Point is, bans on full auto machine guns have made these items rare. The numbers of ownership were likely low pre ban (don't have the numbers), but simple supply and demand can makes things rare. If supply of high capacity semi auto long guns dries up, the remaining supply and hence their cost, will make them less likely to end in the hands of the unhinged or the criminal.
News you won't see on CNN - School Shooting Hero properly lays blame
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Point is, bans on full auto machine guns have made these items rare. The numbers of ownership were likely low pre ban (don't have the numbers), but simple supply and demand can makes things rare. If supply of high capacity semi auto long guns dries up, the remaining supply and hence their cost, will make them less likely to end in the hands of the unhinged or the criminal.
It's not even remotely the same thing. First, let's stop calling them "machine guns" as the phrase is so amateurish and inaccurate. Let's refer to them as automatic weapons. Automatic weapons were first regulated in 1934 during the National Firearms Act legislation. This strictly regulated the manufacture, possession and transfer of automatic weapons. Prior to 1934, possession of such automatic weapons was almost unheard of, for the simple fact that they were immensely expensive. The 1968 Gun Control Act further restricted and required registration of such weapons, but again, almost no one actually owned them. It would be like buying a $800 hammer when you can buy one for $8 that does the job. No one needed them, no one wanted them. They were very, very few in circulation anywhere. Then, in 1986, Firearm Owner's Protection Act outright banned them without ATF registration and very comprehensive background checks that are both expensive and time consuming. The reason this ban actually worked is because no one really had them before, no one could get them now, and again, why go through all the trouble when it was so easy to get a regular semi-automatic gun. Unless you are planning to go to war or something against the government, there's no point in getting a machine gun. At all.
Putting a ban in place on semi-automatic guns is a completely different monster. There are over 300 million firearms currently in circulation. There is no national database of who owns them. Trying to buy them back would meet with no success - as previous buyback programs in places like New York State, for example, resulted in minuscule amounts of people (4% according to the State of New York) actually taking the buyback. So if people don't do it voluntarily, you have to seize them. How can you seize them when there is no way to know who has them and who does not? You'd have to go house to house to arrest everyone, and you can imagine how that would go over.
I get that the facts in this particular topic are not convenient. I understand how they may make the problem complicated and not paint the picture that you folks who want to seize guns are looking for. What I'm trying to explain to you is regardless of where you stand on this issue, the facts don't change.
I'm not advocating the merits of a buy back as much as ban on future purchases with grandfather clause of current ones. Not that a buyback wouldn't lower existing numbers if made permanently. Pawn shops work for a reason.
Also, you used the term machine gun after criticizing my use of the term, so nice argument.
I'm not criticizing your use of the term, I'm clarifying that we should use the correct term. So nice argument.
So you advocate that we should ban future purchases with a grandfather clause on the current ones. How would this result in a violence decline in our lifetime?
Pawn shops resell. The government buyback wouldn't.
I don't get what your beef is with the term other than you can use it but I can't when referencing full auto long guns. Regardless, it's irrelevant, the point is a ban would drive up the price of grandfathered guns and make them less likely to end up in the hands of irresponsible owners.
And you missed the pawn shop reference entirely, the point is people that need money get rid of their valuables, including guns. The government could choose to destroy the guns or refurbish and resell to allies/law enforcement in any case if they wanted to recoup some cost.
I've commented on this before but it seems either you're not buying it, in which case I'd like to hear a counter argument rather than a statement, or perhaps I had not been sufficiently clear.
For example, logically the incidence of mass shooting should be related to the number of guns readily available, easily transported and carried, and capable of firing multiple rounds of larger caliper ammunition in brief periods of time, multiplied by a factor accounting for the distribution of those guns. If there are a million such guns all in one persons hands, the risk of mass shooting should logically be less than the risk if those same million guns are in a million different hands.
Regard of the distribution factor, logically the probability of a mass shooting with such guns should decline with the total number of such guns available. If these guns are distributed equally throughout the population, the relative drop in mass shooting incidences will logically decline less with availability than if the same number of guns is distributed quite unequally. And this will hold regardless of whether an accurate figure for the distribution factor is known.
Ergo, their ought to be some benefit to society from a ban on further sales of such guns, and that benefit should grow slowly over time because of attrition in the total number of such guns available.
The simple argument often heard, that there are already so many guns available that a ban on further sales of certain types of guns can have no meaningful effect, is far too simple. Both probability at any time as well as the affect of passing time on probability must be considered. And the probability at any time is affected by distribution.
I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. You make a leap of logic saying the ban would drive up the price of the 300 million guns in circulation, and somehow this would make it less likely that irresponsible gun owners would get them. That's one helluva leap of logic with that statement, but if it fits your narrative, go for it. I know a lot more about firearms and the firearms community than you, but if you feel better with that supposition, great.
Supposing for a second the buyback the government put in place offered a higher price than the pawn shops, all you'd do is replace the people who go to pawn shops with people who sold back to the government. Actually, you'd have a bit less as some people who go to pawn shops with their weapons actually do repay the loan to get the gun back. So it's not only a silly point, it's unlikely to do anything to help your numbers. Remember, New York State did a ban and a buyback. And they have pawn shops. And still, only 4% participated as estimated by the state during the years it was in place.
I have countered it. Many times. You seem unwilling or unable to grasp my response.
I cannot find any fault in this logic. I fail to see how it relates to the discussion I was having with H4M.
But a ban would not reduce the amount of guns in circulation. Sure, you would see attrition over some long, long time period (decades). I've conceded that point as well in our past discussions. What I have said in counter to it is that a long term reduction of the probability on that scale is not worth the removal and suppression of the rights of individuals now to own said weapons. Additionally, it is not worth the threat to their safety as you would prevent law abiding citizens from getting the means to protect themselves from criminals who would have these weapons.
Again, I've answered these questions before. It isn't my fault if you don't like or don't want to read, the answers.
Thanks. The above points you raise are crucial ones. A counter argument is that certain types of guns have no real purpose other than as collectors' items or as weapons used to kill people. So what would be given up by a ban on these weapons is itself of very little value to society. (Of course this is after we have disposed with the argument that these weapons are needed to defend society against the government. That's something I think we already agree on.)
The second point is also crucial, and I think it is made especially so in light of the Heller decision. We have a right to defend ourselves in our homes! My argument would be that there are types of firearms, for which a ban on sales is not being considered, that are readily available and that are reasonably adequate for home defense.
You have far more patience than I do. Logic has no effect on people who are driven purely by emotion.