A modest proposal for Left wingers.....
- Thread starter Stone
- Start date
Back to the Stone Age, eh?
Always.......
LOL
Sooooooo,.....would you not all agree that in any bad situation it is normal and correct to fix the worst of it FIRST,....then proceed on to the rest? I mean,....if you have a leaky boat surely you would patch the hole where most of the water is coming in first and then proceed on to the tiny pinhole right? Yes,....of course I am right.
Sooooooooooo,...here is where I am going with this. Lets pretend that some day you do in fact get your long sought after wish of taking our guns away,....going door to door,.....taking them as you go. Wouldnt it make MUCH MORE sense to grab up all the guns from the absolute worst crime areas in the nation first and then work your way backward. This way we save more lives,...MANY MORE LIVES.
Wouldnt be hard to figure out where to go either. Simply pull up the FBI's stats on Gun violence and where it is happening most and have at it. Remember,....the goal is to save as many lives as possible. In this way my idea is really the ONLY way to achieve that.
Agreed?
You will be starting in the Cabrini-Green area of Chicago. Should be an interesting time for you with excitement a plenty.If my math skills are correct I would think you would be getting around to my area,...ohhhhhhhhhhh,.....sometime in around 2078, 2079 or so.
Remember,....the goal is to SAVE LIVES. Logic would dictate that you would want to go the the areas losing the most life first. Any other way would not be logical and if it is not logical you dont have a chance in hell of passing legislation. Good luck........
There's no plan for taking guns away. Our approach has been to grandfather existing guns and simply to block new imports and manufacture. For example, even when the "assault weapons ban" was in effect, pre-ban assault weapons could be owned, bought, and sold.
It's similar to our approach with cars. When seatbelts were mandated, we didn't go door-to-door confiscating cars without seatbelts. We just said that any new cars made here, or imported, had to have seatbelts. And it's the same with products taken off the market for being too dangerous. When lawn darts were banned in 1988, those who already had them kept them. No attempt was made to seize them.
Now, to your point, the way that kind of ban on new guns would play out actually would tend to take them away from poorer places first. Take a look at who owns cars without seatbelts today. They're expensive collector items from a by-gone era. You won't find many rolling down the streets of a poor neighborhood in an inner city. They're sitting in museums, or owned by wealthy old dudes who don't drive them much. If you were to ban new manufacture or import of categories of guns, something similar would happen over time: their price would rise, and so they'd tend to accumulate in the hands of museums, collectors, and wealthy old dudes.
Throw in gun buy-backs, mistreated guns slowly falling apart, and the seizure of guns used in crimes, and there'd be a gradual emptying out of the poorest and most crime-prone areas of those guns. And it would eventually benefit from a self-reinforcing cycle -- when guns became less common in those areas, there'd be less demand for them even from criminals (in places with few guns, like Japan, criminals generally don't bother trying to get their hands on guns, because their rivals don't have them). That would further decrease gun prevalence there, and so on.
It would be a slow process, but over a generation it would make a gigantic difference.