Realistically what can we do about guns when we have 430 million in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support gun control 100%, I hate guns. I wish we could get rid of all of them. Every other country that passed landmark gun ban legislation after a massacre seems to have started at a much lower baseline of guns in circulation. Even if we repealed the 2nd amendment tomorrow and banned every single type of firearm besides maybe single shot hunting rifles, how long would it take to confiscate and destroy all 430 million guns? Decades? And we have probably 20% of the country being adamantly opposed to any kind of gun ban... they won't comply. Are we completely stuck? It's depressing.

1. Most guns confiscated after crimes are not that old. "The median time to crime across all traced crime guns between 2017 and 2021 was just over three years, but it is becoming increasingly common for guns to be used within a year after purchase." What that means is that stopping the sale of new guns greatly reduces the criminal's ability to get them.

2. They could handle the problem of current guns by (a) preventing the transfer of firearms to other people, and (b) making owners of guns liable for crimes committed with them, unless they were previously reported stolen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's possible to make meaningful restrictions on guns other than at the point of sale.

And even then, it'll be hundreds of years before we make a dent in the murder or suicide rate.

It appears that in the US, the most direct route to increasing gun safety is harsh penalties for gun violence (including brandishing a gun in the commission of a crime) and increasing police presence and physical security at places like schools and venues. I don't see gun control as a serious, realistic proposal to reduce those things.

I share your resignation to some extent. But I do think there are a couple things we can do. Like some of the crazy ideas here, this would take courage. It is focused on getting guns out of the hands of people most likely to commit gun-related crime:

- stop and frisk, also known as a Terry Stop, is a very effective way of getting guns off our city streets. I’m sorry there is a segment of the population that is concerned about “implicit bias”. Point to the guns removed from criminal possession and explain that the segment is safer for it.
- The NICS is what is consulted during a firearm purchase…sometimes called a background check. We need more people on NICS. Too many clearly mentally ill people had purchase rights when they should not: Cho, Nidal, Holmes. The list is endless. People judged mentally ill and anyone on psychotropics should be barred from possession. Stronger red flag laws too.

Good idea. We want Americans to be fully untreated for depression and anxiety. We want law enforcement to have full access to our medical records at all times.

"If people with suicidal or homicidal impulses avoid treatment for fear of being reported in this way, they may be more likely to act on those impulses," Dr. Paul Appelbaum, director of the Division of Law, Ethics and Psychiatry at Columbia University, told the Huffington Post.

That’s the ticket.

"A law-abiding, honest, hard-working professional, who never had one [whit] of scandal associated with him, criminal or otherwise. And they took his guns away," Tresmond told Buffalo news station WIVB.com“

https://www.livescience.com/28617-prescription-meds-gun-control.html

We want to persecute and take away rights from law abiding citizens. We want our citizens to operate on fear and know they are being watched and punished when they access mental healthcare.

Yes I heard that argument before. I'm not buying it. If someone is undergoing treatment for the issues you identify, then they should not have access to guns. Why is that so difficult to grasp? My solution is to deny that access through NICS. Your solution seems to be to magically wave a wand and remove all guns from society. Which is the heavier lift? Which is more effective? Which would cause the least disruption?

[Anonymous]

My entire family is LEO and military — they won’t be doing any confiscating. You can come and take it according to your fantasy of rounding up all of the guns and being willing to kill dissenting gun owners, but thousands of you will die, and thousands of the folks that you try and send to do your bidding will simply refuse when morale drops as a result, it’s that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those dastardly founding fathers (unfortunately) didn’t anticipate that you would disagree with them, how rude and short-sighted they were.

If you don’t like guns, don’t own guns. Easy. You are completely free to be gun free.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those dastardly founding fathers (unfortunately) didn’t anticipate that you would disagree with them, how rude and short-sighted they were.

If you don’t like guns, don’t own guns. Easy. You are completely free to be gun free.

+100

Except when guns kill or maim you or a loved one. Ha ha ha, so funny!

[Anonymous]

Nothing can be done about this problem. At least nothing of any consequence. It’s going to take generational change. Perhaps all the millions of kids who have grown up with active shooter drills in schools will realize that this is not normal and vote accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s an easy solution- it just requires a president willing to put in the hard work and be really unpopular for a generation or two afterwards.

