Anti-gunners desperately want you to believe that they will be able to magically make the world a better place by passing anti-gun laws. Why do they think that? It would seem that they believe that passing a law makes it possible to enforce a law, and that is just not the case.
Here is a real-world example:
Australia has been working to ban guns for over twenty years now (the big push started in 1996). Anti-gunners will, of course, point to the (very contested) data which suggests that gun homicides and suicides have dropped in that time. Of course, they won’t likely mention the data reflecting the flip side of this ban. The Federalist notes that:
Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.
That’s right, anti-gunners, if you were able to push through your ideas, how many lives would be irreparably damaged by people’s ability to defend themselves?
Which brings us to the next question: Australia currently has an amnesty program going on in which people can turn in their guns without being charged for gun possession. During this amnesty program, 6,000 guns have been turned in. Out of 24.13 million people, 6,000 guns have been turned in. Which makes you wonder how many other people have no intention of turning in their firearms to the government.
Maybe you can argue that almost all of the guns have been turned in already. To which I would ask, “Do you mean like they’ve already been turned in in Detroit or Baltimore or Chicago?” It seems likely that these Aussies have no intention of allowing themselves to become defenseless, and, while illegal, they’re smart to not cooperate with a law that makes them a target.
Frankly, I don’t think that there is any question that the same “problem” would happen in the U.S. if gun confiscation laws are passed: People won’t turn in their weapons because they value their lives more than the government’s intimidation. And this just goes to show, very plainly, how gun confiscation can’t work.
It worked in every communist/socialist place. First they confiscated the guns, then the leftists turned weapons on their own people. Happened in Germany 1930’s, USSR 1920’s, China 1950’s, Cuba 1960’s, Venezuela today.
It is the Second Amendment that protects the 1’st Amendment.
WHAT AMMO THEY HAD IS NOW GOING BAD. SOON THEY WILL HAVE THEIR GUNS, BUT THEY WILL BE PAPERWEIGHTS!
That would make a lucrative business, bootleg ammo. Just like US prohibition.
What Ammunition the pro-gun owners have should be stored in water-tight, temperature controlled environment. Ammunition, stored in this condition, will outlive the owners. The real problem is target practice. 250 rounds per month will equal 3000 rounds per year. Storing that much ammunition could prove problematic.
Going bad the Japanese were still using their ammo 30 years after the war ended and that was made with inferior powder and primers ……
The Aussie’s have it correct. Only the naïve would turn in their guns after it has been demonstrated by many governments that once they disarm the people they get run over. Not only that, criminals, who have guns also, will never turn in their guns no matter what or how many laws are passed. It is better to have a gun in your possession in the seconds that you need it, than to be dead waiting minutes or more for the law enforcement to arrive.
Real data shows that crime increased. Deaths increased or stayed the same. WHY? Because deaths are caused by violent people. If they don’t have a gun, they will use a knife, baseball bat, club, or any other weapon. Disarming does not disarm criminals. Crime increases because criminals now know that their victims can’t defend themselves.
Logic says, GOOD PEOPLE NEED GUNS. Bad people will not be disarmed because they don’t obey the laws. So the liberal socialistic law makers are working FOR criminals and for those tyrants who WILL take control as soon as they can. Yes, it is ONE WORLD ORDER. aka Bilderberg. aka ANTICHRIST.
Do you want to be enslaved by power hungry elite who do not fear God or man?
Gun confiscation’s impact falls largely, almost exclusively on the law abiding, and only on the law abiding. If grasping that, consider the following. 2+2=4. Arguments, differences of opinion?
Oops, a typo. second sentence should read: If grasping that presents a problem, consider the following.
This is such crap. Many people have had guns before gun laws existed. Many people still have them. Also, illegal guns are all over major cities and even smaller ones. There is no way to round them up. Besides, robber still rob, thieves still steal, killers still kill, and on it goes. Laws are useless unless the people are willing to abide by them. That will happen when people obey speed limits.
Why go all the way to Australia for an “example” – MANY GUNS WERE OUTLAWED IN NY STATE – disposal of – or registration to a CONFISCATION LIST was required to comply with the law.
4% COMPLIANCE RATE!!!
Americans are NOT surrendering their guns – and with them their Second Amendment Rights – to a SUBVERSIVE POLITICAL PARTY!
Charlton Heston, while holding a rifle up in the air, once said: “From my cold dead hands.” That’s the only way the politicians and bureaucRATS will ever get our guns.
Comments are closed.