What Would Happen If Guns Were Banned?

[paravani]

I've been wondering what would happen in this country if our 2nd Amendment rights (see my signature) were repealed.

If we lose our right to keep and bear arms, will that bring the violence in this country to an end?

How much violence IS there in this country, anyway?

Contrary to media reports, statistics show that violent crime has been decreasing over the past twenty years, not increasing. In fact, last year saw fewer murders per capita in the US than in any other year since we started keeping records.

This decrease in violent crime comes at a time when firearms are proliferating in this country. Today, Americans own more hand guns and rifles per capita than anyone else in the world... yet still the per capita rate of violent crime in the US is the lowest it has been in forty years.

Our national murder rate, which peaked at 10.2 murders per 100,000 people in 1980 is now down to 4.7 per 100,000.

After the ban on semi-automatic rifles expired in 2004, there was no significant increase in the murder rate, and it has continued to drop in the eight years since then.

Well, all right then. I guess we aren't becoming more violent.

But if overall rates of violence are decreasing, then maybe we need national gun control because some states are more violent than others?

Would national gun control laws decrease our rates of violence even further?

Let's look at national maps to find the problem areas. Are the states with more firearms and less gun control the problem?

This map shows a state-by-state breakdown of murders per 100,000 people in 2009.

This map shows a state-by-state breakdown of murders per 100,000 people in 2010.

... And this map shows a state-by-state breakdown of murders per 100,000 people in 2011.

Let's look at the green states with low murder rates. Do they have more gun control?

Well, Washington and Oregon are "shall issue", open-carry states where you can legally own a semi-automatic firearm, and carry it in the open while walking down the street. They have lots of guns, including AK47s and AR15s. Yet they have low murder rates, and less overall violence.

Now, let's look at some red and brown states with higher murder rates.

California and Texas have nearly equal rates of murder per capita, yet their gun laws are very different. Texas is very gun-friendly, while California has extremely strict gun control. This is surprising, especially since we are being told that fewer guns will lead to less violence.

One more thing I'd like you to notice: Canada is mint green, while Mexico is red-red-RED, and getting redder every day. The murder rate in Mexico has climbed from 14 per 100,000 to an astounding 24+ per 100,000 in just three years!

Yet, Canada and Mexico BOTH have strict gun-control laws.

Apparently violence isn't directly related to guns or the lack thereof, but to geographic location -- specifically, which states are most heavily influenced by our neighbor to the south.

With Mexican cartels in the news on a daily basis, you may not have realized that guns are severely restricted in Mexico. For an ordinary citizen, options are limited: the largest weapons in Mexico’s single gun store — including semiautomatic rifles — can be bought only by members of the police or the military.

Handgun permits for home protection in Mexico are issued only for calibers .38 and smaller. The mountains of paperwork take months to process, and permits tend to be granted only to the wealthy or politically-connected.

Mexico is, in fact, a model of what gun-control advocates would like to see here in the US.

The Mexican government is also in favor of US gun control legislation. They'd like us to be completely disarmed. Their argument is that most of the guns in Mexico are coming out of the US, so they believe there would be less gun violence in their nation if the US confiscated all our citizens' firearms.

But according to the article Mexico Jumps Into Gun Control Debate, the cartels can and do obtain firearms from a multitude of sources besides the US:

Questions remain, however, on whether gun trafficking or gun control laws are directly to blame for Mexican violence.

George W. Grayson, a Mexico expert at the College of William and Mary, doubts tighter gun control laws in the U.S. will greatly affect violence in Mexico. Cartels, Grayson said, can easily find AK-47s and other assault weapons on the international market – places such as China, France, Brazil and Israel.

“The lion’s share of weapons used by cartels come from the United States, but having said that, if the Virgin of Guadeloupe were to stop the flow of weapons southward it would be a nuisance for the cartels but it certainly would not end the bloodshed,” Grayson said.

So, is the problem that US firearms are being imported into Mexico?

Or is Mexican violence being imported into the US?


There are an estimated 15 million firearms in Mexico, only 5 million of which are legally registered. Our military personnel number less than 1.5 million... so there are ten times as many guns in Mexico as we have armed forces to defend against them.


Looking again at the maps above, what do you think would happen if Americans were disarmed today, with violent and heavily-armed criminal cartels just over our border?


What would be the effect of an "assault-weapons ban" that would restrict American citizens to owning small-caliber handguns and bolt-action rifles, when the criminals to the south are well-armed with automatic and semi-automatic rifles?

Do you believe that the graphs for the next few years would continue to show a decrease nationally in overall murder rates?

-- Paravani

 

[JOSweetHeart]

What would happen if guns were banned? People wold still find a way to get one anyways if they wanted one bad enough.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[paravani]

What would happen if guns were banned? People wold still find a way to get one anyways if they wanted one bad enough.

Law-abiding people would continue to abide by the laws. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed and guns were banned, then law-abiding people would disarm.

The only people who would "still find a way to get one" would be criminals.

My question is, what would happen then? Would gun violence in this country decrease if guns were banned?

-- Paravani

 

[Defiant1]

If guns were banned I would suddenly become a law breaking citizen instead of a law abiding citizen.

