to hand them in for destruction; many people did, but many did not.

Over the next few decades, police forces around the country had occasional amnesties, whereby citizens who had found the pistol or rifle dad had 'souvenired' during the war could hand them in, no questions asked.

Nevertheless, many guns from that period are still out there in the UK, and occasionally one is used in a crime, or found when clearing a deceased estate.

Simply declaring that you must either register or sell your guns to the government (as we did in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre) would certainly make a massive impact - the idea that if you can't get every single unregistered gun then there is no point getting any of them is, frankly, insane.

But then, sanity and the US gun lobby are not really related concepts.

If you got just a 10% reduction in the number of guns in circulation, that would be a big positive. Do that a few times, and guns become uncommon. Do it a few more times, and guns become rare.

The idea that buy-backs, confiscations or amnesties cannot work because some people will keep their guns anyway is like the idea that it is impossible to walk from New York to Los Angeles, because you can't get there by sunset. You don't have to get there today; all you have to do is move slowly but relentlessly in the right direction.

But they become concentrated in the hands of the criminal element. Disarming the law abiding does very little to improve safety--if anything it might make it worse as criminals no longer risk coming up against an armed defender.

 

[bilby]

In 1945, the United Kingdom was positively awash with guns. The authorities asked people to hand them in for destruction; many people did, but many did not.

Over the next few decades, police forces around the country had occasional amnesties, whereby citizens who had found the pistol or rifle dad had 'souvenired' during the war could hand them in, no questions asked.

Nevertheless, many guns from that period are still out there in the UK, and occasionally one is used in a crime, or found when clearing a deceased estate.

Simply declaring that you must either register or sell your guns to the government (as we did in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre) would certainly make a massive impact - the idea that if you can't get every single unregistered gun then there is no point getting any of them is, frankly, insane.

But then, sanity and the US gun lobby are not really related concepts.

If you got just a 10% reduction in the number of guns in circulation, that would be a big positive. Do that a few times, and guns become uncommon. Do it a few more times, and guns become rare.

The idea that buy-backs, confiscations or amnesties cannot work because some people will keep their guns anyway is like the idea that it is impossible to walk from New York to Los Angeles, because you can't get there by sunset. You don't have to get there today; all you have to do is move slowly but relentlessly in the right direction.

But they become concentrated in the hands of the criminal element. Disarming the law abiding does very little to improve safety--if anything it might make it worse as criminals no longer risk coming up against an armed defender.

If only the UK was a real place, with real crime statistics we could test your hypothesis against. But obviously it isn't, so we will have to conclude that your hypothesis isn't the total bollocks that observing real-world events would suggest, if only the real world existed. Shame that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But they become concentrated in the hands of the criminal element. Disarming the law abiding does very little to improve safety--if anything it might make it worse as criminals no longer risk coming up against an armed defender.

If only the UK was a real place, with real crime statistics we could test your hypothesis against. But obviously it isn't, so we will have to conclude that your hypothesis isn't the total bollocks that observing real-world events would suggest, if only the real world existed. Shame that.

View attachment 4440

Your crime rate basically continued the previous pattern when you got rid of a bunch of guns.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In 1945, the United Kingdom was positively awash with guns. The authorities asked people to hand them in for destruction; many people did, but many did not.

Over the next few decades, police forces around the country had occasional amnesties, whereby citizens who had found the pistol or rifle dad had 'souvenired' during the war could hand them in, no questions asked.

Nevertheless, many guns from that period are still out there in the UK, and occasionally one is used in a crime, or found when clearing a deceased estate.

Simply declaring that you must either register or sell your guns to the government (as we did in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre) would certainly make a massive impact - the idea that if you can't get every single unregistered gun then there is no point getting any of them is, frankly, insane.

But then, sanity and the US gun lobby are not really related concepts.

If you got just a 10% reduction in the number of guns in circulation, that would be a big positive. Do that a few times, and guns become uncommon. Do it a few more times, and guns become rare.

The idea that buy-backs, confiscations or amnesties cannot work because some people will keep their guns anyway is like the idea that it is impossible to walk from New York to Los Angeles, because you can't get there by sunset. You don't have to get there today; all you have to do is move slowly but relentlessly in the right direction.

But they become concentrated in the hands of the criminal element.

Said no data ever.

Disarming the law abiding does very little to improve safety--if anything it might make it worse as criminals no longer risk coming up against an armed defender.

... which, in turn, makes guns less necessary for carrying out crimes, while at the same time making the USE of said gun a far greater hazard in the presence of a strict gun registration law (where simply owning an unregistered/unlicensed gun can land you in jail). Criminals therefore have one less reason to use guns to commit petty crimes (nobody else has one either) and one more reason NOT to (if anyone finds out you're armed, you're going straight to jail).

 

[bilby]

If only the UK was a real place, with real crime statistics we could test your hypothesis against. But obviously it isn't, so we will have to conclude that your hypothesis isn't the total bollocks that observing real-world events would suggest, if only the real world existed. Shame that.

View attachment 4440

Your crime rate basically continued the previous pattern when you got rid of a bunch of guns.

Not my crime rate; You are closer to the UK than I.

And I notice that you have suddenly dropped the "-if anything it might make it worse as criminals no longer risk coming up against an armed defender." part of your argument (my bold). Almost as if exposure to evidence leads it to melt away like the wicked witch of the west at the Wet'n'Wild water-park.

How many school shooting fatalities per million population have there been in the UK since, say, 2005*? How does that figure compare with the USA? Will more of your argument scream 'Melting! I'm melllttttiiinnng!!!' in the face of the answer to this question?

*I figure 10 years is as good a time-frame as any, but feel free to pick any point since WWII to measure from if you don't like 2005 for any reason.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If only the UK was a real place, with real crime statistics we could test your hypothesis against. But obviously it isn't, so we will have to conclude that your hypothesis isn't the total bollocks that observing real-world events would suggest, if only the real world existed. Shame that.

View attachment 4440

Your crime rate basically continued the previous pattern when you got rid of a bunch of guns.

Crime rate, yes. The number of gun-related crimes -- and gun-related incidents/accidents not classified as violent crimes -- dropped precipitously. The sudden spike in gun violence was followed by a spike in enforcement regimes as British police took a while (most say "too long") to get their shit together and then things went back to normal; what's more significant is the incidences of SPECTACULAR gun violence -- mass shootings, in other words -- basically disappeared. Compare this to the United States, which experiences a mass shooting somewhere in the country approximately once every two months; the U.K. now experiences one per decade.

Basically: British criminals and lunatics stopped using guns and started using more knives, clubs and steel chains. It's a lot harder to massacre roomfuls of people when your weapon is a pocket knife.

The U.K.'s homicide rate is also far lower than the United States overall, and remains so; all of the U.K. experiences fewer gun related deaths in a year than Washington D.C. alone.

 

[DBT]

Are all gun owner to be classified as 'gun nuts?'

Considering how often people seem to like to whitewash an entire group based on the actions of a small minority of that group, I would say yes.

That's the impression I've been getting....yet considering that there is at least 3.2 million registered firearms in Australia, the level of misuse is very low in relation to licensed gun owners. The shootings that are reported in the media are usually carried out with black market firearms by perpetrators who do not hold a firearms license.