Civil discourse on gun control

[Tsing Tao]

I don't know, there are obvious choices. Do you have any suggestions? In Canada it's done through licensing fees, but there is a shortfall that is made up by the taxpayer.*

Ok, here's the problem. Let's say the "fair price mechanism" that you refer to is a measly $500, which - as any gun owner would know - is a ridiculously low price to provide for a firearm. But let's go with it to keep the argument simple. For every 1 million firearms turned in or confiscated, you're talking half a billion $$ in money paid out. So it really ends up being how many of the 330 million or so firearms you believe are bought back. Could be anywhere up to 165 Billion dollars. Licensing fees? Please. There will be absolutely zero political will to spend that kind of money. Ever.

By definition, the answer has to be "No". However I do believe that over a period of years, say twenty or so, virtually all illegal weapons would be discovered and taken out of circulation. But naturally there will always be a small number. Probably within a relatively few number of years the majority of illegally held firearms would be located. Of course the argument that there is no point in regulating firearms because the regulations will only affect honest people is illogical. Nevertheless we will continue to hear it.

So in 20 years you believe the impact would be felt. I have to disagree. I mean, we made drugs illegal and I can go down to the local high school store this very minute and buy some if I wanted to. All you're going to do is raise the street price of firearms. Not to mention that, without a national gun registry (and we don't have the ability to register all the guns out there right now) many of those legal guns will end up in circulation among criminals eventually, when the price gets right. Additionally, criminals will maintain firearms a lot better, extending their life. Lastly, right now you can 3D print a pistol. I can't imagine what 20 years of technology will do.

Your ban will have very little, if any, effect.

This will happen spontaneously over time, as those with non-complying guns try to use them, acquire parts or ammunition for them, as their neighbors report them, and are arrested, or as they die and leave them to heirs that are compliant. And some will be stolen and then recovered. We don't see many machine guns on the street these days, but we know there are a few out there. The idea is to decrease the number of non-compliant guns used in committing crimes. And banning machine guns did this in the interim before they were replaced with legal semiautomatic assault rifles with bump stocks. There is an entire support system behind guns -- it is the manufacturer, the gun maker, the ammunition supplier, the dealer. Pinch of any of these elements and you make it much less inconvenient to get your hands on particular gun types. As those who would acquire these guns, despite restrictions, are forced into clandestine activities to acquire them, the probability of their being caught can be expected to increase.

Machine guns were addressed in 1934. It's quite a different world now. There weren't hundreds of millions of machine guns on the market back then. Additionally, a machine gun is less effective than an AR15 platform due to recoil and a whole host of other factors. It would be like banning a specific type of hammer used only on an exotic aircraft vs. banning all hammers.

These semi-automatic weapons you refer to don't require special ammunition for the most part, and even if they did, reloading is very easy with the right kits. All you'd do is drive up the price of ammunition.

Feel free to respond to any of these points. I hate to rain realism on the great ideas, but none of these ideas presented thus far have any chance of working in the real world.

_____________________
*An MMT (Modern Money Theory) economist might argue that it can be done at no real cost, and even a net savings. I won't bother with the argument here but you can google MMT economics, or go to YouTube to find out what this very fascinating, school of economics is all about. Randall Wray, the Univ. of Missouri Economist, a Hyman Minsky protege, is an example of an MMT economist. I'm mentioning this to you as I know you are into corporate finance. I think you would find this stuff interesting reading. It is not non-sense by any means.

Right, no real cost. The ban on all gun sales removes $33 Billion from GDP (without considering the buyback spend), and approximately 200,000 employees from the workforce - and that's just the workers that work directly for manufacturers and direct gun sales. It doesn't count all the folks in the gun retail environment, shooting ranges, sportsman clubs, gun smiths, pawn shops,....whatever.

As time goes on, the price of illegal weapons on the streets skyrocket. Weapons begin to be smuggled in through the border, and legal residents go out and acquire an illegal firearm to protect themselves from the criminals that have them. I know I would. I'd get a pistol and keep it safe in case I was ever attacked in my home. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, right?

