Assuming you take the stance that Guns Are The Problem, and you want to reduce the number of guns out in the wild in America, there is a very large problem that needs to be addressed: What about the 200 million guns currently out there in private hands?
Asking people to voluntarily turn in their guns is basically pointless. People paid money for their guns, and giving them away for free because someone else is scared of them, just isn't gonna fly. (You might as well ask people to turn their car over for free to save the environment. It's a fine idea, but it just isn't gonna happen.)
You can't confiscate privately owned guns by force because... well, that just ain't gonna work. Having the military, national guard, or whoever, come up to a house, knock on the door, and then search for weapons is only going to end up with shots being fired. Many of them.
So what you need is an incentive for people to give up their guns voluntarily.
Spitballing an idea here, but what if you got 80% of the retail value of your weapon as a credit with the IRS? Turn in $10k worth of guns, and you don't pay another dollar in taxes until your $8k tax credit is depleted, no matter how many years it takes to zero out your credit.
This has the benefit that the majority of gun owners are probably fairly right-of-center, and have the usual right-of-center abhorrence for taxes.
This does not get rid of all the guns, by any stretch.
But what it does do is get rid of the guns people don't really care about. The ones they don't have an attachment to. Or the ones they don't secure as well as granddad's old 12 gauge over-under.
So you have pulled a bunch of weapons from the market and melted them down, or recycled the parts, or whatever. The other guns are probably better secured and less likely to be pulled out from under mom and dad's bed, like the Sandy Hook shooter did.
My Question:
If our goal is to reduce the number of guns available to loonies today - in addition to stricter background checks and waiting periods and sales rules - what kind of incentive to turn over a gun, would a gun owner respond to?
(I am a gun owner, so I am asking this question of myself, as well as this incredibly intelligent, polite, and thoughtful Hubski community... because there sure ain't any other site on the net where one could discuss this topic rationally and politely.)
There's a problem with your "if" : the goal isn't to limit the number of firearms available to crazies. If the crew from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest took over the NRA, few people would notice... The issue rears its head when firearms generate victims. Here's the thing. The number of guns in the united states has been going up for decades, faster than the number of people. The number of gun homicides per capita, however, has been going down for just as long. Would lowering the availability of guns drop it faster? Maybe. Probably. Definitively? Decisively? I don't think we can say for sure yet. The problem isn't guns, it's people that think guns solve problems.
Actually, I disagree. My plan is to get rid of the guns people do not value highly, and to give them something they place a higher value on. Guns they are willing to turn in are also the guns that they might sell second-hand, or secure less carefully than their treasured (__________). Sure, there will still be a black market, but why don't we incentivize people to get rid of those weapons in another way? Give them 200% retail value if they melt it down, instead of 10% of retail value to that dodgy dude on the corner, or in the back room of the gun show. Let's decrease the inventory of these guns first. Then we can deal with helping people make better decisions about safety, storage, and appropriateness of any class or type of weapon.
Let's say you have an old Mauser in the closet and you've been eyeing a .223 Savage because it's deer season. Gun buybacks are the best thing that ever happened to you. Thing is, you're exactly the wrong person we want a gun buyback to target. We want that guy with the .38 special with a burned serial number who got it off a buddy that took pity on him when someone on his block stepped up and he didn't have a piece because he's done two bids for domestic violence. That guy? He ain't coming near your buyback. I'm not opposed to buy-backs on principle. They've been tried several times in the US, seldom without controversy. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is they're basically a stimulus program for sporting goods stores. You're effectively subsidizing the purchase of better guns, not reducing the absolute number... unless you also do something to curtail the availability of guns. I'd also point out that it only takes one gun to kill a whole buncha people. Would Sandy Hook have been appreciably less deadly with one gun instead of three? There were only two at Virginia Tech. Meanwhile, over 1700 rounds of ammo went flying at the North Hollywood shootout and there were only two fatalities (one a suicide). Back in my hood, Ricky Abeyta killed seven people (including a 6-month-old baby) with a single handgun. For a reduction in guns to equal a reduction in violence, you'd need statistics revealing that the availability of guns is correlated with the number of murders by guns. I haven't seen data that indicates that, although I've looked into it a few times. The correlation is muddy at best and controversial at worst.
