Bob Ellis offers a modest proposal to stop mad young American men from acquiring, and using guns on their fellow humans.
“There are so many questions to be answered,” CNN keeps telling us — but there is only one, really.
It is: how do we stop mad young men from acquiring, and using guns on humans?
That Adam Lanza was autistic, a child of divorce, mathematically brilliant, scorned by his brother and father, nagged by his mother, or incompetent with girls doesn’t matter. It matters only that he was mad for a while and got three guns and used them. He wasn’t going to be cured easily, or prevented easily from doing what he did. He failed to buy a gun, and used his mother’s three guns. There were locking systems in the school, but he smashed his way in, or got in early.
What is to be done?
Well, there is a solution. Most gun-murders are by males under twenty-six, and gun-suicides too. If any male under twenty-six found with a gun were arrested and put in gaol for six months, the number of grieving, shattered Americans would come down by a million, and the number of American gunshot victims come down by twenty-two thousand a year.
It would cost almost nothing to implement. The alternatives, putting a hit squad of marines in every school, and counselling round the clock the fifty thousand traumatised survivors of gun murder every year, would cost ten billion dollars per annum. This might cost a hundred thousand.
There is a precedent for this. It’s the law forbidding anyone under eighteen to drive a car. A car is a dangerous weapon, and you have to be old enough to handle it. And you have to pass a lot of tests to allow you to have one.
A gun is also a dangerous weapon. And it is proved that males under twenty-six are the ones who do eighty percent of the gun murders in America.
It is not true of females, and they should be allowed to acquire guns for protection if they like, so should householders aged over twenty-six, or adult men who want to protect their children. And schoolmistresses, and the rest of them.
But the core group of probable assailants should not. They can go to rifle clubs if they want. But they can’t carry guns, or own them.
They should be given three months to hand them back, and be paid the value of them by the police.
And soon there will be five thousand, not thirty thousand, deaths by gunfire annually in America. And half a million fewer survivors, grieving, maimed, made mad and arming themselves against the next assault.
It’s an obvious answer, like the age limit on drinking, or the alcohol limit on drinking and driving.
Ninety-two percent of Americans would support it, and it could be passed as a law by the end of February.
Without it, the present inferno will continue, and many more good people will die.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License










13 Comments
Not sure about your solution there Bob, it’s an idea & anyway buggered if I know what would stop the gun lunacy in the US
this is so stunningly devoid of merit that it has to be a joke… the solution lies with greater testing of the phrase “a well regulated militia” in the second amendment. To my knowledge there is only 1 US Supreme Court decision that holds this to mean arming the general population with military weapons is analagous to a “well regulated militia”.
Also the phrase “being necessary to the security of a free state” can be tested to see if it applies to individual applications for household defense – which is the purpose for which most guns are purchased, is the purpose for which most guns involved in homicide are purchased, and is the place (ie the home) from which most spree killers obtain their – predominantly legal – weapons.
Next time include a punchline. This particular gag didn’t work.
I’d like to meet one of the ‘fifty thousand traumatised survivors of gun murder’ ha ha. sorry, being wicked.
Bob makes sense.
Well, call me simple, but I thought Bob’s idea was worthy of consideration.
Make the gun maufacturers financially liable for damages caused by legally acquired guns.
I’m not sure what the point of this article is. Is it just an irony piece along with the wash of pointless ideas about what the US government should do to reduce mass murders in schools. Sorry to disappoint you but the US Government is in the business of recruiting children to be gunman. Cant see them changing their stance. http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-s-child-soldiers-us-military-recruiting-children-to-serve-in-the-armed-forces/11210
I think it’s great idea! No different to age regulated driving licenses!
A blogger somewhere suggested no limits on gun ownership but pricing bullets at $100 each. Feasible, or are bullets too easily made by amateurs?
profecto, yes you can buy cheap kits to make your own ammo, and just buy the raw ingredients – bullets, cases, primer & powder.
And while Bobs idea has an elegantly simple logic, it will never happen with the Republicans running the upper house.
While a ban on assault rifles is possible, there will never be a buyback scheme, there are so many out there that it would cripple an already weak US economy.
So I fear this will continue for decades even if they ban assault rifles. People will simply hide them.
It’s just a little concerning that the NSW Shooter’s Party may lead us down the same path as the US with their gun laws. On SMH’s website they had a story on gun control and the following sentence: ‘Diana Melham, who represents the Sporting Shooters on the (Firearms Consultative) Committee, boasted on the association’s website in October that the state government had been rolled on tighter gun laws”
Who voted these clowns in and should the public stand by and allow a political party that is pro-guns try do undo the gun control laws we have here?
Profecto; I think it was actually Chris Rock in a stand up show years ago. He said “Make bullets $5000 each, then there’d be no more innocent bystanders.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw Good show.
Personally I think that Bob’s idea is one of the better I’ve heard. The1clam clearly doesn’t get it.
The1Clam, the second amendment was written with the goal of keeping a well armed populace so as they have the ability to resist a well armed militia, resulting in the security of a free state. This is because they had very recently, as an armed populace, fought a war of independence against a well armed militia.
As to if this has any merit today, in the age of laser guided tactical nuclear warheads and extremely low frequency crowd control devices… That’s another issue.
Research reveals that subsequent to indiscriminate shootings, the government moves, by legislation, to disarm the entire population. Offering the United States as a telling example, the passing of the Patriot Act threatens the freedoms of the entire nation. Were these attacks part of a monstrous plan? Any abuses of the Australian government against the democratic system can easily leave us vulnerable against the establishment of a civil force to deny any form of lawful appeal. Have these incidents been planned to implement a police state? This draconian international development does not auger well for a democratic future.