I think if one looks at places like Australia and Britain
Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:44am

where the populace has been successfully disarmed (for the most part), the method used has been incremental rather than being done in one fell swoop.

Relatively small changes made over a period of time with the population given time between each change to get used to the new status quo before moving on to the next change.

I think a rapid movement towards banning would certainly have the effect you predict.

But let's look at a more incremental model say the Clinton-era "assault weapons ban" had been a permanent law rather then set to expire after a decade? Instead of having it lapse, after a few years in effect the lawmakers who wrote it would be looking to 'improve' upon it. Adding more features to classify a weapon as prohibited for sale. Perhaps following the California model and saying that having a detatchable magazine itself makes a rifle an 'assault weapon'. Perhaps after 10 or 15 years moving towards banning the possession of those 'high capacity' magazines that the sale of which had been banned for so long already anyway. After all... fewer and fewer people were left in possession of them anyway to object. And once you gradually reduce the number of people who are left owning an object, then confiscation pisses off a much smaller portion of the populace. And especially if you combine it with a media campaign (propaganda really) demonizing "assault weapons" and telling everyone who will listen that they have NO PURPOSE other than to kill lots of people. And loudly repeat over and over that nobody ever "needs" such a device... thus marking as extreme anyone who has the temerity to object.

  • ...compliance with outright bans, even of specific weapons, will not reach two-digit percentages. This leaves the very real question you ask: what then? If >90% of US gun owners refuse to comply (and ... more
    • I'm inclined to agree... on all counts.Sia☺giah, Thu Oct 12 7:16pm
      American gun owners will, by and large, NEVER surrender their guns and consider it "just cause" to rebel against our government... Plus, the government typically uses idiotic "smart terminology" too... more
    • instead of the republican weaponization of national manufacturers. If they nationalize, they can seize. I can think of no better future than for this government to seize. Gridlock ain't good enough.... more
      • And many manufacturers aren't in the US, so seizure is impossible (or at least a hell of a lot harder than, say, smuggling). Again, 3D printing advances will very shortly make any attempt to ban all... more
        • Seize my alternate definition for this government, Or cacastocracy. 3-D printing will do for "weapons" what social media did for truth and trust. Is there a better place to commit murder from than... more
    • I think if one looks at places like Australia and Britain — Sprout, Tue Oct 10 11:44am