Getting rid of access to guns will not happen because of the 2nd amendment. Changing prosecutorial discretion when it comes to gun charges would be far easier.
20% of 494 million is 98,800,000. So we would have to run the equivalent of the Australian program 152 times (!) to have the same level of impact.
On top of that, we don’t have the facilities to collect and destroy weapons on that scale. We don’t have the personnel or the disposal space, and the track record we DO have on gun confiscations, well, it’s less than stellar:
“Hundreds of towns and cities have turned to a growing industry that offers to destroy guns used in crimes, surrendered in buybacks or replaced by police force upgrades. But these communities are in fact fueling a secondary arms market, where weapons slated for destruction are recycled into civilian hands, often with no background check required, according to interviews and a review of gun disposal contracts, patent records and online listings for firearms parts.”
Yep, Australia had less guns in civ hands that most states that have strong gun laws. It’s a joke when people try and act like a buy back would work…and if it’s a forced one, well good luck finding the law enforcement to go do that and be willing to do so.
Getting rid of access to guns will not happen because of the 2nd amendment. Changing prosecutorial discretion when it comes to gun charges would be far easier.
Even if the 2nd disappeared today, there are 450+ million firearms in civ hands… criminals will not be the ones turning them in.
Oh, most definitely. Typically in threads like this someone pulls the “Buh, buh, Australia…” card without realizing the scale of the problem.
In '96/'97 Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. It was about 20% of all available guns in the country:
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
Here’s an estimate of 494 million guns in the US:
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/
20% of 494 million is 98,800,000. So we would have to run the equivalent of the Australian program 152 times (!) to have the same level of impact.
On top of that, we don’t have the facilities to collect and destroy weapons on that scale. We don’t have the personnel or the disposal space, and the track record we DO have on gun confiscations, well, it’s less than stellar:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/us/guns-disposal-recycling.html
“Hundreds of towns and cities have turned to a growing industry that offers to destroy guns used in crimes, surrendered in buybacks or replaced by police force upgrades. But these communities are in fact fueling a secondary arms market, where weapons slated for destruction are recycled into civilian hands, often with no background check required, according to interviews and a review of gun disposal contracts, patent records and online listings for firearms parts.”
Yep, Australia had less guns in civ hands that most states that have strong gun laws. It’s a joke when people try and act like a buy back would work…and if it’s a forced one, well good luck finding the law enforcement to go do that and be willing to do so.
“Hey, let’s go door to door looking for armed people so we can take their guns! What could possibly go wrong??!?!”