The Practicality of Gun Bans in America

[dpnc]

I've published an article on medium.com about the practicality of gun bans in America. You can see the full article here.

I you have a chance to read it, I'd appreciate your feedback.

Here's an excerpt:

Let’s imagine that we have a magic wand obtained from an ancient fairy that will instantly and magically collect 100% of these rifles from their owners and pay them (using taxpayer money) “fair compensation”. These rifles in all their configurations run from about $400 to $6,000. You can spend more if you wish. Let’s assume that the average compensation paid will be $1,000. 10 million x $1000 = $10 Billion. That’s conservatively the cost to confiscate (with compensation) every semi-automatic centerfire rifle in the US. It doesn’t include any of the infrastructure or labor costs to collect and destroy these rifles, so the actual cost would be significantly higher.

The wand works! BAM! No semi-automatic rifles in the US. 100% done. Fixed. What happens?

Murders drop from 15,129 to 14,729. That’s about 3%. Or do they?

Do bad guys that would use a semi-automatic rifle give up, or do they switch to another weapon? Do mass shooters start volunteering at the local soup kitchen because AR-15s are unavailable or do they use a semi-automatic handgun like the gunman at Virginia Tech did in the worst mass shooting ever on a college campus and the third deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in the US with 33 killed and 23 injured?​

 

[GEM]

The obvious response would be to ban semiauto handguns. Then you would say that they would use pump guns or lever actions. Then ban those. Check out Australia.

Each time you suggest another gun is equally lethal, you support its banning and that's what happened abroad.

Why did the Mini-14 escape bans? It looked nice among other reasons. Now since its usage in massacres, it is on the ban lists.

We already know that most gun deaths come from handguns.

The problem with some gun world statements like this is that you are trying to say not to ban X as Y is equally lethal. Thus let me have X. No, let's ban Y.

After the AWB, it was found that that it had no effect on any crime indices. Gun world says - Yippee! So let's have no bans.

The researchers said:
1. The ban failed because it grandfathered guns
2. The ban failed because it allow weapons of equal efficacy to still be made, such as ARs without grenade launches and bayonets (yeah) and Mini-14s
3. The existing stocks of the old guns and the new guns met the demand for such.
4. Thus, what is needed is bans on all semis, confiscatory laws on existing ones. Expand that to lever actions and pump guns if needed.

The argument you make is one for the choir as you want to keep lethal guns around still.

The argument has to be that the presence of arms in the civilian population is a greater good than caused by their misuse.

It is also argued that criminals will still have their guns and not turn them in. However, through attrition the gun population will decrease. All guns started as legal when they left the factory (yeah, there are homemade which is a problem in some countries). What will your heirs do with a gun you can keep but they have to turn in. Your kids want to be criminals.

I'm sorry but the argument of other guns being used, doesn't help.

 

[Walkalong]

The arguments for voters are/can be different than the arguments for the anti politicians who would vote for gun bans. We can sway voters to vote out anti gun politicians more easily than we can sway anti politicians to stop voting for gun bans. The core of the anti gun push cares not one bit that we speak the truth when we say bad guys will simply switch to something else, since they know that, and the end game is to go after all guns anyway. The voters however can see the reason and perhaps vote out an anti or two, which in the end is often times how many votes bills pass by.

So in my mind there are two fronts, one against the anti politicians in office, and one to convince the general population they need to stop voting for anti gun politicians, simply vote for a neutral or pro gun politician who will otherwise vote how they would like them too. Not easy, I give you that.

What argument(s) would you use on those two fronts?

 

[cc-hangfire]

Hi dpnc, and welcome to The High Road (I see you joined today)!

I followed the link and read the article. It is a good presentation following the semi-auto rifle ban to its conclusion, and hopefully it’ll introduce the facts to some who haven’t thought that through. As such it counters the efforts to ban semi-auto rifles.

GEM responded above with a broader view. Those of us who support the 2nd amendment understand that the current effort is intentionally incremental. When one ban or restriction doesn’t cure the evil in the human heart, then another more extensive restriction will be sought.

