Here's the question I'd ask: "How can we do what New Zealand just did?"
Is it impossible?
If it's not, how would people go about making it happen?
Is it impossible?
If it's not, how would people go about making it happen?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
How Would The US Do What New Zealand Just Did Banning Assault Weapons? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
The General
Footballguy
I’d suggest you peruse the “USA Shootings” thread for some insights on this. Will make your head spin.
timschochet
Footballguy
We did it once:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
It only lasted for 10 years, it was incomplete, but mass shootings did go down during that time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
It only lasted for 10 years, it was incomplete, but mass shootings did go down during that time.
That one guy
Footballguy
I will openly admit to being fully against high-powered semi-automatic rifles, regardless of arguments in favor of them (i.e. hunting, farming). I just don’t care about possible positive uses, the negatives far outweigh those reasons.
That said, from a legal standpoint, could states impose similar measures to car ownership such as registration/licensing/insurance without running afoul of the 2nd amendment?
That said, from a legal standpoint, could states impose similar measures to car ownership such as registration/licensing/insurance without running afoul of the 2nd amendment?
timschochet
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
Start by removing their tax exemption. Then go over their hate speech with a fine tooth comb. Nail them on taking foreign money an using them in US elections.
After that, improvise
Apple Jack
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
It's going to be an agonizingly long process to repeal the Second so we can have a grownup debate (and elections that will decide) about appropriate gun control. For better or worse, and it's both (though mostly worse), our government was not designed for swift and decisive action on big issues.
I know it's frustratingly slow, but the last few years I think lots of people have been thankful and thought the slow movingness was for the better.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
@Slapdash and I are more than prepared to debate this. Of course, it depends on having a government not owned by wealthy donors and elected by modern democratic methods, neither of which we have at the moment.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The biggest issue in the U.S. wouldn't even be passing the ban, it would be the fact that there's no registration nor licensing procedure. And Americans, by and large, simply don't have much respect for gun laws.
So people would just not participate in the buyback and keep their weapons.
So people would just not participate in the buyback and keep their weapons.
dgreen
Footballguy
Why do they currently have a tax exemption? Does a law need to change to make that happen? Or are the laws fine and you think they don't meet the requirements of the law?
Hot Diggity Dog
Footballguy
Does banning include confiscation of existing weapons?
Or to put it another way: There’s no official criteria for what qualifies as an “assault rifle,” and the government doesn’t keep detailed data on the different types of firearms owned by Americans.
It's hard to even estimate how many there are out there. 15 to 20 million? The AR-15 is the most popular "sporting rifle" in America.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, I am I to assume you are advocating a "do nothing approach"?
And, how do you figure the New Zealand terrorist wants people to ban assault weapons?
I'd have to think that would be a pretty big thing though. Maybe I'm naive, but lots of people I know who are pro-gun are pretty strongly opposed to breaking the law.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
I agree but they also consider themselves "true Americans" and wouldn't participate because that's what the founders would want them to do.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Diggity Dog
Footballguy
Quint
Footballguy
The logical solution to non-compliance would be for the authorities (i.e. government) to come and take them.
In NZ, that may be a solution. In the US, I don’t see how it’s remotely possible.
That said, it does give some credence to the idea that if the US govt. we’re to ban [a certain type] of gun, they would eventually need to come and take them away.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Parliament, so 50%+1 is all it takes. And no constitutional right to bear arms, and no adversarial litigious driven court system, meaning no worries about careful wording or historical context or all that. Totally different world.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
And the bold. Limiting the NRA means a strong DOJ effectively putting them in their place.
The McDonnell decision hurt on this across the board though.
I am certainly not opposed to an assault weapon ban - but I do think that both sides are not approaching this the right way.
On one-hand, you get a "knee-jerk" reaction to a tragedy, and on the other hand you get a "knee-jerk" reaction to any opposition to gun control.
I think the thought process has to center around the basic premise that "Responsible Gun Ownership" is our objective. I think most people would agree, in the abstract, that we want to keep guns away from irresponsible people.
So, I think effective legislation and regulations will have to focus on defining and identifying "responsible gun ownership".
That could include bans on certain weapons or technologies that would not be deemed to be part of responsible gun ownership.
I am reminded of the old joke:
Man (to woman): Would you agree to sleep with me for $1M?
Woman: Yes!
Man: What about for $5?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Man: We have already established that, we are just negotiating on price now.
Even under the 2nd Amendment, we have already established that gun ownership is not an absolute - it has limits both on the type of weapon, and persons entitled to carry said weapons. So, now we are only negotiating what those limits look like.
But, if our goal is "responsible gun ownership" then we should start to set up rules and regulations that define that term, and put procedures in place to meet those goals.
At the outset, we need criteria for who is "responsible" - we already find that certain classes of citizens are de facto - not responsible - felons, certain mental defects, etc. So, it sound like we need a mechanism to ensure those people do not own weapons - background checks and registrations of all gun sales.
We also need to ensure that as people move in, and out, of compliance, that we have a way to know what guns they own - so that when a person is determined to be "not responsible" - we know to get their guns.
