The Truth About Civilian Disarmament

Banning the purchase, sale or transfer of “assault rifles” will do nothing to reduce crime. It will do nothing to stop spree killers. It will do nothing to prevent suicides or limit the lethality of suicide attempts. Banning “assault rifles” will do nothing whatsoever to benefit society. While we’re at it, banning the purchase, sale or transfer of “high capacity” ammunition magazines will do nothing to reduce crime. It will do nothing to stop spree killers. It will do nothing to prevent suicides or limit the lethality of suicide attempts. Banning “high capacity” ammunition magazines will do nothing whatsoever to benefit society. One more . . .

Mandating FBI criminal background checks on all gun purchases and transfers will do nothing to reduce crime. It will do nothing to stop spree killers. It will do nothing to prevent suicides or limit the lethality of suicide attempts. Mandatory FBI criminal background checks on all gun purchases will do nothing whatsoever to benefit society.

Gun right advocates point out that these three post-Newtown gun control measures all have potential downsides.

Banning the purchase, sale or transfer of “assault rifles” makes it harder for Americans to defend themselves against violence. It makes it harder to defend against attacks from government agents, which have historical precedent.

Banning the purchase, sale or transfer of “high capacity” ammunition magazines makes it harder for Americans to defend themselves against violence. It makes it harder to defend against attacks from government agents, which have historical precedent.

Mandating FBI criminal background checks on all firearms sales and transfers makes it possible for the government to keep track of all gun purchases throughout the United States. It makes it easier for the government to confiscate privately (and legally) held firearms.

In short, none of these three gun control measures offer sufficient benefits to outweigh the risks.

More than that, these three gun control measures expand government intervention in the purchase, sale and transfer of civilian firearms. By doing so, they violate the United States Constitution’s prohibition against laws that infringe upon Americans’ [natural or human] right to keep and bear arms.

The people who favor these three gun control measures claim that these infringements constitute “reasonable restrictions” on the Second Amendment.

As stated above, these three measures are not reasonable in the sense that there’s a proven, pragmatic reason to implement them.

Despite misleading misinformation disseminated by proponents of civilian disarmament, there can be no reasonable expectation that banning “assault weapons” and “high capacity” ammunition magazines and mandating FBI background checks for all firearms sales and transfers will create any meaningful reduction of crime or suicide rates.

Nor are these measures reasonable in the sense of inexpensive. Implementing any or all of these measures will impose a tremendous financial burden on taxpayers (through enforcement) and exact a terrible cost in terms of personal safety. They will open the door to further infringement, leading us down the road to complete disarmament.

The American national anthem is the only national anthem that ends with a question: “Does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” It reminds us that we must constantly question the laws which govern us, and our relationship to our government.

Gun control laws erode our freedom. We must bravely face down those who would sacrifice our liberty for the illusion of safety. However reasonable on their face, none of these three measure must stand.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

71 Responses to The Truth About Civilian Disarmament

  1. avatarEd Rogers says:

    The misguided people who propose these measures haven’t a clue on how ridiculously difficult (if not impossible) tracking and enforcement would be. The prisons are too full as it is, without having to accommodate thousands of innocent, law-abiding firearm owners.

    Mike Bloomberg is either sniffing glue or totally oblivious to reality…

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      “The prisons are too full as it is…”

      Yea but they already let murderers and rapists out on parole and good behavior or just on short sentences. They will just double thoes efforts to make room for us. Then when we are all in prison the true undesirables will rule over the antis.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      Bloomberg is a completely narcissistic tyrant who wants to force you to comply with his wishes and desires. The nonsense about it being for your own good is a complete and utter lie.

      If you resist, he wants to throw you in the dungeon and/or steal your money.

      If a mafioso came into my house with a baseball bat, told me to pay protection money for my own good or else he’d break my legs and/or take everything, I would be right to defend myself against him.

      Yet because a plurality of voting idiots in New York elected Bloomberg this kind of behavior is seen as acceptable.

      This idea that democracy is any better than other tyrannies is complete and utter nonsense. It’s more like a Fabian tyranny, in that it just takes a lot longer to unmask itself and show everyone its true face. The only reason it’s taken so long in America is because of our constitution (which isn’t much of a roadblock at all anymore).