 

[paravani]

If guns were banned I would suddenly become a law breaking citizen instead of a law abiding citizen.

Yes, but that wasn't the question.

The question was, do you think that banning guns would actually make this country more peaceful and safer for our children?

Do the maps I've shown give anyone reason to believe that the US would go all green like Canada if guns were banned here?

-- Paravani

 

[there4eyeM]

Of course it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people. So, we should ban stupidity.
That, unfortunately, is even more difficult that banning firearms, so, what to do, since something is obviously necessary.
Perhaps anyone buying a firearm should have to pass a safety instruction course similar to that for a license to drive. This would also provide the occasion for further psychological evaluation.

 

[paravani]

Of course it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people. So, we should ban stupidity.
That, unfortunately, is even more difficult that banning firearms, so, what to do, since something is obviously necessary.
Perhaps anyone buying a firearm should have to pass a safety instruction course similar to that for a license to drive. This would also provide the occasion for further psychological evaluation.

I'd like to point out that the shooter at Sandy Hook was NOT a legal gun owner. The firearms he used were STOLEN.

No amount of increased regulation or "psychological evaluation" will prevent crazies from stealing weapons. If they can't steal guns, they'll steal knives, baseball bats, bows and arrows...

But that's beside the point. The question is NOT "What's the problem -- people or guns?" The question is:

What would most likely happen if all law-abiding citizens in the US turned in their firearms? Would the nation see less gun violence?

Is there some reason that no one wants to make a stab at answering the question?

-- Paravani

 

[Swagger]

Canada? Mexico?! Don't pull your punches, Paravani. Quote UK statistics, which prove beyond all doubt that once you ban guns - especially self-loading handguns - crime involving guns rises at a meteoric rate. Almost overnight.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What would happen? There would be a black market the likes of when the government banned allcohol. Gun smiths would go underground the same as illegal drug manufactruers have. People would attain guns anyway, and likely lash out more often with violent force at law enforcement.

People would make ammo and guns all the same. only the govt. would spend ridiculous amounts of money on the "War on Firearms" which would end never...and it would fail.

 

[there4eyeM]

Of course it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people. So, we should ban stupidity.
That, unfortunately, is even more difficult that banning firearms, so, what to do, since something is obviously necessary.
Perhaps anyone buying a firearm should have to pass a safety instruction course similar to that for a license to drive. This would also provide the occasion for further psychological evaluation.

I'd like to point out that the shooter at Sandy Hook was NOT a legal gun owner. The firearms he used were STOLEN.

No amount of increased regulation or "psychological evaluation" will prevent crazies from stealing weapons. If they can't steal guns, they'll steal knives, baseball bats, bows and arrows...

But that's beside the point. The question is NOT "What's the problem -- people or guns?" The question is:

What would most likely happen if all law-abiding citizens in the US turned in their firearms? Would the nation see less gun violence?

Is there some reason that no one wants to make a stab at answering the question?

-- Paravani

Given that broad definition, yes, there would be fewer incidents involving firearms of course.

 

[Connery]

What would happen if guns were banned? People wold still find a way to get one anyways if they wanted one bad enough.

Law-abiding people would continue to abide by the laws. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed and guns were banned, then law-abiding people would disarm.

The only people who would "still find a way to get one" would be criminals.

My question is, what would happen then? Would gun violence in this country decrease if guns were banned?

-- Paravani

I believe it would. Theoretically, if there is no one to shoot back there would be no reason to shoot in the first place. While the use of the gun would be used in the commission of a crime I do not believe that random or arbitrary gun violence would occur.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What would happen if guns were banned? People wold still find a way to get one anyways if they wanted one bad enough.

Law-abiding people would continue to abide by the laws. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed and guns were banned, then law-abiding people would disarm.

The only people who would "still find a way to get one" would be criminals.

My question is, what would happen then? Would gun violence in this country decrease if guns were banned?

-- Paravani

I believe the answer was provided by Stuart Varney, British economic journalist, who reported that England, sans gun ownership, has five times the burglary/break=ins that the US has, as felons have no fear of what is behind the door they are kicking in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If guns were banned I would suddenly become a law breaking citizen instead of a law abiding citizen.

Here in NY, über-Liberal governor Andrew Cuomo just rammed through a bill that makes 7 bullets in a clip the maximum allowed.

....if one has a clip of higher capacity, filling the clip makes one a criminal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people. So, we should ban stupidity.
That, unfortunately, is even more difficult that banning firearms, so, what to do, since something is obviously necessary.
Perhaps anyone buying a firearm should have to pass a safety instruction course similar to that for a license to drive. This would also provide the occasion for further psychological evaluation.

"So, we should ban stupidity."

And, smarty....then what to do with all the unemployed Democrats??

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Keep in mind that the U.S. government is a rarity in the world in one interesting way: it was established before the population was disarmed. So, as a practical matter, banning firearms here would be about as effective as banning alcohol.

Instead, the people should focus on making sure that only qualified - and sane - people get their hands on these things legally.

 

[paravani]

Keep in mind that the U.S. government is a rarity in the world in one interesting way: it was established before the population was disarmed. So, as a practical matter, banning firearms here would be about as effective as banning alcohol.

