According to Matt Easton, who is both, police will frequently confiscate presumptively, and then you have to go to court to beg for their return.
You may find this meta-analysis informative:
The UK has banned curved swords, and the carrying of pocket knives. They're trying to ban kitchen knives with points. You have to be over 18 and show ID to buy a box of plastic butter knives. Technicians get their toolboxes raided for screwdrivers (they're a lethal weapon, you know.) Yet they still have a violent crime problem.
Not exactly an example to emulate.
None of what you are advocating would have any impact on violent crime. At best, it could reduce accidental harm, such as negligent discharge.
I strongly support maximizing firearm training for every one who touches a gun. Making it a prerequisite creates a financial hurdle however, a filter to only allow the well-off to be armed. Government funded training, available to all, could meet both of our goals in that respect.
If you advocate limiting the type of arms available to the public, you want the people to be at a disadvantage as compared to the government. This is not as bad as total disarmament, but it's a step on that path.
Gun "buybacks" (it's not "back", they were never the government's guns in the first place) repeatedly result in the collection of antique, damaged, and scrap guns that no one wants anyway. There are also those who quickly make several guns that meet the minimum requirements for the buyback, to turn a quick profit at the public's expense. How much are you proposing that I (as a taxpayer) pay to for he government to collect a homemade pipe gun? Then those who sold their scrap and junk guns will often use that money to buy nicer guns. Is that your goal?
But overall, though you and I may be able to find some middle ground where we could both be reasonably content, if you support the politicians who are pushing for gun control, you are supporting total civilian disarmament, because that is what they're pushing for. They are not advocating training programs or gun safety.
I do not want another holocaust. I do not want another trail of tears. Yes, the lives of tens of thousands, or possibly hundreds of thousands, do outweigh the lives of the few.
But that's all beside the point, because gun control doesn't take guns out of the hands of criminals. They can buy them on the mass market, make them, buy them from someone who made them, or steal them from someone who's still allowed to have them (like cops).
So what you're asking, is for us to render ourselves defenseless, accept the possibility of government genocide, and not have any reduction in criminal violence. Most likely even an increase in criminal violence, as there will be no one on site to stop them.
You are asking for more death. I am asking for less.
If guns aren't the solution, why does every nation in the world rely on them to enforce the peace?
I'm sorry, you're just too far off the deep end. You're not capable of rational discussion.
Sure, imagine a drone strike takes out one insurgent and 12 innocent bystanders. How well will that go over? How many more insurgents will that create?
The iron fist approach to insurgencies is 100% counterproductive. It ALWAYS fails. Read some history.
Sounds to me like you're ready to roll over and give up on on the whole concept of freedom.
Again, wipe the spittle. You seem to be having trouble with civil discourse.
I understand it can be stressful to have your heartfelt presumptions and biases questioned.
Yes, the government has nukes. Do you think they would use nukes against the people, within our own borders? That they would nuke a US city, because it contains 10% insurgents? If the order were given, do you think it would be carried out? If not, then they're irrelevant to this discussion. If so, then it's even more important that we be armed as well as possible, so that might be prevented.
No, the police can already get arms that are illegal for the civilian population. The police are an occupying military force already. They are the boot that treads.
My goal is the same as the drafters of the constitution; to ensure that THE PEOPLE have arms equal to those of the government and the criminals.
As I said, we don't have to win it. We have to make it too expensive to be worth it.
You may imagine battle lines and uniforms. That's not how insurgencies work.
Dude, wipe the spittle from your chin. I didn't swear at you when you put words in my mouth.
If you support Biden and his gun grabbing agenda, you support banning all guns. That's what he's trying to do, and he has said as much.
19 COPS (not good guys) sat around while kids died. If we give up our arms, those are all we have to rely on for our safety. Would that make you feel safe?
Meanwhile, and deliberately exempted from most news coverage, a woman in West Virginia last week prevented a mass shooting by promptly killing the attacker with a legal CCW pistol. I want that woman in my kid's classroom. One woman with a pistol did what 19 cops loaded for war were too chicken shit to try.
You don't hear about the potential mass shootings that were prevented by a good guy with a gun, because if they were prevented, they weren't mass shootings, and don't make the news or the statistics.
Here's an archive of reported defensive gun uses:
The CDC estimates that including unreported defensive gun uses, most of which involve only displaying, not not firing the gun, there are between 300,000 and multiple millions of defensive gun uses every year.
I want the good guys to have the best possible weapons, equal to those the bad guys have. You want them to be at a disadvantage and outgunned.
More gun control equals more crime, and more dead kids. gun control is evil. It is the tool of the authoritarian oppressor.
You are demanding that we give up the means to defend ourselves and others against an oppressive government in the hope that it will somehow save lives, with zero evidence to back that up.