    • avatarSammy says:

      Misguided is a very diplomatic way to put it. Down right nefarious is a bit more frank and on point. There is nothing honorable in what is being attempted or they would not feel the need for lies etc. There is no honor in their argument. Emotion, yes, facts,reason, or honesty-not so much. These are despicable people. Don’t mean to go GWB ala Putin, but just look at the faces of the lunatic fringe of the disarmament crowd DF, M.Bloomberg, A.Cumo, C.Schumer, etc. you will find nothing but contempt of freedoms, hatred of dissenters who value their rights and personal sovereignty. These people, my friends, are dangerous.

  2. avatarThomas Paine says:

    Soda ban starts tomorrow! I can’t wait for all the fat girls to turn hot.

  3. avatarBruce says:

    In Florida, six teens were killed in an accident in an SUV. I think we need to ban all sports cars. It’s for the children.

    • avatarDon says:

      There is no legitimate reason to own a sports car. You don’t need a sports car to fulfill the basic need for transportation. Accidents in sports cars are 30% more deadly than accidents in non-sports cars. Sports car owners are at 5x greater risk to get killed in a car accident. sarc

      • avatarpolarbear101 says:

        And how about those high capacity vans!? They hold so many children and put them all at risk! Ban those high capacity vans for the children’s sake!

        • avatarMothaLova says:

          Where’s everyone going, anyway? Too much carbon. Stay home (but don’t turn up the heat).

        • avatarMr Pierogie says:

          If you can’t run over a deer in a compact sedan, you’re a lousy hunter.

  4. avatarDavid says:

    One word “Mexico”

  5. Robert, you can’t know that those measures will have no beneficial effect. If you said they’d have too little to make them worth it, at least that would be truthful. But you’re really over the top with all that certainty.

    Let me make a prediction since I’m making an early comment here. Not one of your sycophantic followers will have the integrity and honesty to call you on that.

    • avatarWerewolf1021 says:

      Guess you missed this part.

      “Despite misleading misinformation, there can be no reasonable expectation that banning “assault weapons” and “high capacity” ammunition magazines and mandating FBI background checks for all firearms sales and transfers will effect any meaningful or measurable change in crime or suicide rates.”

      But don’t let that get in the way of patting yourself on the back.

    • avatarcz82mak says:

      Mikey, please tell us again how criminals obey laws. If that works out, maybe we can ban crime?

      • No cz, I won’t do that but I’ll tell you again why gun control laws are aimed at law abiding gun owners. It’s twofold. 1. because you lawful gun owners are the single source for all the guns used in crime. and 2. because so many of you guys turn out to be unfit in spite of owning your guns legally – having had no felony convictions.

        • avatarcz82mak says:

          Well said Sir. No refute necessary. Your position under the bridge is completely unassailable.

        • avatarRandy in CO says:

          So, mikey, how ’bout some cites for all those certainties you just spouted?

        • avatarUSMC says:

          You sir, are an idiot.

          “1. because you lawful gun owners are the single source for all the guns used in crime”

          So I guess law abiding gun owners are at fault for having been robbed by criminals. Why would we ever blame and punish the people who are responsible for committing the crime? /sarc

          “2. because so many of you guys turn out to be unfit in spite of owning your guns legally”

          Who are you to say if someone is “fit/unfit” to own firearms? What are your requirements? Also, turns out that everyone here who has ever passed their NICS background check has the governments stamp of appoval as being “fit” enough to own guns (not to mention that whole “shall not be infringed” thing in the Constitution).

          FOAD

        • avatarSammy says:

          Puleeese, stop feeding the trolls! Next thing you know GLG will sense the responses to M#s and he’ll be back too! It’ for their own good. Though MSMC’s first sentence kinda sums it up.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Explain again what laws you broke eh Mikeyb to be a prohibited person?

        • avatarSilver says:

          Hey, it’s mikey again.

          How’s life being the lowliest scum of the planet? Every time you disappear for a bit, I hope some criminal broke into your unprotected home and delivered some poetic justice, but you keep popping up. Oh well.

        • Silver, I’m the lowest scum on the planet? Why is that exactly, cause I disagree with you?

          Robert’s decision to publish that vile comment does much to elevate the discussion on this most popular gun blog on earth. Way to go, chief.

        • avatarpat says:

          Mikey, the quote that shall always turn you into a pile of dust is by Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery”. You trust to much in ‘Big Gov’.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      welcome back man! who you calling syco?

    • avatarJoshinGA says:

      Oh Mikey, the first two have already been implemented (1994 AWB) and have been shown to have no effect on crime, either positive or negative. As for the “universal background checks”, well Schumer already slipped up and called it what it really is: universal registration, which is actually against current US law.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      The burden of proof is on those proposing and/or supporting the new measures, isn’t it? Prove that it works or will work.

