Thought Exercise - Gun Control Crowd Gets Their Wish - What Outcome?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, the following policies have been advanced by supporters of gun control as necessary to reduce gun violence. I'll run down the major popular policies:

1) An enhanced semi-auto ban that would ban all semi-automatic long guns and severely restrict semi-auto handguns (detachable magazine + any prohibited feature = banned). Sale or transfer of these firearms would henceforth be illegal and you would forfeit them to the state when you die.

2) Ban on normal capacity magazines that hold more than an arbitrary number of rounds

3) Universal background checks - all future transfers (not just sales) must go through FFLs and be transferred on a Form 4473 with NICS check.

4) Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act repealed - gun manufacturers now held to a negligence standard that no other manufacturing industry in the United States has ever been held to - firearms would necessarily increase 5-10 times in cost to cover future legal expenses.

Let's say that they get their entire wish list tomorrow. What are the incentives created by that system? The first, and most obvious incentive I can see created is that it would tend to funnel guns to people who did not care about the law. Just by reducing access to firearms, it drives up prices in both the legal and illegal markets.

Semi-autos are subject to a particularly weird incentive. Their value on the black market goes up quite a bit; but at the same time they have no value on the legit market since they cannot be transferred and are seized at death. As an added bonus, the government has no way to know or prove if you sold a particular banned firearm before the law went into effect or after it (unless they catch you in the act).

It seems to me like the likely result of such a set of laws would be to funnel the firearms that gun control supporters say are most dangerous directly to criminals. After all, if you stand a high probability of getting away with it, would you rather receive $0 and lose your firearm when you die or would you rather receive easily 10-20 times what you paid for it (5-10 times bump in price from gun manufacturer price increases of legit guns, plus any bump for black market and restricted weapon) by selling it to someone who doesn't care about the law?

I think, human nature being what it is, a lot of people would opt for the money. In retrospect, you could make a decent argument that this particular "gun control" policy seems almost designed to achieve that outcome.

It also demonstrates why registration will inevitably follow UBC's as long as we use the paperwork system established by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

 

[zukiphile]

While you identify some well known policy proposals, it seems that any policy short of general confiscation will lead to a call for general confiscation when the next high profile incident occurs.

"There oughtta be a law!" isn't a reflex one can satisfy with any finality.

Therefore one would think that the outcome of the restrictions you list would be:

1. failure of the additional restriction to prevent a high profile violent act;
2. citation of the restriction not being sufficiently restrictive; and
3. an effective prohibition.

 

[stephen426]

The easiest way in my opinion is to put a massive tax on ammo or make the regulations on the manufacturing of ammo so ridiculous that it is no longer worth it to the ammo companies. Maybe require something crazy like a ID tag in all of the ammo that is ejected with each round fired (like a tazer) and require that ammo be registered. Then ban all foreign importation of ammo due to "safety" concerns or the inability to comply with new standards. Guns without ammo are basically clubs. I sure a hell hope this never happens, but if there was a way to disarm the population, that would be it. It would take a long while of course and people would hoard ammo, but once all available ammo and reloading components are very scarce, then guns will become damn near obsolete.

 

[natman]

Maybe require something crazy like a ID tag in all of the ammo that is ejected with each round fired (like a tazer) and require that ammo be registered.

They've already tried that. Google "taggants".

 

[gyvel]

The easiest way in my opinion is to put a massive tax on ammo

Firearms and ammo already have Federal excise taxes imposed on them.

I don't know exactly what the legal or legislative process is for increases in FETs, though.

 

[44 AMP]

the basic flaw in their dream is that while, under extreme circumstances you can get rid of LEGAL gun ownership, you cannot get rid of illegal gun ownership.

And, like other Prohibitions, this will empower the illegal market.

Consider this, after a single shot, the easiest gun to make is a blowback SMG. Restrict ammo? That will simply add another product to the smuggler's inventory. They already smuggle dope, people, and guns, so lets pass a law that takes something vital out of the hands of good people and increases the smugglers profits.

In the Motor Bandit days (Bonnie & Clyde, etc) they robbed Govt armories for guns and ammo.

I can see a situation, given the gun banner dreams come true, where bad guys (in gangs) target the POLICE.

Police have guns, and ammo. They will simply take it from them, with dead officers in their wake. Half a dozen "soldiers" might be a price the gang lord is happy to pay if he gets a couple of pistols and ARs out of the murder of a couple of officers.

It could even become a status symbol among gangs.

The people who will suffer most from the "ban this, tax that out of existence laws" are the people who have and use guns RECREATIONALLY.

And those people haven't done ANYTHING wrong. Because they haven't done anything wrong, up until YOU passed the gun ban law, they are kind of going to resent YOU. YOU take away their hobby, and also those non sporting gun uses (predator control, two & four legged), so YOU can keep an empty promise of safety to someone else, the (former) gun owners are NOT going to be happy campers.

We kind of fought a war over this, a bit over a couple hundred years ago.

While I am not entirely comfortable with the comparison, for those who wish to "cure the disease of gun violence", they should consider this, what do the doctors do when they fight a disease? Do they ban the white blood cells and antibodies?

When they cut out diseased tissue do they put it in storage for several years (prison) and then put it back in the body???

They do not. The most they will do is keep small samples for research. ALL the rest of the infected tissue is destroyed.

There is no mercy, there is no parole, there is no probation. If it is a disease, treat it like one. Otherwise stop claiming it is, and that you have the cure.

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

I can see a situation, given the gun banner dreams come true, where bad guys (in gangs) target the POLICE.

