I've asked this question many times of those who would ban all guns; I never get an answer...

[cherokeeprogressive]

So I'll ask it here.

The question is this: If you support the banning of all guns, how do you propose to keep them from coming across the borders? Yes, the northern as well as the southern border.

If guns are banned, their value goes up exponentially. So much so that those who traffic in illicit drugs at this moment would likely to focus their efforts on a much more lucrative pastime... smuggling guns.

So how to ban guns without first securing the borders?

Banners? Your input is more than welcome.

[Gman]

1. The decision to ban guns has never

been contingent on stopping guns across the border. It's ridiculous to tie these together as they are two completely different and separate issues. That's why you don't get an answer.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Ban guns and guns will come across the border. It's not rocket science.

The really bad people with money to spend will get their guns.

Any comparison to Australia is moot. It's surrounded by water.

First ban guns and then stop illegal sources? What illegal sources would you be talking about?

[Gman]

6. Guns crossing the border would be a good example

[brush]

21. Wait a minute. Australia being surrounded by water . . .

doesn't mean guns can't get into the country.

That makes no sense. Contraband gets through ports all the time but that didn't stop the Aussies from taking action against guns and ending their mass shootings.

We have the precedent, now all we have to do is gain the courage.

[gejohnston]

24. yes, but did it end mass murders?

It didn't end gang fights with guns, criminals getting guns, nor did it end mass murder.
It didn't end smuggling, stealing from the cops, making their own. In fact, the Australian Federal Police have no idea how many illegal guns there are.
as for mass murder, well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

[brush]

26. It greatly reduced the frequency of mass killings

Suicide rates by guns also declined dramatically.

[gejohnston]

27. post hoc ergo propter hoc

and the suicide rate did not drop. People choosing ropes over guns is not progress. There is no evidence that one had anything to do with the other.
The murder rate was already dropping and continued to drop at the same rate and then spiked for some reason. There are more privately owned guns now and more gun owners and the murder rate is dropping again.
Using the same logic, I could say that liberalizing concealed carry in the US is responsible for the dropping murder rate in the US for the past couple of decades and that passing the Gun Control Act caused the increase in the sixties. Neither of us buy that, so we can't buy the Australian example either.

[brush]

28. Stop with all the word salad. Just say you want no gun control.

[gejohnston]

30. just pointing out your logical fallacy

no, I don't support repealing the current five federal gun control laws. Tweak a few, but not repeal. I think the fact that a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel is more tightly regulated than a semi automatic with a 17 inch barrel is kind of stupid. I'm sure we can agree on that much.
No gun control would be allowing a nine year old to legally buy a machine gun on Amazon and have USPS drop it off at his tree fort. I don't think even Ted Nugent is that nuts. But then, I might be overestimating him.
What I do want are solutions to a very complex problem without being distracted by some culture war.

[brush]

32. How's this?

Registration, insurance, background checks and psyche screenings designed by mental health professionals and a waiting period for all these things to get done should all begin immediately before all new gun purchases are allowed.

As for the huge backlog of existing guns in the country, legislation should be passed that all gun owners register their guns and get insurance or sell or surrender them for a tax credit.

After a reasonable grace period, if anyone is subsequently caught in possession of an unregistered/uninsured weapon, there will be substantial legal consequences.

This is a workable, reasonable solution that could actually increase revenue for strapped local/state governments and provide some jobs.

And we could go even further: Ban handguns and assault rifles altogether as they are designed for nothing but to SHOOT PEOPLE. Shotguns and rifles would suffice for home protection and pellet guns can be used for target shooting enthusiasts.

If we are serious as a nation to do something about our huge gun problem, this could be a good start as we have to start somewhere. This plan is not perfect, nothing is, but IMO it will get the ball rolling to reduce the number of guns, and thus gun killings, in the country.

Let's pull our society back from the insanity we're in. It's getting so that you have to start worrying about going to the movies or the mall or to school for God's sake.

