|
I don't want to start a debate about the second amendment. That is not the purpose of the reference desk. My question is ONLY about the practical/logistical aspects of a gun ban that pro-gun control people seem to crave. How is it going to work.
Let us assume, temporarily, for the purpose of this question: guns are bad for society; permissive gun laws lead to murders; it is in society's interest to ban guns; a national gun ban is going to be passed by Congress, and the local governments will be on board with it as well and won't defy the federal government.
What, then, are we going to do with the millions of people in the US who already have legal guns? Do we, as right-wing anti-gun-control people fear, send out armed government agents to round up and confiscate all guns? Or do we have sort of a grandfather clause that states that if you already have a gun, that's fine, but people aren't allowed to buy any *new* guns? If the latter, how does that prevent any gun murders? There would still be plenty of legal guns floating around. If the former... yeah, good luck with that.
I am looking for a sensible and concise outline of how the proposed gun ban is going to work. Thank you.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you're going to get an answer to this without a debate. My short answer: you would not get a Congress that would pass such a law without greater social change on this topic than there has been. A society that elected such a Congress would be a lot more willing to give up guns, and to accept a degree of state interference with gun ownership. If you want to see a worked example, look at the increasing strictness of UK gun laws over the past 40 years. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex, I agree you would have to completely change society to get this to work. US has a different culture and history from UK. But doesn't someone out there have a plan on how the gun ban is going to work in *this* society?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To the person who hastily collapsed my question and said we don't do "debate" or "predictions" on the reference desk, let me clarify. I'm not asking for YOUR predictions. I'm asking what pro-gun control organizations' plan is. Every good organization/political movement has a plan. Pro gun control organizations are real, not hypothetical. What is their plan for how a gun ban would work? Thanks.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what you originally asked. And the tone of your '...yeah, good luck with that' in your original post belies your attempt at neutrality. Want to know what gun-control organisations say? Go and read their own literature. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference desk doesnt demand that the tone of the question be neutral. If it does, I'm sorry for not following that rule. Could you help me find some of the literature where their plans are outlined? Please be specific and show me what parts of the literature explain the answer to my specific question. Thanks.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be a rule that you have to phrase your question neutrally, but had you done so it wouldn't look like your question is just a rhetorical question framing an ignorant strawman argument in an attempt to induce cognitive dissonance in yourself rather than try to understand what other people reasonably believe.
- There are no serious attempts by legitimate and powerful gun control groups to completely ban all guns overnight ever in the US. Anyone who has seriously thought about the subject knows better. Do some gun control advocates wish we could get rid of them overnight? Yes, but they know that's not going to happen just as much as most people know the average citizen is never going to buy an M60 machine gun (or need to, for that matter). Restricting and reducing the sales of guns based on their capabilities, where they're bought, and who's buying them]? Sure. Gun buyback programs? Sure. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Presently, I am deeply skeptical that a gun ban would work. That's why I sounded very sarcastic. That doesn't mean I'm not open minded or willing to entertain attempts to change my mind. I don't even like guns, by the way. I just know America loves their guns and won't give them up easily. Thank for trying to contribute. to answering my question, and I will read up on some of the programs you linked to.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're being skeptical about something that no one advocates. That's why you're coming across as close-minded. You're not presenting something that doesn't exist as the beliefs of gun control advocates. You're lying to yourself about what they believe, and asking people to argue in defense of something no one believes. It's no different than a gun control advocate asking why the NRA supports shoot babies and the elderly with bazookas. 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's true no one advocates banning ON ALL GUNS immediately and I've not encountered anyone who thinks it's feasible to start taking people's guns away. But I've been reading the news, and some newsworthy people have stated that they believe strict gun control laws will prevent mass shootings (even shootings that don't involve semi automatic weapons) and that we NEED to start passing these laws to save lives. I am just looking for more information on how these stricter laws are going to reduce the number of legal guns, especially in so-called red states. How is that going to happen?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't see the tone problem with comments like this, I can't help you. I've already told you - if you want to know what gun control organisations say, go and check their own publications. This is not the place for what is blatantly a debate. Now I'm off to sleep in a country which has about one firearms massacre a decade. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did check their publications; I didn't find anything terribly informative in terms of reducing the number of legal guns on the streets. But people at the reference desk are good at looking up facts that I'm unable to find, so that's why I came here.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One might also have thought the USA hated marijuana and same-sex marriage, but times change. Heck, 90 years ago one might have supposed the USA hated alcohol, too. What loud politicians say, for or against gun control, is no guide to subtle shifts in public sentiment. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A constructive response here is to suggest a look at a country that relatively recently brought in much more restrictive gun control laws than it used to have. See Gun politics in Australia. In particular, after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the country was ready for much stronger restrictions on gun ownership. The conservative government led the way. Eighteen years on, gun laws are not an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks, I didn't think about Australia, and I read the article now. I was a bit confused by the category A/category B stuff. How hard is it to get a handgun in Australia compared to getting a hunting rifle? And do people conclude that the drop in gun violence is attributable to the restrictions on handguns, or on more powerful semiautomatic weapons, or to something else?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, what was the estimated compliance rate on the mandatory gun buyback in Australia?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what people conclude because, as I said above, it has become a non-issue. Hardly anybody ever even discusses the issue now. We haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. As for handguns, as I understand it, apart from law enforcement people, only gun club members (target shooters) can own handguns, and the guns must be stored separately from ammunition. There was a lot of objection to the buyback initially, but when people realised they could get cash for guns they hardly ever used, and which would become illegal, it became quite popular. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. And plenty of people still own hunting weapons, correct? It would seem that, due to their difficulty to conceal, that it would be a lot harder to commit a mass shooting with a hunting weapon (though there have been cases in the US, like that guy who climbed the belltower, and the elemnatry school kids in Arkansas, etc.)--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not many city people own hunting weapons, and most Australians live in big cities. Country folk have shotguns for killing foxes and rabbits, but it's not a big part of the population. Hunting is not a big activity in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You might also want to look at Gun politics in the United Kingdom, since (as that article states) "The UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world." --Viennese Waltz 10:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to the OP's question is, "It won't" work. No serious discussion of banning guns is going on here. The issue is "regulation" of guns - such as how or if it's possible to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics, like that guy in California the other day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well quite. Even lefties like me who can't think of many good moral reasons for people to own guns don't think it's sensible (or necessarily right) for a government to say "OK, guns are banned". Things that might work would include a more stringent licensing regime, more narrowly defined categories of legal firearms, and more closely vetted sales. It's still legal to own certain guns, under certain circumstances, here in the UK - and yes, there are still homicides with legally owned firearms. But it's unthinkable that a government would just up and ban something that so many people already have. (Well, I already mentioned alcohol prohibition...) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I take everybody's points about the UK being different to the USA, but this article describes how it was done in the UK - after handguns became illegal there was an amnesty when you could hand in your weapon at a police station. There was no "round up" as the OP suggests. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Preceding any such move, at least in a relatively democratic nation, there must be consensus from the public. No such consensus exists in the US. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you mean by "consensus". The only (albeit flawed) way of finding out the consensus on a single issue such as this is a referendum, and AFAIK the US doesn't do referenda. I don't pretend to understand the constitutional process in the US, but if the President and/or Congress wanted to push through gun control legislation they could do it by virtue of the fact that they were elected, regardless of what some imagined "consensus" might be. --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is that the people have to be willing to give up their guns. If not, when the government tries to confiscate them, there will be massive bloodshed - which seems counterproductive to the reason for trying to ban guns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". That would prohibit Congress from passing a law banning the private ownership of guns, unless:
- 1) The Supreme Court reinterprets the 2nd Amendment to only apply to state militias, specifically "well regulated" meaning that they are run by the state government and don't let people take the guns home with them. This would require a majority vote by the Supreme Court.
- 2) The 2nd Amendment is repealed, which would require 2/3 of Congress or 3/4 of the states.
- Considering the powerful lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, would go all-out to stop such a repeal (or the appointment of Supreme court judges who might vote that way), you'd probably need like 90% of voters to favor such an action to overcome all this inertia. So, you would have a powerful mandate if such a law was ever passed.
- The more practical effect would be if you could ban carrying and selling guns, rather than owning them (although you could ban owning large numbers). This would allow people who carry guns in public to be arrested. As for the ownership of existing guns, you'd need to wait until they break down with age, although the ability to make one using a 3D printer would allow for replacement. Since most gun crimes are committed by young people, they would need to obtain guns somehow, as soon as we get a new batch of young people. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A prevailing theory among gun advocates is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. An attempt to confiscate guns would be seen as exactly that, and there would likely be a large-scale civil war. Which would kind of defeat the point in trying to ban guns in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't buy the "large-scale civil war" argument. Guns were banned, collected and destroyed in the UK without those kinds of dire consequences. When the 1997 law was passed, effectively banning handguns, 162,000 pistols and 700 tons of ammunition and related equipment were handed in and duly destroyed...peacefully and certainly without rioting in the streets.
