1. If guns were prohibited, criminals claim that they can still get guns. If all public and private gun shops and owners had their material confiscated, can’t we just add more additions to the department of commerce in order to ensure that illegal weapons would not be smuggled in?
2. If guns were not prohibited, what are the chances that lives could be saved, when gangs, criminals, and private owners still hold handguns?
Thanks you for your time,
1. It’s not that criminals “claim” they can still get guns if guns are made illegal. We know for a fact that they can and already do obtain them illegally. Moreover, it is not realistic to even suggest that all public and private firearms could be “confiscated.” First, aside from the fact such an act would be a blatant violation of the Constitution, it simply is not possible to confiscate all 225,000,000 or so firearms currently possessed by Americans. It would not be possible to confiscate them even if we sent the Army to do door-to-door searches because there are too many gunowners and they would certainly hide them (not to mention that deploying the Army to search the homes of some 260 million Americans would be unconstitutional on its face, would be the very definition of a tyranny, and would probably lead to more bloodshed, not less). We also know from recent events in Australia, as well as the “assault weapons” ban in California, that voluntary programs to disarm civilians do not work. This is because people buy guns since they are afraid of criminals and they will not voluntarily relinquish their guns as long as the government refuses or is unable to make our streets and homes safe. And don’t forget, it is not difficult for people to manufacture perfectly functional firearms in any basic workshop.
More importantly, if there was some way of magically disarming the entire civilian population, the result would be an increase in the violent crime rate since violent criminals would know their victims had been disarmed, and were therefore helpless. This is essentially what happened in Australia since the gun control laws of 1997 were enacted. Further, disarming civilians, while allowing their “servants” in government to remain armed would create a power imbalance which would inevitably lead to a tyranny. Remember, under our Constitution, the power resides in the People, and the government is supposed to work for them. Were we to disarm the citizens, they would have absolutely no recourse against the government if it decided to ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is an invitation to disaster.
2. Please read through GunTruths’ “Myths,” “Facts You Can Use” and “Correspondents” pages. You will quickly see that the data unequivocally show that gun control only disarms the victims of violent crime. In fact, research by Professor Kleck and by Professor Lott shows that arming citizens is the most effective way to reduce violent crime, and that, conversely, gun control increases violent crime.
It’s really quite simple: since the gangs and violent criminals are already heavily armed, and the police cannot be everywhere they’re needed at the same time, does it really seem like a good idea to disarm the people whom the gangs and violent criminals prey upon? I didn’t think so.