      Calling for the maintenance of the status quo doesn’t require proof of anything.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      I am nobodys follower. The only reason I am not calling him on this is because crimminals do not obey the fv%ing law!

      • In Memphis, those measures, and all other gun control laws, would help you law abiding guys hold onto your guns and stop letting them slip so easily into the criminal world. That’s why Robert is wrong to say there would be NO benefit.

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          “… would help you law abiding guys hold onto your guns and stop letting them slip so easily into the criminal world…”

          Okay, Ill bite. How!? How will these laws keep people from stealing my guns? I own them legally and keep them all in a safe when not in use. I also go through background checks to buy them. So please tell me how my obeying the law will stop people from breaking it? I can only be accountable for my own actions.

          You already said you would not explain how these will not keep crimminals from breaking the law. Then went on to say we (law abiding) are the number one source of guns used in crimes. But then you tell me that these laws will help us keep our guns and keep them from easy access to crimminals. Mike, no offense but what are you having touble understanding? I obey the law, crimminals do not. Nothing on paper will change that.

        • In Memphis, do you think all gun owners keep their guns in a safe and never sell one without a background check? They don’t. That’s why those things should be required by law.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Memphis, mikeyb has drank far too much of the obama-lama-ding-a-ling prozac/lsd laced koolaide to ever provide a logical answer and can only stomp its feet and wail cause I wanna, I wanna, I wanna…. to infinity…so best to just accept the fact that the recent study on there being a common genetic link to mental illnesses, including schizophrenia which antis like mikeyb are prone to believing that an inanimate object has supernatural powers to force people to kill on command, as they, the antis are so weak minded as to be mind controlled themselves!

    • avatarroscoe says:

      @mikeb302000
      Statements made in the absolute may not be entirely sustainable, but the statements Mr. Fargo made have immensely more honesty and integrity to them than the outright lies and misrepresentations being put out by the anti 2A gun grabbers and broadcast by the MSM.

    • avatarDon says:

      Curious, have you ever contemplated or engaged in self-harm?

  6. avatarDon says:

    What some people don’t realize is that law and government is not why people don’t commit atrocities and crimes everyday. It’s the fact that most people are good. What is the power of law? Any law that prohibits something people don’t want in the first place looks like it works and any law that prohibits something people do what looks like a joke. There is no power in law. Law isn’t a wall holding back the tides of evil. There is no evil tide. Law is a big showy screen door and evil is the occasional raindrop that flits on past like there was nothing there.

  7. avatarLance says:

    Good point RF!

  8. avatarThomas Paine says:

    here’s the point. Maybe MikeB is right, and it would reduce crime and mass shootings. BUT, (here’s the kicker) it WILL (100% probability) prevent law abiding citizens from defense of themselves and their property with force equal to the force available to the opposition. (opposition being criminals, government, etc).
    Without private property protection, and protection of self, a man is not free.

    • avatarSilver says:

      Sub-humans like mikeb and his ilk don’t care about other people’s safety and their right to protect themselves. They only care about their sick psyche’s desire to maintain their false safety bubble. So long as they can believe they’re safe by banning objects, they don’t care who dies in the process. This is what we’re up against: sociopaths.

      • Silver, what it really boils down to is whether guns do more good than harm. They don’t. It’s that simple.

      • avatarRuffRidr says:

        I agree. Only a sociopath would spend soooooo much time arguing against gun rights for a country he does not live in. I really kind of feel sorry for him.

  9. avatardwb says:

    the real shame is that the gun control advocates have adopted the exact same strategy as Nixon did with regard to the War On Drugs: register, restrict, ban criminalize. Hows Nixon’s War on Drugs working out? There is even a quote circulating that Nixon wanted to ban handguns. The irony .

  10. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    Look, Bloomberg thinks different than freedom loving Americans. Bloomberg also has many BILLIONS of dollars. He also has hit the exit sign of politics. Don’t believe he has a viable future anywhere in politics. He also is at the age where he wants to create a legacy. That all adds up to a really really hard adversary to fight. He will be around for another 10 to 30 years spending tons of money to get his way. Unless some opposing BILLION dollar baby wakes up and joins our fight it ain’t gonna be pretty.

