Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumI've asked this question many times of those who would ban all guns; I never get an answer...
So I'll ask it here.
The question is this: If you support the banning of all guns, how do you propose to keep them from coming across the borders? Yes, the northern as well as the southern border.
If guns are banned, their value goes up exponentially. So much so that those who traffic in illicit drugs at this moment would likely to focus their efforts on a much more lucrative pastime... smuggling guns.
So how to ban guns without first securing the borders?
Banners? Your input is more than welcome.
Gman
(24,780 posts)been contingent on stopping guns across the border. It's ridiculous to tie these together as they are two completely different and separate issues. That's why you don't get an answer.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The really bad people with money to spend will get their guns.
Any comparison to Australia is moot. It's surrounded by water.
First ban guns and then stop illegal sources? What illegal sources would you be talking about?
Gman
(24,780 posts)brush
(57,219 posts)doesn't mean guns can't get into the country.
That makes no sense. Contraband gets through ports all the time but that didn't stop the Aussies from taking action against guns and ending their mass shootings.
We have the precedent, now all we have to do is gain the courage.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)It didn't end gang fights with guns, criminals getting guns, nor did it end mass murder.
It didn't end smuggling, stealing from the cops, making their own. In fact, the Australian Federal Police have no idea how many illegal guns there are.
as for mass murder, well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders
brush
(57,219 posts)Suicide rates by guns also declined dramatically.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and the suicide rate did not drop. People choosing ropes over guns is not progress. There is no evidence that one had anything to do with the other.
The murder rate was already dropping and continued to drop at the same rate and then spiked for some reason. There are more privately owned guns now and more gun owners and the murder rate is dropping again.
Using the same logic, I could say that liberalizing concealed carry in the US is responsible for the dropping murder rate in the US for the past couple of decades and that passing the Gun Control Act caused the increase in the sixties. Neither of us buy that, so we can't buy the Australian example either.
brush
(57,219 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)no, I don't support repealing the current five federal gun control laws. Tweak a few, but not repeal. I think the fact that a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel is more tightly regulated than a semi automatic with a 17 inch barrel is kind of stupid. I'm sure we can agree on that much.
No gun control would be allowing a nine year old to legally buy a machine gun on Amazon and have USPS drop it off at his tree fort. I don't think even Ted Nugent is that nuts. But then, I might be overestimating him.
What I do want are solutions to a very complex problem without being distracted by some culture war.
brush
(57,219 posts)Registration, insurance, background checks and psyche screenings designed by mental health professionals and a waiting period for all these things to get done should all begin immediately before all new gun purchases are allowed.
As for the huge backlog of existing guns in the country, legislation should be passed that all gun owners register their guns and get insurance or sell or surrender them for a tax credit.
After a reasonable grace period, if anyone is subsequently caught in possession of an unregistered/uninsured weapon, there will be substantial legal consequences.
This is a workable, reasonable solution that could actually increase revenue for strapped local/state governments and provide some jobs.
And we could go even further: Ban handguns and assault rifles altogether as they are designed for nothing but to SHOOT PEOPLE. Shotguns and rifles would suffice for home protection and pellet guns can be used for target shooting enthusiasts.
If we are serious as a nation to do something about our huge gun problem, this could be a good start as we have to start somewhere. This plan is not perfect, nothing is, but IMO it will get the ball rolling to reduce the number of guns, and thus gun killings, in the country.
Let's pull our society back from the insanity we're in. It's getting so that you have to start worrying about going to the movies or the mall or to school for God's sake.
Other countries have a handle on this. We don't have to live this way.
It is like the putting armed guards in schools issue. While I don't like the idea, I have yet to hear a valid argument against it. Those opposed were comedians, pundits, and bloggers who didn't have the slightest idea what they are talking about.
We don't have a gun problem, we have a gang problem. Licencing, registration etc. does nothing. Insurance only makes money for private companies since they will not pay out for criminal acts nor suicides. Since almost all of our gun violence are criminals killing each other, they don't have any pay out to people who didn't pay in.
It isn't a workable solution because it never worked anywhere. Registration failed in Canada. Complete bans failed in Brazil, Mexico, and Valenzuela. I said solutions to complex problems that are not unique to the US, you are still talking about culture wars.
Here are some objective facts
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
I don't believe in basing public policy on memes, knee jerk emotionalism, culture wars, or the rantings of stupid pundits like Piers Morgan, racist billionaires like Mike Bloomberg, or comedians. I believe in facts, evidence, reason free of logical fallacies and let the chips fall where they may.
brush
(57,219 posts)All you seem to be about is to keep the status quo.
Offer something more than fucking "no".
There has to be something in what I offered that you agree with. Tweak it, add something, do something more than put up roadblocks and say no.
Do you want to start a dialogue to solve the problem or not?
What are your suggestions?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I stopped reading at the technical ignorance. I'll look over it.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Just a few ideas. Still working on a complete list. Most of which can not be done on the federal level or by any government. Mass murders like Oregon is less than one percent of all murder. Any possible life saved, which I doubt, would be offset by those would be alive if they had a gun to defend themselves. Like I said, it is a complex problem that should not be trusted to ideologues and culture warriors.