1) issue an EO that bans all guns. Ignore Supreme Court. Ignore constitution.

2) offer 30 days to turn them all in.

3) offer HUGE bounties and rewards for turning in people with guns after the deadline. Make the public turn on each other and do the dirty work for govt so govt doesn’t need to.

4) use UN peacekeepers from other countries to hunt down and crush people still possessing guns. Kill as many as possible, to make examples. Kill millions. This has a bonus of also getting rid of repub voters, because the Ven diagram of gun nutters and R voters is a perfect circle.

5) anyone caught with a gun starting one years after the EO gets the death penalty. No appeal, sentence carried out within 1 hour of judges verdict (no jurors on gun cases)



That’s how you do it. You just need elect someone with the courage to carry it out.

I’d love to see the country this would create, 5 years after it was implemented.

So you want a dictator, think US citizens would behave in the same manner as citizens as the former Soviet Union, think UN troops could disarm the American public and everyone would live in peace and harmony every after?

Quite the vivid imagination you have.

I don’t believe everyone will live in peace and harmony. I believe a lot of gun extremists need to die and will die in the process. And I don’t give a **** about them. I care about the rest of us, the 240 million people who DON’T have guns. If some of those gun nutters surrender peacefully and turn their guns in by the deadline then that’s fine. Then can all have reduced or light sentences, fines, probation and the like. They will be treated easily. It’s the holdouts I want to see getting slaughtered in the streets.

And yes, the UN will happily assist our country if we ask them to. Because their support is essential to the process. We cannot trust our own military and law enforcement, which has been heavily infiltrated by the right wingers, to carry out gun safety initiatives like this because too many of them cannot be trusted to crack down on these criminals.

And by “behave in the same manner as citizens of the former Soviet Union” you mean not murder their fellow citizens with guns then yes that is exactly how I expect them to behave. The Soviets were’t plagued with guns and gun nutters and crime. They dealt with malcontents harshly and immediately, and had a essentially crime free society because of it. Their human rights record leaves a lot to be desired in terms of political dissidents, but for the everyday ordinary person, the6 didn’t have to wonder if they’d be massacred every time they left their homes.

It’s not a vivid imagination. It’s a vision. And if we can elect someone with the courage to carry it out, we can achieve it. Otherwise we’ll also be at the mercy of republicans and the gun lobby. And I’ve had enough of both to want them exterminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing can be done about this problem. At least nothing of any consequence. It’s going to take generational change. Perhaps all the millions of kids who have grown up with active shooter drills in schools will realize that this is not normal and vote accordingly.

We cannot wait that long. Not with 93,000 murders a year. You’re talking about millions of people over a generation. We cannot wait that long. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s an easy solution- it just requires a president willing to put in the hard work and be really unpopular for a generation or two afterwards.

1) issue an EO that bans all guns. Ignore Supreme Court. Ignore constitution.

2) offer 30 days to turn them all in.

3) offer HUGE bounties and rewards for turning in people with guns after the deadline. Make the public turn on each other and do the dirty work for govt so govt doesn’t need to.

4) use UN peacekeepers from other countries to hunt down and crush people still possessing guns. Kill as many as possible, to make examples. Kill millions. This has a bonus of also getting rid of repub voters, because the Ven diagram of gun nutters and R voters is a perfect circle.

5) anyone caught with a gun starting one years after the EO gets the death penalty. No appeal, sentence carried out within 1 hour of judges verdict (no jurors on gun cases)



That’s how you do it. You just need elect someone with the courage to carry it out.

I’d love to see the country this would create, 5 years after it was implemented.

So you want a dictator, think US citizens would behave in the same manner as citizens as the former Soviet Union, think UN troops could disarm the American public and everyone would live in peace and harmony every after?

Quite the vivid imagination you have.

I don’t believe everyone will live in peace and harmony. I believe a lot of gun extremists need to die and will die in the process. And I don’t give a **** about them. I care about the rest of us, the 240 million people who DON’T have guns. If some of those gun nutters surrender peacefully and turn their guns in by the deadline then that’s fine. Then can all have reduced or light sentences, fines, probation and the like. They will be treated easily. It’s the holdouts I want to see getting slaughtered in the streets.