    If he doesn’t win on outlawing AWs he will move elsewhere. Ammo, gun springs, sights, scopes, stocks, slings, tripods, online sales, store licenses, the clerks behind the counter, kydex, 3D printers, the goo to put in 3D printers, downloading CAD plans, etc etc etc ….

    This is going to be like fighting the Borg.

  11. avatarDave says:

    I may disagree with magazine size restrictions, but I can at least see some logic in why anyone would pursue them. In a couple of mass shootings – Tucson and Long Island Railroad – the perpetrators were, after all, stopped while reloading.

    What seems entirely illogical is to ban AR-15 while continuing to sell the sporting-looking rifle Breivik used in Norway. Unless one is out to ban all semi-automatic rifles, which seems quite unlikely, it makes no logical sense at all to ban AR-15. I find it hard to see anything but a hidden agenda in the “assault weapon” bans. This particular rifle also happens to qualify as the “militia rifle” if there ever was one, so there are, in my view, very serious constitutional issues as well.

    Personally, I could learn to live with magazine size limits, provided they were more reasonable than 10 rounds – perhaps somewhere between 15 and 20 for handguns. I would find it much, much harder to swallow that Americans couldn’t own an AR-15 at all, be it with a small or large, fixed or detachable magazine.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      Let’s imagine a magical world where every mass shooter could be stopped while they were reloading and always were.

      Who determines what a “reasonable” magazine capacity is? It’s a totally subjective standard of measurement.

      So, even if you weren’t going to oppose such a measure out of principle it would be pragmatic and make sense to oppose it because the likelihood that one day someone ratchets the magazine capacity from 10 to 7, or from 7 to 5 or whatever is pretty high.

      Look at New York and the SAFE Act.

      Is it better to deny the hangman his noose or simply object that the rope he’s using is a tad too long?

      • avatarDave says:

        I agree that the numbers keep going down. Maryland had a “reasonable” number 20, but felt the need to make it 10. NY had a “reasonable” number 10, but made it 7. So, yes, given the state of gun politics, it’s best to resist all such restrictions.

        Still, one can contemplate what restrictions might be acceptable on constitutional grounds and which ones seem to fail that muster altogether. My gut feeling is that 20 may be acceptable constitutionally, but 10 is not. That doesn’t mean I would care to see any limits passed right now, because the way things are the antis will never rest with whatever number they manage to wring out of the political process.

        • avatarSilver says:

          Citizens should own any small arms and implements that the police and military use. If the Army can use a certain capacity magazine, so can the citizen. Anything less is unconstitutional.

          So, once the Army and police limit themselves to 20-rounders, so will I.

  12. avatarBob says:

    Ya’ll — Mikey Numbers is an internet troll. He probably had a neglectful childhood. Nevertheless, when he feels he is in need of some attention, he comes here because he knows he’ll get it.

    It doesn’t matter if the response is negative. It’s the attention that salves his pain.

    I suggest not taking the bait.

  13. avatarDrewN says:

    Cicilian disarmament proponents seem to have very little grasp of cost/benefit ratios. Given that the resources available to combat crime are limited as it is, why squander them on solutions that, even if they worked perfectly, would have an almost insignificant effect? Obviously the solution involves ending the war on drugs, returning discretion to criminal sentencing, real government health care, and an enormous investment in public education. Of course, cronyism and corruption will protect those revenue streams for all that benefit from them, so they have nothing left but propoganda and scare tactics coupled with a feel-good payoff at the end. At least you tried, huh? Good work helping maintain that status quo for the 1/10th of 1% that benefits from it.

  14. avatarMothaLova says:

    I’ve noticed that no matter what the gungrabbers propose, they always end by calling their proposals reasonable. Since they’re making up everything else, I suppose they might as well make up that part, too. Why not.

    • avatarDon says:

      Well you can’t disagree with something labeled “reasonable” unless you are “unreasonable”… Preemptively labeling their proposals as “reasonable” implies two really important things about where they are coming from:

      1) They believe the opposition is unreasonable, ergo “Crazy”.

      2) They are not interested in debate. Debate only happens between reasonable parties. They fancy themselves a reasonable party and you… crazy.

      • avatarLongPurple says:

        They use the same semantic tactics in using the self-appelation “Progressive”. All who oppose their nonsense are suggested to be “regressive”, or perhaps “retarded”.

        Don’t let them control the language. If they call themselves “Progressives”, chances are good you can accurately refer to them as “Radicals”.

  15. avatarmike marriam says:

    Any solution to violence committed with guns that involves civil rights violations, legality aside, is not a viable solution.

