You're moving the goal posts. That's not even close to what we've been discussing. You're talking about a government buy back for guns, but you want to continue selling them. I thought you were attempting to remove most guns from circulation. If you're going to allow the sales to continue (albeit with some more added rules), the buy back is going to fail, because the newly purchased firearms will eventually find their way back into the wrong hands. The only way gun control works in the United States is if you're truly able to remove most guns from circulation. So you would have to strike down the 2nd Amendment, because guns are going to end up in the wrong hands eventually. My thought is that would actually spark a civil war, so it's probably not the best idea.
Many do. The issue is we don't vote on many regular issues in this country. Put stronger gun laws on a ballot and I will vote for them in a heartbeat. The issue is we have just two sides and they both hogtie the issues into a large clump on one side or the other. It 8snt easy enough to say, vote dem because they support gun laws, when there are a plethora of things I also disagree with. Put issues on a ballot. By themselves. Otherwise the politicians kidnap the issues into a group.
I'm not moving a damn thing. This hypothetical buy back would be limited to certain types of guns (assault weapons, high capacity magazines). It would accompany a ban on the production of those same weapons. I never said the buy back applied to all guns.
I haven't looked into it, so I'm not trying to be an a$$ here, but how did the law fail? Was it not followed? Was he no longer a threat in the law's eyes? If the law that kept him from getting it in the first place worked the first time, why didn't it the later on? How can having more laws help then?
1. Why would buying back guns make them more scarce or reduce numbers in circulation? Buying back guns does nothing to the supply coming from gun manufacturers. Supply is unaffected by a buy back program. 2. Mass shootings arent done by career criminals. The whole black market criminal angle would be largely unaffected, I think lost would agree. The mass shootings have been largely if not entirely committed by troubled average joes that would probably have given up on their plans to act out a mass shooting if they had to go through a little more effort to legally acquire the guns. None that I’m aware of have bought them illegally. Are the gangs, cartels, criminals going to get guns anyways, sure, but I’m far less concerned about encountering any of them than I would be an average joe at a Walmart.
UVa shooting suspect bought 2 guns after failing background last year I'll let you look up the specifics. The point being that laws in place deterred ownership at one point. I don't know where the failure was but to act like the same or less deterrents is better than looking into more is conveniently disingenuous to some because it satisfies their narrative on the subject. The same people clamoring for less restrictions or no change want deterrents like border walls or they facetiously claim that drunk driving laws still result in DUI deaths so they are ineffective as well.
Considering the murder rate went up under the last assault rifle ban, I’d say your plan is a non-starter. And I don’t only care about those who die in mass shootings. I care about all murder victims and the murder rate went up last time we banned assault weapons.
I hear you and at some level agree. I try to be more of a realist. If we have laws that are not be followed, then how can more laws help? I do recognize that some laws need to be changed and firmed up in areas but in same breath say let's do what we can with what we have. When we are prosecuting and enforcing the laws we have and we are still falling short, I think you will see everyone want additional laws. I look at it like paying my income tax, I hate it but know I need to contribute to a level, for government to function, I don't want my taxes to increase though when I see how much we waste with what we contribute now. Show that 75-80 cents of every dollar I give the government isn't wasted and I may be more willing to give more, but when that number is less then 50 cents on the dollar, I see no need to give them any more to waste. Same with the gun laws and any other laws we have on the books.
How about we go back to interpreting the 2nd as happened before the 1970's? Before the NRA got it's hands on it.
Murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate in 1994, when the ban was passed: 9.0/100K Population Murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate in 2004, when the ban expired: 5.5/100K Population Table 1
They wrote the militia clause in the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. They are cases applying the utterly ridiculous "test" that the Republicans created in Bruen. It's basically impossible for new regulations to survive that "test."
Higher than you think. I was walking across the street to Perimeter Mall (metro Atlanta) when the food court shooting occurred there in the 1980's. 5 minutes later and I would have been in the food court. My niece and nephew were in the food court at Cascade Mall in 2016 outside of Seattle and took cover under a table when the shooting started. And my daughter was on lockdown in an office building across from UNCC during the shooting 2019 shooting in Charlotte. Wat too close to home for my family.
Ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines and the public carry of firearms (open and concealed). Have a reasonable buyback period for the existing assault weapons and high capacity magazines. After a reasonable phase-in period, anyone who breaks any of these laws goes to jail for a lengthy period of time. The militias and the nut jobs on the Supreme Court will be tough to deal with, but the foregoing should work.
The oddity of the “historic tradition” test is that it ignored historic traditions where inconvenient. Such as concealed weapon laws, which date way back. Intellectual dishonesty is that way.