Good catch. You are right... I would first pass legislation that made gun buying/licensing more like buying and driving a car. License, registration, insurance. Same as a car. Then the buyback. Don't wanna pay to have that shitty old Mauser registered and insured? Ok. Get cash for it (or a tax break). Hell, it could even be sold as a stimulus package.
What you're saying is pretty reasonable. No one likes paying taxes and gun buy back programs are what got rid of guns in other countries. The problem is the NRA. I'll call it the Gribble Paradox. Dale Gribble is a paranoid right wing nut job on King of the Hill but he's a card carrying member of a Washington lobbying group. He wears a Derringer on his ankle. The NRA is seen as a national gun club when they're an extremist lobbyist group peddling fear to their rank and file so we can't even make it illegal to sell guns in a glorified yard sale. I think of Dale Gribble because I seem to remember an episode where someone reminds him that the NRA are lobbyists and he recoils in terror, but really the average NRA member with an AR-15 thinks he's defending the constitution instead of donating whatever the dues are to some jerk offs who are a vastly more powerful version of the Texas Cattleman's Association except with a penchant towards dangerous weapons instead of steak. And I wanted to say this to someone in another thread who was claiming you shouldn't assume every gun owner is a criminal: if you're the government you damn well better because they don't have the power to befriend every kindly kalashnikov replica enthusiast on an individual level to assure their level of sanity to the general public. Think of it this way, if you're walking in busy downtown traffic you assume everyone in a car is going to kill you if you make a mistake. If you have the power to regulate a weapon that can kill 130 people in one night you assume everyone is going to kill 130 people in one night if you make a mistake.
Now I see why everyone loves tacocat on Hubski! Excellent and thoughtful response. I wonder if a broad-ranging law along the lines of "All gun owners must be licensed" like a driver's license, could work. You have to show your license at the range if you want to shoot. You have to show your license to buy ammo, parts, etc. We already do this for cars...
I'm a sorta recent convert to the "Guns are the Problem" stance. And I still think that at the heart, it's a cultural issue that can romanticize taking lives and devalue lives in general. But having less hammers would mean less houses, yeah? Even with the same number of carpenters (who I guess don't build houses anymore. Oh well, it's late). I like your idea in principle, because I wouldn't want to see heirlooms, a farmer's .22 for vermin, or a bolt-action hunting rifle taken away from their owners. And just compensation is always good, and who doesn't want to get out of taxes for a bit? I don't think it would work though. It's still too voluntary to bring in a truly effective number of weapons. And especially not the right kind of weapons. Unfortunately, I have no clue what would work. It's a careful balance between Constitutional interpretation, legislative structure, lobbyists, citizens, states, the federal bureaucracy, and the thousand and one other things that matter with it. If something ever gets done, it's gonna be the wrong direction at first, and then they'll play around with it, maybe some executive orders and bureaucratic decisions some Court cases for sure. And maybe in the end it will be better, but maybe it will be even worse. And that would be bad.
One problem is that might create an import of guns, or the creation of knock-offs that cost less than 80% of the original. Of course, you might have guns per individual limits. IMO such a program would reduce the number of guns somewhat, but would likely just be a small percentage of the 200M thought to be out there. I don't know if there could be a Constitutional incentive that would result in a significant voluntary reduction in gun ownership.
You talk like gun owners have some sort of favorite son scenario with their firearms. As if the less treasured weapons that didn't get passed down from gramps or aren't the favored modern home defense mechanism just get left lying around for someone to shoot up a school with. You even call them Sandy Hook guns and claim you only want to forcibly take away all those extra guns everyone has just lying around the house.
As a gun owner myself, I know this to be a fact, actually. There are weapons in my home and in my friends' homes that get treated MUCH better than the others. They are simply more highly valued, either monetarily or for sentimental reasons. This is just how people work. The new/valuable/vintage car gets parked in the garage, and the commuter car gets parked in the driveway or on the street. The new couch goes in the living room, and the old couch gets moved to the rec room for the kids to jump on. There are Dad's Tools which you don't touch, and the other tools that anyone can use. The analogy works for guns as well. There are some guns that are treasured, locked up properly, cleaned regularly, etc, and then there is the old pistol that's in that box out in the garage, or whatever. And that is where the Sandy Hook shooter got their weapon... from his home, where his Mom had them improperly secured. You seem to be quite in a lather over many things I actually did not say. In fact, my whole post - the point of the whole things, and stated multiples times within the post itself - is to inquire about what INCENTIVE would appeal to gun owners, to get them to release their less-cherished weapons? I never said anything about force at all. I suggest that some self-examination of your motives and prejudices might bring some valuable insights.