    No societal problem has ever been diminished by treating the symptom instead of the cause.

  16. avatarDon says:

    Anyone think it’s endlessly ironic that Bloomberg fans will protest the injustice of racial profiling when LE does it in Arizona, yet their mayor has an open policy of racial profiling and stop and frisk in their own city?

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      Yankees are among the most hypocritical and self righteous creatures on the planet. They know they can’t be “racisss” , it is just those people in Red States.

  17. avatarHaiku Guy says:

    We need to ban “high capacity” magazines to reduce the rate of suicide…

  18. avatarcrndl says:

    bingo, handguns are next

  19. avatarLongPurple says:

    Where do “assault rifles” figure in the big picture of “gun homicide”?

    The FBI Crime Report (Table 20 – Weapons) for 2011 shows that about 2 ¼ times more murders were committed by means of “hands and feet” than by “rifles”.
    Limiting the murders by “rifles” to only so-called “assault rifles” (an intentional misnomer) would increase that ratio still further. It would be reasonable to estimate 5 times the number of murders were committed with “hands and feet” than were committed by means of “assault rifles”.

    We are being told that we need a return of the senseless AWB because . . .?

    They certainly can’t rationalize it as a matter of “public safety”. This is just another “legislative opportunity” to get some/any kind of restriction on gun rights passed, using the emotional reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting to rationalize “feel good” legislation.

  20. avataruncommon_sense says:

    Here are two HUGE risks when government mandates background checks for every purchase of firearms and/or ammunition:
    (1) Government can purposely under staff the background check system and purposely foul-up data. This will cause huge delays and could, in fact, even result in a de-facto ban on sales.
    (2) Some horrific event can cause an unprecedented flood of gun sales which vastly overwhelms the background check system. We already saw hints of this on shopping days with huge demand (such as Black Friday). Imagine if North Korea sent a ballistic missile at the U.S. — even if it splashed down in the Pacific Ocean and missed the U.S.

    For these reasons alone there should not be a background check requirement. Somehow the U.S. did just fine for over 200 years without it.

  21. avataruncommon_sense says:

    And let’s throw this one out. While camping in remote forests is traditionally very safe, criminals have attacked families in such remote locations. If I am out with my family and stumble upon a marijuana field or a group of criminals finds us, you bet your @$$ I want a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine to defend my family.

  22. avatarTodd94590 says:

    I am disappointed that the spoken of, ‘overton window,’ has moved to the point where even *this* website uses the term “assult rifle.”

  23. avatarBHirsh says:

    “The American national anthem is the only national anthem that ends with a question:”

    Wow, Farago. I am 64 years old, and for all of those years, I missed that.

    Nice catch.

  24. avatarMOG says:

    1. Give up your right to own firearms, you will feel better about yourself
    2. if you do, jail will be safer, you will just have to do something else to get in.
    3. out of context: mikeb, your insults are eloquent in their delivery. Is that all you got?

  25. avatarTomFox says:

    I see the danger in implementing a universal background check system but question whether it would really have no effect in reducing overall firearm fatalities. Yes, it would still be possible for those barred from purchasing firearms to do so, but it does bring significant impediments to their acquisition that could have a cumulative effect. It is conceivable that a system could be designed that would limit the potential for increased confiscation risks. For instance, setting up a non-governmental entity to exist as the record keeper with veto power over governmental access to records. This entity could be staffed by members of relevant stakeholders, e.g., give gun rights advocates a seat at the table. It could also be under the purview of a new autonomous office of the Justice department. If a firearm is captured following a crime, that gun can be traced by going through legal procedures, otherwise, other branches of the government would have no access to the database.

    Additionally, it should be noted that at the very least, individuals who are making private sales should be able to opt in to a background check. As somebody who has sold my firearms to strangers at gun shows, I would have liked the option to perform a background check. I used my personal discretion in deciding who I would sell to, but the information I had to make this decision was obviously very limited.

    Honestly guys (and ladies…), we should try to seek some solutions to reduce firearm fatalities. In the long run, it could pay dividends for us. Beyond the fact that as gun advocates, we do bear some responsibility in seeking to limit the harms that firearms cause, and the fact that you can buy a modern sporting rifle without a background check is a powerful tool to motivator those who are uninformed to support gun control measures. Finding a way to eliminate this weapon in a way that does not harm out cause is a good thing.

  26. カメラ ビデオ製品

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.