Friday, December 14, 2012

Could Guns Really Be Effectively Banned in America?

In this post, I will not discuss the very strong libertarian philosophical arguments as to why individuals should be allowed to carry guns. Instead, I want to take a look at the practical issue.

Suppose Congress passed legislation that banned all guns. Legislation so strong that it required that all guns be turned in. There are 285 million guns in the United States. I wonder how many of those guns would be turned in.

The most conscientious law abiding citizens might turn them in, but the bad guys won't. So that means bad guys will have even more of an edge. If they want to rob, they are going to know their upstanding citizen/prospective-victim walking down the street is most likely unarmed.

A ban on guns is really legislation that helps out the bad guys. It is the equivalent of a TSA policy that would allow no one to carry guns on board a plane---other than terrorists. Even the TSA isn't that nuts.

I wonder, if people calling for a ban on guns have really thought out their position. It just doesn't make sense. Guns won't be effectively banned---only guns owned by the good people will be turned in.

And, of course, anything less than a full ban will make for even greater problems. Gun control programs won't stop the determined from getting guns. The shooter, Adam Lanza , in the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, simply grabbed the guns properly  registered in his mother's name. How did that deterrent work out?

If a "full ban" were enacted, it would be as easy to buy guns on the black market in any big city as it is now to buy drugs or for illegals to buy fake IDs.

Are the people calling for bans or more controls actually thinking this out?

The only solution for dealing with guns is not gun controls but gun freedom. The shootings at Sandy Hook were in a "gun free" zone. The only ones that observed that law are the dead teachers, not the bad guy, Adam Lanza.

Chicago bans most from carrying guns and yet gun toting gang-bangers shoot it out nearly every night in Rahmaland.

I'm not calling for any policy that calls for schools, or any other public institutions, to be required to handle protection in any certain way. Let each institution choose for itself.

The smart solution, though, to the gun problem is gun freedom. Those who want to carry guns should be allowed to do so, then the bad guys will have to think twice. Right now, about the only time we hear about a bad guy getting caught in the act of a street robbery is when he attempts to rob an FBI agent. The agents nab them because they are carrying. But street robberies turned bad for the robber are so infrequent that the FBI collars make the news. If robbers ran into gun carriers regularly, robberies would plunge.

Bottom line: Those who want to ban guns, or certain types of guns, really aren't thinking things out. The fact of the matter is that bad guys will continue to use guns. The solution isn't screaming at the top of ones lung to ban or control guns. The solution is to find ways to protect oneself against gun carrying bad guys---and that is a lot easier to do if you are free to own and carry any guns you want.

78 comments:

  1. "The solution isn't screaming to ban guns at the top of ones lungs." Like psychopath Mayor Bloomberg, who had a presser with guns on a table demanding more gun control. The irony is that NYC already has gun control laws so strict that a Marine that didn't realize he stepped into Naziland was arrested and now being tried. Psychopath Bloomberg thinks has such a huge ego that he thinks he's able to tell other governments how to run their cities and states and nations. The ultimate irony of all this is that people on Long Island are arming up to defend themselves because the city, the city that Psychopath Bloomie, failed to protect these people.

    I swear, this psychopath has a mentality of a teenage valley girl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can bet that the psychopath Bloomberg himself is carrying, or has the retinue of armed-to-their-teeth guards.

      Delete
    2. Somebody plase check out the dates and names in the following: Probably the 1979's or 1980's, when I lived in The Bronx, some blocks away was the "Happy Paradise Social Club" frequented by hard working Dominican immigrants seeking to dance and socialize with people of similar backgrounds. A jilted Lothario confronted his ex-girlfriend who was working downstairs as the club's cashier. She rejected him. Enraged, he sought out an individual who would rent out a pistol for a few hours or a day, but he was unable to find him. He then went to the nearby gas station, filled up a plastic gallon with gasoline, hurled it at the cashier's booth and ignited it. Eighty plus people died. I passed by the burned out hulk on Southern Blvd a few hundred feet south of 182d Street; a makeshift shrine of flowers, miscellaneous memento's and written missives was assembled in front on the sidewalk. So much for gun control in a very restrictive gun control city, with legislation called the Sullivan Law, enacted in the early 1900's.

