How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[jaeger19]

Good question..... why WOULD they sell one?

They wouldn’t. Be for or after your ban. Your ban wouldn’t change any behavior.

Billions?

Billions.

Your insistence on making up nonsense indicates you have no REAL arguments.

Sending a cop to inspect a gun shop does NOT cost billions.

“ sending a cop to a gun shop”.
First off . If we are talking about unscrupulous dealers they sure as crap won’t be selling them in their gun shop
You keep forgetting that 40% of sales now ARE DONE PRIVATELY.

In any case, it will RARELY be necessary. INTELLIGENT people wouldn't risk losing their business and going to prison just so they could make 10 bucks selling high capacity magazines. Especially given the fact that if the magazine they sold illegally is used in a crime, they could go to prison for LIFE.

See above. Cripes on a cracker. And how would anyone know if the magazine sold illegally was used in a crime??
magazines aren’t registered nor are most firearms.

Only DUMB (or desperate) people risk going to prison for something as idiotic as selling a high-capacity magazine.

There isn’t going to be any risk. Remember 40% of sales are private. There is pretty much no registration of firearms and no registration of a magazine.
And the magazines will be legal.

I would assume you are in deep financial trouble seeing that YOU would risk going to prison to sell one.

Nope. Just no risk. I’ve lived on the border of states and handgun sales occur privately all the time across state lines even though technically you are supposed to go through a transferring dealer.
People literally violate that law daily.

But most people who have these magazines are not. So that alone should take care of a HUGE portion of your "tens of millions"



Not after MY proposal they won't anymore!

Wishkibble . There will still be millions upon millions out there .

 

[Maidenrules29]

Eventually they'll only be enough to have in museums.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAA. OK pal...

 

[Feynman Lives!]

They wouldn’t. Be for or after your ban. Your ban wouldn’t change any behavior.

Great! There you have it! So you WOULDN'T be able to buy it from private sellers after the ban.

Before the ban they could buy them in just about any gun shop in a state where they are legal. Now.... they have to go to the black market.

Which is what I said from the very START!

First off . If we are talking about unscrupulous dealers they sure as crap won’t be selling them in their gun shop

They sure wouldn't! They would need to go to the black market and risk jail time if the guy they're selling to just happens to be an undercover cop. But even if they're unbelivably lucky, what do they do when they're sold out. Where do they get MORE?

 

[RF667799]

Great! There you have it! So you WOULDN'T be able to buy it from private sellers after the ban.

Before the ban they could buy them in just about any gun shop in a state where they are legal. Now.... they have to go to the black market.

Which is what I said from the very START!



They sure wouldn't! They would need to go to the black market and risk jail time if the guy they're selling to just happens to be an undercover cop. But even if they're unbelivably lucky, what do they do when they're sold out. Where do they get MORE?

Weird you think the armed services will also give up their magazines.

 

[Rich2018]

Polymer magazines don’t rust. Glock and Magpul for the win.

Only iron/steel rust.

 

[RF667799]

Only iron/steel rust.

And it never sleeps.

 

[jaeger19]

Great! There you have it! So you WOULDN'T be able to buy it from private sellers after the ban.

Sure there would be plenty of sellers .
There would be plenty of sellers that wanted to sell a firearm with its magazines or maybe just a magazine for cash. Because maybe they see gifted grandads guns and don’t need the magazines ,, maybe they just don’t shoot competition anymore. Lots of reasons.

One reason they wouldn’t sell a high capacity magazine would be to replace it with the same magazine.

Before the ban they could buy them in just about any gun shop in a state where they are legal. Now.... they have to go to the black market.

The black market being gun shows , the internet .. where 40% of gun sales are now.

Which is what I said from the very START!



They sure wouldn't! They would need to go to the black market and risk jail time if the guy they're selling to just happens to be an undercover cop.

“ just happens ?“. First it would likely be entrapment. Second it wouldn’t happen.

But even if they're unbelivably lucky, what do they do when they're sold out. Where do they get MORE?

There millions upon millions just sitting around in storage .

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Sure there would be plenty of sellers .

I'm sure there will. Just like there are many thieves despite laws against theft. Which doesn't mean we SHOULDN'T have those laws.

Anybody who wants to risk going to prison (maybe for life, if what they sell is used in a mass shooting) just to make 20 bucks illegally selling a magazine is one more moron we have a better chance of getting off the streets.

AND we would have a better chance of getting the shooter (an undercover cop) then if they just bought more 10-shot magazines legally at the store.

So it's now clear that this would WORK!

