Mass shooting in Buffalo NY. (1 Viewer)

[brandon8283]

It might, but practically speaking, I'm just not convinced you'll see large numbers of people participate in those buyback programs unless you pay something at or above market value. I don't know the average price of a gun, but let's say $1k. Multiply that by 100 million. So $100 billion to buy them back. It might be worth it, but I suspect you'll have a substantial population who will not give up their guns at any price. Which is why I stated there will still be 100 million guns in the hands of criminals and citizens after the buyback. I'd say 1/3 of the population will refuse the buyback program if there were one.

I agree that you need to pay at least market, and realistically above market value. It shouldn't cost law-abiding gun owners to give up their weapons. It should be incentivized.

Then you put a deadline on it. After, say, two years to turn in your weapons, they become a liability. They are no longer allowed, but not criminalized. The buyback is over and now you don't get anything for turning them in, though you still can.

However, any time a gun is found on someone (traffic stops, arrests, stops by the game warden, searches of homes related to other warrants, etc), the guns are confiscated and you get a citation similar to a traffic ticket (obviously unless you were using the weapon to commit a crime, then you get the expected criminal prosecution).

Over time, if there's no legal use for guns, and you can't take them out of your gun safe hidden in your closet without fear that they'll be confiscated, and the likelihood of having to protect yourself from other people with guns, most people will give them up voluntarily.

Like I said, this isn't a short-term solution. This is a LONG-TERM plan for reducing (not eliminating) gun violence from our country. It may take a decade to see real results. It may take 30 years for us to be like most of Europe. But it can happen. It takes people with guts.

 

[kizzy821]

Can we at least agree that if there were no people, none of this would be an issue.

Reason # 9,634,852 to stop having babies.

 

[St. Widge]

I would add education to that list. Much of our problem is that the uneducated are easy prey to conspiracy theories. And not just gullibility, but education on how the world and society should operate. A lot of hate is born from lack of knowledge.

No doubt that the lack of a decent educational system is contributing to the culture problem and the devaluing of human life and, specifically, people who are different from us. Problem is that there are now many fighting against schools teaching their kids about things they don't understand, challenge what they believe, or they are uncomfortable with. I always wanted my kid to get an education that taught her to question everything and gave her the tools to make her own decisions on what she believed. But, apparently, I'm in a small minority in that regard.

 

[St. Widge]

I agree that you need to pay at least market, and realistically above market value. It shouldn't cost law-abiding gun owners to give up their weapons. It should be incentivized.

Then you put a deadline on it. After, say, two years to turn in your weapons, they become a liability. They are no longer allowed, but not criminalized. The buyback is over and now you don't get anything for turning them in, though you still can.

However, any time a gun is found on someone (traffic stops, arrests, stops by the game warden, searches of homes related to other warrants, etc), the guns are confiscated and you get a citation similar to a traffic ticket (obviously unless you were using the weapon to commit a crime, then you get the expected criminal prosecution).

Over time, if there's no legal use for guns, and you can't take them out of your gun safe hidden in your closet without fear that they'll be confiscated, and the likelihood of having to protect yourself from other people with guns, most people will give them up voluntarily.

Like I said, this isn't a short-term solution. This is a LONG-TERM plan for reducing (not eliminating) gun violence from our country. It may take a decade to see real results. It may take 30 years for us to be like most of Europe. But it can happen. It takes people with guts.

Assuming that this is a good idea and practical, and maybe it is, how do you get past the 2nd Amendment? And how do you get the majority of Congress or state legislatures to vote for it?

 

[SaintJ]

Agreed, but is it just correlation instead of causation?

If someone I love is now dead from a bullet wound, I am not terribly concerned about this distinction.

 

[SystemShock]

That's ridiculous. It's easier to kill people with guns. Think of the steps required to use a gun vs. build and plant an effective bomb.

Bomb:
1) Research bomb-making. Find a plan that works. Make sure you do it on a VPN so the FBI doesn't catch you.
2) Buy bomb parts. Determine means of detonation (remotely, locally triggered, etc). Make sure you don't buy all the bomb parts from the same area so the FBI doesn't catch you.
3) Build bomb.
4) Test bomb. Realize your bomb-making sucks because this is your first time to build a bomb.
5) Build another bomb. Maybe it works on the second try?
6) Plant the bomb. Hope you don't get caught planting the bomb. Hope someone doesn't find it before you detonate. Hope it doesn't detonate on its own when no one is around. Hope it goes off the way you think it will.
7) It doesn't. Start over.

Guns:
1) Buy gun.
2) Buy ammo.
3) Point.
4) Shoot.

This is obviously an exaggeration, but not freaking really.


I dunno, but I'm not one to give up while people die.





There honestly probably would be an uptick in other means. It's happened elsewhere. The salient point is that other means simply aren't as effective as using a gun. So while there may be an uptick in other means, net fewer people will die.

Guns are the problem.

A couple of things:

I can go to a Home Depot or even a supermarket, get common household stuff, and make something that hurt or kill a bunch of people.

I'd make a distinction: if you want to shoot people, nothing is as effective as a gun. If you want to kill people, there are many ways to do so, not only guns, and they are surprisingly easy to achieve.

Are guns part of the problem? sure. But not THE problem.

 

[brandon8283]

Assuming that this is a good idea and practical, and maybe it is, how do you get past the 2nd Amendment? And how do you get the majority of Congress or state legislatures to vote for it?

