09-17-2017, 10:59 PM
stanc Wrote:It doesn't seem like it's a matter of choice. Judging by history -- not just in this country, but others (Australia, for instance) -- it's a matter of when, not if.
.
On this we can agree. A government ban on firearms would take longer in a country where individual firearm ownership is enshrined in the constitution, and possibly not in our lifetime but it may be the case. Depends on a lot of things, like whether the country is sucked into another serious or even world war. That would prevent it. Depends also on the misuse statistics and any trends there. More than likely the military-style semi-auto's will go and any other guns that lend themselves to human carnage. Bolt guns will never be banned from those owning rural property. A lot more expectation on the authorities to keep people safe as the criminals hang on to their weapons. A lot of people jumping up and down believing the fabric of society is going to be shattered but after the ban life goes on.
The idea of mandatory suppressors on all guns however is fantasy. Not only does it requires all stakeholders to be enthusiastic it would be arguably logistically impossible. The sheer numbers requiring suppression. There would be exceptions; concealed carry permits, Olympic shooters, antique firearms, guns which require a replacement barrel to extend past the frame or furniture, etc. It may be the case at certain rifle ranges in built-up areas, or certain hunting areas but that would be about it. Suppressors represent anathema to the authorities and that's where this debate ends.