      Delete
    3. Gunfree zones equal (are) government (Feinstein, Bloomberg, Pelosi, H Clinton, Obama) sanctioned AND mandated kill zones for deranged killers of and against innocents. And these nuts sure use them!!!

      Delete
    4. Those who want gun control, don't care about the guns, it is the controlof the individual with the intention of making them totally dependant upon the state that is their final aim. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. IF we were to take gun control out to its logical (illogical ) conclusion, we should be yelling about banning cars after every car accident that kills someone. Yet we do not. Builders4The2ndAmendment.com on facebook

      Delete
    5. There are people waiting in the wings for gun control legislation. It will be no different than alcohol prohibition or putting a ban on drugs. Someone will be there waiting to take advantage of the situation

      Delete
    6. The funny think is, it should be obvious how law abiding the population is, for if it was as dangerous and untrustworthy as Bloomberg seems to think, one of the Millions of gun owners would certainly already have shot him.

      Delete
  2. Common sense...dearly lacking in today's society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The shooter, Adam Lanza , in the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, simply grabbed the guns properly registered in his mother's name. How did that deterrent work out?"

    I wonder if Lanza would have committed this crime if his mother did not have a gun lying around. In a world with 100% gun prohibition Lanza would have to put some effort into getting a gun on the black market. This might have been enough of a deterrent to prevent this crime.

    Of course I completely agree with the post that determined criminals would have the advantage in a world with 100% gun prohibition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Determined... heh. You can get all chemicals needed to make high explosives in any Home Depot. You don't even need to know much chemistry, just one simple recipe or another. Pipe bombs are usually deadlier than guns.

      Delete
    2. Dave b read hunger games and tell us why the author of the book whos hometown is sandy hook put in her book the sacrifice of twenty kids focus on the reason not the how

      Delete
    3. "This might have been enough of a deterrent to prevent this crime."

      Yeah, because a sick sociopaths that ends up killing his mother, several teachers and a number of elementary school children was just doing it because he was bored, and not because he was determined to prove a point.

      Like Averros said, plenty of chemicals in the kitchen to build a home made bomb and just blow up the school. Then all the gun control people can demand the banning of kitchen materials and chemicals. Oh wait...

      Delete
    4. Sure, I'll take the bait...

      ..."whew, it's a good thing OJ didn't have a gun, otherwise, his ex-wife might've...oh, wait..."

      Delete
    5. Dave B, you,re over looking the fact that the shooter was able to pull the tigger 20 times on children and 6 times on adults without conscience kicking in. It is my belief such an individual would find a method of murder regardless of gun controls.

      Ironically, the worst mass killing of children, surpassing this by more than 10 was done with dynamite, not a gun. Lanza was going to kill someone in some fashion and all the controls in the world will never deter such an individual.

      The last five mass murders in the US have been committed by young white upper middle class males. Maybe there's a pattern here that needs to be addressed.

      Delete
    6. Strange how this killer didn't use dynamite - oh wait he wouldn't be allowed to have easy access to dynamite. So he picks up a knife instead? Somehow a stabbing spree isn't as efficient as shooting spree as a kill stab is much harder than a kill shot so you waste more time killing just one person.

      I s'pose killers can't be stopped? So if you had a family member ringing you up that's there a killing spree going on you immediately say "well it was nice knowing you goodbye"? Or if you're a gun store owner and a guy is stocking up for a spree you suppose "well no one can stop him so I might as well be the one to make the money"?

      Delete
    7. Gil, if a person really wants dynamite they can find it, it's still made, so it's available. Even easier, a person could find diesel oil and ammonium nitrate and make AMFO commonly used in mining, rock quaries, stump removal, etc. Remember Oklahoma City?