Other countries have a handle on this. We don't have to live this way.

[gejohnston]

33. no.

Ban handguns and assault rifles altogether as they are designed for nothing but to SHOOT PEOPLE. Shotguns and rifles would suffice for home protection and pellet guns can be used for target shooting enthusiasts.

That statement is in fact wrong on a number of levels. Nothing in that statement is accurate, and assault rifles, the real ones, have been practically banned since the 1930s. Handguns are used for hunting and target shooting as are semi automatic rifles. That technical ignorance stops all conversation. People who have no technical knowledge an get all of their information from equally ignorant or dishonest ideologues have no business telling what people should have or what would suffice for home defense, or self defense in general.

It is like the putting armed guards in schools issue. While I don't like the idea, I have yet to hear a valid argument against it. Those opposed were comedians, pundits, and bloggers who didn't have the slightest idea what they are talking about.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a gang problem. Licencing, registration etc. does nothing. Insurance only makes money for private companies since they will not pay out for criminal acts nor suicides. Since almost all of our gun violence are criminals killing each other, they don't have any pay out to people who didn't pay in.

It isn't a workable solution because it never worked anywhere. Registration failed in Canada. Complete bans failed in Brazil, Mexico, and Valenzuela. I said solutions to complex problems that are not unique to the US, you are still talking about culture wars.
Here are some objective facts
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I don't believe in basing public policy on memes, knee jerk emotionalism, culture wars, or the rantings of stupid pundits like Piers Morgan, racist billionaires like Mike Bloomberg, or comedians. I believe in facts, evidence, reason free of logical fallacies and let the chips fall where they may.

[brush]

34. Stop saying no and offer solutions

All you seem to be about is to keep the status quo.

Offer something more than fucking "no".

There has to be something in what I offered that you agree with. Tweak it, add something, do something more than put up roadblocks and say no.

Do you want to start a dialogue to solve the problem or not?

What are your suggestions?

[gejohnston]

35. see my edit

I stopped reading at the technical ignorance. I'll look over it.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Just a few ideas. Still working on a complete list. Most of which can not be done on the federal level or by any government. Mass murders like Oregon is less than one percent of all murder. Any possible life saved, which I doubt, would be offset by those would be alive if they had a gun to defend themselves. Like I said, it is a complex problem that should not be trusted to ideologues and culture warriors.

---First, end the drug war. Take away the money, take away the guns. Repeal the federal prohibition on at least pot. Addiction should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one.
---Change welfare rules that don't force fathers out of the house when times are bad. A hand up, not a hand out. While you are giving that hand up, you don't let go when the helpee is only half way up. IOW, remove disincentives to find a job or do something constructive like cutting food stamps when they go back to school.
---Get cities to repeal stupid zoning ordinances that make neighborhoods unwalkable. One thing I noticed living in Japan and Korea, local business mixed residences created a real community. Makes jobs close by and makes people less dependent on motor vehicles.
---Urban farming in greenhouses, if a farmer can do it for profit by selling in local markets year round, why not? Just look at all the empty lots in places like Detroit.
---Provide microloans available to create these small businesses. First priority should be the 20 worst.
---Community policing. Most residents in these places want sub stations. I don't mean cops who live someplace else and drive around in their patrol cars. Yeah they can be there. I'm talking about men and women who live in the area and walk beats and ride horseback. One horse back cop told me in Tampa that he gets the best intelligence by riding a horse through the projects. Kids love horses and rat out the asshole uncle while petting the horse. Trust between the Man and the people in the area is a must.
---Deglamorize criminal misuse of guns. I want those kids to associate guns with the nerdy kid in Rifle Club, Harvard shooting team, and the ISSF World Cup, not using it to be King Bad Ass of the block.
---When local cops bust out of state traffickers, hand them over to the feds for violating the GCA, interstate gun sales without a license, instead of letting local DAs drop the gun crime charges like they usually do.
---Change the sentencing guidelines for straw buyers for known felons. If caught, they usually get probation. They should get the full ten years for each gun. Make a few an example.
---Oh, end gun free zones. I agree with the then INTERPOL head after the mall attack in Nairobi.

