And the problems of finding them. One of the ironies so far has been watching the same crowd on the left that often bemoaned the futility of the drug war, and the stupidity of prohibition – something libertarians and even a fair percentage of those of us on the right have had issues with as well though less so for “conservatives” and the drug war, and something mocked by the modern left as an example of Christian overreach when prohibition was a creature of the same progressive movement that loved to promote fascism, communism, etc., and is an ancestor of the modern, post left of all stripes – also tell us we’ll never find all those illegals to ship them out, but dammit, we can find all those guns.
One, people, unlike guns or drugs, are a lot harder to hide. Physically bigger than easily stashed containers of booze, the “shelf life” of a person who doesn’t step out for groceries or sunshine is not terribly long. Interaction is a need – it’s a reason solitary confinement is a form of torture.
Two, what’s involved?
OK. While I’m a little less fond of restrictions than this guy is – and he’s pretty solid and is I believe sincerely offering possible compromises out of a belief that the left is rational and willing to be reasonable – he raises an important point.
They have let the mask slip. Not just in long-ago statements that can be discounted by those unwilling to see like Janet Reno bluntly admitting that every gun control law was just a small step to getting rid of them in citizens hands entirely, or in students at the recent rallies praising every inch that can be given so that they can take a mile (“they didn’t mean it, why are you attacking kids?”). People I personally know, when informed and shown, point blank, the stats of deaths for different weapons and lack thereof, the government failure leading up to these shootings (most would have been stopped by incarceration for ongoing violent behavior, nevermind root causes or catalysts like single mother households and SSRI’s), when shown other weapons just as effective that don’t look military, or are more powerful (hunting rifles), will then still tell me “but they don’t need it, it’s just one gun, I don’t feel anyone should have those.” We have former justices outright arguing to abolish the second amendment. We have since seen the bitter joke of “what’s next, knives and garden tools?” come true in London/England, though those restrictions had actually been growing for a while. We have seen calls on many sides for a ban on sales, and outright confiscation, of any and all weapons, as well as “just” all semiautomatic weapons.
Before I go further, they hate us.
Some of these wannabe petty tyrants, and I don’t mean petty in scale so much as the kind of people they are (and there are few things more dangerous than a weak man given power over others), will welcome the things that may come next, but for others who propose bans, it’s worth asking “so then what?”
Prohibition caused a massive spike in crime. Ditto the drug war. Were there issues with drugs and alcohol? Yes. Did the violence and abuse of them get any better?
What in gods name, in a country where the very population – outside of gang-bangers – that prefers to be armed is likely to consider right and wrong to be different from legal and illegal, and natural/moral right to trump bad laws, do the banners think the gun owners are going to do? In NY, where there’s already a database of gun owners due to the registration requirements already in place, they estimate that at least 20% have failed to comply with re-registration requirements.
Think of the number of guns the country is supposedly awash in. Then consider even 10% of that unaccounted for.
Also keep in mind that even the softest bans that actually do more than the current NICS check requirements to block sale to felons/etc. will have to block at minimum all private transfers (and how long is that? Pass your gun over to try it out on the range and you go to jail?), and all future sales of undesirable weapons, what are they going to do to stop the ones already in place from being transferred?
Whether there’s a soft ban on new sales/transfers, or a hard ban with confiscation, there will be people who already have them and won’t give them up.
How will they be found?
Oh, that totally-not-to-confiscate-guns-registration-list?
OK, turn in a gun or two. Will that be all of them? What about 80% lowers in states that didn’t require them to be registered unless sold (basically not California).
Are you willing to accept that, even by the numbers the Brady bunch uses, you’re condemning 60k+ people to being robbed, beaten, raped, murdered or other, as collateral damage to save 30k people from “gun deaths” (of which the 60% that are suicides, if Japan is any example, will still find a way, despite the NYT scoffing that people only “feel” that people determined to actually kill themselves instead of a “cry for help” will find a way)?
Are you willing to be a subject, at the mercy of the whims of the “racist, sexist” police that are regularly accused of police brutality?
Are you willing to give that overwhelming advantage, that nobody but the cops and military should have such power, to criminals, so that their victims have less of a chance of resisting?Are you willing, even if the criminals ditched their guns, to leave the old, the infirm, the children, and (on average) women prey to any man who is (on average) bigger, stronger?
Are you willing to shoot people who were, until a law has passed, completely legally going about their day and minding their own business, and are now criminals without having done a thing?
Will you authorize sending people door to door searching for guns? Will you authorize them to shoot people who are resisting, likely with guns? For something that was legal before the ban you want was passed?