In an America with strict gun control....

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
And most gun owners shoot their guns less than once a year. I think you're vastly overestimating gun owner's resolve. When they're faced with the choice of near certain death by law enforcement\military or a small chance of death by criminals, most rational people are going to give up their guns and take their chances with the criminals.
 

Ertaz

Senior member
Jul 26, 2004
599
25
81
Australia was the most heavily armed nation on the planet prior to their gun bans. They had 3 guns for every one person.

weapons_2804_narrowweb__300x455,0.jpg
http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-y...ontrol-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia

"Due in part to the country's mostly decentralized government and more malleable legal code, pro-reform officials in Australia were able to act with unusual speed following their seminal national tragedy. As Howard noted in his New York Times piece, there is no constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms in Australia and the courts are a lighter check on legislative action. The influence of the Australian gun lobby, he wrote, is tiny compared to the loud and powerful National Rifle Association in the U.S."
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
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.

Yep, all those damn NRA-loving rednecks shooting each other in Baltimore and Compton.
 

Ertaz

Senior member
Jul 26, 2004
599
25
81
And most gun owners shoot their guns less than once a year. I think you're vastly overestimating gun owner's resolve. When they're faced with the choice of near certain death by law enforcement\military or a small chance of death by criminals, most rational people are going to give up their guns and take their chances with the criminals.

Perhaps I'm swayed by the local culture, but the gun owners here are very vocal and resolute about the continuation of their rights. I don't know of a single local law enforcement official that would come in and take an otherwise law-abiding tax paying citizens weapons.

Even in the refined and articulate state of Connecticut, only %15 of gun owners submitted to mandatory gun registration after Sandy Hook.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...s-defy-new-registration-law-charles-c-w-cooke

Imo, gun ownership is a semi religious conviction here.
 

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
98% of people would quietly and sheepishly turn in their guns. Just look at how it went down in Australia. The remainder would just hide them. Very few people would try to start an actual insurgency, and those people would quickly be caught and arrested due to pervasive monitoring of all forms of communication. The rest would be caught one at a time in their homes, with little chance to prevail against a well-armed, well trained, large number of police\military.

Throw in a campaign in schools that teaches kids to report gun sightings to the authorities and within 2 generations we could virtually do away with guns here.

The question brought up, and still not answered, is how is the govt supposed to impose it's will on the people when the very people required to enforce that will may not do so? What would the reaction really be in the military if it was required to do this? Heck a number of state govt's would refuse as well, what about their national guard units? And so on.

If we are supposing that most of the people agree, for ex. by repealing the 2nd, at some future time, I'll mostly agree with your statement.

There is still another question worth asking - if the govt cannot impose it's will on Iraq (or Afghanistan), how easy will it be to do so to a much larger nation with 10 times the population?
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Australia was the most heavily armed nation on the planet prior to their gun bans. They had 3 guns for every one person.

The gun confiscation collected around 650,000 firearms. Australia's population was around 20 million at the time, and total gun stock around 4 million.

Compliance was also low. Prior to the confiscation, the semi-automatic and pump-action rifle/shotgun stock was estimated to be around 1.5 million units. When less than half of that number were surrendered, the government was faced with the choice of finding and confiscating the remaining arms by force, or declaring that their original estimate must have been wrong. They chose the latter. Connecticut is taking a similar course with its "assault weapon" registration scheme's 15% compliance rate.
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81
I am going to agree with some others in this thread.

A few perfectly agreeable laws may be passed.
And in a couple of years (or the next mass shooting.. can't waste a tragedy) the law can be tweaked... just a little.
And tweaked ...just a little in a couple more years.

Next thing you know frog soup.:)

*************

Also, on the 45 vs. bear please state which 45 you are referring to.
A 45 ACP not so much a 45 long colt can be loaded higher than a 44 mag. Not that I would be comfortable with either. I am not a handgun shooter. I could not hit water if I was crossing the Atlantic.:(

.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,580
982
126

Swiss gun laws are far more restrictive than gun laws here in most states... including California.