I will give you credit for this much, you didn't bring up background checks that have been in place for two decades, mail order and internet sales that have been banned since LBJ signed the Gun Control Act, the mythical "gun show loophole".

[brush]

36. What is all this?

A few direct suggestions to the issue at hand pls, not copied and pasted verbiage.

[gejohnston]

37. copied and pasted from my list

but they are mine. You asked for suggestions, those a few of mine. That fact that it doesn't deal with your favorite boogy man isn't my problem.

[brush]

38. I see there's less there than meets the eye.

Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Thanks anyway.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Frankly, *you're* the one dealing from a position of weakness. Why should we help you?

[brush]

47. So statue quo then? Mass shooting multiple time a month?

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. You propose, in essence, to fight drunk driving by universally restricting cars...

...and expect sober drivers to help you. Get out of the binary mindset, and start working
on *why* spree killers become spree killers instead of restricting the law-abiding

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. If you're still wondering *why* we don't simply agree to your proposals, look at *this* thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858

[brush]

51. So you have nothing to offer either — just content with mass shootings multiple time a month

Last edited Mon Oct 5, 2015, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I get you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. A strawman claim, as I am in no way content with the number of multiple shootings we see

What I take issue with is your proposals to alleviate them

[brush]

55. Yeah sure, but you still offer no solutions yourself

Like I said before, I get you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. It always amuses me that prohibitionists expect those they demonize to help them

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. To quote longtime DUer Eleanors38: Don't expect us to carry *your* slop bucket

If you can't get out of bed before 10:00 a.m., if you can't contribute money, if you can't go door-to-door, if you can't hold a meeting after work, if you can't do what is necessary to clean yourself after the morning constitutional, don't smugly ask others to do your dirty work, while you still bellow for "just the first step" in controls and bans.

[brush]

46. What the hell are you talking about?

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. I repeat: You are in a position of political weakness. Why should *we* help you?

[gejohnston]

23. Even then,

guns are smuggled in to Australia. They are also stolen from the police, and even made in basement factories. In fact, the latter is one out of ten.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/

[jmg257]

2. I don't support "banning all guns",

but the idea of making the penalties for trafficking and possession and especially use of those banned so severe as to make it not worth the effort seems a good start.

[virginia mountainman]

4. Like drinking and driving, those penalties are really stopping all the drunks from driving?

Our how about the penalties for murder?? Do they work???

The cat is long out of the bag, no way will he go back in it.

[msongs]

7. if it stopped the drunk that might have killed you that would be good, correct? nt

[Warpy]

3. The world doesn't work by all or nothing, light switch thinking

Canada and Mexico aren't the problems with illegal, cross border gun running, the US is. They have strict regulation of guns in both countries. That leaves a sea route.

Having them black market means they will become increasingly expensive. That will slow the problem with guns down considerably and sometimes that's what you have to settle for.

This, of course, assumes a total ban that no one outside of a few in the inner city has ever suggested. Most people want varying degrees of regulation, not an unworkable outright ban on all guns, including hunting rifles and shotguns. That's just not going to happen.

There, you've been answered.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Strict gun regulations in Mexico. Is that why the death rate by gun violence is 11.17 to our 10.64

per 100,000?

Is it why their homicide rate by gun is 10.0 per 100,000 to our 3.55?

"a total ban that no one outside of a few in the inner city has ever suggested." Wow. Those few must all be DU members, huh?

[Warpy]

22. The guns pouring over the border from the US is responsible.

They wish we'd regulate the damned things. They have. The US runs the guns for their black market.

[gejohnston]

25. guns are the most regulated consumer product in the US

Most of Mexico's guns the cartels use are from their own governments and southern border.
There is evidence that they are making their own.