People begin to be arrested for defending themselves with an illegal firearm, and subjecting normal law abiding, otherwise harmless individuals because they now own an illegal gun after you took their legal one away. Meanwhile the criminals using guns continue on their merry way - because if I'm a criminal and I'm going to commit murder (which might incarcerate me for life), why do I care about your silly gun law?

 

[piezoe]

First of all I'm not an NRA member.

Secondly, two of my quotes were from Section IV after that:

1) "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right"

2) "It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed."

Had you read all of Heller you would have known that. Or you did and you ignored it. So you're either uninformed or being disingenuous or both.

As Mr. Tsing said, when you feel like having a fair debate, let me know.

I have read the entirety of Heller. At least twice. I know all of what you have just quoted and I have no disagreement with any of it. What is your point? Is it that no other gun other than a restricted or prohibited gun is suitable for self defense. If that is it, then why not state it outright.

In Canada semiautomatic handguns and certain other handguns are restricted or prohibited. But but there are non-semiautomatic hand guns with barrel length of 10.5 cm or more that are suitable for self defense that are neither. The Canadian gun laws seem eminently reasonable to me. If they don't to you, fine, but state why please.

None of what you quote is relevant to the discussion I am having re my suggestion that the U.S. adopt Canada's gun laws with few alterations. If you find that Canada's gun laws are not consistent with Heller than state outright where there is inconsistency. I myself, find Heller entirely consistent with Canada's gun regulations.

My assessment of you is that you don't read what I post, or you do not comprehend it. What is the relevance of your responses to my arguments? If you expect me to respond further you must post something relevant.

 

[NeoTrader]

I'm sure many in this thread must have taken a look at this, but I think it is worth putting it for those who haven't. Even I, who thinks gun control is complete nonsense, was surprised to see how many school shootings there were in all those countries where gun control is very strict and even death penalty is applied. China is a surprising example for the great number of shootings and even Japan, who for so many is the "poster land" for gun control, had 1. It's interesting to organize the list by country to get a more visual sense. To me, logic is enough to realize that gun control is worthless and solves nothing, but this adds to the proof of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres_by_death_toll

The fact that people who are willing to break the law by killing will have no problem breaking the law by illegaly buying a gun and will stop at nothing until they get that gun should be sufficient that making laws will not solve the problem.
In addition, taking away guns from people who fight for the right to carry them legally is pretty stupid, because if they are concerned about not being able to carry it legally, that means they would respect this minor law by not carrying, which means they obviously respect a much more important law: not to kill.

So, in the end, they will loose their right to defend themselves, which is their CONSTITUTIONAL right.
And the ones who are willing to break the law in it's worse form(murder) will do it anyway, since someone who is willing to murder has absolutely NO RESPECT FOR ANY LAW WHATSOEVER.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'm sure many in this thread must have taken a look at this, but I think it is worth putting it for those who haven't. Even I, who thinks gun control is complete nonsense, was surprised to see how many school shootings there were in all those countries where gun control is very strict and even death penalty is applied. China is a surprising example for the great number of shootings and even Japan, who for so many is the "poster land" for gun control, had 1. It's interesting to organize the list by country to get a more visual sense. To me, logic is enough to realize that gun control is worthless and solves nothing, but this adds to the proof of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres_by_death_toll

The fact that people who are willing to break the law by killing will have no problem breaking the law by illegaly buying a gun and will stop at nothing until they get that gun should be sufficient that making laws will not solve the problem.
In addition, taking away guns from people who fight for the right to carry them legally is pretty stupid, because if they are concerned about not being able to carry it legally, that means they would respect this minor law by not carrying, which means they obviously respect a much more important law: not to kill.

So, in the end, they will loose their right to defend themselves, which is their CONSTITUTIONAL right.
And the ones who are willing to break the law in it's worse form(murder) will do it anyway, since someone who is willing to murder has absolutely NO RESPECT FOR ANY LAW WHATSOEVER.