---First, end the drug war. Take away the money, take away the guns. Repeal the federal prohibition on at least pot. Addiction should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one.
---Change welfare rules that don't force fathers out of the house when times are bad. A hand up, not a hand out. While you are giving that hand up, you don't let go when the helpee is only half way up. IOW, remove disincentives to find a job or do something constructive like cutting food stamps when they go back to school.
---Get cities to repeal stupid zoning ordinances that make neighborhoods unwalkable. One thing I noticed living in Japan and Korea, local business mixed residences created a real community. Makes jobs close by and makes people less dependent on motor vehicles.
---Urban farming in greenhouses, if a farmer can do it for profit by selling in local markets year round, why not? Just look at all the empty lots in places like Detroit.
---Provide microloans available to create these small businesses. First priority should be the 20 worst.
---Community policing. Most residents in these places want sub stations. I don't mean cops who live someplace else and drive around in their patrol cars. Yeah they can be there. I'm talking about men and women who live in the area and walk beats and ride horseback. One horse back cop told me in Tampa that he gets the best intelligence by riding a horse through the projects. Kids love horses and rat out the asshole uncle while petting the horse. Trust between the Man and the people in the area is a must.
---Deglamorize criminal misuse of guns. I want those kids to associate guns with the nerdy kid in Rifle Club, Harvard shooting team, and the ISSF World Cup, not using it to be King Bad Ass of the block.
---When local cops bust out of state traffickers, hand them over to the feds for violating the GCA, interstate gun sales without a license, instead of letting local DAs drop the gun crime charges like they usually do.
---Change the sentencing guidelines for straw buyers for known felons. If caught, they usually get probation. They should get the full ten years for each gun. Make a few an example.
---Oh, end gun free zones. I agree with the then INTERPOL head after the mall attack in Nairobi.
I will give you credit for this much, you didn't bring up background checks that have been in place for two decades, mail order and internet sales that have been banned since LBJ signed the Gun Control Act, the mythical "gun show loophole".
brush
(57,219 posts)A few direct suggestions to the issue at hand pls, not copied and pasted verbiage.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but they are mine. You asked for suggestions, those a few of mine. That fact that it doesn't deal with your favorite boogy man isn't my problem.
brush
(57,219 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)
Thanks anyway.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)brush
(57,219 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and expect sober drivers to help you. Get out of the binary mindset, and start working
on *why* spree killers become spree killers instead of restricting the law-abiding
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)brush
(57,219 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 5, 2015, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
I get you.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What I take issue with is your proposals to alleviate them
brush
(57,219 posts)Like I said before, I get you.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)brush
(57,219 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)guns are smuggled in to Australia. They are also stolen from the police, and even made in basement factories. In fact, the latter is one out of ten.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/
jmg257
(11,996 posts)but the idea of making the penalties for trafficking and possession and especially use of those banned so severe as to make it not worth the effort seems a good start.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Our how about the penalties for murder?? Do they work???
The cat is long out of the bag, no way will he go back in it.
msongs
(70,086 posts)Warpy
(113,130 posts)Canada and Mexico aren't the problems with illegal, cross border gun running, the US is. They have strict regulation of guns in both countries. That leaves a sea route.
Having them black market means they will become increasingly expensive. That will slow the problem with guns down considerably and sometimes that's what you have to settle for.
This, of course, assumes a total ban that no one outside of a few in the inner city has ever suggested. Most people want varying degrees of regulation, not an unworkable outright ban on all guns, including hunting rifles and shotguns. That's just not going to happen.
There, you've been answered.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)per 100,000?
Is it why their homicide rate by gun is 10.0 per 100,000 to our 3.55?
"a total ban that no one outside of a few in the inner city has ever suggested." Wow. Those few must all be DU members, huh?
Warpy
(113,130 posts)They wish we'd regulate the damned things. They have. The US runs the guns for their black market.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Most of Mexico's guns the cartels use are from their own governments and southern border.
There is evidence that they are making their own.
840high
(17,196 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And notice how angry people get when you ask questions.
840high
(17,196 posts)BYW - congrats on your promotion.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I was actually shocked by the number of people who wished me well. It was heartwarming.
Thanks again. I step into the position on the 15th.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Most 2A regressives don't mind criminal firearm activity, it's only legal owners that they typically target.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)Why can't we have a bazooka? Doesn't the second amendment allow you to have it. It is an arm.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)sarisataka
(20,863 posts)You can't own a bazooka?
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Many anti-tank weapons are already in civilian hands..
I understand that they are great fun!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you just have to jump through the ATF hoops to own one, you can also own a fully functional tank, fighter jet, etc, all it takes is money, patience, and a lot of paperwork from the ATF.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,565 posts)ATF (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) says bazookas, tanks... are called>>>
DDs (for Destructive Devices) unless rendered inert and incapable of being fired.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-section-11
Certain things like cane guns, pens guns... are classed as>>>
AOWs (for any other weapon).