In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 8 WG). Swiss citizens over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit. Foreigners with the following citizenship are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania (Art. 12, WV). The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:

  • valid official identification or passport copy
  • residence address
  • criminal record copy not older than 3 months
For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit (Art. 10 WG), a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information (Art. 11 WG):

  • Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component
  • Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component
  • Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer;
  • Type and number of official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component
  • and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted.
This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holders are registered (Art. 9 WG).
Some weapons do not need a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 10 WG):

  • Single-shot and multi-barreled hunting rifles and replicas of single-shot muzzle
  • By the Federal Council designated hand bolt-action rifles, which are commonly used in off-duty and sporting gunnery recognized by the military law of 3 February 1952 and shooting clubs for hunting purposes in Switzerland
  • Single-shot rabbit slayer;
  • Compressed air and CO2 weapons that develop a muzzle energy of at least 7.5 joules, or may be confused because of their appearance with real firearms
Buying Ammunition


In order to purchase Ammunition the buyer must follows the same legal rules like for buying guns. The buyer can only buy munition for guns he/she is legally owning and must provide the following information to the seller (Art. 15, 16 WG; Art 24 WV):[7][8]

  • valid official identification or passport (and must be older than 18 who are not psychiatric-ally disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and must not be a citizen of the following countries (Art. 12 WV): Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania)
  • residence address
  • criminal record copy not older than 3 months
  • weapon acquisition permit not older than 2 years, or a weapon carrying permit not older than 5 years
This also applies for weapons which do not require a weapon acquisition permit (see above, excluding the weapon acquisition permit, of course).
This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holder is registered.

The same applies to black powder and modern black powder substitutes for use in firing historical rifles.

The possession of the following munition is generally prohibited:

  • Ammunition with armor piercing bullets
  • Ammunition with projectiles containing an explosive or incendiary device
  • Ammunition with one or more floors to the release of substances which damage the health of people in the long run
  • Ammunition, missiles and missile launchers for military explosive
  • Ammunition with projectiles for transmitting electric shocks
  • Ammunition for handguns with deformation effect
Carrying Guns


To carry a loaded firearm in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragbewilligung (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.[7] It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle, albeit unloaded.[10]


Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit

There are three conditions:

  • fulfilling the conditions for buying a permit (see section above)
  • stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
  • passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon
The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.[citation needed]
Transporting guns

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

  • The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
  • The transport needs to be as direct as possible and needs a valid purpose:
    • For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
    • To an army warehouse and back,
    • To show the gun to a friend or a possible buyer
    • To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
    • To and from a specific event, e.g. gun shows.[8]
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,580
982
126
Modern 9mm, .45, and even .38 ammo all have evolved to be far more potent than they once were...on humans. SO yeah, a large caliber handgun is something you'd want for large animals, but any gun is better than none.

Modern 9mm would be useless against bear as would .45 and .38. I wouldn't shoot at a bear with anything less than .44 magnum personally. You'd be better off shooting yourself if you're armed with anything less than .44 magnum.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Until you can guarantee the removal of ALL guns, except for military and SWAT units, the bad guys will find ways of getting them.

My goal is not to eliminate these events, but to hopefully reduce their number from the current average of weekly.

And I think we'd see a side-benefit of police activity falling more in line with "service" rather than abuse.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
My goal is not to eliminate these events, but to hopefully reduce their number from the current average of weekly.

And I think we'd see a side-benefit of police activity falling more in line with "service" rather than abuse.

School shootings absolutely do not occur weekly. That statistic is propaganda from an anti-gun group that includes suicides, unintentional discharges in off-campus college housing, shootings that occurred near schools in the middle of the night, etc.

And that's actually an improvement over the group's previous list of "school shootings," which also included defensive gun uses, police shootings, and shootings that occurred on the same street as a school, but miles away.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
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'd pretty much agree with this.

Anyone that even used to compound bow hunt for bears would carry a .357 magnum for back up minimum.