Yep. You've hit on the crux of the problem with gun laws - only the law abiding citizens follow them, and they don't commit the crime. The crime is committed by criminals, who don't give a damn for the laws.

 

[Poindexter]

I have read the entirety of Heller. At least twice. I know all of what you have just quoted and I have no disagreement with any of it. What is your point? Is it that no other gun other than a restricted or prohibited gun is suitable for self defense. If that is it, then why not state it outright.

In Canada semiautomatic handguns and certain other handguns are restricted or prohibited. But but there are non-semiautomatic hand guns with barrel length of 10.5 cm or more that are suitable for self defense that are neither. The Canadian gun laws seem eminently reasonable to me. If they don't to you, fine, but state why please.

None of what you quote is relevant to the discussion I am having re my suggestion that the U.S. adopt Canada's gun laws with few alterations. If you find that Canada's gun laws are not consistent with Heller than state outright where there is inconsistency. I myself, find Heller entirely consistent with Canada's gun regulations.

My assessment of you is that you don't read what I post, or you do not comprehend it. What is the relevance of your responses to my arguments? If you expect me to respond further you must post something relevant.

Other than the fact that Canadian gun laws are incompatible with our Constitutional right to bear arms because they don't allow for a "put" on tyranny and recognize our inherent right to self-defense and are far too restrictive -- all of which I've pointed out but you can't grasp because you don't like it -- we're on the same page.

Good luck Mr. piezoe, and rest assured that the probability is precisely zero of Canadian style gun laws being lawfully adopted in the United States without first repealing the Second Amendment.

 

[piezoe]

Ok, here's the problem. Let's say the "fair price mechanism" that you refer to is a measly $500, which - as any gun owner would know - is a ridiculously low price to provide for a firearm. But let's go with it to keep the argument simple. For every 1 million firearms turned in or confiscated, you're talking half a billion $$ in money paid out. So it really ends up being how many of the 330 million or so firearms you believe are bought back. Could be anywhere up to 165 Billion dollars. Licensing fees? Please. There will be absolutely zero political will to spend that kind of money. Ever.

This is a good argument. Probably the average original purchase cost of all guns that could not be brought into compliance after discounting for inflation and condition is more like 250$, but you have a much better Idea than I do. I'm certain that a lot would be fairly inexpensive semiautomatic handguns that were purchased over the past 20 years. Most of the rifles, including the semiautomatics, could be brought into compliance. We would have to know approximately the types and number of guns that are out there. and their average cost and condition. This can be estimated, but it would require some work. I would hazard a guess that no more than 1/3 to 1/2 of he guns already out there would have to be bought, because they could not be brought into compliance. Many would easily be brought into compliance, if they were not already. And some owners would opt to keep restricted guns and use them only for restricted purposes. So suppose the government had to purchase 100 million guns at an average price of $200, that would be 20 billion. That's 62.50 per each citizen before interest. I would think entirely doable, amortizing over ten years. There are 10 billion rounds of ammunition sold every year. We might pay for part of the program with say a 0.15 cent round tax. and then perhaps some licensing fees, etc. It wouldn't be inexpensive, but it might well be doable. We just couldn't know without a pilot study. Let's advocate for a pilot study.

In any case, it's premature to say it isn't feasible based on cost. Nevertheless, you raise a point that must be addressed, before we can know whether adopting Canadian gun laws makes sense. We shouldn't be surprised if it doen't make more and more sense as thousands of high school students continue marching on State and Federal legislators. As Donald Trump would say, "Believe Me!"

 

[Poindexter]

I'm sure many in this thread must have taken a look at this, but I think it is worth putting it for those who haven't. Even I, who thinks gun control is complete nonsense, was surprised to see how many school shootings there were in all those countries where gun control is very strict and even death penalty is applied. China is a surprising example for the great number of shootings and even Japan, who for so many is the "poster land" for gun control, had 1. It's interesting to organize the list by country to get a more visual sense. To me, logic is enough to realize that gun control is worthless and solves nothing, but this adds to the proof of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres_by_death_toll

The fact that people who are willing to break the law by killing will have no problem breaking the law by illegaly buying a gun and will stop at nothing until they get that gun should be sufficient that making laws will not solve the problem.
In addition, taking away guns from people who fight for the right to carry them legally is pretty stupid, because if they are concerned about not being able to carry it legally, that means they would respect this minor law by not carrying, which means they obviously respect a much more important law: not to kill.