Police have guns, and ammo. They will simply take it from them, with dead officers in their wake. Half a dozen "soldiers" might be a price the gang lord is happy to pay if he gets a couple of pistols and ARs out of the murder of a couple of officers.

Solve this unintended consequence by adding the "goose and gander" clause. That is, make 1 and 2 apply equally to agents of the state. I we can't be trusted with or have guns, then the police don't need them. If the police don't have them, then the criminals can't steal them from the police. Next step: make it apply to federal law enforcement agencies (all outside of Dept. of Defense). Last step: disarm the military.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Seattle wants such a tax, $25 a gun sale, and 5 cents a round sold. All it takes is a vote by City Council members, I think 5 of 8 or similar. For Congress, think 50.1%.

Once a tax is enacted, it's permanent. And subject to punitive increases, which is the intent, they're drooling about that. Then comes expansion to guns already owned, confiscation without proof of taxes paid, etc. The gun haters are not working in a vacuum.

 

[carguychris]

I can see a situation, given the gun banner dreams come true, where bad guys (in gangs) target the POLICE.

Police have guns, and ammo. They will simply take it from them, with dead officers in their wake. Half a dozen "soldiers" might be a price the gang lord is happy to pay if he gets a couple of pistols and ARs out of the murder of a couple of officers.

Ditto, and you forgot to mention another likely outcome: Corrupt police and military officials SELLING arms and ammo to criminal gangs. This is a recurring problem in many places with strict and punitive gun control measures, and it makes sense given that, in most military forces and police agencies, the guys watching the arsenals and shooting ranges aren't anywhere near the top of the pay scale.

 

[rickyrick]

Let's say that they get their entire wish list tomorrow

They will say, "these are great first steps"

The wish list is only comprised of what they think can be accomplished. They want total ban

 

[Tom Servo]

They will say, "these are great first steps"

Exactly. Consider what Nelson Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc. (later the Brady Campaign) wrote in the New Yorker in 1976:

I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.

None of what they're proposing right now is going to reduce violence. They know that. They're using a two-step process: making the public believe there's a problem, and making the public believe their proposal is the only solution.

When their solution doesn't fix things, they just say we need more "solutions."

What irks me most is that they're wasting all this time and press on something that won't work, and any alternative proposals are drowned out in the noise.

 

[rickyrick]

Actually we have been playing to their hand.

They pass a UBC law.... What follows by many of us and the sheriffs? That's not enforcible.... The next step would be to make it enforcible by requiring registrations.

 

[ronl]

I think the end of it all is confiscation. Did you hear/read the president's statements following the latest attempt by a crazy person to have his posthumous 15 minutes of fame? We should follow the examples of the Brits and the Aussies, which for the ordinary person is basically confiscation of all firearms. I must admit the anti's are getting pretty bold. It's for sure that registration will not work as the non-compliance numbers in NY and Conn. testify. So, they're going to call in help from UN thugs to move along the confiscation process. Do they really wish to create another civil war, for that is certainly where it will lead. They do not have the manpower to enforce it.

 

[rickyrick]

As with any law that is passed, law abiding citizens will simply comply. If it is a law to turn over your guns, most everyone in our group will... Criminals may not. Law abiding citizens will.

 

[JERRYS.]

'death by a thousand cuts'. look at how many states have rolled over regarding the 2nd Amendment. didn't NY state just enact yet another magazine restriction? how about ammo bans like Calif has done. the list of 'cuts' is quite long. once Hillary gets in the list will grow even more.

 

[tyme]

Here's a link to the best overview of the gun control debate I've ever seen from someone who's never fired a gun. (At least that's what he said back in June, maybe he has now.)

http://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2015/10/subjective-explainer-gun-debate-in-us.html

If someone who's never fired a gun before can see that a complete gun ban (at least of handguns) is really the only other sensible gun control policy, what are the chances that legislators and leaders of the gun control crowd really believe that banning evil looking rifles or restricting capacity of magazines makes any sense?

 

[Tom Servo]

tyme, I meant to post a link to the Chris Cook video. It's the first one in the blog post you linked.

Cook is an editor with the National Review. He points out that rushing "do something" is usually counterproductive, and he gets his opponent to pretty much admit their "solutions" won't solve anything.

The anti-gun crowd has long relied on a rhetorical device known as the politician's syllogism. In essence, it works like this:

• We need to do something!
• Background checks are something.
• Therefore, background checks fix the problem.

They then argue that we don't want to do anything about the problem if we point out the obvious flaws in their reasoning. It's a cheap way of making us look uncaring in comparison.

In reality, it's not our job to propose solutions. We're not the ones asking for a law that restricts the rights of others.

 

[rickyrick]

A total and complete ban on guns along with 100% confiscation would work.

100% thorough search of all property would result in zero guns in criminal hands?

No

There'd still be guns in criminal hands. Smuggled in, stolen from police and military as others have pointed out.

Crooked officials in other countries selling to our bad guys.

 

[bikerbill]

Confiscation is a pipe dream. This isn't Australia, where even there, with paid surrender, they only collected about 20 percent of the guns in private hands. See NY, where an estimated 25k of the 1m military-style rifles were registered to comply with the law. There are more than 300m guns in private hands in this country. How on Earth would the government go about collecting them? How long would armed resistance take to form? Law-abiding goes only so far and I think those who think surrender would happen in great numbers are mistaken.

That does not mean they won't try.

 

[kilimanjaro]

I've said this before, but the only way for gun control to work in this country is to kick in the doors of every home in the country at 4:00 AM, hold the inhabitants at gunpoint, and search the premises.

Then, a few months later, do it again. And again. In a few years, you'll have a bunch of guns, but nothing like all of them.

They'll never get past the first few thousand doors.