Australia got a hell of a lot of guns turned in voluntarily when they tightened gun laws, but I have no idea how it worked. I think the biggest problem is getting a consensus on what to do and working within the Constitution to effect change. Any big restriction on gun rights seems unconstitutional to me, which means that we would either have to amend the Constitution or shred it further. No chance amending the Constitution any time soon and I value the rest of my rights enough that I'd rather not see the Constitution sullied any more than it already is. I have to effective solution to the problem of gun violence. The public is too divided, politicians are too cowardly and the Constitution is too hard to amend for any significant,meaningful change to be made anytime soon.
Actually, the Second Amendment is worded oddly, and can be read two different ways. For the majority of its existence it was read in the "well regulated militia" sense. However fairly recently (in the last two decades, IIRC), another Supreme Court case interpreted it as "an individual's right to own pretty much anything". The Constitution didn't change, nor was it amended. Case law determines how we implement the rights outlined in the constitution. So we don't have to change the Constitution. And there are oodles of steps we can take in case law and other laws that could make gun ownership a more respectable and regulated thing. Like cars.
You cannot own a gun if you are a convicted felon. Even if you aren't a felon, there are vast classes of weapons you can't legally own. The constitutional canard is a tired one and easy to parry. Even if you want to get federalist about it, you'd still be limiting citizens to black powder muskets. It's a cultural issue, not a constitutional one, but people go to the Constitution fast and first because nobody has a clue how to effect a cultural solution without going down dark roads.
The fourth amendment has been shredded by technological advancements. The government can peak at all kinds of our personal communication because it's electronic. The first amendment has held up pretty well. You don't lose your right to free speech because it's in the form of a phono recording for instance. To act like the 2nd amendment is some old canard to be cast aside seems dangerous to me. I value other rights to the extent that I wouldn't like to see the 2nd amendment harshly degraded without going through the motions of changing or repealing it. There is still a constitutional problem in enacting a solution. It's a huge bulwark for those that don't want to see change to hide behind even if it's the cultural clash that real battle must be fought. If gun control advocates won the culture war than we could amend the constitution and implement some real gun control without the threat of legislation being overturned by the courts. If progressive gun legislation gets passed only to die on the steps of the court than no good has been done. I know that I've started to sound like one of the people I used to think were nut cases but I don't think our constitutional rights are in such swell shape now a days. I don't know of any way in which the government encroaching on our 7th amendment rights, but I can find plenty of examples of the government trying to brush aside the remainder of the bill of rights. I'd feel better if we cleaned up the constitutional ambiguity of the second amendment rather than twist it all around. I don't feel that way because I'm resistant to reducing the number or more stiffly controlling the use and ownership of guns in the U.S. The Bill of Rights is a laudable document who's values we should strive to uphold. I'll almost always lean toward an interpretation that grants greater protection and freedom. I think the degradation of any of the amendments makes the whole weaker. But maybe I'm getting nutty and fearful as I get older. I have three relatives that have died by the gun. Two were suicides and who knows, they might have found a different way or they might not have. One was murdered, and she certainly wouldn't have been murdered if she had lived some place like England. I've been robbed at gun point. It was with an old gun that didn't work and it might have gotten in the same meth head's hands regardless of the laws but I think there is a chance that those moments of terror wouldn't have happened if we had tighter gun laws. I don't own a gun and have never shot a gun. More rigorous gun control would only make my life safer, it would be nice if it happened but I'm not counting on it.It's a cultural issue, not a constitutional one, but people go to the Constitution fast and first because nobody has a clue how to effect a cultural solution without going down dark roads.
