Before I get to the main topic I want to discuss, I want you to understand I don't want this to be discussion on the pro’s and cons of gun control. I don’t care about your position on the subject of gun control but I’m just curious. With the recent events in our country (U.S.) there is once again a huge out cry from the anti gun control advocates to make even more rigid laws governing the use and owner ship of guns.
My question is if the advocates of got their way and a law was passed to ban all “fire arms”, what do you think would actually happen?

So basically, you wish to discuss the ramifications of gun control without discussing gun control? Or is there a dimension to this that I'm missing?

How about we look at historical models. Pick any major American city where the people have largely been forbidden from possessing legal arms- Washington DC is a wonderful example. The rich and powerful are able to buy the needed permits and higher the goon squads to keep them safe. If you are part of the everyone else, you are prey. While it is possible to own but very complicated to carry in other many of the major cities, the rate of violent, stranger-on-stranger crime is a little lower, but not low.

Conversely, take a state where it was difficult to carry or own, and they have made it easier. Florida used to make it rather difficult to carry a concealed handgun, then they developed the model of what is called "Shall issue". It makes it easier to carry. And in the first five years of Florida having the "shall issue" policy, their violent crime rates dropped in double digit percents every year. During that time, their surrounding states and the nation as a whole had crime rise every year.

And keep in mind, very few countries have ever had the powers granted under the PATRIOT Act. With that, organized gun owners who peacefully protest and challenge a banning bill could be simply declared what other countries have called "enemies of the state" and disappeared in the night. And many of us here would be part of that- we would be declared dangerous "survivalists" and "paranoid radicals". After all, we are adept at living off the land, have stockpiled equipment and supplies, use alternative and unregulated means of communication (hams) and no small number of us are familiar with irregular warfare in theory.

Think about the other nations where people were declared "enemies of the state" and "state traitors". A lot of those were elected, just like ours is. Others were put into power through popular uprising, which is voting of another kind.

Yet another multi-billion Dollar industry supporting the "War on Guns" would seek to suck any remaining funds and liberty from what used to be free men.

Re Raydarkhorse

Could you be a little more specific.

Are you asking what would happen just directly after a full prohibition of guns was passed into law in the US (when an ammendment to the constitution was passed into law to repeal the second ammendment) or the point in time just after when everyone has agreed to the new law and handed their firearms into the authorities?


Edit - Sorry I've just re-read my own posting - I do appologise for asking such a silly question.

You have to look at the UK and Australia for the answer.

A few diehards in Australia were killed when they refused to surrender their weapons, including the actual "Crocodile Dundee" fellow on which the movie character was based upon.

Murder, armed robbery, rape, and a myriad of crimes all soared because the people who weren't allowed to own guns legally (the criminal types), still had theirs because they, of course, kept those weapons that they didn't have, because of earlier laws denying them the right to own weapons.

Meanwhile, the (PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.) honest folk were defenseless like so many (sheep) potential victms guarded by too few (sheepdogs) policemen to adequately protect them from the (Big Bad Wolves) armed criminals.

That's how it has been going so far in Australia and the UK.

You have to look at the UK and Australia for the answer.

A few diehards in Australia were killed when they refused to surrender their weapons, including the actual "Crocodile Dundee" fellow on which the movie character was based upon.

Murder, armed robbery, rape, and a myriad of crimes all soared because the people who weren't allowed to own guns legally (the criminal types), still had theirs because they, of course, kept those weapons that they didn't have, because of earlier laws denying them the right to own weapons.

Meanwhile, the (PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.) honest folk were defenseless like so many (sheep) potential victms guarded by too few (sheepdogs) policemen to adequately protect them from the (Big Bad Wolves) armed criminals.

That's how it has been going so far in Australia and the UK.

Doesn't the U.S. have one of the highest crime rates in the world, if not THE highest crime rate?

If all the honest common folk lose their guns, and all the criminals retain theirs, are the criminals suddenly going to become really nice people? Or are they going to go hog-wild because they've suddenly got a smorgesbord of victims?

What do you THINK is likely to happen?

Sue

I think more crime will occur,

If gun laws were relaxed in some respects (certainly not in all respects), crime would drop.

If we had a "justice system", then crime would probably drop as well.

The present system has made crime a VIABLE CAREER ALTERNATIVE, with many finge benefits!

Have you been to Australia or the UK? Where did you get your information from? The relationship between crime and the ownership of firearms in these countries does not have any correlation what so ever. But there is a correlation between crime and economic deprivation or should I say where there is a huge difference between rich and poor. As for criminals (Big Bad Wolves) why does the United States of America have more of them than anywhere else. The incarceration rate for criminals in the US has even surpassed that of PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. China and the rest of the world combined. There is apparently over 2 million criminals held by State and Federal authorities. I believe that there is roughly 1 person out of every 110 held in prison in the US. That rate is astonishing. As with countries that have liberal (probably the wrong word to use in this debate) gun control laws, countries like Switzerland and Canada again don’t have the nearly the same level of violent criminal behaviour, even though their gun controls laws are similar to the US. As many on this forum have said in their defence to their ownership of a firearm - its not the gun which does the killing, its the individual holding the gun. If that is the case then why is there so much criminality and death through gunshot wounding and why is this so prevalent in the US?

I guesse what I am asking is would the gun owners just give in and give up their guns or would the goverment have to take them? and if they were to take them would that trigger violence?