In a recent discussion of gun control here on Gather, I made the following statement to a gun control opponent:
"If ANY law were enacted that restricted gun ownership in any way, all the nutcases would hide their weapons. All the crooks would hide their weapons. Only the sane, law abiding folks...would obey the law."
His reply: "...bravo to you for this statement...It shows your understanding..."
What I meant, but didn't make clear, is that I was describing the initial conditions if such a law were passed. Eventually, over time, the 200 million privately-owned firearms would be collected and confiscated. But this would have to be handled very carefully to avoid another Prohibition situation. During Prohibition, booze was illegal, but readily available. People defied the law because they didn't agree with it.
So, a large majority of the populace must become convinced that such a measure is necessary. If that doesn't happen, then it won't work. At this moment, I do not think the public is convinced, but that will hopefully change as we experience more horrific incidents like the one in Colorado.
So let's do a little thought experiment and consider how government should deal with the problem if such a law were passed.
After some deadline when all guns should be turned in, anybody who still possesses a gun is a criminal, by definition. Law enforcement cannot go door-to-door and search every house from attic to basement. That would violate all kinds of Constitutional safeguards. Like other private property searches, it would require a warrant, issued by a judge, who must be convinced of "probable cause."
So how should violators be punished? If we put them in jail, we will need a lot more jails. I suggest that it might be best to "de-criminalize" gun possession...treat it like a traffic ticket. First offenders might get a fine of $1000 or 10 days in jail. The penalty would be doubled for subsequent offenses...e.g., a third offense would cost $4000 or 40 days in jail.
Offenders would not go to "regular" jails. Instead, they would go to "farms" where they work for their meals...no work, no food. The farms should be self-sufficient, growing produce to sell in local markets. Inmates would get three "chits" after each work shift, one for each meal for the next day. They would perform various jobs, from dishwashing to field labor.
Every year, the penalties for gun ownership would double, providing an escalating incentive to turn in weapons. Any person who voluntarily surrendered a gun would not be penalized, even after the deadline.
Over time, such a program would greatly reduce the gun population, but as guns became scarce, their value would go up, and, as with booze during Prohibition, and illegal drugs today, organized crime syndicates would quickly establish high-profit operations selling guns. This can only be controlled by a vigilant citizenry who report any firearms they see, and severe punishment for anyone convicted of using a weapon in the commission of a crime.
I have no illusions that this can be accomplished quickly or easily. It will take many years. But the longest journey begins with a single step.
It is time to take that step.
Guns, like horse-drawn wagons, whale oil lamps and chamber pots, are anachronisms that a modern society does not need.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 55
You are welcome to your opinion and ideology as long as you don't try forcing it on all the rest of us law abiding citizens.
You seem to believe...correct me if I'm wrong...that more guns equal more crime and so your logic is that fewer guns would result in fewer crimes? Okay...substantiate this theory if you can.
What guns do is make killing easy and very sanitary. If you want to kill somebody with a knife or your bare hands, you have to get a lot closer to your victim, maybe get some blood on you, and risk injury from an opponent who can strike back. With a gun it's bang-bang, you're dead.
But you are correct, some crimes do not involve the use a a firearm by an attacker...in fact MOST crimes don't. The the rise in the crime rate that I suggest would result is not the (increased) use of firearms by criminals but rather the increasing rates of all crimes which would result from the fact that the criminals would KNOW that they would mostly NOT be met with armed resistance or the ability to resist by a legally armed victim.
This has what has resulted in Great Britain, for example, as the direct result of taking citizens ability to protect themselves from criminal assault, breaking and entering, rape, car jackings and such. The crime rate has been increasing at an astounding rate.
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
Additionally, you mention the crime rate as you predict the strengthening of criminal gangs as a result of your gun confiscation proposal... ("Over time, such a program would greatly reduce the gun population, but as guns became scarce, their value would go up, and, as with booze during Prohibition, and illegal drugs today, organized crime syndicates would quickly establish high-profit operations selling guns. This can only be controlled by a vigilant citizenry who report any firearms they see, and severe punishment for anyone convicted of using a weapon in the commission of a crime.")
You compare your plan with the war on drugs...asking neighbors to report neighbors and jailing those who possess guns...just as if they possessed a controlled substance....so my question is this....how successful do you imagine our war on drugs has been?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2012/04/19/lets-be-blunt-its-time-to-end-the-drug-war/
And regarding : "Muggings are often committed with knives or just physical threats."
Yes....and now that the victim can't protect himself/herself from the mugger/rapist...what effect can you imagine possible. The predator is still armed, but he is armed with the mentality that as long as he picks a less physically capable person for his victim, he has little change of being stopped or of being injured. In fact, when questioned, career criminals will tell you that they are more afraid of an armed citizen than the are of police.
Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).
Guns don't equal more crime. But they do mean more death.
Some statistics I found:
66% of homicides between 2000 and 2008 were committed with firearms.
13% were committed with knives or other cutting devices.
Over 50% of suicdes are committed with guns.
In most crime-related homicides, the criminal did not intend to kill the victim...but if he/she had a gun, the victim was much more likely to die.
Crime rates might go up if guns were reduced but fatalities would go down. Guns make killing easy.
The old anti-gun-control adage: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Should have the following addendum. "But guns sure make it easy."
Here is a web site that tackles some of your other points.
Yes and the homicide rate is lower now than it has been in about 50 years....while gun ownership is up...and the numbers of legally armed citizens is up...way up.
RE: "In most crime-related homicides, the criminal did not intend to kill the victim...but if he/she had a gun, the victim was much more likely to die."
"A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
" A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year."
Kinda tells us how valid his sources are.
Found R.F. source.
"New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence"
Apparently a defunct gun grabber organization.
So lets look at the links;
"How many defensive uses per year?†Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997"
Referencing a study by: Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig and David Hemenway.
"The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses: A Case Study of Survey Overestimates of Rare Events"
Hmmm no link imagine that!
"Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey†Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998"
Referencing a study by: Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig and David Hemenway.
“The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Surveyâ€
Can't access this study but;
"Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1900 adults conducted in 1996,"
A poll!
Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws
Referencing a study by Daniel Webster and Jens Ludwig.
Not really a study more a response to John Lott, Jr. published a book with the provocative title More Guns, Less Crime.
"Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use" Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009"
A study not offering any contradicting facts instead critiquing the methodologies of studies who measure gun uses.
We see that one study is referenced by two of those sources and one of the authors of those two is a party of the third study so we can expect that they are using the same material in that third study.
So what we have is;
ONE study a phone poll and a couple of opeds...Not quite the refutation R.F. claimed it was.........But then we all know that he didn't go any farther than the now defunct New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence.
Yes he has....
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
Dr. Kleck's Answer.....
SEE THE LINKED ARTICLE
http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/md-rebuttal.3sep95
I think a total ban is probably not feasible, but I think private ownership of assault weapons should be banned, and handguns too, in most cases.
Hunting rifles and shotguns should be registered, and kept in locked gun safes or the equivalent when not in use.
I agree with you in not seeing any legitimate reason for private citizens to own assault weapons. For handguns, I think a more rigorous licensing and registration process would do - I'm not sure banning them completely is a good idea.
One thing to keep in mind - the courts have more or less consistently reaffirmed the constitutional right for citizens to own guns...AND...more or less consistently reaffirmed the constitutional right of governments to regulate the ownership of guns. So outside of an outright ban on all guns (e.g., the District of Columbia's ban that was struck down), people can have guns under certain conditions.
The devil is in the details of defining "certain conditions." Most people don't think it unreasonable to restrict the availability of tanks, drones, and WMDs. What about assault weapons? Like tanks, there is zero rationale use of an assault weapon for anything other than the mass extermination of fellow human beings. The much offered platitude about the need for guns as self-protection is completely bogus when it comes to assault weapons. As is the paranoid whine about attacking our second amendment rights. To reiterate, the courts have reaffirmed the right of the government (aka, our representatives) to regulate gun ownership. That means restrictions/bans on weapons of war that have no rationale basis being in the hands of the general public. That means requiring background checks, registration, and limits on the amount of ammunition you are allowed to have. To any rational human being this really isn't too much to ask.
So...
Those who think all guns should be banned will have to live (and have been living) with the idea that Americans will have guns. Those who think everyone has a right to wield whatever guns they please will have to live with the idea that society can regulate those guns.
Until this issue can be discussed honestly, it's really a waste of time to discuss it.
Which, of course, is why the NRA keeps the fake "2nd amendment question" in the public discourse = they use it to sell more guns to the paranoids amongst us.
Think about it - the paranoids amongst us are the ones most vocal about our right to carry weapons in public without any restrictions or controls on their procurement.
How's that for irony.
Thanks for the post, Bert. It had the potential to stimulate solutions. And yet...
Appreciate the thought.
But I find the notion that guns provide personal security, or a means for citizens to attack an oppressive government absurd.
If we want to limit government oppression, we should overturn the Citizens United SCOTUS decision, implement some real campaign finance reform that limits bribes...er...campaign contributions...to politicians to something like a hundred bucks.
We the People face a much greater threat from a government controlled by Big Money and corporate interests than we do from disarming the populace.