      The rest of post is unsupported ad hominem hyperbola. Come on, any normal person if presented with knowledge that a crime was about to be committed WOULD notify authorities. Adam Lanza broke at least broke at least 3 Federal and state laws. This wasn't a guy who legally purchased firearms and went berserk. He STOLE THEM like criminals do.

      Delete
  4. Yep. As in, I agree completely with your analysis. Why doesn't everyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 3 recent shootings all have Holder's handprints all over them. In Portland, OR, he fired 20 to 60 rounds and only hit 3 people??? He obviously realized what he was doing, and what Holder hired him to do was wrong, so stopped shooting people. Obummer wants gun control. What easier way to get it than to shoot some innocent people?? Especially children. Remember Fast & Furious?? THINK, people!!

      Delete
  5. Someone or some group must REALLY want gun control, really badly. Every tragedy like any crisis must be used to advance the cause of gun control. Anyone foolish enough to turn in their firearm when they become illegal or to believe criminals will do their civic duty deserves to live with the result. Just remember gun registration or license allows the government to track them down. Unarmed citizens will be stuck between an armed, militarized police and armed criminals. The TSA has already succeeded in conditioning the sheeple to obey them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you have more guns around more people are going to die ... via accident, via anger, via looneys who want to shoot people. That's just the truth.

    However, it's part of being free. A lot of those arguing for gun control are a mixture of cowards and intellectual elitists.

    Anyway, has anyone forgotten the Osaka school massacre, which took place with a knife:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

    Still, I guess if that psycho in Osaka had had a gun, he'd have killed more kids. That's the truth.

    But at the same time, as you move toward less and less freedom the real threat becomes the state. A state that does things like bombing children overseas in the name of fighting terrorism. The state kills far more people than individuals ever could ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we're going to do some type of utilitarian calculus, then you are right, there will be more looneys and more accidents. But you also have to consider the other side of the equation. Anyone attacking will have guns pointing right back at him as well. So you have to consider both sides of the equation.

      Delete
    2. In fact, the opposite is true. Evidence from a Harvard Law study points to a negative correlation between guns and crime rates such that more firearms actually leads to a reduction in violent crime. Violent crime rates have dropped steadily since 1990, which closely coincides with the 1987 Florida law providing for shall-issue concealed carry permits, the program which would become the model for many other states that have since seen a decline in violent crime rates.

      Delete
    3. "If you have more guns around more people are going to die ... via accident, via anger, via looneys who want to shoot people. That's just the truth."

      Like Wenzel already made clear, gun control is not going to stop those who REALLY want to kill. It WILL however prevent innocents from having a chance to stop someone from killing.

      I should also not that if you use words like "truth" or "fact" you are required to provide the backup for those words, because i for one am not convinced at all that what you said is "truth" or "fact".

      What *is* a well documented fact, is that the greatest massacres in the world happened after a population was disarmed. After all, the state will not disarm itself.

      Delete
    4. Has anyone else read & comprehended HSD buying & stocking up on enough ammo to fight a 7 YEAR war against us NRA, Freedom loving,U.S. CITIZENS~??~
      Someone needs to write a LAW against the Ostrich Complex. Gun by-backs~?~ Those people are sticking their heads in the sand, hoping no "adam lanza" type is in their area. And meantime, the STATE is buying billions of rounds of hollow-point .223 rounds to use in those turned in guns, with your tax-dollars~!!~

      Delete
  7. Don't miss Alex Jones's rant on Obama's fake crying:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2h1QNTQDnoU

    Where is Cal Lightman when you need him?

    ReplyDelete
  8. We should all be familiar with what Edwin Vieira has to say about gun rights, the 2nd Amendment, and a practical plan to reinstitute state militias "necessary for the security of a free state."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_oJmEBZaFE

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wouldn't be surprised if anti-gun groups are behind all this.. These massacres give them enough excuse to carry on their gun prohibition goals

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing would surprise me these days... sad, sad times!

