On guns, Australia and Norway lead the way

Bill_Coley · March 2018

According to the Washington Post, Australia reports that 57,000 firearms that are illegal in that country were turned in during an amnesty period last summer. Granted, not nearly as many firearms are illegal in the U.S. as are illegal in Australia, but do the math: Based on the nations' populations, 57,000 firearms no longer on the streets in Australia translates to nearly 750,000 firearms no longer on the streets in the U.S. Can you imagine waking up tomorrow morning to the news that there are three-quarter's of a million fewer weapons on the streets of your country? Granted, that would be just a quarter of one percent of all firearms in Americans' hands, but what an impact such an announcement could have.

And the Post also reports that Norway's government has the needed majority to ban semi-automatic weapons by 2021.

A journey of a 1,000 miles begins with the first step.

GaoLu · March 2018

Someone's person tempest in a teapot.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Bill_Coley said:
According to the Washington Post, Australia reports that 57,000 firearms that are illegal in that country were turned in during an amnesty period last summer. Granted, not nearly as many firearms are illegal in the U.S. as are illegal in Australia, but do the math: Based on the nations' populations, 57,000 firearms no longer on the streets in Australia translates to nearly 750,000 firearms no longer on the streets in the U.S. Can you imagine waking up tomorrow morning to the news that there are three-quarter's of a million fewer weapons on the streets of your country? Granted, that would be just a quarter of one percent of all firearms in Americans' hands, but what an impact such an announcement could have.

And the Post also reports that Norway's government has the needed majority to ban semi-automatic weapons by 2021.

A journey of a 1,000 miles begins with the first step.

Actually if I woke up and there were 750,000 less weapons on the streets in the United States because people handed them over I would fear for my life because all that would be left with guns are criminals.

Bill_Coley · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
Actually if I woke up and there were 750,000 less weapons on the streets in the United States because people handed them over I would fear for my life because all that would be left with guns are criminals.

As I tried to point out in my OP, David, the math matters here:

There are in the area of 300 million owned guns in the United States. So were 750,000 of them to disappear tomorrow, 99.75% of owned guns would still be in the hands of their owners. The chances that 99.75% of all owned guns are owned by "criminals," and that therefore, theirs would be the only guns left in the scenario I propose, are infinitesimally small.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
Actually if I woke up and there were 750,000 less weapons on the streets in the United States because people handed them over I would fear for my life because all that would be left with guns are criminals.

As I tried to point out in my OP, David, the math matters here:

There are in the area of 300 million owned guns in the United States. So were 750,000 of them to disappear tomorrow, 99.75% of owned guns would still be in the hands of their owners. The chances that 99.75% of all owned guns are owned by "criminals," and that therefore, theirs would be the only guns left in the scenario I propose, are infinitesimally small.

So then what is the point? Yay 1% of law abiding gun owners turned in their weapons. What the heck good does that do? Nothing. It's just stupid.

Bill_Coley · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

So then what is the point? Yay 1% of law abiding gun owners turned in their weapons. What the heck good does that do? Nothing. It's just stupid.

Now you've changed the focus of your critique quite significantly.

I read your previous post to criticize the potential loss of 750,000 firearms on the grounds that such a loss would leave only "criminals" with guns. Now that I have pointed out the math of gun ownership in the U.S. your critique has morphed into concerns about what you deem to be the insignificance of such a loss.

When you revisit my OP in this thread, you'll be reminded that I included this observation:

"Granted, that (a 750,000 firearm reduction) would be just a quarter of one percent of all firearms in Americans' hands, but what an impact such an announcement could have."

Clearly, I emphasized impacts of such a small reduction in the number of firearms OTHER than its size. The psychological impact, for example.

Would such a reduction be "stupid"? Not in my view; but it's useful to point out that our respective forum posts make clear that you're much more likely than I to label decisions and actions "stupid."

dct112685 · March 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

So then what is the point? Yay 1% of law abiding gun owners turned in their weapons. What the heck good does that do? Nothing. It's just stupid.

Now you've changed the focus of your critique quite significantly.

I read your previous post to criticize the potential loss of 750,000 firearms on the grounds that such a loss would leave only "criminals" with guns. Now that I have pointed out the math of gun ownership in the U.S. your critique has morphed into concerns about what you deem to be the insignificance of such a loss.

When you revisit my OP in this thread, you'll be reminded that I included this observation:

"Granted, that (a 750,000 firearm reduction) would be just a quarter of one percent of all firearms in Americans' hands, but what an impact such an announcement could have."

Clearly, I emphasized impacts of such a small reduction in the number of firearms OTHER than its size. The psychological impact, for example.

Would such a reduction be "stupid"? Not in my view; but it's useful to point out that our respective forum posts make clear that you're much more likely than I to label decisions and actions "stupid."

No I haven't changed my focus. I still think it would be a tragedy and a less safe world. My point is, what the heck does that do to help your dream of ridding the world of guns? It's stupid, pointless, and doesn't make logical sense. Not to mention those that actually turn in their guns are idiots.

[Deleted User] · March 2018

@Bill_Coley said:
... Australia reports that 57,000 firearms that are illegal in that country were turned in during an amnesty period last summer.

Had firearms been legal (as they are in the USA), how many do you think would have been turned in? maybe, none ?!!
The reason these firearms were turned in was obviously the fear of penalties, charges and who know what consequences for people who owned them ... and I do not think that the owners were all "crooks,thugs, criminals", do you? Those criminal dudes surely did NOT turn in their weapons ....