Do Gun Bans Curb Violent Crime? (Part 2 of 3 on reducing violent crime in the US)

Who isn't sickened by the moral decay and heinous acts of violence across our country? My heart and prayers continue to go out to victims everywhere.

But do gun bans -- such as the one proposed this past week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., which would outlaw 120 specific firearms -- curb violent crime?

Not according to a recent Fox News investigation titled "Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease, data shows." The report concluded, "Data published earlier this year showed that while the (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which was signed by President Bill Clinton) was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period."

Examiner.com elaborated: "Crime statistics compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show that in the 10 years before the Clinton gun ban, there were 173 mass shootings with 766 victims. But during the 10 years of the ban ... there were 182 mass shootings with 820 victims."

If one wants to see the ineffectiveness of countrywide gun bans and increased firearm regulations, one doesn't have to look any further than Mexico.

Sylvia Longmire, a former Air Force officer and special agent and a former border security analyst for the state of California, recently wrote a report titled "Mexico Proves Strict Gun Laws Won't Prevent Massacres."

Longmire explained: "Contrary to popular belief, Mexico's constitution has its own version of our Second Amendment. However, few private citizens own firearms. Federal laws have severely restricted the ability to own and carry weapons to soldiers, police, trained bodyguards, and a few others who can make it through the miles-long (gantlet) of the application process. If a Mexican citizen can survive the background checks, the mountains of paperwork, the half-dozen required personal recommendations, and the expense, they are limited to buying guns with low stopping power.

"There is also only one gun shop in Mexico where they can legally purchase firearms, and it's in Mexico City -- not exactly a close drive for many Mexicans."

The gravest outcome, Longmire added: "More than 53,000 people have been murdered in Mexico in the last six years."

And we don't think the same thing could happen, given enough time, to our Second Amendment rights, which are being slowly strangled by the overreaching, bureaucratic tentacles of Washington?

As with most of society's ills, the key to curbing violent crime is not more government expansion and spending. Neither is the answer dissolving our Second Amendment rights; countries with super-strict gun ownership laws have equally violent crimes and proved that taking guns from good guys doesn't prohibit bad guys from obtaining them.

Despite all the preceding evidence, President Barack Obama announced Jan. 16 that a new and tougher assault weapons ban and a 10-round limit on magazines would be a part of his comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence (aka limit our Second Amendment rights). Immediately after the president spoke, he signed 23 actions, increasing government firearm regulations via presidential executive order.

Though many U.S. representatives and at least three states so far (Oregon, Texas and Mississippi) have vowed not to enforce new gun laws and to stop Obama's assault against our Second Amendment rights, citizens should be very leery of an administration that already has skirted around Congress and overreached the American people more than any in U.S. history.

And if we think we will get a little constitutional assistance from the U.S. Supreme Court, let's neither forget how the court ruled on Obamacare nor forget what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- appointed by Clinton -- stated last January during an interview on the Arabic broadcast network Al-Hayat: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa," which, incidentally, has a bill of rights that is 10 times the length of ours but does not have one word protecting an individual's right to bear arms.

I want violent crimes curbed as much as anyone, but not at the expense of our Second Amendment rights -- which are there to protect us. And it's double-trouble lunacy when gun bans have proved to be ineffective in reducing crime in many other countries.

When our Founding Fathers secured our right to bear arms, they didn't do it so that we might go duck hunting. They did it so that we could defend ourselves. And that right was enacted into constitutional law and was never to be encroached by anyone at any time, especially those in Washington.

Could 27 words be any clearer?! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thomas Jefferson explained, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference."

That is why Jefferson could encourage his nephew Peter Carr, "Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

But then again, maybe infringing on and restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners, too, is exactly the ulterior motive behind the White House's present gun and ammunition ban.

George Mason -- delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention and co-father of the Bill of Rights, along with James Madison -- gave the answer way back in 1788, in his speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, where he explained: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

You make a good point, but the gun grabbers don’t even want to address the constitutional issue. They initially tried to distort the meaning. They lost that battle, so now they are trying to infringe on the right to bear arms without really infringing, in their minds, on it. There are all sorts of ways for them to discourage the right to bear arms without technically stopping someone from having a gun. Here’s a list I made up of all their attempts:

1) Capture as many gun transactions/information as possible in national databases. If possible, 100% gun registration.
2) Background checks on all gun transactions including ammo.
3) Gun licensing and mandatory recurring gun safety training.
4) Extra taxes on gun and ammo purchases.
5) Requirements to carry liability insurance to own a gun, with increasing premiums based on the types and quantities owned.
6) Limits on the kinds of guns that can be manufactured, including guns locks keyed to owner’s DNA, fingerprints, etc. (single shot weapons preferred).
7) Requirement to store guns in government approved safes when not in use. Ammo must be stored separately.
8) Random home inspections and certifications to ensure #7 or...
9) Requirement to store guns in federally owned storage sites with waiting periods to draw gun out for use.
10) Waiting lists to buy a gun.
11) Limits on the number of guns that can be purchased per year and/or total number that can be owned.
12) Anti-gun curriculum added to schools (children, doctors, and others encouraged to report gun owners).
13) Requirement to send guns back to manufacturers for annual serviceability checks (this one would be a boon for gun manufacturers, sort of like Obamacare for health insurance companies)
14) Requirement to file plans prior to transporting any gun across state borders (with a long wait for approval of course).
15) Requirement to buy government approved container and pay for professional installation in vehicle prior to transporting any gun.
16) Pressure companies to put financial pressure or stop doing business with gun manufacturers, merchants, and owners.
17) Heavy fines and permanent ban from ever owning another weapon for violating any of the above infringements.
18) Mental health check for owner and everyone in household prior to approval to buy a gun subject to the other restrictions above.
18) Whatever else they can think of to make it extremely difficult to own a gun without “infringing” on the right to bear arms!

I use the constitutional argument, because it really is the first hurdle they need to overcome if they want to infringe on the right to bear arms. It’s a big hurdle, so they’ll trying everything but an amendment.

Note how prohibition was passed. If the federal government had the right to ban pretty much anything it wants, why did they need a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol? Plus, the right to get drunk isn’t even enshrined in the constitution. Say what you will about prohibition, but you have to respect how it was enacted. That, my FRiend, is true rule of law, not rule by unelected justices in black robes!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.