5.56/.223 isn't even a legal hunting round for deer in most places I'm aware of, the AR15 craze isn't for hunting. Most places a .270 was minimum unless it has changed a bit over the years.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,286
12,849
136
Swiss gun laws are far more restrictive than gun laws here in most states... including California.

they really aren't *that* much worse than US laws - assuming you follow them.

purchasing from an FFL requires a background check, akin to the criminal history check. the permit would simply allow you to bypass that process (i.e. proof that you already not a criminal/crazy). some states have permits, but not all. either way, you are having a background check of some kind. the big difference here is that most states do not require a background check for private party purchases of long guns (rifles, shotguns). some places like CA require an FFL to perform the transfer of all firearms(and background check), even for private party purchases.

the other big thing is the ammo purchasing requirements - those are definitely different and more strict than the US by a large margin.

otherwise, transport requirements appear very much similar to those in the US, with state to state details varying by small (but sometimes meaningful) amounts. Example - in California, there is no explicit requirement to carry your firearm and ammo in separate vehicle compartments. as long as your gun isn't loaded, you're *technically* fine, IIRC. if i'm not mistaken, you can have loaded magazines in the same case as your firearm, so long as the firearm actually isn't loaded. By contrast, in Maryland, if your ammo is in the same compartment (e.g. firearm and ammo both in trunk), that can be considered transporting a loaded firearm and you may find yourself in jail if you get pulled over by a cop.

Conceal carry permits appear to be more restricted in switzerland - basically security personnel only. in the US, CWP's vary by state, with most states being less strict than Switzerland. California, NJ, and MD are notoriously difficult to obtain CWP's in. The good news though is that in the US, CWP holders commit crimes at a lower rate than police officers - so at least the people who are carrying are citizens you'd actually want carrying if you had to choose someone.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
I'm still struggling to understand why we're ignoring that the greatest majority of gun crimes aren't committed with salt guns, whatever the hell those are today since the definition is nebulous and based on nothing more than the opinion of some ignorant politician.

I also don't understand why we're skipping the getting the "legislation that we totally aren't pursuing" passed and skipping straight to the completely untenable door to door confiscation that the largest police survey of it's kind every undertaken said wouldn't happen.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legisl...-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

For the record, you have to prove that you're a LEO to access most parts of the site.

Spoilers:
gun-surveyQ4.gif

gun-surveyQ16.gif
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
School shootings absolutely do not occur weekly. That statistic is propaganda from an anti-gun group that includes suicides, unintentional discharges in off-campus college housing, shootings that occurred near schools in the middle of the night, etc.

And that's actually an improvement over the group's previous list of "school shootings," which also included defensive gun uses, police shootings, and shootings that occurred on the same street as a school, but miles away.

Great. Quibble over the numbers. Very productive.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
I'm still struggling to understand why we're ignoring that the greatest majority of gun crimes aren't committed with salt guns, whatever the hell those are today

Salt rock used to just be used for shotguns by farmers to ward people off encroaching.

It can be deadly up close, but used to be just used as a deterrent type of thing.

Bean bag shotguns rounds can be lethal in the same way close quarters.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
I seem to see a lack of "owner has no gun" burgler[sic] finds you and you're family and kills you here.

Seems like that person is not a burglar at that point, by the definition of that word: one breaking in with the primary intent of theft.

If you're concern is just random rapists and killers breaking in, then that is a different flowchart.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Seems like that person is not a burglar at that point, by the definition of that word: one breaking in with the primary intent of theft.

If you're concern is just random rapists and killers breaking in, then that is a different flowchart.

In other words your flowchart is BS in general.

Ought to just put up a burglars allowed, all murders/rapist stay away sign.

:p
 

BxgJ

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2015
1,054
123
106
Seems like that person is not a burglar at that point, by the definition of that word: one breaking in with the primary intent of theft.

If you're concern is just random rapists and killers breaking in, then that is a different flowchart.

To be fair the homeowner wouldn't know the intruders intentions, so it would be helpful to include the latter.

I did think this thread wasn't really about gun control itself, but about what would happen if the govt unilaterally ordered confiscation, or something to that effect.