My point in mentioning the Australian confiscation was to emphasize the point that it won't work here. Number of citizens and numbers of guns is completely different there than here. Australia had about 70% compliance and estimates now indicate there are around 3,000,000 guns there. If in the U.S. we got 95% compliance there would still be more guns in civilian hands then there were in Australia pre-confiscation.
Why are registration requirements met with such low levels of compliance, when the registration is mandatory?
But in the U.S. 70% would leave somewhere around 90,000,000 guns in the hands of 30,000,000 of the most fanatical. And that doesn't account for the additional millions being held by the criminal element. When the 70% is not a high enough compliance rate do "they" then go door to door?
Probably not, they are way out numbered, there are only 425,000 active Law Enforcement Officers in the U.S., to go up against 30,000,000 non-compliant citizens.
Regardless of whether that's true registration doesn't usually lead to shootouts between the police and gun owners.
The gun death rate would go down a lot but the US would probably still have a higher gun death rate than most developed countries. A very significant number of lives would be saved.
Incorrect. People who are armed are more likely to be shot. Read it and weep: "After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Individuals who were in possession of a gun were also 4.23 (95% CI = 1.19, 15.13) times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 (95% CI = 1.01, 29.92) times more likely to be shot." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
yes and no Federal government 1) was never properly given any gun control power 2) second amendment-a negative right-reinforces #1/ 3) only after was this "power discovered" does the second amendment actually have to operate State Governments 1) had all sorts of police powers-such as banning concealed carry, hunting on Sunday, discharging firearms within municipal limits, carrying guns in governmental offices etc and (while this violated almost every state constitution) banning some guns 2) then comes incorporation of the second meaning the courts will have to do a balancing test
as Inspector Harry Callahan noted-=there's nothing wrong with (cops) shooting people, as LONG as the RIGHT people get shot!!
Was the so-called "study" even read on the part of yourself prior to it being presented for consideration? It is doubtful, otherwise such would not have been presented for consideration to begin with. The so-called "study" admits that significant percentages of those who were analyzed and investigated, were involved with and engaged in illegal behavior. This is just another rehash of the long-discredited work by Arthur Kellermann, who used the actions of criminals as the entire basis for his own work, in a deliberate exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
