An Analysis of Firearms and Violent Crime
12.17.2012 Original publish date.
01.28.2013 UPDATE: Number of murders in Mexico hit 70,000 w/ gun ban.
03.09.2013 UPDATE: DOJ/FBI background check requests & analysis.
04.23.2013 UPDATE: Minor updates, including links.
04.17.2014 UPDATE: Further historical research and FBI background check update added.
04.18.2014 UPDATE: Added: Obama reverses course again on UN arms treaty. Additional reporting.
12.15.2014 UPDATE: Minor fixes, additional update/ article expansion. Replaced perm broken link(s) with original PDF.
01.11.2015 UPDATE: Additional update/ article expansion. Replaced perm broken link(s) with original PDF or other archived copy.
An Analysis of Firearms and Violent Crime
original article written by Net Advisor™
“To Disarm the People (is) the Best and Most Effectual Way to Enslave Them…”
There is a lot of talk by certain groups seeking to ban firearms, especially semi-automatic weapons. This group tends to come out in force after any incident where multiple persons are killed by a nut case using a firearm.
The other side of this coin are the Second Amendment defenders who seek to enforce their Constitutional right to “bear arms.”
This report [approximately 21-pages (word format) (18 pages in PDF) with images and graphics] takes a look at hard statistical data related to gun policies in the U.S. and Mexico; and how higher gun sales have decreased gun violence in the USA, while a total gun ban has increased gun-related violence in Mexico.
We also look at the Constitutional attacks in attempt to disarm Americans.
 WASHINGTON DC. Once again, anti-Second Amendment groups are on the warpath after following a tragic high-profile story about a sick lone gunman. These cases tend to involve severely troubled young males whose mental state went unchecked for years. Then at some point, they snap, and they respond by killing many innocent people often with the use of a firearm.
The U.S. is on a dangerous path by those seeking to disarm lawful American citizens. The political left use the deaths of others to further their political agenda. As tragic as these events are, the shooter rarely seems to get the blame. The offender is always the inanimate object – the firearm.
 Blame Game: It’s Not the Shooter’s Fault?
Following these tragic events, anti-gun advocates are quick to blame not the person who actually committed the crime; instead, they attack their political foes:
1. The NRA – who does NOT even manufacture, sell, or distribute firearms or ammunition gets blamed for an individual who kills someone with a firearm. The typical fast food restaurant serves food that are generally very high in fat, and salt. Over a lifetime that kind of diet will kill people too. Is there a call to ban certain foods? Almost, and yes if you live in New York.
With regard to the NRA contrary to belief, a recent poll last April 2012 found that “68% of Americans have a favorable view of the NRA” (Source: Reuters).
2. Next, Republicans are blamed by generally left leaning political ideology. It really doesn’t matter what the issue is, the Left always blame Republicans for every problem in America.
Neither of these arguments will solve any problem, are not based on fact, and such ideological thinking will not prevent a wacko from killing people via a car loaded with fertilizer and fuel, an arson setting an area on fire, or hijacking airplanes and blowing them up or flying them into buildings. A nut case will use whatever means they can to act out their internal issues. Taking lawful weapons away from lawful citizens will not stop bad people from doing bad things.
 Quick History of Defense
Humankind learned to develop primitive weapons for self-defense. These included sticks, clubs, rocks, etc. The purpose was to protect their families from unprovoked attackers seeking to steal food, supplies and taking away their women and children.
Mankind had to learn how to develop weapons to hunt for food and to protect the family from being attacked in the cave.
— Net Advisor™
As humankind evolved so did their ability to develop more advance methods of defense. The earliest firearms discovered over 1,000 years ago. Unfortunately like with any technology, there are and have always been those who use it with the wrong intention. The weapon wasn’t the issue, it was the user. This is exactly the reason why law-abiding citizens need to protect themselves from these people.
 Can Government or Police Protect Us When We Dial 911?
Some might argue that the police will protect us. Unfortunately the reality is, police can’t be everywhere all the time to act as our personal bodyguard. Police cannot teleport instantaneously and respond to a crime scene fast enough to prevent or instantly stop a crime already in progress.
In the event of riot, or other natural or unnatural disaster, it may just be wishful thinking to carry the belief that police, fire, emergency crew calls to 911 will somehow always be able to respond as people might want to need, and when and where they might need help. Emergency resources are allocated in order of priority calls, and as quickly and as safely as help can arrive.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court said that police are not liable to protect citizens. The reason is simple. Police were never intended to act as everyone’s 24HR personal bodyguard. They do their best to serve and protect. Keep in mind that we have our own duty and Second Amendment rights to take responsibility for our own lives and property, especially in the home.
The public tends to be on their own during times of crisis for an unknown period of time. This was true in the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, 1965 Watt’s Riots, 1992 Los Angeles Riots, 1992 Hurricane Andrew, 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, 2005 Hurricane Katrina, 2008 Iowa-Mid-West Floods, 2012 Hurricane Sandy, and pretty much the several hours of local mayhem after every Lakers game at Staples Center in Los Angeles, California.
Emergency crews respond quickly, but keep in mind they cannot guarantee prevention of crimes or disaster. Their job tends to respond to crimes or disaster AFTER they have already started. Citizens need to do their part in prevention, including taking care of their own needs until help can arrive. In the event of riots, or home invasion, it’s a little too late. Whatever one did well prior to prepare for high-risk events (such as home invasion), will determine what resources they will have available to defend any attack.