Liberty requires accountability, and as GEM stated:

The argument has to be that the presence of arms in the civilian population is a greater good than caused by their misuse.

Any liberty can be misused, which is the basis of John Adam’s statement that:
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

 

[Tommygunn]

The obvious response would be to ban semiauto handguns. Then you would say that they would use pump guns or lever actions. Then ban those. Check out Australia.

Each time you suggest another gun is equally lethal, you support its banning and that's what happened abroad.

Why did the Mini-14 escape bans? It looked nice among other reasons. Now since its usage in massacres, it is on the ban lists.

We already know that most gun deaths come from handguns.

The problem with some gun world statements like this is that you are trying to say not to ban X as Y is equally lethal. Thus let me have X. No, let's ban Y.

After the AWB, it was found that that it had no effect on any crime indices. Gun world says - Yippee! So let's have no bans.

The researchers said:
1. The ban failed because it grandfathered guns
2. The ban failed because it allow weapons of equal efficacy to still be made, such as ARs without grenade launches and bayonets (yeah) and Mini-14s
3. The existing stocks of the old guns and the new guns met the demand for such.
4. Thus, what is needed is bans on all semis, confiscatory laws on existing ones. Expand that to lever actions and pump guns if needed.

The argument you make is one for the choir as you want to keep lethal guns around still.

The argument has to be that the presence of arms in the civilian population is a greater good than caused by their misuse.

It is also argued that criminals will still have their guns and not turn them in. However, through attrition the gun population will decrease. All guns started as legal when they left the factory (yeah, there are homemade which is a problem in some countries). What will your heirs do with a gun you can keep but they have to turn in. Your kids want to be criminals.

I'm sorry but the argument of other guns being used, doesn't help.

I've always considered the point of claiming that criminals will simply use other guns was to illustrate that those who want to eliminate AR-15s and other similar "assault weapons" really want a ban on all firearms .... and I sometimes expand the point to include the NFA of 1934 that put an onerous tax (given the value of $$ at the time) on full auto and some other weapons, attempted to (but failed) to include handguns, and other subsequent laws, as well as, if convenient, state and local laws such as New York City's Sullivan Laws. This argument might persuade the "fence sitters."

As you put it, I think you're right, but I also think it's really in how you make the argument. There are those who believe that only "reasonable laws" are necessary that could possibly be persuaded to understand that the banners want ALL guns. Many progun people that said this were treated as paranoids, but recent political aspirants such as Eric Swalwell of California have come out openly in favor of confiscation, and even V. P. Biden has responded to a similar question by saying, "bingo, if you have an AR-15 we are coming for it."
Of course, if one considers those who DO want all guns banned, then obviously the above tactics will fail.

I have always been uncertain how to convince the "ban 'em all" crowd that they're wrong .... many seem entrenched in false beliefs, shibboleths .... and are devoted to their agendas like religious fanatics. One of these shibboleths seems to be to refuse to believe that the presence of guns is a greater good than evil.

 

[Speedo66]

If there is a ban, I assume they would only be able to find those that had been bought through an FFL, if those hadn't been legally sold to private parties in states that don't require an FFL to transfer firearms.

Are 3D printers able to make AR lowers? How many 80% guns are out there? Since only the lower is a firearm, people could just give that up and be left with a great parts kit.

They will never be able to confiscate all "assault weapons", and anyone with a home range or big open spaces nearby will still be able to use them.

I certainly don't advocate breaking the law, but I think, especially in this country with our history of firearms freedom, 2A rights, militias, right and left wing wacko's, etc., they will have one hell of a time collecting them.

 

[whm1974]

Decent article about this subject and that owners of mags over 10 rounds that are banned in a few States don't turn in them at all, are something antigun lawmakers should be well aware of.