      Delete
    2. Primary anti-gun group... US Government. It is the only one we need be concerned with. It has both the means and the will to forcefully disarm peaceful gun owners.

      Delete
    3. Let's have a trial period. Start with Obama and his protection and all of Congress for one year and see how this goes. Then we'll take another look at it.

      Delete
    4. Hold them without bail in Gitmo and have the trials there.

      Delete
    5. If functional gun-control doesn't follow from the Connecticut incident, I predict another, more deadly, false flag incident. Although a lot of sheep support the effort, the powers that are actively pushing gun-control could care less about human life (except for the higher value of children). They know the average American must be disarmed before thier central core ideas an be forces on the citizenry.

      Delete
  10. Never happen..... Many, Many More people that don't talk about it than do.. this is like everything else, the loud mouths are all a person hears on this subject...the loudmouths are typically a very, very small minority, but they'd have you believe otherwise....but it aint true

    ReplyDelete
  11. First of all. Remember the million man march? You would have around 5,000,000 people locked and loaded going to congress.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have to agree with averros above. I'll take Bloomberg and Obama (who hinted at gun control yesterday) seriously when they dismiss their own heavily armed protectors.

    Here in the UK our handguns were taken after the Dunblane massacre, perpetrated by a friend of policemen and politicians. (Many of the files on the killer have been placed under a 100 year secrecy order.)

    Our handguns were taken in 1997/8. In the four years afterward, gun crime more than doubled.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/gun_crime_01_02/html/crime_97_02.stm

    The ban didn't affect, not in the slightest, the ability of criminals to get guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I may be wrong, but I think in the UK people have always been subjects. Here in America we are citizens and we keep our guns mainly to avoid becoming subjects.

      Delete
  13. What's striking is how the MSM never ever mentions the fact that almost without fail ALL of the shooting incidents in the US involved individuals who were on psychiatric drugs!!! Even James Holmes who perpetrated the Batman movie massacre in Colorado was on Luvov, a drug known to relieve the user of feeling and empathy towards others. Of course, no mention is made of these things because there are billions in sales that ride on the continued fantasy that drugs like Luvov and Prozac are safe. My feeling is that there is a deeper agenda here since the government has been trying for years to get guns out of the hands of the general population. Here is a link to an article by Jon Rapaport on the link between school shootings and psychiatric drugs http://tinyurl.com/cqapm4x.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Apologies. James Holmes was apparently on Scopolamine not Luvov.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I find it interesting that a lot of these horrifying massacres are taking place under the Obama regime.

    Also, this happened mere days after a court overthrew Illinois' ban on concealed weapon carrying, and also in the same month as the NFL player shooting.

    See a pattern? I'm usually not one for conspiracies, but i find it all really convenient how these tragedies are happening under a REALLY anti-gun regime, where there are more and more freedom-oriented movements propping up, and when the economy is in the toilet.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, fortunately not as long as there's a black market to supply customer wants, albeit at a premium. It's human nature to want something even more when its prohibited.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Of course the congress would not outright ban guns, but how about exorbitant taxing, insurance, mandatory safety lessons( think bureaucracy, not training in handling), etc.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And just wait till 3D printing becomes widespread. Try stopping guns from getting to criminals when they can just "print" out the parts and assemble it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bullets will then be their weak link.

      Delete
  19. Do these tragedies always or mostly happen in gun control or gun free zones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes...yes, they do.

      Is that a coincidence, or a pattern? I would suggest that it's a pattern, because the perp is aware that he is operating in a gun-free zone, and will take advantage of that fact. Those perps may be devious, but they're not THAT dumb. They almost always operate where the likelihood of reprisal is low. If there was a significant chance that their target area was occupied by a dozen trained gunners, their plans would change to a new target.

      Delete
    2. Tacticians, in planning military operations, label areas, where they can do the most execution with the least risk, Kill Zones. Likewise with psychopaths.

