I do believe if they did pass gun bans and confiscation the people would flat out ignore it.
Of course you would have your snowflakes but that would be a very small number like Australia and New Zealand are seeing.
Funny how the New Zealand ban has no press these days.
I am waiting for the mass gunfight in some po-dunk NZ town where the people fight back and the government slaughters them.
What a press disaster that would be.
I believe we’d have very little compliance here!
They’ve banned these before, right?
When they did it before, did people stop taking them to the range? or being seen with them? Did everyone just sit on them for 10 years for fear of getting caught with them?
No they sold them for a outrageous profit
Was selling them not illegal at that point? Or buying them?
If you already owned one you could keep it and sale or trade it . And the manufacturers changed a few cosmetic things and went on saling them.
Oh, ok. So they just kept new ones from hitting the market, without modifications? How the heck did that effect crime or homicides?
Pretty sure the Dems claim crime or homicides or shootings went down during that period. If it did, it didn’t have anything to do with less guns being out there.
Maybe big brother just staged less mass killings.
You’re red hot @RedAngel !!
It had no effect on the murder rate and they let it sunset
Awww. thank you @LonewolfMcQuade
It’s an interesting read and I would say he’s spot on. However, I would argue that states would begin petitions that would eventually turn to states picking sides. That’s where it will get scary.
Well maybe not. Haha. Especially if a bunch of us happen to be in the right state.
Or the wrong one
How many bump stocks were turned in???
Seems like a good indication of what would happen as far as turning in firearms
Take the number of bump stocks turned in and divide that by 5 and that’ll be your rifle turn in total.
I’m not sure there is any official numbers at all so that math is hard to come by
There wasn’t really any change in the crime stats, other than some amount of shift to using other types of guns. There was a study that apparently looked at the actual numbers, then tried to use those numbers to justify the ban. Their conclusion was that if the ban had been made permanent, there would probably be some small reduction in crime at some point in the future, after enough time had passed for the banned items to begin wearing out or be destroyed through other methods (gun turn-ins, seized in crimes, etc).
During the ban, new magazines over 10 rounds could not be sold to the public, and new guns such as the AR-15 could not be sold under the name “AR-15” (but could be sold under a new name) or with a threaded muzzle (so no flash hiders) and bayonet lug. There was a list of ‘banned’ features, and a gun was only allowed to have so many of them, so different manufacturers deleted features as necessary, to make their new guns ‘ban compliant’.
Used (made before the ban was signed into law) magazines and guns could still be sold, and the prices were influenced by the “they are no longer making these (for sale to the public)” factor.
It was nothing more than something to drive up prices of some guns, declare victory for the democrats, and prove that they could “ban” guns. It’s possible that some of the democrats were stupid enough to think they actually were banning AR-15s (instead of requiring the manufacturers to make them with plain muzzles and remove the bayonet lug from the sight base), but that just shows how little they understand their own gun control bills. Since then, the US Supreme Court ruled that government doesn’t have the authority to ban guns (2008 Heller v DC), so it’s now not much more than an emotional political argument to bash republicans with.
Something not mentioned in the article, is the number of guns with no paper trail.
Back in the old days, there were at least one or two books on how to make your own AR-15 (not assemble, but make the parts yourself). I think I’ve got one of the books around here somewhere, and the end result of following the instructions in that book is a crude version of the AR-15 in 9mm.
Things changed at some point. Rather than just going to a store and buying an AR-15 (or being one of the rare few who cobbled together a crude copy from instructions in a book), people began buying just the lower receiver from a licensed dealer, then buying the rest of the parts from other sources and assembling it themselves. Other people went to Harbor Freight and bought mini-mills, modified them, then used them to make the lower receivers, instead of buying one. This eventually led to the current market for 80% receivers, which can be finished without the expense of buying a mill.
It’s likely that rather than a ban resulting in a small reduction in the number of guns, it could result in the number of guns increasing, as people take ‘civil disobedience’ one step farther and make more of them. Who can even guess how many unmachined forgings and unfinished 80% receivers are currently sitting on shelves in home shops, waiting for their owners to find an excuse to spend the time to finish them?
just wait until 3d sinter printers spitting out open source Aluminium Lowers…