 

[skeeterfogger]

Zero

 

[GEM]

We all know that compliance might be low at first but there is a long game. So you got your gun in the basement or buried. As I've said before:

1. You can't hunt with it.
2. You can't compete with it.
3. You can't use it in self-defense without risk of damaging your case and secondary charges.
4. You are at risk if your Ex decides to turn you in, use it against you for favorable terms in some domestic settlement issue.
5. You put your heirs at risk if they have to deal with an illegal gun or more.
6. Your neighbors or 'gun' buddies might turn you in for various motivations
7. First responders to your house (fire, EMT, etc.) might come across them.
8. There is a reinforcement of social shunning as owners become like smokers. Over time most folks (than even now) think you are suspect.
9. Your kid blabs to someone.
10. You have friends who are the law (I do - local, state, Fed) - you put them in a difficult position.
11. The industry that produces such guns and accessories dies.

The gun stays buried except for a civilization fail, need to fight a truly totalitarian government (not Medicare for All level). So better to be proactive than reactive. My grandpa made wine in the bathtub during Prohibition. It was better to get rid of it. However, if we do get gun bans, it's hard to see them going away except for fantasy of SCOTUS saving the day.

Red states are at risk of changing demographics and moral panics. We've seen that already. Trying to harvest the last gasp of conservative, old, white guys will only work for a little bit more of time.

So, this dude shot up a school with a 30 round mag. Look you can do it with 3 10 rounds and quick reloads. Please let me have the 30 round mag, then. Does that work as a message.

 

[walterelm]

If you ban guns dont forget to ban kitchen knives .. and hammers ... and canes ..

 

[GEM]

Did you read the thread? What use is that in convincing anyone not to ban guns?

 

[CDW4ME]

There is no "fair compensation" for something that I do not want to give up.

 

[Browning]

Did you read the thread? What use is that in convincing anyone not to ban guns?

Presenting your viewpoint isn’t necessarily about convincing anyone of anything. It’s about presenting your viewpoint.

It’s about countering their narrative with facts.

It’s about the fact that it’s not going to work regardless of where it’s tried. There have always been low compliance rates whenever they’ve tried to register firearms (identify guns) and disarm civilians. Doesn’t matter if it’s in Serbia, New Zealand, Connecticut, New York or Canada.

 

[theotherwaldo]

The main goal of most of the gun-banners is to turn those that own guns into criminals and to turn those that support the right to bear arms into the supporters of criminals.
After that point is achieved, all opposing arguments fail.
The ban does not even have to come to pass, as long as it's essence is accepted by a large enough percentage of the population.
Your article may be well-written and logical but it is not likely to change any minds.

 

[1942bull]

I've published an article on medium.com about the practicality of gun bans in America. You can see the full article here. I you have a chance to read it, I'd appreciate your feedback.

@dpnc, as the author of 5 trade books I really understand how difficult it can be to organize one’s thoughts and then succinctly present them in writings. You did a fine job of that. Your logical conclusions were properly described as realistically possible statistics. Your fine work might influence some people’s thinking. After my ten years in the Corps I spent 20 as a freelance photographer. Then another 15 as the leader of an advocacy organization fighting for creator’s copyright rights. That last duty was most illuminating. I found that logical arguments do not change the minds of those driven by causes because their cause is an important component of their identity. Change cause means changing identity.

We can observe that by looking at the ends of the gun debate continuum. One end is the gun banners and the other is the no compromise on 2A rights folks. However the continuum is never defined by its ends. It is defined by the large middle segment. About 60 t0 65 percent of Americans support both 2A and also reasonable gun regulations. Very few Americans support assault rifle bans or magazine capacity limitations. On the other hand they do support UBCs and ref flag laws. Some Elemis of that middle segment could be influenced by your writing, and that is good. However, you proper will be lost on the extreme gun control folks and on the extreme supporters of the concept that no 2A right can be limited. You have landed in the nightmare of advocacy work: you cannot alter the thinking of the extremists with logic. Still you writing could reinforce the beliefs of those in the middle. Nice job on your part.

 

[Pudge]

The obvious response would be to ban semiauto handguns. Then you would say that they would use pump guns or lever actions. Then ban those. Check out Australia.