Or to put it another way...if government was truly responsive to the people, we wouldn't need weapons to defend ourselves from government oppression.
But I find the notion that guns provide personal security, or a means for citizens to attack an oppressive government absurd.
I'm not surprised. In Fantasyland reality can be absurd.
Read item 3 at the link I posted above in response to Mike.
If you had your way, my husband would be DEAD!
Come to think of it,...my sister was an excellent shot, and trained in the militarty with firearms, but the night she died she did NOT have a gun and the attacker (with a hammer) brutily bludgeoned my Sister and and Mom to death. Why was she without a gun? BECAUSE SHE INCORRECTLY BELIEVED THE SAME AS YOU!
To the manufacturers and the NRA I suggest you confine yourself to overseas sales since there are always wars and people ready to buy. If you don't make for the home market then people can't buy them.
In general, I think only the military, law enforcement, and hunters should have guns. If anyone else really wants one, the burden of proof should fall on them-- they should explain in detail why they need one and prove that that have been trained in its use.
Ironically, when the second amendment was passed there were very few guns owned by the populace, and those that were usually were in unusable condition. Unless you were out in the wilderness shooting your dinner you were unlikely to have a gun.
Needless to say, the fantasy that gun rights proponents push, i.e., that everyone was running around fully armed all the time, is poppycock.
As you say, there really wasn't much of a police force (or in most places, any police force). The idea of the "well regulated militia" (i.e., not "armed for bear Joe Schmoe") was because the Founders wanted to ensure that at least some usable weapons could be brought into any conflict against some outside foreign aggressor (like, um, King George III, who had a habit of getting into wars up until his mind finally went numb).
The reality of the second amendment is always conveniently rewritten by the rather paranoidal folks like the tea party extremists. Of which paranoia the NRA duly takes advantage in order to sell more guns, which is its entire purpose.
In general, I think only the military, law enforcement, and hunters should have guns. If anyone else really wants one, the burden of proof should fall on them-- they should explain in detail why they need one and prove that that have been trained in its use.
Any rational human being would agree that anyone wanting a gun should demonstrate a need and/or competence. The courts have reaffirmed the right of government to regulate arms.
James Holmes was under treatment with a psychiatrist specializing in schizophrenia. As a graduate student in neuroscience, he also studied schizophrenia.
It appears that both James and his psychiatrist were aware of his mental illness and were seeking to understand and treat it. If such awareness and treatment did not prevent Holmes from committing mass murder, gun control is probably the only thing that would have prevented his shooting spree.
But I think that doctor-patient privilege is such that there will never be a way to publicly identify people with such illnesses (which is probably as it should be). That's why I think people who want guns should go through a very through application process and voluntarily release their health records.
My response, "...bravo to you for this statement...It shows your understanding..." was based upon that single statement from you, as it rings loud and clear to those who are opposed to gun banning.
I mention my statement, mainly because I am not totally sure of the significance of the mention of that statement. I am unsure if you are agreeing with it, or dismissing it, but my response in the context of an actual reaction to your statement was intended to show my agreement with your statement, as it was worded
My main objection to gun control is that we should never be willing to forfeit our rights to cater the part of society that has no respect for the law, or even those rights.
I will not get into the details of what can be done to address the problem of gun ownership by those who are mentally ill or with criminal intent or lack of respect for valid laws, as I covered that in the original post from which my statement was drawn.
There are steps that should be considered in order to prevent crimes and suicides as it relates to guns that fall into the hands of those who are mentally incapable of distinguishing acceptable behavior from criminal behavior, but it should never infringe on our rights and freedoms, as low-abiding citizens in order to do so.
I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying, but merely clarifying my response to your statement.
I think that "forfeiting" our rights to own weapons that can kill people is not the terrible outcome that you perceive. I invite you to read the 5 myths about gun control at the web site that I linked above.
Look at the statistics for gun-related homicides in Japan vs. the US.
In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11.
If an intruder breaks into my house, and is willing to harm me and my family in his attempt to take what does not belong to him, I have the ability to protect myself and my family with the current laws. That will be a thing of the past if guns were to be banned, but those who do not care about either the new or the old laws would continue to have a gun. That is the terrible outcome that I perceive. The criminal element would no longer fear walking into a home against the owner's will. The owner would only have protection is he/she would have obtained a gun as a violation of the new current laws, just as did the intruder. I have a problem with anyone determining what rights I should forfeit, and that is especially true with the right to protect myself and my family from the criminal element of society.
It's not an easy problem to solve, I admit.
But if we do not control the gun population more effectively than the current mess, where do you think we will be in ten, twenty, thirty years...when much more lethal weapons will be available?