[phaed]

large (46 page) harvard report about what would happen if guns were banned in the US.

INTRODUCTION

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a com‐
pound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

CONCLUSION

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavilâ€"at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐
den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐
cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

full report at...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-78,792

 

[GM404]

large (46 page) harvard report about what would happen if guns were banned in the US.

full report at...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students...atesMauseronline.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-78,792

No way I'm reading a rambling diatribe from Harvard.

I can tell you what I would do though if they were made to be illegal...break the law.

 

[Rugerer]

No way I'm reading a rambling diatribe from Harvard.

I can tell you what I would do though if they were made to be illegal...break the law.

Don Kates is not some rambling Harvard yahoo. Harvard Law Review is just the publisher. Don Kates is another John Lott.

 

[Nemo]

Sure seems to be arguing and supporting a thorough debunking and destruction of the idea that less guns equal less crime. Seems to support the idea that number of guns owned by basic law abiding citizens is pretty much irrelevant to the amount of criminal activity going on.

Thats what I understand it to put forth.

Nemo

 

[Taurus92]

We should have some test cities.

 

[mygunstoo]

We should have some test cities.

We have. Chicago for example.

 

[Scout706]

Some test countries. . .oh wait, we do!

 

[gunsmoker]

Cities' and states' experiments with gun control don't mean much, because they have porous borders. No attempt at restricting people from coming or going as they please, bringing whatever they want with them.

When a sovereign nation bans something, that means more, if they have the mechanism in place to enforce the ban with their Customs Department inspecting shipments arriving to that nation, questioning visitors and returning expatriots, searching luggage of travelers, etc.

If a nation that shares largely undefended borders with many other nations decides to ban something that the nations around it won't ban, that indicates the ban would be ineffective.
Right now, I think Mexico stands ready to supply the USA with a big supply of black market arms, either made in small machine shops in Mexico or smuggled in from Central and South America.
If the USA banned sporting guns like pump shotguns and lever action rifles, CANADA would become a major exporter (illegally) of those items, which would easily get brought in across our porous border with them.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

What would happen?

Manufacturers would quit making them.

Sellers would stop selling them.

Most to almost all gun owners would quietly turn them in and accept checks for their fair market value.

A few would hide them, but it would be rare.

Criminals would still be amply supplied on the black market, but most of what they want could be accomplished with knives and superior numbers.

Nobody much would start shooting police and National Guardsmen. Probably nobody at all.

The newly appointed majority on the Supreme Court would give its blessing and overturn Heller. Case closed.

We would soon talk about guns the same way we talk about our friend whose grandfather kept a full auto black market Tommy Gun under the bed, some rare and almost mythical thing.

 

[gunsmoker]

and...

the NRA would still exist, and while trying to overturn the gun ban on one hand, it would help turn gun enthusiasts' attention to legal non-firearm "guns."
Airguns. Pellet and BB guns.
Laser beam training guns.
Crossbows and other projectile-throwing weapons.

"Guns and Ammo" would be full of articles about choosing the right replica muzzle-loading musket for home defense. How to bag a deer with a crossbow. What caliber air rifle is best for coyote hunting.

Collectors would be encouraged to buy "replica" guns, deactivated (DWAT) guns, and blank-only guns.

 

[BSCLibertarian]

When was this paper published? I've read through 25 pages or so and can't find any indication. Is it staring me in the face and I'm missing it?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

When was this paper published? I've read through 25 pages or so and can't find any indication. Is it staring me in the face and I'm missing it?

Spring 2007 http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/vols-30-34/#302

 

[BSCLibertarian]

Thanks.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

You ah velcome.

 

[MouserGun]

Cities' and states' experiments with gun control don't mean much, because they have porous borders. No attempt at restricting people from coming or going as they please, bringing whatever they want with them.

The US has very porous borders too.

 

[Taurus92]

The US has very porous borders too.

Can't mention that. Can't point out that drugs get into the country through the same networks all black market items get into the country.

 

[moe mensale]

Sure seems to be arguing and supporting a thorough debunking and destruction of the idea that less guns equal less crime. Seems to support the idea that number of guns owned by basic law abiding citizens is pretty much irrelevant to the amount of criminal activity going on.

Thats what I understand it to put forth.

Nemo

So did I. Kates and Mauser (Mauser!?) debunk a lot of the politically motivated falsehoods perpetuated over decades.

 

[moe mensale]

Isn't that a defeatist mentality? Particularly as relates to us gun owners. How many gun owners are there in the US? 80 million? 100 million? True, there could be a huge rollover but what of the 1-3% that won't roll? That's potentially 800K to 3 million seriously pissed off folks. Would the cops and the NG have something to worry about? Possibly. I'd wager a guess that our "peoples representatives," the black robes and the unelected government bureaucrats at all levels might want to seriously consider whether they'd ever collect their lofty pensions.

What would happen?

Manufacturers would quit making them.

Sellers would stop selling them.

Most to almost all gun owners would quietly turn them in and accept checks for their fair market value.

A few would hide them, but it would be rare.

Criminals would still be amply supplied on the black market, but most of what they want could be accomplished with knives and superior numbers.

Nobody much would start shooting police and National Guardsmen. Probably nobody at all.

The newly appointed majority on the Supreme Court would give its blessing and overturn Heller. Case closed.

We would soon talk about guns the same way we talk about our friend whose grandfather kept a full auto black market Tommy Gun under the bed, some rare and almost mythical thing.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Isn't that a defeatist mentality? Particularly as relates to us gun owners.

Yes. Experience shows what the reaction will be.

1934 - NFA - nothing

1986 - FOPA - nothing

1994 - AWB - nothing

20?? - Katrina seizures - nothing

There are no counterexamples, at least not since April of 1775, so forget it. The American people will do absolutely nothing but post rantings on the internet and vote for gun grabbers like Trump who tell you he is not such.

I challenge you to make an opposing claim and support it with ANYTHING that appears to be something other than internet fantasy. Go ahead.

"Us gun owners" are bunch of statist sheep, for the most part. We can't even get 1/100th of licensed carriers in Georgia (not owners, just actual GWCL holders) to join GCO for twenty bucks. You are talking about taking some sort of actual action? Just like the four examples above, no action will be taken. "Nothing."

I look forward to hearing your response.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

1934 - NFA - nothing

1986 - FOPA - nothing

1994 - AWB - nothing

20?? - Katrina seizures - nothing

The first one, if you are reading and not familiar, was the registration scheme for machine guns. The lawmakers and judges had not yet been conditioned to think they could ban such weapons (after all, what weapon is more suited for militia use than a full auto gun?), so they instead passed a high tax on such weapons and registration to administer the tax.

The second one banned further manufacture of machine guns for civilian use. By this time, lawmakers and judges mostly thought there was no right to keep or bear arms of any kind, especially not militia weapons.

The third one is recent enough that most of us remember it, before it, during, and after. Reaction? NOTHING.

Katrina - not one example of resistance to National Guard or police confiscating weapons, even from people who thought their very survival might depend upon it, given the circumstances at the time. Passive acquiescence was the response. Oh, people ranted and raved on the internet, alright, but that was it. People actually think they accomplish something by posting on the internet. LOL!

Most gun owners today think machine guns are properly illegal and should remain so.

A few decades after a new AWB (one that closes all the loopholes of the prior one) gun owners will be of the same opinion about nasty AR15s.