• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

In an America with strict gun control....

C

cbrunny

Diamond Member
how many Americans would be killed in the conflict that would ensue from trying to actually enforce new gun restrictions?

"Pry it from my cold, dead hands" is something that has been thrown out a lot re: guns. If the Government actually decided to enact some kind of strict law that would literally require people to turn in/have confiscated their guns, what does the ensuing conflict look like?

Obama's comments got me thinking. Not sure if this should be P&N or Off Topic, mods please move if appropriate.
 
Many of these shootings are occurring in states with already strict gun laws, expanding them to other states will do little to nothing to curb gun violence, the only thing that might have an impact would be seizure of all firearms but good luck with that as that would be a knock down battle.
 
It clearly depends on how it's done. A slow boil would result in little if any flak back to the government via armed insurgency. If the government said effective end of this year no civilian firearm ownership I do believe you would see a civil war. A lot of gun owners don't particularly care about their guns but there are a number in the high single digits or low double who are quite passionate and take new gun laws very seriously and personally. But, that's just a hypothetical; the gov knows better than that and would always take the slow boil approach.
 
bozack said:
Many of these shootings are occurring in states with already strict gun laws, expanding them to other states will do little to nothing to curb gun violence, the only thing that might have an impact would be seizure of all firearms but good luck with that as that would be a knock down battle.
Click to expand...

False. I heard on the news last night that these incidents only occur in cities and states with the most lax gun laws.
 
bozack said:
Many of these shootings are occurring in states with already strict gun laws, expanding them to other states will do little to nothing to curb gun violence, the only thing that might have an impact would be seizure of all firearms but good luck with that as that would be a knock down battle.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that any American state has strict gun control laws should try going ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
 
Blanky said:
It clearly depends on how it's done. A slow boil would result in little if any flak back to the government via armed insurgency. If the government said effective end of this year no civilian firearm ownership I do believe you would see a civil war. A lot of gun owners don't particularly care about their guns but there are a number in the high single digits or low double who are quite passionate and take new gun laws very seriously and personally. But, that's just a hypothetical; the gov knows better than that and would always take the slow boil approach.
Click to expand...

Don't quite understand bolded part. You mean between 8 and 12 people in America?
 
cbrunny said:
Anyone who thinks that any American state has strict gun control laws should try going ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
Click to expand...

Here I was thinking I was writing back to a bunch of informed and intelligent folks, mistake noted...

To clarify, when compared to other states and to the proposed changes the democratic leadership is attempting to push, the states like Oregon, Connecticut, and others already have gun laws in place which are as strict or stricter with regards to background checks etc.

As for other places in the world, as I said above, the only regulation which would make a difference is complete confiscation of all firearms, which is in line with what many other nations do...and good luck with trying to get that through.
 
**I'm not suggesting this or do I think it would be realistic to achieve**
If it was done the Australian way which is essentially turn in almost all non hunting guns it would work pretty well. But removing a couple hundred million guns would be nearly impossible.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
**I'm not suggesting this or do I think it would be realistic to achieve**
If it was done the Australian way which is essentially turn in almost all non hunting guns it would work pretty well. But removing a couple hundred million guns would be nearly impossible.
Click to expand...

What is a hunting gun? Lots of firearms can be used for hunting. In fact the only firearm that probably wouldn't be use is a handgun. Most rifles could be used to hunt (deer). Same with shotguns(birds).

Even if it did happen, I imagine the criteria would be something like "has a wood stock" for rifles. In which case people would go made a wood stock AR15 😀
 
gun control does not = taking guns from everyone

why the heck do we have to assume extremes on everything?
 
cbrunny said:
"Pry it from my cold, dead hands" is something that has been thrown out a lot re: guns.
Click to expand...

IMO it would be a "sorting the chaff from the wheat" occasion, ie. the people who talk big and think that owning a gun makes them a Tough Guy (tm), and the more anarchic elements of the population (who probably/possibly don't feel the need to make statements).

IMO the only time when America could attempt to start disarming (in the context of this thread) would be when the vast majority of Americans are happy with the idea. IMO that could only happen if the American police manage to correct their rapidly worsening reputation, at the very least.

The state attempting to disarm Americans in a generally non-consensual basis would be political suicide for the party pushing such a policy; pretty much everything criminal would be blamed on that party (and for decades afterwards), and of course there's the criminal element (ie. the element that was already there before the new policy, and factor in the increased criminal element as a result of such a policy), those of whom would likely be emboldened by the quarry being less armed.

As others have already said, making gun control laws does not automatically make guns disappear or make them better managed.
 
Last edited:
Fenixgoon said:
What is a hunting gun? Lots of firearms can be used for hunting. In fact the only firearm that probably wouldn't be use is a handgun. Most rifles could be used to hunt (deer). Same with shotguns(birds).

Even if it did happen, I imagine the criteria would be something like "has a wood stock" for rifles. In which case people would go made a wood stock AR15 😀
Click to expand...

Guess all those people who carry handguns for protection against bears and other predators are SOL eh?

This thread actually illustrates why we have federalism and why trying to force your dumbass ideas on everyone else in the country is truly vile. The needs and problems of someone in rural Alaska have nothing at all to do with the needs and problems of a poor kid living in the ghetto. Implement your wonderful ideas at your local level and stop trying to fuck over everyone else with them.
 
mizzou said:
gun control does not = taking guns from everyone

why the heck do we have to assume extremes on everything?
Click to expand...

Because those extremes tend to happen. See that thread where huge numbers of black people were basically cut off from DMV services so they would have difficulty voting. Did anyone expect abuse of power to go that far? A similar thing happened to voting for felons. You can't vote if you're a felon, so let's make everything a felony!