Require Insurance - this is evidence of responsibility, imo. It also creates a private-sector means of regulating gun ownership - insurance will be less expensive for those people the industry deems to be more responsible - maybe they took a gun safety class, or maybe they have an approved gun vault, or maybe they use bio-technology to safeguard their weapons, etc. Conversely, someone who is stockpiling weapons, is likely to be deemed more risky to the insurance industry, and charged accordingly.
Require ongoing certifications - update your information with the state every few years - confirm you still have the weapons, etc.
Again, get key stakeholders and look at various weapons and technologies - what weapons are deemed proper for intended uses - hunting, home/personal defense, sport shooting - and what weapons are really just "toys" used for fun. If you have a weapon "Just because it is fun to shoot" - its probably not necessary, and can be banned from private ownership.
I'd actually be ok with not banning assault weapons - but something maybe less drastic, such as requiring that those weapons be stored at a local armory, and physically checked out for use by an owner. I think we are long-past the idea that citizen militias could stand up to the national military - but I get those people who think they still need to be ready to stand up against government tyranny. Leave those weapons at the local militia armory for when the time comes....
On one-hand, you get a "knee-jerk" reaction to a tragedy, and on the other hand you get a "knee-jerk" reaction to any opposition to gun control.
I think the thought process has to center around the basic premise that "Responsible Gun Ownership" is our objective. I think most people would agree, in the abstract, that we want to keep guns away from irresponsible people.
So, I think effective legislation and regulations will have to focus on defining and identifying "responsible gun ownership".
That could include bans on certain weapons or technologies that would not be deemed to be part of responsible gun ownership.
I am reminded of the old joke:
Man (to woman): Would you agree to sleep with me for $1M?
Woman: Yes!
Man: What about for $5?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Man: We have already established that, we are just negotiating on price now.
Even under the 2nd Amendment, we have already established that gun ownership is not an absolute - it has limits both on the type of weapon, and persons entitled to carry said weapons. So, now we are only negotiating what those limits look like.
But, if our goal is "responsible gun ownership" then we should start to set up rules and regulations that define that term, and put procedures in place to meet those goals.
At the outset, we need criteria for who is "responsible" - we already find that certain classes of citizens are de facto - not responsible - felons, certain mental defects, etc. So, it sound like we need a mechanism to ensure those people do not own weapons - background checks and registrations of all gun sales.
We also need to ensure that as people move in, and out, of compliance, that we have a way to know what guns they own - so that when a person is determined to be "not responsible" - we know to get their guns.
Require Insurance - this is evidence of responsibility, imo. It also creates a private-sector means of regulating gun ownership - insurance will be less expensive for those people the industry deems to be more responsible - maybe they took a gun safety class, or maybe they have an approved gun vault, or maybe they use bio-technology to safeguard their weapons, etc. Conversely, someone who is stockpiling weapons, is likely to be deemed more risky to the insurance industry, and charged accordingly.
Require ongoing certifications - update your information with the state every few years - confirm you still have the weapons, etc.
Again, get key stakeholders and look at various weapons and technologies - what weapons are deemed proper for intended uses - hunting, home/personal defense, sport shooting - and what weapons are really just "toys" used for fun. If you have a weapon "Just because it is fun to shoot" - its probably not necessary, and can be banned from private ownership.
I'd actually be ok with not banning assault weapons - but something maybe less drastic, such as requiring that those weapons be stored at a local armory, and physically checked out for use by an owner. I think we are long-past the idea that citizen militias could stand up to the national military - but I get those people who think they still need to be ready to stand up against government tyranny. Leave those weapons at the local militia armory for when the time comes....
msommer
Footballguy
I believe they are registered as a non profit organizstion, but are clearly lobbying on behalf of gun manufacturers (that are for profit)
I believe lobbyists should pay taxes
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Also, New Zealand voters know who exactly to blame now if the decision goes astray. And who gets credit if it turns out to be right for the country. That will be a factor in determining how everyone votes in the next election. That seems to me to be a country intent of taking charge of its own destiny.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have the answers, I'm just rational enough to see the impossibility of putting the assault rifle cat back in the bag here in the US.
He said as much in his manifesto, should be required reading imo. He thinks and hopes the US tries to take people's guns away that, among other things, will lead to a civil war where white people revolt and win (paraphrasing).
msommer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Let’s begin with some basic statistics- I got these from recent news articles but the numbers are consistent. Depending on how we define “assault weapons”:
1. There are around 15,000 such weapons in New Zealand.
2. There are around 15-20 million such weapons in the USA.
Based on these figures, my conclusion is that nothing New Zealand attempts would possibly work here. Actually I can go further- if there are 15 million of ANY item that is privately owned, there is no practicable way to make that item illegal. Period, full stop.
If we choose to do this, all we can do is what we did before with the previous ban: make all sales illegal from this point forward. But confiscation, or even attempting in some way to penalize current ownership, will never work.
1. There are around 15,000 such weapons in New Zealand.
2. There are around 15-20 million such weapons in the USA.
Based on these figures, my conclusion is that nothing New Zealand attempts would possibly work here. Actually I can go further- if there are 15 million of ANY item that is privately owned, there is no practicable way to make that item illegal. Period, full stop.