Each time you suggest another gun is equally lethal, you support its banning and that's what happened abroad.

Why did the Mini-14 escape bans? It looked nice among other reasons. Now since its usage in massacres, it is on the ban lists.

We already know that most gun deaths come from handguns.

The problem with some gun world statements like this is that you are trying to say not to ban X as Y is equally lethal. Thus let me have X. No, let's ban Y.

After the AWB, it was found that that it had no effect on any crime indices. Gun world says - Yippee! So let's have no bans.

The researchers said:
1. The ban failed because it grandfathered guns
2. The ban failed because it allow weapons of equal efficacy to still be made, such as ARs without grenade launches and bayonets (yeah) and Mini-14s
3. The existing stocks of the old guns and the new guns met the demand for such.
4. Thus, what is needed is bans on all semis, confiscatory laws on existing ones. Expand that to lever actions and pump guns if needed.

The argument you make is one for the choir as you want to keep lethal guns around still.

The argument has to be that the presence of arms in the civilian population is a greater good than caused by their misuse.

It is also argued that criminals will still have their guns and not turn them in. However, through attrition the gun population will decrease. All guns started as legal when they left the factory (yeah, there are homemade which is a problem in some countries). What will your heirs do with a gun you can keep but they have to turn in. Your kids want to be criminals.

I'm sorry but the argument of other guns being used, doesn't help.

The flip side of that is that the legislation banning X has no legitimate purpose, because the authors of the legislation know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will have no measurable impact on violent crime. The legislation then merely serves a political goal rather than one of social benefit. Saying that banning 30 round magazines won't help merely illustrates the vapidity of the legislation and is a reason not to support that legislation regardless of your view of the 2nd.

The reality is that there is no effort to reduce violent crime through firearms legislation, and it is worth pointing this out.

 

[bdickens]

I found that logical arguments do not change the minds of those driven by causes because their cause is an important component of their identity. Change cause means changing identity.

The reality is that there is no effort to reduce violent crime through firearms legislation, and it is worth pointing this out.

Bingo.

As said many times before: gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

 

[Pudge]

We all know that compliance might be low at first but there is a long game. So you got your gun in the basement or buried. As I've said before:

1. You can't hunt with it.
2. You can't compete with it.
3. You can't use it in self-defense without risk of damaging your case and secondary charges.
4. You are at risk if your Ex decides to turn you in, use it against you for favorable terms in some domestic settlement issue.
5. You put your heirs at risk if they have to deal with an illegal gun or more.
6. Your neighbors or 'gun' buddies might turn you in for various motivations
7. First responders to your house (fire, EMT, etc.) might come across them.
8. There is a reinforcement of social shunning as owners become like smokers. Over time most folks (than even now) think you are suspect.
9. Your kid blabs to someone.
10. You have friends who are the law (I do - local, state, Fed) - you put them in a difficult position.
11. The industry that produces such guns and accessories dies.

The gun stays buried except for a civilization fail, need to fight a truly totalitarian government (not Medicare for All level). So better to be proactive than reactive. My grandpa made wine in the bathtub during Prohibition. It was better to get rid of it. However, if we do get gun bans, it's hard to see them going away except for fantasy of SCOTUS saving the day.

Red states are at risk of changing demographics and moral panics. We've seen that already. Trying to harvest the last gasp of conservative, old, white guys will only work for a little bit more of time.

So, this dude shot up a school with a 30 round mag. Look you can do it with 3 10 rounds and quick reloads. Please let me have the 30 round mag, then. Does that work as a message.

Likewise, there are few demographics more law-abiding than concealed carry permit holders. What are the consequences of making them choose between following a law they believe to be illegitimate or becoming criminals? Not only does society run the risk of them (those who oppose the ban) embracing other behaviors considered to be criminal, but there is the risk of that demographic seeing the government itself as being illegitimate. These bans won't be effected in a vacuum that only involves firearms, and the way legislators act as though getting votes is the only real outcome of such laws concerns me.