      Delete
  20. ...but there was a sign "Drug Free Zone, Gun Free Zone". I guess he just did not see it. We must have a bigger sign, as big as this country for all of us to see. Let us have a tattoo on our arms to remind us to never forget. We just need the will to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There are also those 3D printers that can supposedly make guns. How are the gun control hemorrhoids (like govt, they won't go away) gonna deal with that?

    ReplyDelete
  22. In this case the gun control argument may be blunted by...gun control. Connecticut has some very tough gun control laws which certainly would have prevented this person from legally obtaining a firearm. Lanza was not even old enough to legally own a gun in Connecticut for example. Adding to the problem for gun control advocates is the fact that the Connecticut legislature has been run by the democrat party for as long as anyone can remember. Want to blame lack of gun control for these deaths? Gun control advocates will have to blame laws passed by some of the most left leaning democrats in the nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right according the Brady campaign website Connecticut has the 5th most stringent gun laws in the country. But gun control is not about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, it's about taking guns away from all of the citizens hands. It effects all one hundred fifty million known gun owners in the country, almost 1/2 of the population. In actuality I suspect the real number is higher than that. There are many people who answer that question negatively who own firearms. We know that since record keeping was enacted there are more than 300 million guns in the publics ownership.

      Gun control a euphemism for gun confiscation, won't stop a committed psycho, we all know that. Has anyone thought or seen the positive correlation of releasing mentally ill people since the early 1980's in an effort to mainstream them with the public and the incidence of psychotic mass murders coming about? Some, not all, I suspect should not have been released or should have been subsequently committed.

      Delete
  23. It could happen but it will take a conscious change in the US population. The constitution would need to be amended and at that point the public will to outlaw will probably be greater than the pro gun voices. Gun and Prison industry will be decimated because fewer guns will lead to fewer murders and crimes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Riiight, sure. So all those people in prison in England and Australia are not in prison in actuality, they're in government security housing, correct?? Sure. When you take out the drug conviction population from the prison numbers, our numbers of incarcerated people are pretty low and rival those of any Westernized nation.

      I suppose you must be taking a snapshot of England and Australia gun crime statistics. However if you look at them year upon year you would find they are rapidly rising. So much so England is debating arming the bobbies in addition to the police Gun Squads they already have.

      Remember when you compare a country like Australia to the U.S. you are comparing a country geographically larger than ours with a population of 25 million verses 300+ million here. It doesn't compare well on many levels. But it's a beautiful country.

      Delete
  24. "Gun and Prison industry will be decimated because fewer guns will lead to fewer murders and crimes"

    Except that in all places where guns are banned violent crime and property crime is skyrocketing - for a very simple reason: criminals don't give a flying fuck about laws. They will have guns. The laws only make their job easier as with decent people having no guns criminals run no risk of acute lead poisoning when they go out to steal and murder.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Guns won't be effectively banned---only guns owned by the good people will be turned in."

    Beg to differ. I'd say, "Guns won't be effectively banned---only guns owned by timid and obedient subjects will be turned in."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly what I was going to say. Being law abiding doesn't make one a good person, any more than ignoring bad laws, pronouncements, and demands made by government makes one a bad person. In fact complying with immoral government actions makes you complicit in their immoral acts.
      “ . . . obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement.” [from The Politics of Obedience: Discourse of Voluntary Servitude] - Étienne de La Boétie (1530-1563)

      Delete
  26. Anyone who has studied countries like the UK and Australia with strict gun restrictions will see that getting rid of guns is the only way to go. If you think having MORE guns will solve our problems you need to be locked up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lack of common sense and critical thinking in your part may work for you, but the rest of us who live in/or near rough neighborhoods think otherwise. I shall protect myself and my family (sheepdog)but you can be the sheep in front of the wolves. Good Luck......

      Delete
    2. WOW, it just came to me!!!! All we have to do is confiscate the guns from those with criminal intentions,
      Problem solved!!!