In summary, since you say this is your BEST argument against my proposals, I am very much satisfied that no serious challenge has come up.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm sure there will. Just like there are many thieves despite laws against theft. Which doesn't mean we SHOULDN'T have those laws.

The questions I’ve said is the expense of the law and the unintended consequences worth it.
As shown. No it’s not.

Anybody who wants to risk going to prison (maybe for life, if what they sell is used in a mass shooting) just to make 20 bucks illegally selling a magazine is one more moron we have a better chance of getting off the streets.

Yeah. The only moron is the person thinking that they will get caught or anyone here will get caught.

Tell us all how after the mass shooting you are going to know where the magazines came from?

AND we would have a better chance of getting the shooter (an undercover cop) evidence your law then if they just bought more 10-shot magazines legally at the store.

No. But whatever . You don’t know how private sales work .

So it's now clear that this would WORK!

No it’s clear it’s so full of stupidity and ignorance it’s doomed for failure,
Wait wait . We just need to let all these polymer magazines rust”!!! Lmao.

In summary, since you say this is your BEST argument against my proposals, I am very much satisfied that no serious challenge has come up.

only if you have narcissistic personality disorder.

Trump to a T .

 

[Feynman Lives!]

The questions I’ve said is the expense of the law and the unintended consequences worth it.

That depends on how much you value human life.

 

[Buster Icon]

To be clear, I don't think banning all guns is possible in this country in any of our lifetimes. So relax. But we might be able to reduce the number of mass shootings by banning some. I also don't mean "banning" in the sense that cops are going to walk into homes and grab guns.

Be sure to read at the end of this post some silly and irrelevant arguments that some have made in the past, so you don't repeat them. But if you do, I'll just refer you to the proper "Irrelevant argument" number.

Remember: there is likely NO way to stop ALL mass shootings. But the idea here is to make them more difficult. So that there are less shootings. And when shootings are unavoidable, that less people get killed.

The whole process will take years... maybe decades. But we need to start now!

All we want to do is make mass shooting more difficult.

The following might help:

1. Ban the sale to the public of "assault weapons". As well as parts and ammunition. Reinstate the Assault Weapon sales ban.
2. No confiscation (except what is already in the law). But adopt a voluntary buy-back program with strong compensation, for guns and ammunition.
3. Ban so-called "cop-killing" bullets.
4. Ban the sale of high-capacity magazines.
5. Ban ghost guns.
6. Require a license to buy any firearm and ammunition.
7. Require a "graduation process" to obtain and maintain a gun license.
8. Mandatory buy back program for weapons acquired with a license for anybody who fails to renew their license.
9. Implement a federal mandatory background check for all gun sales. No loopholes. And hold private sellers accountable if the gun sold without a check or to an unlicensed buyer is used in a crime.
10. Give courts the authority to confiscate guns from people who they consider a threat to themselves and others. (Red Flag Law)
11. Raise the age limit for buying any kind of guns to 21 (at least)
12. Implement strong nationwide cash-for-guns programs focusing primarily on assault weapons.
13. Repeal the PLCAA and investigate gun manufacturers and gun lobbyists' role in passing it.
14. Require manufacturers to alter design of guns sold to public to make them as difficult to be modified as possible.
15. Declare gun violence a preventable public health problem. Give the CDC funding an resources to study the relation between certain mental illnesses and gun violence.
16. Repeal DoC v Heller given that the decision is based on factual historical and linguistic inaccuracies.

Feel free to skip the following absurd or irrelevant arguments

• Irrelevant argument 1: People can print their guns: Sure... but that would be more difficult than just running down to the store. It's easy to print a gun with a kit. So selling kits must be outlawed. But many crazy people might not know HOW to print a gun without one. Some might not bother and just go jump of a bridge... or something. And then there are the bullets....
• Irrelevant argument 2: They can kill people with .... (cars, bombs, knives, forks...): Read the sentence in "bold" at the top. It's HARDER to kill a lot of people with any of those items, than it is with a gun. Learning how to pull a trigger is easier than learning how to make a bomb without blowing yourself up in the process.
• Irrelevant argument 3: You can't stop ALL shootings: Then we don't! That doesn't mean we can't stop ANY shootings.
• Irrelevant argument 4: Guns don't kill people... people kill people: Bullshit!!
• Irrelevant argument 5: But but but... the 2nd Amendment: Start here and continue through all the threads mentioned which debunk this inaccurate claime
• Irrelevant argument 6: This xxxx [bump stock, cop killer bullets, assault rifles, ...] don't exist: MORE Bullshit! They do!
• Irrelevant argument 7: What we need is more guns, not less (and variations like "arm teachers" and similar): There are more guns than there are people. So we have tried this. It hasn't worked! Countries have done the contrary (Australia, UK, Japan, ...etc) and it HAS worked.
• Irrelevant argument 8: This is just a mental issue: There are as many nuts in other countries as there are in this one. And NO country has anywhere near as many shootings as we do. Over 600 every year since 2020, and almost 400 so far this year. Second place this year among developed countries: France with 6!)