- The 2nd Amendment argument is flakey too, you can read those words in any of half a dozen different ways and conclude that private gun ownership either should or shouldn't be allowed. The UK also had dusty old rulings: "Subjects which are Protestants ...(Eeek!)... may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law." in the 1689 Declaration of Rights - and it was also accepted Common Law: "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.". Sounds kinda similar to the spirit and intent of the US constitution...and for good reason - the people who wrote these things came from the same era and the same mind-set.
- The problem is that surveys have shown (eg [2]) that the percentage of US voters who want more agressive gun control always hovers around the 50% mark. With intense lobbying from the gun manufacturers and their proxies (eg the NRA which gets more than half of it's funding from gun manufacturers), nothing much is likely to change because not enough people want it to change. If a clear majority Americans really wanted gun control - they'd find a way around the poorly-written, badly-thought-out and *way* out of date, 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat. eg "Sure, you're allowed to bear arms...cudgels and pocket-knives" - that's within the scope of the 2nd Amendment - nothing there says that you have the right to bear "guns" any more than it says that personal nuclear weapons are allowed.
- SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Constitution does not define or limit the type of arms that the people are allowed to have. That's left up to the Congress, which of course has long banned truly military weapons. The assault rifles are in kind of a murky area. They were illegal for a while, but that law had an expiration date on it and was not renewed. In the case of the recent California looney (which I expect is what prompted the question), the guy had done everything by the book, up to the point where he started shooting at everybody. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it seems to me that any attempt to limit the 2nd Amendment to small weapons excluding firearms would meet no small amount of opposition from those same lobbying groups you mention. The problem with banning guns, of course, is that the only people you need to take guns from are those who already have them ("Duh," you say). In the UK (and evidently in Australia) those with guns didn't seem too opposed to the idea of handing them over. The sociopolitical situation is quite different in the United States, especially in the South, where you have a huge number of civilian paramilitary groups who would have no problem telling you that they will use their weapons to defend what they see as their constitutional right. "Civil war" might be an exaggeration, but perhaps imagine 500 simultaneous Wacos.
- That aside, historical documentation is somewhat spotty on what the 2nd Amendment means and why it means it. The Supreme Court opinion in DC v Heller is particularly illuminating in that regard. Did the Founding Fathers really intend for the 2nd Amendment to be a safeguard against "tyrannical government?" Well, maybe... It might depend on which Founding Father you ask, though. One of the great untruths of the conservative American founding myth is that "the Founding Fathers" were a group of unimpeachable Holy Men who, by virtue of their divine inspiration, never disagreed with one another on any subject worth discussing. What is certain is that the guy who probably wrote the final version of it talks a lot more against foreign invasion as a pretext for the 2nd Amendment than he does any domestic tyranny. That's certainly a somewhat obsolete concern in our era of nuclear submarines and early warning systems, but the efficacy of any argument of that sort is necessarily limited by which sides of the debate want to hear it.
- The argument over what "arms," "militia," and "people" mean is essentially a conflict between originalism (with a healthy dose of strict constructionism) and the Living Constitution idea. As an interesting aside, Antonin Scalia has no problem referring to the former position, which he supports, as idealizing a Dead Constitution. From what I've read, I do think the historical way of reading the 2nd Amendment is as a guarantee of private individual gun ownership. That is completely separate from the issue of whether that guarantee is any longer necessary or productive (which I don't think). Evan (talk|contribs) 18:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that if you take the view that the literal words in the constitution are to be upheld, then either you have to read it as requiring that people be allowed to openly own nuclear weapons (Imagine a US-based nut-job, openly constructing a FOAB grade weapon in full knowledge of the authorities) - or you have to accept that government can act to limit those weapons. Since the words don't say anything about guns - you have to concede that if the government can ban people from owning nuclear weapons - then they can also ban them from owning anything more dangerous than a club or a 3" knife. If you argue that the founding fathers had in mind a particular weapon as an "arm" - then fixed-sight, single-shot, muzzle-loading smoothbores (and no smokeless powder) should be the legal standard because that's what they knew. If you regard the constitution as a "living document" because the founding fathers couldn't possibly understand how the world might develop - then we should be able to adjust the definition of "arms" to suit the modern world - which should result in something a lot more sane and adaptable than "any gun"...or whatever the current standard is.
- The idea that the constitution specifically permits things precisely conceived of as modern firearms is simply indefensible - it says nothing of the sort. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I didn't mean to suggest that all guns were encompassed by the 2nd Amendment, just that, whatever class of objects Madison and the framers had in mind, some firearms were certainly in the mix. The amendment is permeated with ambiguity in practically every word, and imposing one construction or another doesn't resolve the ambiguity inherent in the text. As long as that ambiguity stands, there's going to be serious disagreement on how to interpret the constitution. Evan (talk|contribs) 20:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