If we choose to do this, all we can do is what we did before with the previous ban: make all sales illegal from this point forward. But confiscation, or even attempting in some way to penalize current ownership, will never work.
Sure. But if that's the plan and they see it start to work doesn't that embolden others? I mean we admit that white supremacy is a problem and growing, right? Is it going to be worth the amount of deaths when the vast majority of gun owners you're forcing these laws onto have zero ambition for violence?
Plus it's impossible. Magically confiscating 15 - 20 million assault rifles in the US is equally
.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
There will be war. Any serious effort will show this country that America has more martyrs than the Islamic world ever dreamed. We, as a nation, are rehearsing tyranny, but there's a lotta folks already got it DOWN.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
A couple of last thoughts on our country's deliberativeness when it comes to enacting legislation. We move cautiously by design, which has the added effect of impeding action because we're all scared of it taking so damn long to correct a "mistake." Parliamentary countries aren't immune from that problem but voters can get things overturned pretty quickly by voting in a new government. That breeds confidence in trying new ideas. We debate changes from hypotheticals; after deliberating they try them out and find out if they actually work or not. If the answer is "not," it's way easier to fix.
The other real downside to overcaution is the sheer number of things that can slowly deteriorate, break or go wrong just by an inability to address them with any kind of decisiveness. It's why we have an election industry that is inordinately powerful and why we have huge corporate lobbying -- because it was too difficult to try and stop them from happening. Those things just kind of slithered into a vacuum of inaction. It's one of the rare places where the parallel between business and government actually makes sense. You can't let things go unaddressed forever before the rot creeps in.
We have to be asking ourselves if a two hundred year old constitution is up to the tasks of governance in a technological society of 325 million.
Mookie
Footballguy
To answer the question posed by OP ... Pass a Law. It's that simple. New Zealand took the first step in under a week and should have legislation in the next month. Amnesty period, turn in your guns (define what guns are prohibited), perhaps a buyback, then after amnesty period is over, possession of a prohibited weapon is a crime.
Now I realize that this is a hot button political issue and that the political opposition is well-funded and comes wielding all sorts of inane arguments for why an assault weapons ban won't pass. Heck, we can't even have a Congressional hearing on the topic without some nonsensical fight against tyrannical government or "what about cars?" BS shutting the whole thing down. If the political will is there, we can get it done, and it doesn't need to be a ban on ALL guns.
The shame of it is that we Americans have come to accept gun violence as an acceptable outcome and a fact of life. Somehow, we have equated unfettered gun ownership with our freedom. I believe that I should be free from getting shot by some jerk with a manifesto, grudge, or whim. My freedom matters too.
Now I realize that this is a hot button political issue and that the political opposition is well-funded and comes wielding all sorts of inane arguments for why an assault weapons ban won't pass. Heck, we can't even have a Congressional hearing on the topic without some nonsensical fight against tyrannical government or "what about cars?" BS shutting the whole thing down. If the political will is there, we can get it done, and it doesn't need to be a ban on ALL guns.
The shame of it is that we Americans have come to accept gun violence as an acceptable outcome and a fact of life. Somehow, we have equated unfettered gun ownership with our freedom. I believe that I should be free from getting shot by some jerk with a manifesto, grudge, or whim. My freedom matters too.
parrot
Footballguy
We don't necessarily have to confiscate the current supply.
Outlaw new production, buyback what we can, then just treat them like we currently treat automatic weapons; require a federal dealers license for a few hundred bucks, do a background check, require fingerprints on file (maybe even ballistics), make them register the weapons, and limit who those weapons can legally be sold to, i.e. other registered dealers (who would also be required to register them) and law enforcement. This would greatly restrict the movement of these weapons and make the owners accountable if they fell into the wrong hands. If I really wanted to keep my AR but there was a potential felony down the road, I would go this route.
Outlaw new production, buyback what we can, then just treat them like we currently treat automatic weapons; require a federal dealers license for a few hundred bucks, do a background check, require fingerprints on file (maybe even ballistics), make them register the weapons, and limit who those weapons can legally be sold to, i.e. other registered dealers (who would also be required to register them) and law enforcement. This would greatly restrict the movement of these weapons and make the owners accountable if they fell into the wrong hands. If I really wanted to keep my AR but there was a potential felony down the road, I would go this route.
On the flipside though, it keeps radical change from happening quickly. Would it fair to assume you're mostly Anti Trump? (I only make the assumption from the board demographics. No idea what you really believe) If so, aren't you glad he's not been able to change things even more quickly than he has?
roadkill1292
Footballguy
A better electoral system would have kept the unfit Donald Trump from ever sniffing the presidency. A better government wouldn't have a president selected by a minority of voters to begin with or maybe even a president at all.
Most of the modern world has recognized the need to get things done and hold the elected government responsible for doing so. If the changes turn out to be not so good, then the responsibility lies with the elected government to get that fixed, too. And the nature of their systems makes it possible for the voters to do this.
It's 2019, the country is big and the world moves fast. This is no time for 18th century governance and the likes of Donald Trump.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
