General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLets ban all guns right now and let the gun lovers be the ones seeking incremental changes
Whenever gun laws are proposed, the result is at best a tiny, incremental gain in putting a stop to the violence.
So how about we reverse the process? Simply ban gun ownership by private citizens right now. If people want to own guns, let them be the ones seeking incremental change in the law. Let them be the ones proposing, oh, allowing people to own single-shot air rifles. Then, if a decade passes and no one has been killed, propose allowing people to own multi-shot air rifles. And on and on it would go. Maybe in 50 years theyre allowed to own a hand gun that can fire a single bullet, and price that bullet at $500.
In the meanwhile, the carnage pretty much stops.
blake2012
(1,294 posts)We simply do not have the political climate for anything of the sort. There are many terrific things we can propose be passed as legislation short of total bans which will help immensely.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,931 posts)Personally, if I were in charge, all guns would be confiscated. If you hunt, you can check out a gun at the gun place to go hunting. Then you return it.
Short of outright confiscation, we need to implement incremental restrictions on guns, so that some years from now almost no one will have a gun. I understand that's what happened in Japan after WWII. And it worked.
Oh, and in Australia after that awful killing spree in Tasmania, they took guns away, and isn't it quite odd that no other mass killing has happened there?
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)But like universal healthcare, does not appear to be in the cards. How it is that it is so hard to simply ban the semi automatic weapons and bump stops...... just blows my mind!
Canoe52
(2,949 posts)OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)While I realize it will never happen, and I wouldn't actually support a complete ban, I do appreciate the proposal that points out how when one side is completely uncompromising it leads to a situation where one side is left feeling completely perplexed at how to actually compromise.
DemocracyMouse
(2,275 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Possession of firearms?
Vinca
(50,342 posts)MichMary
(1,714 posts)that could happen, with, you know, that Constitution-thing in the way?
stopbush
(24,401 posts)SCOTUS Justice Warren Burgers interpretation of the Second Amendment should be adopted.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)I dare any politician to run in that. Watch them disappear after the next election.
rgbecker
(4,836 posts)EX500rider
(10,893 posts)Jamaica. Guns are pretty much outlawed and enforcement is Draconic.
Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates in the world.
OTOH, Japan is runner up for the strictest gun control laws, and they have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
In both cases, the homicide rates predate the gun control laws and the homicide rates did not change when the gun control laws changed. You can find many other countries for which the same is true. This is one of the many strands of evidence that suggest gun control laws do not influence homicide rates.
https://www.quora.com/What-countries-have-the-strictest-gun-control-laws-How-has-it-affected-their-crime-rates
marlakay
(11,545 posts)Must have insurance, take test, be on national data bank. And if anyone thinks a person would be dangerous having one, dont give them a license and force them to go to court proving they wont be a problem.
And how about cant keep in a home with kids under 18. Must keep gun locked up at a gun center.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You go ahead and work on that constitutional change. I'll wait with bated breath.