Terrorist knifing in London

[Amun Ra]

Why stop at Muslims? Lets ban Blacks,Asians and Hispanics as well

So what you're saying with your sarcasm is that you shouldn't punish law abiding people for what a small minority of that group do, right? So I guess now we agree on gun control policies!

I'll give you a few minutes to let you understand the trap I just laid out for you and how you walked right into it and let the cognitive dissonance wash right over you.

 

[Tony Stark]

So what you're saying with your sarcasm is that you shouldn't punish law abiding people for what a small minority of that group do, right? So I guess now we agree on gun control policies!

I'll give you a few minutes to let you understand the trap I just laid out for you and how you walked right into it and let the cognitive dissonance wash right over you.

Guns are responsible for far more deaths than Muslims.

Their are billions of Muslims on the planet and millions in the UK,how many have knifed people to death?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Australia proved the exact opposite. You think your own police is completely toothless? Guns can be removed from circulation with a little effort.
Your attitude of "this is how it is, this is how it'll always be" is odd.

Ah yeah, the ol' "it worked in Australia!" argument.

The Australian confiscation took out 660k of firearms in their "confiscation" program at an estimated $500MM in cost. That comes out to about $750 per gun. Keeping the math easy by rounding. There are 330 million firearms in the US currently. Let's just pretend that half of those would be confiscated (silly, I know, but follow along). At the same buyback rate, that is 124 Billion dollars in a buyback program - not including the massive cost of managing such a program or administering it. Do you honestly think there is the political will anywhere to spend $124 Billion on such a program (which would probably be closer to double that with 2018 prices - remember Australia did this 15 years ago)?

Not to mention that this would still leave approximately 115 million firearms still in circulation - not counting the number that would spike once such a confiscation program was enacted? Or the guns that are illegally owned.

New York tried a buyback program and it fell flat on its face with approximately 4% of registered firearm owners adhering to the program. You're a European, and you don't understand - at all - the situation here in the United States, or the massive will that is against such an initiative.

Here's a good read on whether the assault weapons ban of 1994 (yes, we tried this before) actually worked and what effect it actually had.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

 

[Tsing Tao]

Guns are responsible for far more deaths than Muslims.

Their are billions of Muslims on the planet and millions in the UK,how many have knifed people to death?

Guns are not responsible for any deaths. People who fired the guns are. You can't compare an inanimate object to a race of people and say one's actions are more dangerous than another's. Duh.

 

[d08]

Guns are not responsible for any deaths. People who fired the guns are. You can't compare an inanimate object to a race of people and say one's actions are more dangerous than another's. Duh.

The ol' "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Fact of the matter is that countries where you can carry guns outside of your home without many restrictions are much more violent.

This argument always ends with "I guess Americans are really violent people".

Ah yeah, the ol' "it worked in Australia!" argument.

The Australian confiscation took out 660k of firearms in their "confiscation" program at an estimated $500MM in cost. That comes out to about $750 per gun. Keeping the math easy by rounding. There are 330 million firearms in the US currently. Let's just pretend that half of those would be confiscated (silly, I know, but follow along). At the same buyback rate, that is 124 Billion dollars in a buyback program - not including the massive cost of managing such a program or administering it. Do you honestly think there is the political will anywhere to spend $124 Billion on such a program (which would probably be closer to double that with 2018 prices - remember Australia did this 15 years ago)?

Not to mention that this would still leave approximately 115 million firearms still in circulation - not counting the number that would spike once such a confiscation program was enacted? Or the guns that are illegally owned.

New York tried a buyback program and it fell flat on its face with approximately 4% of registered firearm owners adhering to the program. You're a European, and you don't understand - at all - the situation here in the United States, or the massive will that is against such an initiative.

Here's a good read on whether the assault weapons ban of 1994 (yes, we tried this before) actually worked and what effect it actually had.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Who says US has to pay the equivalent amount for each gun? Make gun ownership prohibitively difficult, confiscate all you can and throw hefty jail sentences to any violators.

I never exclusively said only assault weapons should be removed, I said all weapons should have very very strict controls. The '94 ban, apparent from FactCheck states that assault weapons were replaced with semiautomatics:

"Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs."

That was a half-assed attempt and the ban obviously didn't cover enough.

 

[Tony Stark]

Make gun ownership prohibitively difficult, confiscate all you can and throw hefty jail sentences to any violators.

Thats all you have to do and its proven in the US already with the full auto weapons ban.Full auto weapons are virtually non existent in crimes because they are hard to get and have very hefty jail sentences to any violators.I read since the 1986 full auto ban only 3 people in The US have been killed by full auto weapons and one was an accident at a gun range with a legal full auto weapon.

 

[Snarkhund]

I own some guns.

My SUV has a small gun locker mounted in the back where I keep a handgun and ammo (separated). I attempted to register that handgun in California so that everything was legal if I was pulled over or got into an accident or otherwise some circumstance where I had to disclose that there was a weapon in my vehicle.

I was told that I was not required to register the weapon because I had owned it since the early 80s (a SW Model-66). Somehow it was "grandfathered" by my lengthy ownership.

Anyone else have LE refuse to register a handgun? It was a baffling experience.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The ol' "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Fact of the matter is that countries where you can carry guns outside of your home without many restrictions are much more violent.

This argument always ends with "I guess Americans are really violent people".

Without many restrictions. Ok. You can consider Americans violent people if you wish, I'm pretty sure none of us give a shit. The violent places in the United States are limited to some urban centers where the violence is almost entirely driven by illegally owned firearms and gang/criminal elements. These guns would not be confiscated in any law you could write. All you'd do is take them away from folks who already follow the law.

Who says US has to pay the equivalent amount for each gun? Make gun ownership prohibitively difficult, confiscate all you can and throw hefty jail sentences to any violators.

Again, you'd never get the illegal ones, and they're the ones that commit most of the crime. So you'd solve really nothing. A person who wants to commit murder with an illegal firearm isn't going to give it to you because you come looking for it and say "crap, I guess I have to change my mind on committing murder."

I never exclusively said only assault weapons should be removed, I said all weapons should have very very strict controls. The '94 ban, apparent from FactCheck states that assault weapons were replaced with semiautomatics:

"Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs."

That was a half-assed attempt and the ban obviously didn't cover enough.

I'm curious. Lets pretend you are the Czar of the United States (no congress, no senate, just you). Please walk me through how you'd solve the problem.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Thats all you have to do and its proven in the US already with the full auto weapons ban.Full auto weapons are virtually non existent in crimes because they are hard to get and have very hefty jail sentences to any violators.I read since the 1986 full auto ban only 3 people in The US have been killed by full auto weapons and one was an accident at a gun range with a legal full auto weapon.

Full auto weapons were never largely in circulation. This isn't an apples to apples comparison. Its like saying few people were killed in the US by tanks. They're not in circulation either.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I own some guns.

My SUV has a small gun locker mounted in the back where I keep a handgun and ammo (separated). I attempted to register that handgun in California so that everything was legal if I was pulled over or got into an accident or otherwise some circumstance where I had to disclose that there was a weapon in my vehicle.

I was told that I was not required to register the weapon because I had owned it since the early 80s (a SW Model-66). Somehow it was "grandfathered" by my lengthy ownership.

Anyone else have LE refuse to register a handgun? It was a baffling experience.

LE doesn't have an issue with gun owners that don't commit crimes and want to follow laws. Oathkeepers is a collection of LE and military folks that have sworn to uphold the 2A and resist overreach from government. This is why any law requiring people to turn in firearms would not be enforced.