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-any
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I don't understand that.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)That more guns will be smuggled across the borders, just like drugs (and guns) are smuggled now. I don't see how it can work..
Besides, imagine how hard (if not impossible) would be to confiscate or buy out all the guns from the legal gun owners.
procon
(15,805 posts)No matter how many times this same old ruse gets held up in defense of some cause, its an illogical premise from the start. So now the argument is that gun control measures should not even be attempted because that will increase their street value and prompt a wave of illegal gun runners flooding into the US from Canada. Is that the scope of this woeful scold?
It's rather like saying we should not even bother with traffic laws because some people are always going to break them... anyone buying that? Or let's not go to the trouble of banning ivory as long as poachers are still still killing elephants... makes perfect sense. And yet, despite the numbers of alcoholics and any number of laws regulating alcohol products, there seems to be a marked absence of breaking news stories about captured shipments of smuggled booze from either of our neighbors across border.
Gun smugglers belong in the same category as voter fraud. Just pass some gun laws ferchrissakes, use Chris Rock's proposal, do something, add some serious constitutional regulating, and let the border patrol worry about gun smuggling cartels.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Straw Man
(6,760 posts)It has to do with malum in se vs. malum prohibitum and with the practical calculus that has to be undertaken when considering questions of the latter.
Some acts are evil in and of themselves, and should be banned despite the difficulties of enforcement that may ensue. Theft, rape, and murder are some examples that come to mind.
Drunk driving is another. However, drinking per se, while it has some negative effects on the individual and society, might be seen as less harmful, perhaps even arguably beneficial in some ways. So when Prohibition ended up creating and sustaining the monster of organized crime, that had to be calculated against the meager benefits of the law. Result? Repeal.
So we still have laws against drunk driving and drunk-and-disorderly (malum in se), but not against social drinking, whose malum prohibitum paled against the enforcement challenges and unintended consequences it entailed.
Much as gun controllers are loathe to recognize it, civilian gun ownership is not malum in se. Millions of gun owners do no harm with their firearms, and even the CDC recognizes the value of armed self-defense. The enforcement challenges and unintended consequences would be enormous if anything resembling a complete ban on firearms were ever to be attempted in this country.
procon
(15,805 posts)That's a dishonest and manipulative tactic for arguing that gun laws should not change. No one is advocating any prohibition-style gun laws, but a reasonable objective is to secure the most effective series of gun violence prevention measures as tools that would reduce the public jeopardy and still be consistent with the broad sentiments of gun enthusiasts and our maturing social values.
Society demands laws and the law exists as tools for society to safeguard the common good. We provide law enforcement with tools to combat society's criminal element and also ensure that the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens are not infringed upon. Our laws reflect the means through which our society orchestrates the necessary and progressive changes, improvements and advancement of the behaviors we consider appropriate for our cultural norm, as well as deterrents and consequences for conduct that we find reprehensible. Guns are not exempt.
Throughout history laws have been the people's tools for applied social engineering and evolving cultural standards in every politically organised society. Laws adapt to the changes in the acceptable ideals and principles of our society, and success is inconceivable to those who make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Straw Man
(6,760 posts)My screen name may be "Straw Man," but I'm not going to let that one pass unchallenged. Before you go accusing me of "a dishonest and manipulative tactic," you might want to confine yourself to what I actually said.
I never claimed that "gun owners do no harm with their firearms" -- what I said is that civilian gun ownership is not an evil in and of itself. The topic of the debate, in case you hadn't noticed, is a complete and total ban on civilian gun ownership, and the practical implications thereof. Prohibition would have huge difficulties and consequences -- that much is certain. Furthermore, guns are currently far from unregulated. Nowhere did I ask for less regulation. Nowhere did you make a persuasive case for more.
Your little lecture on what laws are and what they do is completely irrelevant. I'm not the one who is making "the perfect the enemy of the good."
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)
North and south land borders secured, all incoming shipping containers unloaded and the contents examined, all aircraft, both civilian, and commercial to be unloaded and examined. And the ships and aircraft themselves must be closely examined. This must be extended to all military vehicles, ships and aircraft.
It would be a total clusterfuck as NO product will be able to freely enter.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I suggest ignoring it is the best way to go.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You are, of course, perfectly free not to answer the question- but that would demonstrate the OPs
point, wouldn't it?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)"A well regulated Militia,
"A well regulated Militia,
"A well regulated Militia,
"A well regulated Militia,
"A well regulated Militia,
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Real easy reading....too
The right has managed to do this twice now, once with voting, and of course guns.
Misdirect from the simple facts, require ID when you cant do that, but get people so used to it that the discussion is then about WHAT KIND let alone that you cant
Same thing with guns, pretend that the 2nd says something it doesnt.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)That one comes straight from the gun control talking points handbook
randys1
(16,286 posts)existence in the first place.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Every country is different, with different people, different histories and different cultures.
Kaleva
(37,988 posts)But there is no great black market trade going on involving such. It's my guess that the vast majority of us don't want to risk a lengthy prison sentence for acquiring an automatic illegally smuggled into this country.