The way to illustrate the absurdity of #4 is:

Atomic Bombs don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[jaeger19]

That depends on how much you value human life.

Exactly. If you don’t value human life a person would support your proposal which would do really nothing to protect and improve human lives but soothes the irrational fears of anti gunners
However if you value human life you would want to see resources go to proposals that would reduce all violence , reduce all suicide ( like mental health access and improved social safety nets) and not waste resources on locking up people for selling an 11rd magazine
And waiting for magazines to rust while mass shooters “ find it easier to buy 10rd magazines to avoid trouble with the law” .

 

[Feynman Lives!]

The questions I’ve said is the expense of the law and the unintended consequences worth it.
As shown. No it’s not.

To "show" that, you would need to first explain what expense you're talking about and show your numbers. Since you're not going to do that, my answer is "it depends on how much you value human life".

There is NO significant additional expense to signing a law (other thank ink, paper, etc...) After that, cost of sending a cop to inspect gun shops once a year or once very few months... is probably about the gas in the car that takes them there. Honeypots are already in the dark web.... they cost PENNIES

You contend it's going to cost "billions". A claim so absurd that it rebuts itself.

And the fact that you claim that's your STRONGEST argument against my proposals VALIDATES the whole list. That is PRECISELY why I opened the thread. So your help is appreciated.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

However if you value human life you would want to see resources go to proposals that would reduce all violence , reduce all suicide ( like mental health access and improved social safety nets) ...

Sorry, but you're late to the party. Already addressed in the OP. See point 15

 

[RF667799]

Sorry, but you're late to the party. Already addressed in the OP. See point 15

The category "gun violence" is useless for rational considerations. Its utility lies in the agit prop spread by the Gun Control Industry.

 

[JMB1911A1]

To "show" that, you would need to first explain what expense you're talking about and show your numbers. Since you're not going to do that, my answer is "it depends on how much you value human life".

There is NO significant additional expense to signing a law (other thank ink, paper, etc...) After that, cost of sending a cop to inspect gun shops once a year or once very few months... is probably about the gas in the car that takes them there. Honeypots are already in the dark web.... they cost PENNIES

You contend it's going to cost "billions". A claim so absurd that it rebuts itself.

And the fact that you claim that's your STRONGEST argument against my proposals VALIDATES the whole list. That is PRECISELY why I opened the thread. So your help is appreciated.

Your “buy back” (more appropriately named “compensated confiscation”) is going to cost billions.

There are over 700 MILLION magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds in circulation. Average cost is probably about $25 per. That works out to $17.5 BILLION.

And that is not even counting the “compensated confiscation” of firearms. Figure 25 million AR-15s plus other “assault weapons”. Let’s say 40 million at an average compensation of $500 (though I won’t take less than $1500 for mine). That is another $20 BILLION.

So, the total for your plan that “won’t cost anything” is a minimum of $37.5 BILLION.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Your “buy back” (more appropriately named “compensated confiscation”) is going to cost billions.

I doubt it, but if it costs billions, then it will be VERY successful. I'm all for it!

But the more we wait, the more it will cost.

There are over 700 MILLION magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds in circulation. Average cost is probably about $25 per. That works out to $17.5 BILLION.

Very much worth it. IF we were to buy them all. Which I very much doubt.

What will NOT cost "billions" is to inspect gun shops so they're not operating as a black market, like the other poster claimed.

 

[jaeger19]

To "show" that, you would need to first explain what expense you're talking about and show your numbers. Since you're not going to do that, my answer is "it depends on how much you value human life".

Well. First is all the distraction caused by introducing the bill in the first place.
That has a cost as it’s going to distract from real solutions.

Like I said arguing 10vs11rds rather than getting mental health improvements.

Then there is the enforcement costs . Which sound substantial if you are going to get the compliance you claim.
Then there is the cost of prosecution and the cost of potentially life in prison.

There is NO significant additional expense to signing a law (other thank ink, paper, etc...) After that, cost of sending a cop to inspect gun shops once a year or once very few months...

