The two pending debate topics at this time are 1) armed guards and 2) gun bans.
GUN BAN ISSUES
What should be banned
There are varying ideas on this that range from "nothing should be banned" to "everything should be banned."
The arguments for a gun ban include "Gun crimes drop when guns are banned." Well DUH...along those same lines, if we deported all red-heads, the crime perpetrated by red-heads would also drop. In effect, this is a bogus argument. It has been proven in several cities that banning guns does in fact reduce gun-related crime...however, other violent crimes sky rocket. Essentially, criminals WILL commit crimes...they WILL commit murder...the tool they use is irrelevant.
Banning assault rifles, will not likely reduce the kill ratio. An example is Columbine. While the perpetrators primarily used handguns, their plan was to use explosives. Since the politicians focused on the guns to promote their political agenda instead of the real issue, the truth about Columbine was deeply buried from the public eye. The truth about Columbine was that the perpetrators planned on a much much higher death toll. They had almost 100 explosive devices with them...fortunately, most of them failed to detonate. By the way, the explosive devices were of various designs and were primarily made from common household materials. The media, however, chose to focus on the guns. In the official account, the perpetrators preferred to use knives because guns were "less fun," by the time they had gained control of the library, the authorities were closing in...with guns.
At the time of Columbine, the most stringent assault rifle ban was in effect and had been for years.
Most Americans cannot even cite the deadliest school massacre in US history. Why? Because the media chooses to keep it quiet. It does not fit their agenda. The reason it doesn't fit their agenda is that not a single shot was fired. The fact that main stream media has written this off as irrelevant simply means that these deaths did not fit their agenda. The deadliest school massacre in US history occurred in 1927...not 1999...not 2012...1927. Not a single shot was fired.
How long will it take
The notion that Americans are just going to disarm themselves is the most idiotic idea anyone has come up with. America has almost 300 million guns REGISTERED and an unknown number unregistered. Even if guns were completely banned in America, it would take more than a century to get them out of circulation. I know, because every April 9th I go to my shooting range and fire my 50
caliber black powder revolver in celebration of the life of my great
grandfather...who used the same gun in the US Civil War.
Keep in mind that a total gun ban in the US is against the US Constitution which guarantees all Americans the right to own weapons. The Second Amendment has been distorted and twisted into a "recreational gun" amendment or a "hunting rights" amendment etc. But the founding fathers were clear on its purpose in many of their other writings. They were wise men, but they never dreamed that any American would be WILLING to disarm. It is clear that they meant for the Second Amendment to guarantee freedom by keeping the haters of freedom at bay.
How will it be enforced
Well, it is unlikely that a retroactive gun ban will be employed. It would be unwise of any political machine to go door to door and try to disarm America. The gun-related death toll would certainly skyrocket.
It will likely be enforced proactively by banning the sale of said weapons. This type of ban is worthless if for no other reason than it will take even longer to get the affected guns out of circulation. My guess is 200 years or more. Combine this with the fact that a gun ban will be overturned by executive order when it becomes clear to the common man that the gun ban is a worthless way to stop crime. I say the common man because it is already clear to them that it will not work. It is the political zealot that thinks doing the same thing over will somehow yield different results.
Ammunition is the most likely target. Banning the sale of ammunition is the most effective proactive approach. In effect, you can own a gun...any gun...but you just can't get bullets for it. My guess is this is what will be employed. Then the administration will create hundreds of ads telling their drones how they stood up for gun rights.
Who will enforce it
Well that is another great question. The bottom line is it will likely have to be a federal agency. Why? Because many states will stand firm and refuse to confiscate weapons. In fact, I fully expect many rational "red" states to announce that federal employees trying to confiscate guns will be arrested by state officials. If this sounds crazy to you, you might want to consider how Texas plans to handle Obamacare enforcement. You might even venture to see how several states handled the United Nations audit of the 2012 election.
Will it even work
Short and sweet, NO. While the right and the left both twist the numbers in their favor, there is no correlation between the crime rate and gun control at the national level. READ WHAT I SAID! When guns are controlled at the NATIONAL level, no correlation to crime exists. NONE!
By far...BY FAR..a better indicator of crime rates hinges on poverty and, to a lesser degree, population density. This is known by all competent politicians but it is simply political suicide to change it. Basically, content, happy citizens do not vote...and more importantly, they do not donate to political campaigns.