Instead, the people should focus on making sure that only qualified - and sane - people get their hands on these things legally.

Like THESE people?

ATF’s Fast and Furious scandal

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels. The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers. During Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest "gunwalking" probe, the ATF supplied and monitored the sale of over 2,000 firearms, of which only 700 were recovered as of October 20, 2011. A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.

(text in italics is mine, added for clarity)

Plan to Let Drug Cartels Buy Guns in U.S. Approved at ‘Highest Levels' of DOJ

Instead of trying to stop the flow of weapons from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels, the Obama administration’s “Operation Fast and Furious” deliberately allowed it to happen. Moreover, “This shift in strategy was known and authorized at the highest levels of the Justice Department,” says a report by congressional staffers.

“Through both the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona and ‘Main Justice’ headquarters in Washington, D.C., the Department closely monitored and supervised the activities of the ATF,” the report says.

... ATF agents who complained about the recklessness of allowing cartel associates to buy guns in Arizona were reprimanded, the congressional report said.

... Two of the guns purchased by cartel associates were found at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent’s murder in December.

I'm thinking that supplying arms to the enemy, while at the same time attempting to disarm the American people who could be defending our nation against that same enemy, is pretty much the textbook definition of TREASON.

What say you?

-- Paravani

 

[sparky]

What say you?

I say you would most likey be a Gitmos subject under the now decade old treason of the patriot act Paravani...

~S~

 

[paravani]

What say you?

I say you would most likey be a Gitmos subject under the now decade old treason of the patriot act Paravani...

~S~

Let's give a big hand to this illiterate felon who currently resides in a federal penitentiary! He's locked away for a long, long time, but at least he's trying to participate in society and influence our political process online.




Now, how about we hear from someone who ISN'T incarcerated?

-- Paravani

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Keep in mind that the U.S. government is a rarity in the world in one interesting way: it was established before the population was disarmed. So, as a practical matter, banning firearms here would be about as effective as banning alcohol.

Instead, the people should focus on making sure that only qualified - and sane - people get their hands on these things legally.

Like THESE people?

ATF’s Fast and Furious scandal

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels. The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers. During Operation Fast and Furious, by far the largest "gunwalking" probe, the ATF supplied and monitored the sale of over 2,000 firearms, of which only 700 were recovered as of October 20, 2011. A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures have been arrested.

(text in italics is mine, added for clarity)

Plan to Let Drug Cartels Buy Guns in U.S. Approved at ‘Highest Levels' of DOJ

Instead of trying to stop the flow of weapons from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels, the Obama administration’s “Operation Fast and Furious” deliberately allowed it to happen. Moreover, “This shift in strategy was known and authorized at the highest levels of the Justice Department,” says a report by congressional staffers.

“Through both the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona and ‘Main Justice’ headquarters in Washington, D.C., the Department closely monitored and supervised the activities of the ATF,” the report says.

... ATF agents who complained about the recklessness of allowing cartel associates to buy guns in Arizona were reprimanded, the congressional report said.

... Two of the guns purchased by cartel associates were found at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent’s murder in December.

I'm thinking that supplying arms to the enemy, while at the same time attempting to disarm the American people who could be defending our nation against that same enemy, is pretty much the textbook definition of TREASON.

What say you?

-- Paravani

The whole F&F plan was stupid. However, it doesn't have anything to do with disarming Americans who are sane, law-abiding, and responsible enough to have firearms.

 

[paravani]

The whole F&F plan was stupid. However, it doesn't have anything to do with disarming Americans who are sane, law-abiding, and responsible enough to have firearms.

Knowingly supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels through previously-identified straw buyers was not just stupid but also most certainly illegal. I believe that it does fit the definition of "treason", as well.

The fact that the very same government does indeed appear to be contemplating widespread disarmament of law-abiding Americans is not insignificant. Our right to keep and bear firearms, let us remember, is strongly upheld by our Constitution as a right "not to be infringed".

Yet it is the SAME administration -- not a different one, but the SAME one that allowed Mexican drug cartels to buy weapons through straw purchasers! -- which is now attempting to disarm Americans, or at least make sure that we don't have effective military weaponry to defend ourselves against the cartels.

And make no mistake, those criminal cartels have invaded American soil. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have all reported the widespread encroachment of the criminal drug cartels into their states.

Arizona has posted signs warning travelers on their highways that the southern part of their state is not safe.

Texans report that Los Zetas are committing mass murders in their state, burying headless corpses in mass graves.

I sound like a tin-foil-hat, ultra-right conservative, don't I?

In fact, I'm a liberal Democrat. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket all of my adult life, because I've always viewed the Democratic party as the one that upholds our freedoms. Democrats have traditionally protected our civil and Constitutional rights to be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion; to be free of governmental intrusion into our privacy and health decisions; to be free of government-sponsored religion.

I voted TWICE for the current Administration.

I'm not posting on this thread out of some brainwashed ideology. I'm posting because this is the evidence I've found, and this seems to be the only logical way it fits together.

And I don't like the conclusions I've been forced to draw one bit.

-- Paravani