What are the effects of banning guns in America?

somerandomdude

Assuming that the ban was obeyed, and that law abiding gun owners surrendered them as ordered....The two worst possible effects are...

We become a colony of a foreign power -- We are invaded while we are at our weakest point (our military is engaged elsewhere, or has been cut and shrunk so much as to be ineffective) and the 300 million citizens have nothing, with which to defend ourselves.

or...

We become a dictatorship -- We are subjugated by our own government, as we have no arms to retain our personal freedoms. The administration decides to install who/what they want, arrest and imprison who they want, etc. Once the appropriate support persons are in place, in the appropriate political stations, they demand (and receive) absolute power. (See: Chavez's Venezuela, rule-by-decree, if the examples of the USSR, and Nazi Germany are too old for you)

Not as grand-scale but even more likely?

Criminals (to include gang-bangers, rapists, murderers and your run-of-the-mill thugs) begin to realize that the law-abiding gun owners are no longer gun owners. Crimes of violence surge, as the law-abiding are killed, injured, robbed, extorted by those criminals, who are in and out before the police can be notified, much less respond in time to save anyone. The police see a sizeable bite out of their budgets, for the purchase of rape kits, bodybags, and forensic evidence collection equipment and personnel. A few suspects are arrested, but the law-abiding, non-gunowning victims are quickly and effectively cowed into forgetting the identities of their attackers, and the cases fizzle in Court.

BadKarma

A lot of dead cops, and a lot of imprisoned citizens for something that wasn't even a crime.

That not a bad enough start for you?

Megan

I like obama, but I definitly think we should be able to own guns. Think about it, self defense, hunting, recreation...
Shooting is fun, you should go down to the range and then see what you think.
Or talk to a cop. My dad is a cop, he has so many guns and i go shooting with him all the time, its a lot of fun, and its a good skill to know.

Sophie

Open to tyranny.

steven r

There are a lot of Liberals that will not look up Obama voting record on gun bands.He has voted to ban guns on every vote. He is as far to the left as any one can be. He is a socialist and wants you to depend on the government for every thing. It is your god given right to protect your self, not the governments right to tell you what you can do to save your life. They keep saying Obama will not mess with your rights to bear arms, but won't look at his voting record. If they ever start going house to house to take guns, you will see much blood shed. Most americans will die before they are turned into sheep.Yes it can happen here in the U.S. There is a move going on to go socialist. The free people will die first to protect our country.

y n

the 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms. when the politicians demand our guns it is time to use those guns for the purpose our founders put that amendment in the bill of rights.

whoknew?!?!

Well the truth is, unless they go and knock on every gun toting americans door, they will never be able to ban guns. With the new elect of a democratic president, gun sales have sky rocketed and those proud members of the NRA wont go down without a fight.
My views are if we disarm our honest citizens, who have guns legally, that leaves us unarmed while the criminals are still packing heat. How is that fair? It's not. We have the RIGHT, not privilege, to bear arms.

Doc Hudson

Miss Kaitlyn,

If firearms are banned in the United States, it will have the same effect that it has had everywhere else firearms ownership and the right to self-defense has been banned.

Crime will become even more rampant.

In Australia, where gunownership is not banned but is severely restricted, the national murder rate increased, IIRC, nearly 25% in the first 12 months, and in one state the violent crime rate increased by nearly 300% in the first 12 months.

In Britain, which has even more strict gun control than Australia, violent crime and firearms crime is rapidly increasing. In London, a tourist is six times more likely to be mugged than they are in New York City. In addition to banning firearms, British laws even ban or strictly control toy guns. And the use of a cane to defend oneself against a mugger can get the victim arrested for using a weapon. I recently read about how police in Kennsington had confiscated the cane of a 76-year old man on the grounds that it was a weapon.

Visit the FBI's annual crime statistics. You will find that states with strict gun control have a higher crime rate than states with less gun control.

I will give you two specific examples of extremes.

In 1982 the city of Morton Grove, IL banned private ownership of firearms within the city limits. Knowing that they would not be faced by armed homeowners, burglary and home invasions increased by nearly 100%.

A few months later the city of Kennesaw, GA passed a city ordinance requiring every homowner to either own firearm and suitable ammunition or possess a permit from the city council exempting them from the ordinance. I interviewed the Kennesaw Deputy Chief of Police in the early 1990's for a research paper. The deputy chief told me that Kennesaw's burglary rate had dropped to less than 25% of what it had been before the ordinance was enacted, and that in the ensuing 10 years had increased at less than half the national average, and had increased by less than 25% of the surrounding area's increase. He told me that the armed robbery and rape statistics had shown similar decreases and smaller than average increases. I was also told that in the first 10 years the ordinance had been in effect there had been only one homicide in the city limits, and that was a hit-and-run auto homicide.

Miss Kaitlyn, gun control is not about crime control. It is about people control. Governments have a lot less trouble making people follow their orders when the people are unarmed. In the 20th Century alone, more than 56 Million people were exterminated by their governments. In every instance those mass murders were preceded by laws disarming the public.