[840high]

8. Drugs come across - guns will, too.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Guns will be worth so much money that the drug traffic will be supplanted by the gun traffic.

And notice how angry people get when you ask questions.

[840high]

14. I noticed.

BYW - congrats on your promotion.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Thank you very much!

I was actually shocked by the number of people who wished me well. It was heartwarming.

Thanks again. I step into the position on the 15th.

[ileus]

10. It's all based on feel good emotions.

Most 2A regressives don't mind criminal firearm activity, it's only legal owners that they typically target.

[wilt the stilt]

12. A better question for you

Why can't we have a bazooka? Doesn't the second amendment allow you to have it. It is an arm.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. If you didn't have jack shit to add to the conversation... couldn't you have just said so?

[sarisataka]

19. Are you sure

You can't own a bazooka?

[Decoy of Fenris]

20. You -can- own a bazooka. n/t

[virginia mountainman]

29. Yes, we can..

Many anti-tank weapons are already in civilian hands..

I understand that they are great fun!

[GGJohn]

41. Ummm, you can own a bazooka,

you just have to jump through the ATF hoops to own one, you can also own a fully functional tank, fighter jet, etc, all it takes is money, patience, and a lot of paperwork from the ATF.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. Have some TLAs:

ATF (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) says bazookas, tanks... are called>>>
DDs (for Destructive Devices) unless rendered inert and incapable of being fired.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-section-11

Certain things like cane guns, pens guns... are classed as>>>
AOWs (for any other weapon).
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-any

[darkangel218]

16. I never got an answer to that question either.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Not only that, but the question always seems to make people mad.

I don't understand that.

[darkangel218]

18. Maybe because there is no answer to the inevitable

That more guns will be smuggled across the borders, just like drugs (and guns) are smuggled now. I don't see how it can work..

Besides, imagine how hard (if not impossible) would be to confiscate or buy out all the guns from the legal gun owners.

[procon]

31. This is a deeply flawed argument.

No matter how many times this same old ruse gets held up in defense of some cause, its an illogical premise from the start. So now the argument is that gun control measures should not even be attempted because that will increase their street value and prompt a wave of illegal gun runners flooding into the US from Canada. Is that the scope of this woeful scold?

It's rather like saying we should not even bother with traffic laws because some people are always going to break them... anyone buying that? Or let's not go to the trouble of banning ivory as long as poachers are still still killing elephants... makes perfect sense. And yet, despite the numbers of alcoholics and any number of laws regulating alcohol products, there seems to be a marked absence of breaking news stories about captured shipments of smuggled booze from either of our neighbors across border.

Gun smugglers belong in the same category as voter fraud. Just pass some gun laws ferchrissakes, use Chris Rock's proposal, do something, add some serious constitutional regulating, and let the border patrol worry about gun smuggling cartels.

[Eleanors38]

39. "Do something." Like stand-up. Prohibition is America's most addictive social policy.

[Straw Man]

65. No, you just don't understand it.

This is a deeply flawed argument.

It has to do with malum in se vs. malum prohibitum and with the practical calculus that has to be undertaken when considering questions of the latter.

Some acts are evil in and of themselves, and should be banned despite the difficulties of enforcement that may ensue. Theft, rape, and murder are some examples that come to mind.

Drunk driving is another. However, drinking per se, while it has some negative effects on the individual and society, might be seen as less harmful, perhaps even arguably beneficial in some ways. So when Prohibition ended up creating and sustaining the monster of organized crime, that had to be calculated against the meager benefits of the law. Result? Repeal.

So we still have laws against drunk driving and drunk-and-disorderly (malum in se), but not against social drinking, whose malum prohibitum paled against the enforcement challenges and unintended consequences it entailed.

Much as gun controllers are loathe to recognize it, civilian gun ownership is not malum in se. Millions of gun owners do no harm with their firearms, and even the CDC recognizes the value of armed self-defense. The enforcement challenges and unintended consequences would be enormous if anything resembling a complete ban on firearms were ever to be attempted in this country.