You need a Supreme Court (that we don't currently have) willing to put limits on the second amendment that currently aren't there.

For example, we already don't allow you to own nuclear weapons because they're too dangerous. We don't allow you to build pipe bombs because they're too dangerous. Limits on rights based on what is overall in the best interests of the public have always existed. We don't have a right to own guns. We have a right to bear arms. Arms don't have to be guns.

Then we need a majority of congress and the president to enact.

There's no realistic way we're getting a constitutional amendment on anything, so it will require a reinterpretation of the second amendment to make it a reality.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Yeah, it's definitely easier with guns. But clearly, if guns aren't accessible, you'll see a marked increase in other means.

to say nothing of the uptick in children accidentally pressure cooking themselves - or the high rate of committing suicide with pressure cookers - then there's pressure cooking your teen who is sneaking into the house but you mistake them for an intruder

 

[St. Widge]

If someone I love is now dead from a bullet wound, I am not terribly concerned about this distinction.

Well sure. But, ignoring the difference between correlation and causation is not how we fix real problems. Nor is having emotional reactions and not examining the root cause of things and solutions from all angles.

But, what point are you trying to make with that comment?

 

[DaveXA]

Can we at least agree that if there were no people, none of this would be an issue.

Reason # 9,634,852 to stop having babies.

We stopped having babies. 4 was enough.

 

[Sailorsaint]

Although many people think of mass shootings as random acts of violence, this analysis shows that most mass shootings are not at all random: In at least 53 percent of mass shootings between 2009 and 2020, the perpetrator shot a current or former intimate partner or family member during the rampage. These domestic violence-related mass shootings resulted in at least 632 people shot and killed and 106 people wounded, amounting to almost half of all mass shooting deaths and one in ten injuries.

Mass Shootings in America | Everytown Research & Policy

Twelve Years of Mass Shootings in the United States An Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund Analysis Last updated: June 4, 2021 In the years between 2009 and 2020, the …

everytownresearch.org

 

[Semper]

I do agree that there are other factors with a stronger effect on homicide than gun ownership. I never said otherwise. But the number of guns available and easy are also factors. For example, industrialized nations that ban guns do in fact have lower homicide rates than industrialized nations that don't.

I don't see why we have to follow only one course to improve things, or wait for a perfect solution to try something.

But unlike @brandon8283, I pretty much have given up on gun control. As a country we've decided cheap and easy guns are worth more than a few thousand deaths per year. I really don't care if you or @Semper or dozens of other reasonable people have a gun. But I do think it would be wise to make it harder and more expensive for there to be guns easily available.

I also think we should have more anti-poverty measures in place. I also think we should have stronger social safety nets. I also think we should encourage helping people instead of associating value with wealth.

I don’t know if more expensive is the answer. More difficult is fine with me as well as maybe insurance. I carry a 2 million dollar policy for my firearms.

 

[St. Widge]

You need a Supreme Court (that we don't currently have) willing to put limits on the second amendment that currently aren't there.

For example, we already don't allow you to own nuclear weapons because they're too dangerous. We don't allow you to build pipe bombs because they're too dangerous. Limits on rights based on what is overall in the best interests of the public have always existed. We don't have a right to own guns. We have a right to bear arms. Arms don't have to be guns.

Then we need a majority of congress and the president to enact.

There's no realistic way we're getting a constitutional amendment on anything, so it will require a reinterpretation of the second amendment to make it a reality.

I guess that's kind of my point. Barring a complete change in the Supreme Court, to a version of the Court that has never existed, or a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment which is also never going to happen, banning guns is never going to happen.

The fact is that like it or not, the 2nd Amendment says what it says. So, in order to get a Court to allow the banning of guns would require you to have Judges that will completely ignore the words of the Constitution and the rule of law. While that might sound attractive in this specific situation, I don't think it's a precedent we want to set since it will later be applied to things like minority rights, discrimination, free speech, the takings clause, etc., etc. And, frankly, you are never going to get a Court with 5 Judges that will do that anyway IMO.

So, you would need to actually repeal the 2nd Amendment which IIRC, would require at least a majority in Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify it. That too is never going to happen IMO.

So, IMO, the best option is to try to pass reasonable gun laws that do comply with the 2nd Amendment. Likely attempting to tailor them in terms of time place and manner restrictions which are allowed even with regard to the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech which is as unequivocal as the 2nd Amendment. Things like real background checks even for gun shows and private sale, gun safety and training courses before being able to purchase, continued training after purchase, etc. might pass Constitutional muster if you frame them as time, place, and manner restrictions and/or frame them as being part of the having a "well regulated militia." After all, do you really have a well regulated militia if you have a bunch of untrained, uneducated people running around with guns?

Even then, it's going to be hard to pass those laws or get them to pass Constitutional scrutiny, but it's worth the effort.

But, so is doing things to address poverty, education, and culture as another part of the process of trying to curb gun violence.

 

[Dago]

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sort by rate.

Yes I already looked at that and it supports what I said.

 

[brandon8283]

I'd make a distinction: if you want to shoot people, nothing is as effective as a gun. If you want to kill people, there are many ways to do so, not only guns, and they are surprisingly easy to achieve.

Hard disagree. If you want to kill people, the most effective legal weapon is a gun. There are more effective means for killing people (bombs, missiles, nukes) but they’re already illegal. And they’re illegal because they’re so effective at killing people.

It’s the reason police use guns. It’s the reason the military uses guns. They’re extremely effective at what they’re made for.