And think about this Miss Kaitlyn. There are roughly 600,000 policemen in the United States, 600,000 law enforcement officers in all city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies. But that does not give us an idea of how many policemen are available to protect us at any one time. Let's divide that number by 4, that takes into account three shifts plus officers on their regular days off, vacation, court duty, or suspension.

That leaves us with about 150,000 law enforcement officers on duty at any one time. But it still does not tell us how many are available for patrol and protection. Let's divide that numbere by 2 to account for personnel occupied as jailers, records keeping, crime scene investigation, trainers, as crime lab technicians, or any of a dozen or more different jobs that keep cops off the streets and behind a desk or in a lab.

That leaves us with 75,000 policemen available for patrol and protection duty at any one time. 75,000 police men to police and protect a population of 338,000,000. That works out to a national average of 1 (ONE) Policeman for every 4.507 citizens. One police men entrusted with the safety and protection of FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVEN citizens. Now do you understand why police generally take longer to respond than the pizza delivery guy?

But even if there were ten times as many policemen, they could not respond to a citizen's need for protection as fast as a privately armed citizen can protect himself.

Furthermore, American police agencies have no legal requirement to offer protection to individual citizens. Under the American legal system the police deter crime by apprehension after a crime has occured and can not be sued for failure to prevent a crime, or a criminal attack. Many states have statute laws that exempt police departments from the legal responsibility of protecting individuals, lawsuits about failure to prevent crime, or failure to apprehend criminals.

The states without such Sovereign Immunity laws are still protected by legal precedent. Let's take a look at the Case of Warren versus District of Columbia.

Three women and a child shared a townhouse in the District of Columbia. Two of the women heard intruders break into their home and attack their roommate o

Chick Magnet

Doesn't matter because most crimes are made with stolen guns or guns bought illegally or on the streets...

Shauna & Joe B

If they take away guns, that leaves us who aren't murderers or bank robbers defenseless against the people that are going to obtain their guns illegally which they normally do anyways.

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

If a murderer didn't have a gun do you think that would stop them from killing?

Obama = village idiot.

confuscious

Gun ownership is constitutional, the right to bear arms, and will not be taken away. Legal owners usually do not commit crimes. It's the illegal gun ownership that causes problems, and banning guns will never stop that.

supermedic49

america becomes a true police state where more crime will exist, only government officials and police and military will carry unlimited amount of firearms and commit crimes it will become like germany was when adolph hitler ruled germany. And i believe that if a ban on fire arms is placed so that the citizens are unableto protect themselves then law enforcement officials should not even allowed to carry fire arms either on the job or off the job

DRUM57IX

Watch this series! It should help!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSHNYAt_m4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nxpidJNH_w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iew0rxNZ_I&feature=related

akluis

Think about it this way.

Criminals always manage to get guns, so gun bans will ONLY affect law abiding citizens.

If the government doesn't trust honest good folk with guns, why not? Who do they trust? Why don't they trust us? What else will the government say 'no, too dangerous for you!' next? Free speech?

Take this quiz
http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html

Some people say 'a gun is more likely to kill you than an invader!'

There are two problems with this. Suicides account for more than half of gun deaths, and all studies show that more guns mean more gun related suicides, but more guns does NOT mean more suicides. Suicide rates are independant of guns.

Correct this study for that flaw, and you end up with a 50-50 chance that the gun will be used on a friend/family member vs the gun will be used on an attacker...and that is including all the wife beaters who eventually turn to murder as well as drug dealers visiting violence upon eachother. Take htem out and it is 2 to 1.

The second flaw is that a home owner only 'succeeds' if he has a dead criminal to prove it. If a home owner simply pulls the gun and the criminal wets his pants and runs, I'd say that is a success, but because there is no dead criminal, anti-gun groups dismiss it.

Considering those 2 flaws, and realizing how different each individual's situation is, shouldn't it be the individual who decides if a gun is right for them?

Here are 3 interesting reads
http://billstclair.com/whyguns.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46085
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-still-puzzling-to-me.html

the_beave

Obama's gun ban would only include things like banning assault weapons, armor piercing bullets, and things like that, and also make it much harder for people to buy guns by putting restrictions on buying them such as number of guns you can own or buy, and things like that.

Dont get Infected

Obama can ban the sale of guns but he cant take the guns out of the citizens hands. where are alot of people that own guns in the US and the 4th amandement wont let the government go into your house just because they think you have a gun because not everybody in the US owns a gun

vulcan_alex

Owning guns is a personal constitutional right, so nobody will be "banning" them. Now sensible limitations and conditions on gun ownership will probably be allowed as they should be.

Thomas P

Well, the question is a huge one. For a start, the possibility of an outright BAN on weaponry in America is slim at best. Whats more likely is a tightening of some, from a British perspective, incredibly lax laws.
Possibly a restriction on weaponry over certain calibre, an increased age restriction etc.

Personally, im against legalised weaponry, in any form. In Britain, to use my own nation, we have a de-militarised and unarmed Constabulary, and an almost total ban on firearms (i currently work in a firearms licensing division) and the rate of shootings and violent crime are proportionally lower then the continental US.

blubear

Obama's not banning guns, so it's irrelevant.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: