and general control freaks is that so many are so horrendously ignorant of what they're screaming about. We have McCarthy wanting to ban barrel shrouds
We have DeGette, who doesn't even know that magazines can be reloaded...
(you can skip ahead to 2:55 to get to that one)
and other such stupidities. They don't know squat, and I'm convinced that most of them do not WANT to know; all they care about is "These things are icky and dangerous, and I don't want them around!"
Yeah, that's gonna happen.
Connected to the 'magazines go away when they're empty' idea is "They'll all wear out soon, so if there aren't any new ones, they'll all be gone!"
Ok, let's play:
On the actual number of firearms in the US, the number that gets thrown around a lot is somewhere between 250-350,000,000, some go to 400m. And that's probably way low; borrowing from Chris,
It is completely impossible to ban firearms in the United States
There are reportedly 350 million firearms in the U.S. according to FBI
estimates. Actually the number is likely far higher... I'd guess it may
be double that. Guns are durable. I personally own and shoot guns that
are over 100 years old, and which are just as good today as they were
when they were first manufactured. If they're properly stored, or
properly maintained, guns don't "go bad", or even wear out.
...And we make and sell somewhere between 10 and 20 million guns a year,
EVERY YEAR, in the U.S. (the number varies significantly year to year).
You could not possibly seize and destroy them all, or even a significant
percentage of them. And if you tried, you'd end up with a lot of dead
cops, and possibly a populace, and a military, in revolt against the
... and even if "successful" you wouldn't get most of the guns, because people would just hide them.
... and it wouldn't be allowed anyway, because it's against the
constitution; and the supreme court has recently reaffirmed this several
They can't even effectively ban guns in the UK or Japan which have had strict gun control for many years, AND ARE ISLANDS.
Thank you, Chris.
That 1917 I fired the other day? It's 99 years old, and shoots well enough to put some new stuff to shame. I've fired a Trapdoor Springfield that was made in 1884-1885; all original, and it still works flawlessly. Friend collects antique firearms; he's got stuff from the last 1800's that still work quite well*. I've had, or tried out, firearms near or well over a century old that still had all their original parts, and still worked. To get rid of all guns by seizure(which ain't gonna happen) and attrition, well, you're looking at a loooong time. And that would be IF you could prevent people from making them(or just replacement parts) and smuggling them. Which won't work(see Britain and Japan, among others). To even attempt to make such work would destroy any vestige of the US as a free country. For a bunch of the Democrats and progressive Republicans(damn both of them) who like the idea of "We just need to control the common people a bit more" it might seem worth it; the full-out socialists and communists would love it. Until they start being the targets of that 4th Generation Warfare that the Dutchman kept warning people about. And if it hits that point, I don't know how well the US could come back from that.
Throw in the flat-out haters: the people who insist "We need to have a conversation about guns in America!" but all they actually want to do is demand, and insult, and threaten. And then accuse the people they attack of 'being angry' and such. They either don't realize that that crap is NOT going to get the result they want, or they don't care; after all, if you don't agree with them you're a accessory to the murder of kids/uncaring bastard/racist/etc., so your opinion- and in the end, your life- doesn't matter.
So we've got a real fight on our hands to hold off the cake thieves, which isn't easy when so much of the(I started to write 'our media', but it definitely isn't) media is in their pocket.** But I think we can do it. Sooner or later, things like the abuse of traumatized teenagers for political purposes does tend to backfire, for one; for another having a bunch of 'progressives' abusing and threatening tends to blow up in their faces also. We'll see how it goes.
*only reason he doesn't shoot some of them is oddball ammunition. And if you really wanted to shoot them, that problem can be dealt with.
** see, for instance, places like HuffPo insisting 'Fewer people own guns!', despite the fastest growing groups of first-time gun owners being minorities and women.