You're off having this other discussion and that's fine, but look: That's it. Soup to nuts. No footnotes, no parenthetical expressions, no "see alsos." 2nd amendment is 22 words, two commas and a period. But ignoring the presence of a standing army, those twin titans "arms" and "infringed" are all the vagueness you could possibly want. - Want a 20mm cannon? Too fucking bad, unless it was imported back in the '60s, in which case absolutely, buy a Swedish Lahti anti-tank cannon. After all, they sold them in the back of Popular Mechanics. - How 'bout a .50 cal? Sure, but not in California. You also can't have mags over 10 rounds, folding stocks or bayonets. - Sawed-off shotgun? Totally illegal thanks to the National Firearms Act. How 'bout a booby trap that uses shotgun shells as if they were Claymore mines? Totally legal because nobody has banned them yet. - Thompson submachine gun? Perfectly legal during the reign of Al Capone, now a Class III controlled weapon. - Under indictment for a crime whose punishment is greater than a year? Can't own a gun, even if you haven't been convicted. - Addicted to a controlled substance? Can't own a gun since '68. What's a "controlled substance?" Well, marijuana, for example. So if you're allowed by the state of Washington to smoke a bowl, are you allowed by the government of the United States to own a pistol? Stay tuned as we hash this out in court. - Ever been committed to a mental institution? Even for, say, depression? Guess what? You're out. - Dishonorably discharged from the army? Guess what? this is not a constitutional issue. Find the constitutional consistency, I dare you. People throw up the 2nd amendment because then they don't have to think about it. It's a sop to quench discussion or forethought. It's bullshit, though. We've been infringing the fuck out of the 2nd amendment ever since we decided that the military gets guns we don't. and that's entirely appropriate. We've twice said "that gun is too scary" and had it stick and that's why Randy Weaver ended up in a mountain siege - a BATF guy talked him into taking a hacksaw to a shotgun and then threatening him with a 20-year prison term if he didn't turn informant. So bummer 'bout your history (we won't go into mine) but when I say the 2nd amendment shtick is a feint, I mean it. We've got angry people who would rather shoot someone in the face than deal with their problems and the founding fathers have fuckall to do with that.A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Current Supreme Court precedent is that people are allowed to own handguns and some types of rifles. They just declined to hear a case where a state had an assult weapon ban where the appeals court found the ban Constitutional. What types of gin regulations are legal is murky right now but the unambiguous right forost citizens to own guns is not. The six shootings near my house this summer were all with handguns. All of the arrests made in connection were of felons that didn't have the legal right to have a gun. As long as handguns are widely available and their purchase is protected by Supreme Court precedent there are significant Constitutional road blocks to real gun reform.
There's a plausible (to me, but I am not a lawyer) argument that floats around from time to time that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to protect the the right to carry a gun for the purposes of being in a state militia, not necessarily in general. That is, that it's really protecting states rights to have their own armies, not the right to carry a gun for any purpose whatsoever. The supreme court doesn't agree, but that's a recent thing and it's always possible for a future decision to supersede it. I'm not sure there should be a gun ban, but I don't think it would require an amendment to or particularly creative interpretation of the Constitution to do it.
Here's a starter for you. Here's another. Essentially, the gun confiscations weren't voluntary, but people were compensated for the cost of the weapons.
Cash for clunkers was very different, No one was forced to give up their cars. Gun buy back programs usually net a bunch of shitty non or barely function weapons that have sat in the basement or under the bed for a few decades. Guns aren't shitty old cars.
Ok, you went off the rails here... forced? Who is talking about forcing anyone to do anything? Read my post... voluntary. Shit... I'll just quote it here: If our goal is to reduce the number of guns available to loonies today - in addition to stricter background checks and waiting periods and sales rules - what kind of incentive to turn over a gun, would a gun owner respond to?
Sorry, not so off the rails. Gun buy back gets ya shitty old guns and widows guns. Voluntary gun buy backs don't do shit. You want a gun buy back program to work you have to force the sale. Cash for clunkers you got money toward a new car. People who had cars got new better cars. They already showed that they would trade money for cars and this program incentivised them to do so again sooner than they would have done eventually any way. Gun buy back gives people money for something they have already shown they are willing to pay money for. When they bought the gun they already showed that they value guns more than a certain sum of money. Thus the only guns you get from gun buy backs are ones that are busted or have ended up in the hands of someone who didn't buy them in the first place.a few people who need money will sell off guns they otherwise would choose to keep if they had more cash. It doesn't compare well with cars and if you want to make a buy back worthwhile you have to either mandate it or offer super valuable incentives.