Yes, the oppressor is often better armed, equipped and trained. But outnumbered. How did the Vietnam war go again? The US outspent the locals by several orders of magnitude. But the locals, often armed with nothing more than a rifle, sent the US military running with it's tail between it's legs. Despite the tanks, and jets, and carpet bombing. Not because they could win militarily, but because they made it too expensive for us to win.
The same thing played out in certain black neighborhoods during the civil rights movement in the 60's. Cops were harassing, beating, and killing black people, just for being black. So these neighborhoods armed themselves, and every time a cop showed up, he caught a bullet. Cops stopped showing up. And that, my friend, is why Reagan started pushing for gun control. He was afraid of the minorities demanding equality.
You might draw the line at AR-15's, but Biden just said he thinks a 9mm pistol is too powerful. Canada just banned pistols. England has banned curved swords and is trying to ban knives that have points. If we let them take another step, they will demand another, and another, until we're completely at their mercy. But if we can fight that, if we can stop this ridiculous push to ban guns, then we won't have to use them, because the authoritarians would know what the cost would be.
How much time, money, and killing do you think it would take to round up the 350+ million guns in the US?
How much time, money, and killing do you think it would take to prevent people from making more?
I can make a functioning firearm (not great, but lethal) in 15 minutes with $15 of hardware store parts and a hand drill.
With a week, a 3D printer, and a garage shop, I could make something equivalent to an assault rifle, a pistol, whatever you want, with any sized magazines. Two weeks and I could make dozens of them.
Full auto's have been illegal as heck (without thousands of dollars in proof of wealth / fees and paperwork) since '86, but every gang banger in Minneapolis has one. Gun control doesn't take guns out of criminal's hands, it only disarms the good guys.
The Buffalo shooter was a repeat felon. It was illegal for him to have any kind of gun. So how did he get one? I'll tell you how: he decided to break the law.
Yes, violent crime is a big, complicated problem, and it will take time, money, and effort to solve. complicated problems take complicated solutions.
Palm, meet face. You did not read a word I wrote.
I was not the one advocating turning schools into prisons; I detest the idea.
I'm glad you think that 1984 was an instruction manual. Go live in North Korea if that's your utopia. But just in case you actually want to work the problem, and maybe have a chance of saving some lives, I'll repeat myself for your convenience:
I’ve been doing a bunch of research and discussion on this topic. There are a few strong contributing factors that I (and others) have identified. First, there is an extremely strong correlation between lead exposure and violent crime, with about a 20/21 year lag. A mother’s exposure to elevated lead levels will have detrimental effects on at least the next three generations, so even though lead exposure has diminished greatly since around 1975, we’re still seeing second and third order effects. Some of those living in poverty may still be experiencing first order effects.
Second, there is a strong correlation between economic disparity and violent crime, across all nations of the world, regardless of the legality or availability of weapons. Globally and in the US, economic disparity is at record levels and only getting worse. The economically challenged have less hope than ever of breaking out of their financial trap, and there’s little more dangerous than a human who feels they have nothing to lose. Improve people’s lives enough that they have hope, and much of this violence will go away.
Third, are social media echo chambers, clickbait extremist propaganda, and disinformation. The media is in it for the money, and things that cause outrage sell. We (collective) are literally paying the media to make people angry. An overdose of anger then leads to lashing out in one form or another.
Fourth, there is a high cost to getting mental help. Both financially, and in social credit. Even among those who can afford to buy mental help, they risk being ostracized, and potentially losing job opportunities and even constitutional rights. Creating options for cheap or free confidential mental health help could have a dramatic impact.
Fifth, the data shows, at least in the US, that most violent crime is committed with stolen weapons. These weapons are stolen from homes and from cars. A program to give vouchers for gun safes to the economically challenged could help the theft from homes, while changing the laws that cause people to leave their guns in their cars could help reduce theft from cars; parking lots at “gun free” zones are hot targets
"(few people need anything more than a handgun)"
This proves how little you know about guns. What guns are suitable for my purposes? Do you even know my purposes?
I have never claimed that any number of dead children, or dead anyone for that matter, are "acceptable losses". I know enough about guns and the making thereof to know that no amount of gun control will reduce that number. If you work the symptom without working the cause, those who wish to do violence will find other means.
How many more children have to die in gun fee zones before we ban gun free zones?
How many more disarmed minority populations need to suffer genocide before we learn to stop allowing the people to be disarmed? Are they acceptable losses?
True, but it has gotten a lot worse since social media became popular.
Practically every household had a gun in 1900, but we didn't have this issue. It was also possible for a single full time unskilled job to support a family. People need hope; take that hope away and they become desperate and dangerous.
Banning guns isn't actually about banning guns, it's about having a bogeyman to wave in the air, to say "Look how scary this is! you have to vote for me so I can save you!"
If they actually got what they're wishing for, they'd have to invent another bogeyman.
I gave you a list of five strong contributing factors, way up at the top, all of which would yield better results than an unconstitutional and unenforceable gun ban. Why is it that banning guns is the only potential solution you're willing to entertain? That's an intellectually dishonest position.