 

[DocRock]

It’s well written and a good piece. Thanks for sharing.

Assuming semi-autos constitute 75% of the 403 rifle homicides, the furor over scary black rifles is about 302 possible homicides per year. So why are soccer mommies and left of center elites so worked up about 302 possible homicides?

Because of demographics. Most firearm homicides are black on black and involve a handgun. (See FBI, homicides, expanded data). So, of no concern to the Liberal white elite. But, when someone acting on the word of their god, the voices in their head, or because girls don’t like them, decides to shoot up a bunch of people, they go to gun free zones: shopping malls, movie theatres, schools. And there, the bubble people, who are otherwise insulated from firearms homicides, can get killed. The reason that the Liberal elite is focused on the firearms possibly used in a maximum 2.7% of firearms homicides is because that is the 2.7% that they and their ilk might be exposed to.

There is no utilitarianism in their calculations. Their concern is not the ‘safety of society’. It’s the safety of the bubble.

 

[Kendahl]

To quote from the article: "It’s been said that you don’t need a gun for self-defense in the UK because there are no guns. I’m not sure that would ring true to the single mom facing a 17 stone (238 lb) former boyfriend with a history of violence that invades her home with a crowbar." I've discussed similar situations with anti-gun Brits on Quora. Their reply is that such an event would be vanishingly rare and the appropriate response would be to reason with him or escape rather than resort to force. When it's a home invasion for purposes of robbery, many believe the situation is dangerous only if the homeowner escalates it. I had one insist that the intruder is a human being, too, and deserves a chance at rehabilitation. The implication is that it's the homeowner's duty to risk injury or death so that the intruder gets that chance.

I've long believed that private ownership of firearms is only a secondary target. The primary one is the use of force by private citizens for self defense. At an even more fundamental level, the objection is to placing the welfare of the victim above that of the criminal. According to TTAG, nurses in Chicago are demanding that inmates of the Cook County jail be released to spare them from COVID-19. The nurses are focused solely on the inmates. They can't see, or don't care, how much harm the inmates would do while running loose.

 

[Demi-human]

Let’s imagine that we have a magic wand obtained from an ancient fairy that will instantly and magically collect 100% of these rifles from their owners

Wow. So original. Did the owners of the confiscated firearms get a say in this, or did you oppress them for their own good? You know, like Hitler did...

We are not Britan! Thank God.

 

[Demi-human]

The implication is that it's the homeowner's duty to risk injury or death so that the intruder gets that chance.

And they, who are not in danger, are merely the go between, from a victim to a predator.

A waitress.

Seeing to the criminals needs at dinner.

They are the Fox that barks the sheep to the wolves.
And as such, are wolves, as they live off the eating of the sheep.

No amount of "logical reasoning" can season that rotten meal...

 

[army_eod]

All arguments of banners are moot. We have 2A. If they repeal 2A we have a big problem.

 

[Insignificant bill]

The second amendment didn't keep them from unconstituionally banning those scary guns the first time. It didn't protect our right to own any new automatic weapons. Our politicians just ignore our rights.

 

[JT-AR-MG42]

1. You can't hunt with it.
2. You can't compete with it.
3. You can't use it in self-defense without risk of damaging your case and secondary charges.
4. You are at risk if your Ex decides to turn you in, use it against you for favorable terms in some domestic settlement issue.
5. You put your heirs at risk if they have to deal with an illegal gun or more.
6. Your neighbors or 'gun' buddies might turn you in for various motivations
7. First responders to your house (fire, EMT, etc.) might come across them.
8. There is a reinforcement of social shunning as owners become like smokers. Over time most folks (than even now) think you are suspect.
9. Your kid blabs to someone.
10. You have friends who are the law (I do - local, state, Fed) - you put them in a difficult position.
11. The industry that produces such guns and accessories dies.

Good list. No.6 will be the most effective, especially as jealousy and the cash for informing (anonymous, or sealed warrants) will tempt many.

I think a No. 12 is in order, Your home, property, and assets being subject to revised Federal seizure laws.

JT