[procon]

67. The debate has never been about "gun owners do no harm with their firearms".

That's a dishonest and manipulative tactic for arguing that gun laws should not change. No one is advocating any prohibition-style gun laws, but a reasonable objective is to secure the most effective series of gun violence prevention measures as tools that would reduce the public jeopardy and still be consistent with the broad sentiments of gun enthusiasts and our maturing social values.

Society demands laws and the law exists as tools for society to safeguard the common good. We provide law enforcement with tools to combat society's criminal element and also ensure that the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens are not infringed upon. Our laws reflect the means through which our society orchestrates the necessary and progressive changes, improvements and advancement of the behaviors we consider appropriate for our cultural norm, as well as deterrents and consequences for conduct that we find reprehensible. Guns are not exempt.

Throughout history laws have been the people's tools for applied social engineering and evolving cultural standards in every politically organised society. Laws adapt to the changes in the acceptable ideals and principles of our society, and success is inconceivable to those who make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Straw Man]

68. Whoa, there ...

The debate has never been about "gun owners do no harm with their firearms".

My screen name may be "Straw Man," but I'm not going to let that one pass unchallenged. Before you go accusing me of "a dishonest and manipulative tactic," you might want to confine yourself to what I actually said.

I never claimed that "gun owners do no harm with their firearms" -- what I said is that civilian gun ownership is not an evil in and of itself. The topic of the debate, in case you hadn't noticed, is a complete and total ban on civilian gun ownership, and the practical implications thereof. Prohibition would have huge difficulties and consequences -- that much is certain. Furthermore, guns are currently far from unregulated. Nowhere did I ask for less regulation. Nowhere did you make a persuasive case for more.

Your little lecture on what laws are and what they do is completely irrelevant. I'm not the one who is making "the perfect the enemy of the good."

[oneshooter]

40. The answer is simple, you do not.

Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

North and south land borders secured, all incoming shipping containers unloaded and the contents examined, all aircraft, both civilian, and commercial to be unloaded and examined. And the ships and aircraft themselves must be closely examined. This must be extended to all military vehicles, ships and aircraft.

It would be a total clusterfuck as NO product will be able to freely enter.

[randys1]

52. When the conversation starts with a rightwing talking point like this

So how to ban guns without first securing the borders?

I suggest ignoring it is the best way to go.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. How would *you* prevent gun smuggling, were guns to be banned in the US?

You are, of course, perfectly free not to answer the question- but that would demonstrate the OPs
point, wouldn't it?

[Lurks Often]

56. So do you have anything useful to contribute that has a chance of passing?

[randys1]

57. Rightwing framed conversations arent any fun.

"A well regulated Militia,
"A well regulated Militia,
"A well regulated Militia,
"A well regulated Militia,
"A well regulated Militia,

[Lurks Often]

58. That is what I thought, you have nothing

[randys1]

59. Well, to be fair, I have the 2nd amendment

Real easy reading....too


The right has managed to do this twice now, once with voting, and of course guns.

Misdirect from the simple facts, require ID when you cant do that, but get people so used to it that the discussion is then about WHAT KIND let alone that you cant

Same thing with guns, pretend that the 2nd says something it doesnt.

[Lurks Often]

60. You keep thinking that

That one comes straight from the gun control talking points handbook

[randys1]

61. Gun control at a minimum is required in a rational society...control implying their

existence in the first place.

[Lurks Often]

62. Which is your opinion and worth very little at that

[randys1]

63. So all the societies where guns are controlled, all of those people are just dumb I guess

[Lurks Often]

64. It's dumb to think that the U.S. is the same as other countries

Every country is different, with different people, different histories and different cultures.

[Kaleva]

66. Automatics made after 1986 are banned.

But there is no great black market trade going on involving such. It's my guess that the vast majority of us don't want to risk a lengthy prison sentence for acquiring an automatic illegally smuggled into this country.