And yes, the UN will happily assist our country if we ask them to. Because their support is essential to the process. We cannot trust our own military and law enforcement, which has been heavily infiltrated by the right wingers, to carry out gun safety initiatives like this because too many of them cannot be trusted to crack down on these criminals.

And by “behave in the same manner as citizens of the former Soviet Union” you mean not murder their fellow citizens with guns then yes that is exactly how I expect them to behave. The Soviets were’t plagued with guns and gun nutters and crime. They dealt with malcontents harshly and immediately, and had a essentially crime free society because of it. Their human rights record leaves a lot to be desired in terms of political dissidents, but for the everyday ordinary person, the6 didn’t have to wonder if they’d be massacred every time they left their homes.

It’s not a vivid imagination. It’s a vision. And if we can elect someone with the courage to carry it out, we can achieve it. Otherwise we’ll also be at the mercy of republicans and the gun lobby. And I’ve had enough of both to want them exterminated.

It’s a vision we will live to see. This is the correct answer to our society’s biggest problems. It would rid us of small minded bigots and maga.

Gun owners are all cowards. They must either be disarmed or removed from society one way or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support gun control 100%, I hate guns. I wish we could get rid of all of them. Every other country that passed landmark gun ban legislation after a massacre seems to have started at a much lower baseline of guns in circulation. Even if we repealed the 2nd amendment tomorrow and banned every single type of firearm besides maybe single shot hunting rifles, how long would it take to confiscate and destroy all 430 million guns? Decades? And we have probably 20% of the country being adamantly opposed to any kind of gun ban... they won't comply. Are we completely stuck? It's depressing.

This is the question that every Russian operative would like to know the answer. Please keep brainstorming your ideas on how to disarm Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support gun control 100%, I hate guns. I wish we could get rid of all of them. Every other country that passed landmark gun ban legislation after a massacre seems to have started at a much lower baseline of guns in circulation. Even if we repealed the 2nd amendment tomorrow and banned every single type of firearm besides maybe single shot hunting rifles, how long would it take to confiscate and destroy all 430 million guns? Decades? And we have probably 20% of the country being adamantly opposed to any kind of gun ban... they won't comply. Are we completely stuck? It's depressing.

This is the question that every Russian operative would like to know the answer. Please keep brainstorming your ideas on how to disarm Americans.

All of the gun cowards love Russia and the bloated orange messiah. They would be thrilled if we were invaded and welcome Russia with open arms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s an easy solution- it just requires a president willing to put in the hard work and be really unpopular for a generation or two afterwards.

1) issue an EO that bans all guns. Ignore Supreme Court. Ignore constitution.

2) offer 30 days to turn them all in.

3) offer HUGE bounties and rewards for turning in people with guns after the deadline. Make the public turn on each other and do the dirty work for govt so govt doesn’t need to.

4) use UN peacekeepers from other countries to hunt down and crush people still possessing guns. Kill as many as possible, to make examples. Kill millions. This has a bonus of also getting rid of repub voters, because the Ven diagram of gun nutters and R voters is a perfect circle.

5) anyone caught with a gun starting one years after the EO gets the death penalty. No appeal, sentence carried out within 1 hour of judges verdict (no jurors on gun cases)



That’s how you do it. You just need elect someone with the courage to carry it out.

I’d love to see the country this would create, 5 years after it was implemented.

So you want a dictator, think US citizens would behave in the same manner as citizens as the former Soviet Union, think UN troops could disarm the American public and everyone would live in peace and harmony every after?

Quite the vivid imagination you have.

I don’t believe everyone will live in peace and harmony. I believe a lot of gun extremists need to die and will die in the process. And I don’t give a **** about them. I care about the rest of us, the 240 million people who DON’T have guns. If some of those gun nutters surrender peacefully and turn their guns in by the deadline then that’s fine. Then can all have reduced or light sentences, fines, probation and the like. They will be treated easily. It’s the holdouts I want to see getting slaughtered in the streets.