This abuse also happened with growing hemp. To grow hemp, you needed a license. To get a license, you needed to have your hemp inspected, but the act of getting it inspected involves admitting to a felony - growing hemp without a license. Somehow, it's a tax turned into it's completely illegal under all circumstances.

The same thing with abortion. We can't make abortion illegal, so let's make stupid fucking laws that are impossible to comply with! Abortion clinic doors must be 20 feet tall and made of solid gold. Then the abortion clinic can be shut down for "health violations" that have nothing to do with health.

Even though I think we do need some minor gun control laws, I can understand why people would fight so hard against any kind of gun control. We've seen this pattern happen dozens of times. Something starts as a reasonable idea and it leads to some asshole abusing power.

glenn1 said:
Guess all those people who carry handguns for protection against bears and other predators are SOL eh?
Click to expand...
Yes. You can try shooting a bear with a 45, but it won't even slow him down. There was a time when police officers carried something like .32 or .38 pistols, and they were called "widow makers" because they couldn't stop a human. A guy could be charging you with a knife, you shoot him several times, and he's still running at you. A bear is maybe 5x the size of a human, so it should be fairly obvious that a .45 will not stop a bear.
 
Last edited:
The problem isn't just guns, but more gun culture. There is an idea that is pushed in this nation that might makes right and that the gun is the ultimate form of might. Terrorist organizations like the NRA push this idea that your gun will protect you from all the wrong in the world and that you should use it often. We won't be able to fix the problem with shootings until we fix the problems with gun nut culture. And the first step to that is to abolish the bigoted terrorist organization known as the NRA.
 
Spungo said:
Because those extremes tend to happen. See that thread where huge numbers of black people were basically cut off from DMV services so they would have difficulty voting. Did anyone expect abuse of power to go that far? A similar thing happened to voting for felons. You can't vote if you're a felon, so let's make everything a felony!

This abuse also happened with growing hemp. To grow hemp, you needed a license. To get a license, you needed to have your hemp inspected, but the act of getting it inspected involves admitting to a felony - growing hemp without a license. Somehow, it's a tax turned into it's completely illegal under all circumstances.

The same thing with abortion. We can't make abortion illegal, so let's make stupid fucking laws that are impossible to comply with! Abortion clinic doors must be 20 feet tall and made of solid gold. Then the abortion clinic can be shut down for "health violations" that have nothing to do with health.

Even though I think we do need some minor gun control laws, I can understand why people would fight so hard against any kind of gun control. We've seen this pattern happen dozens of times. Something starts as a reasonable idea and it leads to some asshole abusing power.


Yes. You can try shooting a bear with a 45, but it won't even slow him down. There was a time when police officers carried something like .32 or .38 pistols, and they were called "widow makers" because they couldn't stop a human. A guy could be charging you with a knife, you shoot him several times, and he's still running at you. A bear is maybe 5x the size of a human, so it should be fairly obvious that a .45 will not stop a bear.
Click to expand...

It's not your primary weapon against bear, it's the next to last-ditch backup when avoidance or your long gun isn't an option (range is too short, out of reach, jammed, et cetera). And I'd much rather use a .44 magnum revolver against a bear than I would my truly last option, a knife when he's at melee range and trying to bite my face off.
 
Fenixgoon said:
What is a hunting gun? Lots of firearms can be used for hunting. In fact the only firearm that probably wouldn't be use is a handgun. Most rifles could be used to hunt (deer). Same with shotguns(birds).

Even if it did happen, I imagine the criteria would be something like "has a wood stock" for rifles. In which case people would go made a wood stock AR15 😀
Click to expand...

Ask the Australians. I believe it had something to do with bullet capacity and rate of fire.
 
I have heard .357 Magnun is the bare min for dealing with bears. .44 will deal with it pretty good. Hunting rounds in rifles should also penetrate it well enough. That means forget the .223\5.56.

I thought the issue with the .38s was the capacity of the revolver? Autos held more rounds and were easier to reload if caught in a prolonged fire fight.

A .38 is still a pretty good round for soft targets at close range.
 
I do wonder how cop culture would change if they were also not allowed to carry except in SWAT circumstances, alongside the population disarming.
 
cbrunny said:
how many Americans would be killed in the conflict that would ensue from trying to actually enforce new gun restrictions?

"Pry it from my cold, dead hands" is something that has been thrown out a lot re: guns. If the Government actually decided to enact some kind of strict law that would literally require people to turn in/have confiscated their guns, what does the ensuing conflict look like?

Obama's comments got me thinking. Not sure if this should be P&N or Off Topic, mods please move if appropriate.
Click to expand...

I think it would be a nightmare.

you would have to go door to door and search. many would be pissed but let them take them.

All it would take is a few instances of people refusing and a few deaths (wich would happen) to get more people to refuse and start to band together.

could you imagian the cost of going through the poor areas of chicago? lol


It will not happen anytime soon in the US.
 
It's my understanding that the weapons used in the incident yesterday were acquired legally through a criminal background check. Other than elimination of private gun ownership, what proposed gun control laws would have prevented that?
 
waggy said:
I think it would be a nightmare.

you would have to go door to door and search. many would be pissed but let them take them.

All it would take is a few instances of people refusing and a few deaths (wich would happen) to get more people to refuse and start to band together.

could you imagian the cost of going through the poor areas of chicago? lol


It will not happen anytime soon in the US.
Click to expand...

There is another detail to consider. How would the military and various state entities react?
 
Ertaz said:
It's my understanding that the weapons used in the incident yesterday were acquired legally through a criminal background check. Other than elimination of private gun ownership, what proposed gun control laws would have prevented that?
Click to expand...

How about a mental health test before issuing a permit? I've heard so many times its about mental health but I don't hear any ideas on separating people who are mentally incapable from guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top