So, in the end, they will loose their right to defend themselves, which is their CONSTITUTIONAL right.
And the ones who are willing to break the law in it's worse form(murder) will do it anyway, since someone who is willing to murder has absolutely NO RESPECT FOR ANY LAW WHATSOEVER.

Exactly. I'd add that the problem is not inanimate objects; it's cultural rot, mental illness and evil. Even if we could "magic away" all firearms, some would still commit mass murder with pickup truck, bombs, fire, etc. But facts that don't fit the gun control agenda are shouted down, ridiculed and ignored.

 

[Tsing Tao]

This is a good argument. Probably the average original purchase cost of all guns that could not be brought into compliance after discounting for inflation and condition is more like 250$, but you have a much better Idea than I do. I'm certain that a lot would be fairly inexpensive semiautomatic handguns that were purchased over the past 20 years. Most of the rifles, including the semiautomatics, could be brought into compliance. We would have to know approximately the types and number of guns that are out there. and their average cost and condition. This can be estimated, but it would require some work. I would hazard a guess that no more than 1/3 to 1/2 of he guns already out there would have to be bought, because they could not be brought into compliance. Many would easily be brought into compliance, if they were not already. And some owners would opt to keep restricted guns and use them only for restricted purposes. So suppose the government had to purchase 100 million guns at an average price of $200, that would be 20 billion. That's 62.50 per each citizen before interest. I would think entirely doable, amortizing over ten years. There are 10 billion rounds of ammunition sold every year. We might pay for part of the program with say a 0.15 cent round tax. and then perhaps some licensing fees, etc. It wouldn't be inexpensive, but it might well be doable. We just couldn't know without a pilot study. Let's advocate for a pilot study.

In any case, it's premature to say it isn't feasible based on cost. Nevertheless, you raise a point that must be addressed, before we can know whether adopting Canadian gun laws makes sense. We shouldn't be surprised if it doen't make more and more sense as thousands of high school students continue marching on State and Federal legislators. As Donald Trump would say, "Believe Me!"

If there is no way to track which weapons are "in compliance", and the cost of bringing these into compliance is there, then expect the majority of people out there to not give a damn about the rules you want to put in place.

The criminals would absolutely not care.

Gun control, the way you are talking, will not happen. It simply won't, because it can't.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

legal residents go out and acquire an illegal firearm to protect themselves from the criminals that have them. I know I would. I'd get a pistol and keep it safe in case I was ever attacked in my home. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, right?

People begin to be arrested for defending themselves with an illegal firearm, and subjecting normal law abiding, otherwise harmless individuals because they now own an illegal gun after you took their legal one away. Meanwhile the criminals using guns continue on their merry way - because if I'm a criminal and I'm going to commit murder (which might incarcerate me for life), why do I care about your silly gun law?

This was the reality in Washington, DC until recently. Citizens had no legal means to protect themselves from crime, which in some areas was rampant. Police had an informal policy of not citing a homeowner for an illegal firearm which was used in valid self defense. Who wants to live like that though?

 

[Poindexter]

Nevertheless, you raise a point that must be addressed, before we can know whether adopting Canadian gun laws makes sense. We shouldn't be surprised if it doen't make more and more sense as thousands of high school students continue marching on State and Federal legislators. As Donald Trump would say, "Believe Me!"

Actually it's the exact opposite. Staged spectacles like what happened on CNN last night may "feel good" to gun control advocates but make most law abiding gun owners even more resistant to feelings-based restrictions on them that will accomplish nothing, as will teenagers who demand that we do what they say is best for us.