And yes, the UN will happily assist our country if we ask them to. Because their support is essential to the process. We cannot trust our own military and law enforcement, which has been heavily infiltrated by the right wingers, to carry out gun safety initiatives like this because too many of them cannot be trusted to crack down on these criminals.

And by “behave in the same manner as citizens of the former Soviet Union” you mean not murder their fellow citizens with guns then yes that is exactly how I expect them to behave. The Soviets were’t plagued with guns and gun nutters and crime. They dealt with malcontents harshly and immediately, and had a essentially crime free society because of it. Their human rights record leaves a lot to be desired in terms of political dissidents, but for the everyday ordinary person, the6 didn’t have to wonder if they’d be massacred every time they left their homes.

It’s not a vivid imagination. It’s a vision. And if we can elect someone with the courage to carry it out, we can achieve it. Otherwise we’ll also be at the mercy of republicans and the gun lobby. And I’ve had enough of both to want them exterminated.

So a UN force is going to take on the US Military, US law enforcement and 120 million gun owners and win. When has the UN ever been successful at even a small scale conflict?


Interesting vision you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's possible to make meaningful restrictions on guns other than at the point of sale.

And even then, it'll be hundreds of years before we make a dent in the murder or suicide rate.

It appears that in the US, the most direct route to increasing gun safety is harsh penalties for gun violence (including brandishing a gun in the commission of a crime) and increasing police presence and physical security at places like schools and venues. I don't see gun control as a serious, realistic proposal to reduce those things.

I share your resignation to some extent. But I do think there are a couple things we can do. Like some of the crazy ideas here, this would take courage. It is focused on getting guns out of the hands of people most likely to commit gun-related crime:

- stop and frisk, also known as a Terry Stop, is a very effective way of getting guns off our city streets. I’m sorry there is a segment of the population that is concerned about “implicit bias”. Point to the guns removed from criminal possession and explain that the segment is safer for it.
- The NICS is what is consulted during a firearm purchase…sometimes called a background check. We need more people on NICS. Too many clearly mentally ill people had purchase rights when they should not: Cho, Nidal, Holmes. The list is endless. People judged mentally ill and anyone on psychotropics should be barred from possession. Stronger red flag laws too.

Good idea. We want Americans to be fully untreated for depression and anxiety. We want law enforcement to have full access to our medical records at all times.

"If people with suicidal or homicidal impulses avoid treatment for fear of being reported in this way, they may be more likely to act on those impulses," Dr. Paul Appelbaum, director of the Division of Law, Ethics and Psychiatry at Columbia University, told the Huffington Post.

That’s the ticket.

"A law-abiding, honest, hard-working professional, who never had one [whit] of scandal associated with him, criminal or otherwise. And they took his guns away," Tresmond told Buffalo news station WIVB.com“

https://www.livescience.com/28617-prescription-meds-gun-control.html

We want to persecute and take away rights from law abiding citizens. We want our citizens to operate on fear and know they are being watched and punished when they access mental healthcare.

Yes I heard that argument before. I'm not buying it. If someone is undergoing treatment for the issues you identify, then they should not have access to guns. Why is that so difficult to grasp? My solution is to deny that access through NICS. Your solution seems to be to magically wave a wand and remove all guns from society. Which is the heavier lift? Which is more effective? Which would cause the least disruption?

Depression and/or anxiety should not disqualify anyone from owning a gun.

If you want to keep people who are on anxiety and depression from owning guns, get ready to disqualify a large percentage of our Military from serving. There are a lot of military members taking prescription medication for depression and anxiety and they not only use weapons in the combat and their duty, they own guns for sport and hunting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those dastardly founding fathers (unfortunately) didn’t anticipate that you would disagree with them, how rude and short-sighted they were.

If you don’t like guns, don’t own guns. Easy. You are completely free to be gun free.

+100

Except when guns kill or maim you or a loved one. Ha ha ha, so funny!

People do the killing and maiming. Guns are inanimate objects.

If guns kill people, spoons make people fat.

[Anonymous]

Tax the ammo at 1000%. Tax the components of reloading bullets at 2000%. Make purchasing ammo part of a public record and keep a national database of ammo purchases.