1) When you recommend the gun control measures of places like Australia (for example) without qualification, as James does in that post and has before, you are threatening confiscation of guns from private citizens. That's an important part of what Australia (for example) did.
You do realise that in Australia, it was a voluntary gun buy back scheme, yes?
And those who wished to keep their guns, had to obtain a license to do so, which meant mental health checks and criminal history checks and also checks to make sure they were not dangerous or committed crimes like domestic violence.
To wit, it did not involve police checking every household for guns to confiscate them, which is what so many people seem to believe happened when they allude to the 'gun confiscation' of 1996 and 2003.
Most importantly, the general public in all States and Territories demanded that something be done, because we had had several mass shootings and many of those members of the public were gun owners. The situation had become bad enough that action needed to be taken and the existing gun laws that were in place were not enough. To wit, the Government acted because the people demanded they act.
There are still some 200,000 or so 'grey' guns in circulation - by which I mean guns that are not registered and their owners refused to turn them in for cash during the buyback and keep in mind that our population is over 20 million. They crop up here and there, usually when a crime is committed. But aside from those, guns can still be acquired here legally. In fact, shooting is a popular sport here, be it sports shooting or hunting. Just not guns that can kill multiple people as quickly as the person can pull the trigger. And to obtain a firearm requires police checks, by which they extensively check your criminal history, medical history and question the people you work with and live with, to make sure you are not a criminal or have a criminal record and also to make sure that you are mentally stable and not violent.
2) When you advocate gun control measures adequate for preventing by force some large fraction of gun suicides in the US, you are threatening confiscation of guns from private citizens - there isn't any other realistic way to involuntarily separate a potential suicide from their gun, in the US.
Because that basic situation - minus the comical jackboots and door to door and so forth ( the police would be normally dressed no doubt, and one's delivery of their newly illegal firearms to a central location requested) - is pretty much what you and the rest of the deadlockers are threatening, when you set out to prevent a significant fraction of suicides by gun via government enforced reduction in gun prevalence. For example. That's #2 in the list above. It's what was done in Australia, as James posted - #1 in the list above.
The Government in Australia did not advocate for gun control measures and did not implement the gun buyback scheme to prevent or reduce suicide - ie I never heard John Howard promote the gun buyback scheme to reduce suicide rates. The reduction in suicide numbers was noticed
after around one million guns were removed from circulation with the gun buyback scheme. Studies were then conducted and a connection was then made.
So no, not only did James not say that, but the Australian Government did not say that at the time back in the lead up to the 1996 gun buyback scheme. In other words, it is not what was done in Australia, as James posted in - #1 in your list above. At all. Perhaps you should read what he said again and understand the history and context of your argument.
3) When you advocate gun control measures to deal with the great majority of gun deaths in the US, using numbers such as 30k per year or more than are killed by cars or a 1% chance of the average citizen falling victim, you are advocating gun control measures designed and enforced to prevent gun suicide - the large majority of these gun deaths of which you are specifically advocating reduction via governmental control of the guns involved. See 2) above.
Or perhaps it is advocating for less suicide and less murders.
And your #2 was inherently wrong to begin with when one takes your second statement about #2 into consideration (see above).
And interestingly, death rates by guns cannot really be studied in the US. I wonder why that is? To wit, no one will ever know the true impact guns have on murder rates and suicide rates, because scientists are denied the right to study it properly. I need to ask, do you agree with preventing scientists from studying this? Because I cannot understand the stance of refusing funding to actually study something that is so intrinsically important in American society.
4) When you emphasize the prevalence of guns among people who want to keep them, their mere presence in the vicinity of people who want them to be present, as a significant causal factor in gun violence and a target of your gun control measures, you are threatening confiscation of guns from private citizens - there is no other realistic way to "control" (meaning: involuntarily reduce) gun prevalence via governmental action.
Let me ask you this. Do you think someone with a history of domestic violence, should be allowed to own a gun? How about someone with a history of mental illness? Do you think checks should be made when acquiring a firearm?
Because that is actually what those dreaded "gun control" advocates want. To make sure that domestic violence abusers and people with mental illness or who have a history of mental illness, not to mention a violent criminal history, should not be allowed to purchase or own a firearm. Do you think this is unreasonable? Yes or no?
The reason for these questions is simple. Domestic violence and having a gun in the house does increase the risk or chance of the victim of the abuse being killed with the gun, even if he or she purchased it for their own protection against their abusers. Mental illness is really a no-brainer. The majority of mass shootings were committed by people who were legally able to purchase firearms despite a history of violent mental illness episodes which a few quick questions or look in their history would have shown. So now go further.. If someone who lives in the house has a propensity for violence or is mentally ill, should firearms be kept in the house or easily accessible to those individuals? Look at Adam Lanza as a prime example. He was severely mentally disturbed and mentally ill, he was unable to adapt to society. Yet guns were freely available to him. Should there be a requirement that guns be kept under lock and key, in such situations, for example?
In Australia, if you own a firearm, it is required that it be kept secure, with the ammunition kept separately and also secure. Do you think this is an unreasonable expectation or wish? Do you think mental, criminal background checks and checks to see if one is prone to violent outburst, is bad if one wishes to own a gun?
5) When you argue for some kind of illiterate reinterpretation of the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, so that (say) only actively called up and enrolled militia members while in the field are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms rather than "the people" specifically designated, or maybe so that "well regulated" no longer means what it meant when written but instead means rigorously restricted and curbed by governmental law, you are threatening confiscation of guns from private citizens.
See, no one outside of the States can really understand this one because we do look at the plain language of the Constitution instead of the many loopholes people have found to increase the types of guns they can own.
But the fear of "confiscation".. When no one has even mentioned that, makes no sense. I think what most gun control advocates want is better background checks and perhaps restricting certain types of weapons for those who believe that a semi-automatic that can shoot 30 rounds, for example, is necessary for personal protection.
I think your best bet is to go with curbing the magazines and their capacity for public consumption.
And better background checks. And I suspect, that is what gun control advocates really want in the US. They are not calling for or advocating confiscation.
But hey, it's better to obsess about "confiscation", because that really helps, even when it isn't even on the table. It reeks of paranoia and yes, does point to the belief that the government is after your guns, when it clearly is not.