Sending a cop in?? Wait a minute. You were making undercover cops doing stings for people making buys privately. Having police monitor gun shows undercover.
Which means you have to have people recording . People selling illegal mags and then catching them later .
And now you are back to ignoring 40% of the current market for firearms which is the private market!!
Not to mention you were talking about prosecuting all these people you catch and putting them in prison for purchasing a 11rd magazine ( or selling one)
But now you ignore that cost . Oh not to mention that you plan a buyback program.

is probably about the gas in the car that takes them there. Honeypots are already in the dark web.... they cost PENNIES

You contend it's going to cost "billions". A claim so absurd that it rebuts itself.

And the fact that you claim that's your STRONGEST argument against my proposals VALIDATES the whole list. That is PRECISELY why I opened the thread. So your help is appreciated.

Yeah no. You plan to have better compliance than we do with illegal drugs , by just “ sending a cop “once a year to a gun shop” ??!!!!

And that only dealing with the tens of millions of mags already here.
That’s not even dealing with smuggling.
Manufacturing within the us etc.

Sorry sir but your stomping up and down saying “but it will work , but will work?”

Doesn’t make your case. You are expecting better enforcement and compliance than with illegal drugs ( and magazines won’t be illegal , only their sale making enforcement way more difficult) with only “ a cop goes into a gun store once a year”

Your ideas are simply out of touch with reality.

 

[jaeger19]

Sorry, but you're late to the party. Already addressed in the OP. See point 15

Dude you aren’t even at the party.
That research work has already been done . 87 percent of mass shooters had and untreated or undiagnosed mental disorders.

We need treatment . And your op doesn’t address that.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Well. First is all the distraction caused by introducing the bill in the first place.

"Distraction"? Oh, God. Not ANOITHER one of those absurd non-arguments. Sorry folks in Congress... you're gong to just have to work late. And not overtime pay for you!

Give me a dollar figure and show you you arrive at that number.

You said "billions", so explain your math.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Dude you aren’t even at the party.
That research work has already been done . 87 percent of mass shooters had and untreated or undiagnosed mental disorders.

And that means.... what? That they don't need a gun to shoot others?

What the hell is your point?

We need treatment

Of course! That's what Point 15 SAYS! Don't tell me we've been through all this and even NOW you haven't read the OP!

Ok. This is ridiculous. Now you're just wasting our time.... Not responding to nonsense anymore....

 

[RF667799]

9. Implement a federal mandatory background check for all gun sales. No loopholes. And hold private sellers accountable if the gun sold without a check or to an unlicensed buyer is used in a crime.

Don't forget motor vehicles. They should be included. They're used for criminal purposes more often than guns.

 

[jaeger19]

"Distraction"? Oh, God. Not ANOITHER one of those absurd non-arguments. Sorry folks in Congress... you're gong to just have to work late. And not overtime pay for you!

Give me a dollar figure and show you you arrive at that number.

You said "billions", so explain your math.

Well remember here sir. You have waffled back and forth on your ways of enforcement from pretty much zero enforcement to more enforcement than we do with illegal drugs.

Given the difficulty of controlling magazines since there are already millions here and they don’t get used up and they will still be legal only selling them will be illegal.
We are looking at needing more enforcement than either illegal drugs to be effective.
So
It will cost more than 44 billion a year which is what the federal government pays for drug enforcement.

Thats not prosecution or incarceration costs and that doesn’t include state money.

The federal government pays about 3.3 billion a year for incarceration of drug charges.

And you are talking about incarceration of people for up to life in prison.

 

[RF667799]

Well remember here sir. You have waffled back and forth on your ways of enforcement from pretty much zero enforcement to more enforcement than we do with illegal drugs.

Given the difficulty of controlling magazines since there are already millions here and they don’t get used up and they will still be legal only selling them will be illegal.
We are looking at needing more enforcement than either illegal drugs to be effective.
So
It will cost more than 44 billion a year which is what the federal government pays for drug enforcement.

Thats not prosecution or incarceration costs and that doesn’t include state money.

The federal government pays about 3.3 billion a year for incarceration of drug charges.

And you are talking about incarceration of people for up to life in prison.

So far as the ban on selling magazines, law enforcement would have to catch the seller and buyer right in the act.

These magazines? Oh I've had them for years.

 

[jaeger19]

So far as the ban on selling magazines, law enforcement would have to catch the seller and buyer right in the act.

These magazines? Oh I've had them for years.

Exactly. Like it would literally have to be a seen exchange and videoed.