      Delete
    3. I'll study you after you hand in your guns and subject yourself to whatever is forced upon you. good luck

      Delete
  27. I am more worried about the government than the bad guys.The main reason we have guns is to stop government tyranny. Our government has turned against us already. The Patriot Act and NDAA are the latest examples of what is in store for us. The New World Order (NWO) is being progressed and as soon as they take our guns that will be the end of freedom in this country.The government is not our friend and doesnt do things for the masses unless it is to deceive them into voting for or approving of the agenda they want to progress. 9/11 was used to progress the agenda of the few monied and well connected people that actually run things in this country and now they will use the Conneticut incident as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, what do you or can you do about it?!

      Delete
  28. Wow! "If you think having MORE guns will solve the problems you need to be locked up." That one sentence shouts volumes. Unfortunately (or fortunately) it provides insight into the thinking of those who apparently don't have much appreciation for those who created the Bill of Rights.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Just out of curiosity; how many criminals have you gun toters stopped from committing their mayhem this past year?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not a gun toter, but I keep one, not so much to protect myself against criminals but to keep the government from mistaking me for a subject rather than a citizen.

      Delete
    2. Chuck, it's estimated that over 1 MILLION gun toters stop criminals from committing mayhem every year.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous. Please could you give me the source of that 1 Million.

      Delete
  30. Those progressives in government are salivating right now because they figure the mass murder of 18 children may be too much for Constitutionalists to deal with. And those outside of government who think likewise ought to consider what happens when the morons in government decide they are going to fix the problem when a catastrophe happens. We already have one monster in the TSA. Why create another one?

    These same progressives and much of the public don't even consider the root of the problem. It is not as if the gun discharged on its own. One very sick person pulled the trigger! Why is it that we are getting so many of these sick people? I don't know for sure, but 40 years of federal government meddling in our schools might just have something to do with it. Let's face it, since the government took control of schools the teaching of moral values is out and the teaching of how to use a condom is in. And these are the same people that are proposing a ban on guns? You don't need a gun so much for protecting yourself against thieves as much as to protect yourself from these morons in government.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Any comment about "Gun Insurance"?
    http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/12/17/reuters-tv-breakingviews-gun-insurance?videoId=239927609&videoChannel=117766

    ReplyDelete
  32. Timothy McVeigh...
    9/11...

    "We should ban the personal ownership of firearms, just look, it worked really well for drugs!"

    ReplyDelete
  33. I am Canadian. As for guns, here only the criminals have guns and they have as many as they want. Cops are afraid of criminals and often go for the easy targets such as traffic violations etc. and they let the heavily armed criminals do as they please. In short, the fact that we are not armed helps cops ignor us when we call for help. As for the likes of me, we just keep our noses clean and stay out of harm's way.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The real reason for gun control is to prevent a civil war when Obama gets to the final phase of fundamentally changing America.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Only surrender our privately held firearms if and when the criminal element in our society give theirs up. Then add in the abolishment of the paramilitary police possession of assault weapons etc.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Privately held firearms surrendered if and when the criminal element in our society are totally disarmed. Then the para military police units will no longer be permitted to posses assualt weapons etc.

    ReplyDelete
  37. AMEN! Very good article. Thank you. I totally agree. Gun freedom is the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I 100% agree. I own lots of assault rifles and the only way the government is going to get them is if they kill me first.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If I had a gun I would not admit it.

    If I had a gun I would not give it up.

    Feinstein and the other gun grabbers remain well-armed themselves. Methinks the Lady doth protest too much.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The psycho at New Town could have easily murdered everyone in the entire school without firing a single shot. Simply mixing a few readily available (WalMart) chemicals together in the central air conditioning system would have been far more devastating but that would not have given any ammunition to the anti-gun nuts. My worst case nightmare would be a psycho in a school swinging a machete in each hand. If they really cared about the health and well being of the children, they would get rid of the "gun free zones" and the bad psych drugs being freely passed out to the children.

    ReplyDelete