In every case (noted above during riot or natural disaster) people were on their own to fend for themselves, without immediate emergency assistance. In some cases like the 1992 L.A. Riots, police were under attack by riot mobs, and police were ordered to leave their patrol and return to the station to regroup. It took 4,000 Army National Guard and U.S. Marines to control the 1992 Los Angeles riots, but the damage was already done before their arrival.
In natural disasters such as Andrew, Katrina, and Sandy, people were without working power, water, and unable to flush toilets for two or more weeks. When people get hungry or otherwise desperate – things happen.
This is no different from what occurred in early humankind. When people could not find food, water, or shelter they explored until they found it or found other people who had resources they needed for survival. People fought over the resources, and those who were ill-prepared or defenseless, generally lost.
Prisoners Act Like Survivalists
All weapons are banned in every U.S. prison, yet everyday prisoners learn to make weapons either for self-defense or for aggressive attacks. What do they use? Anything they can get their hands on. The most common weapon is a piece of metal from something. These are primitive driven instincts. Thus, even with a total weapons ban (and body-cavity search – in prison) people will still come up with highly creative ideas to make weapons often times to protect themselves from attackers.
There are already existing laws that prohibit weapon possession or use by prison inmates. It is a crime to possess or use weapons by inmates in prison. Criminals already know this, and some do it anyway. Others respond by making their own weapons when they fear that they could be attacked. And even with a law, armed police, and a population locked up behind bars, they STILL MAKE and USE WEAPONS.
The point here, there is nothing anyone will EVER be able to do, to prevent people from making or using anything as a weapon. There is no legislative body, President or law enforcement agency who will ever be able to prevent this. It is just human nature for people to figure out how to protect oneself (family, or others) in a crisis or high risk situation.
 Why a Gun Ban Won’t Work
Since we aren’t going to lock up every troubled youth or adult for having severe mental-emotional issues, anti-gun advocates seem to think that if we ban or limit firearms in general or specifically semi-automatic rifles, that we will be somehow safer?
Banning firearms or specific firearms won’t stop crime or violence. In fact it could do the opposite.
It is just not realistic to try and take away the near 300 million firearms in the USA from their lawful owners. If government attempted this, you would have a total economic and structural collapse of the United States and the risk of another civil war. A government attempt to remove lawful weapons from lawful owners is just not logistically probably, Constitutional, nor realistic.
Hypothetically speaking, even with say a total gun-ban in the USA, firearms would still be available from all over the world and would be smuggled into this country just like the millions of pounds of illegal drugs (and people) are each year.
It should also be noted that criminals don’t follow the law anyway, and they would be the ones with the guns, leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless or out-gunned.
 Firearm Owners Keep America Safe from Foreign Ground Attacks
One could argue that by having America well-armed, actually makes it a deterrent from foreign enemies to come and launch any ground attack on American soil. This is a benefit for the U.S. government, because law-abiding citizens who are armed are more likely to defend their home or community in an assault by a foreign military threat.
When the British tried to seize control of the Colonialists some 237 years go, the Americans fought back (Sources: History.com, HistoryPlace.com, PBS.org). If America did not have weapons to fight, the U.S. could still be under (tyrannical) British rule today.
 Constitutional Rights
If government seeks to force gun manufacturers and dealers from selling new legal firearms, or limit such in some way, we could have a Constitutional challenge.
The U.S. Constitution states:
“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.”
— Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Ratified 12-15-1791
Some people try and reinterpret the Constitution suggesting that this means the Army (government) is allowed to have the weapons on behalf of the country’s defense.
But the way this worked in history is, the people were the militia. Technically this is still true today. We have a full-time militia (State National Guard forces and the Federal Military branches). Yet, the Constitution makes no reference to ‘once you have enough people to form an effective army, then the People don’t need to own personal arms.’
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue of the right for U.S. citizens, not just the military to bear arms in 1939.
“…States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
— In United States v. Miller (Source: Cornell Law School).
 Constitutional Analysis
Arguably, our forefather’s wrote the Second Amendment, as well as other Amendments in as few words as possible. My analysis here is a longer worded Amendment to the Constitution could make that Amendment subject to greater interpenetration from its original intent.
Note that there are 4 distinct phrases in the Second Amendment. The commas are probably the most important grammatical mark here, separating ideas and intent.
1. That the Second Amendment requires the U.S. to have a militia;
2. That the Second Amendment deemed that a militia is “necessary” in order to secure a free state.
3. That the Second Amendment explicitly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” (underline added for emphasis).
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a specific phrase that has nothing to do with an independent (state or federal army or militia). The Preamble to the United States Constitution begins with, “We the People.” The Preamble does NOT say: We, and the militia; or We, the militia; or We, the government’s militia.
4. That the Second Amendment explicitly ends with, “shall not be infringed.” It gets very hard for even liberal gun control advocates to reinterpret the part that says, “shall not be infringed.”
The meaning here suggests that no one has the right to remove this power from the People (lawful U.S. citizens) of the United States.
What is a Militia?
It has been argued that the Latin meaning of militia refers to “military service,” not an “armed group.”
One of our forefathers, George Mason debated this during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and said:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
George Mason IV was not the only person who was concerned about the power of militia, where did that power belong, and who has the right to that power.
It was cited in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1788) , that “the militia” refers to “the people themselves…(being) capable of bearing arms.”
Pennsylvania Delegate to the Continental Congress, Tench Coxe said this in 1788:
“Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…
…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
It is very interesting to see how far the U.S. has moved away from citizen militia as discussed by our Constitutional Forefathers, to a more centralized military that could be used against the People whom their oath says they are supposed to protect.
This is not to suggest one side is right and the other side is wrong. This merely points out the facts of how federal power in the militia evolved.
Next, more anti-Second Amendment advocates continue to challenge the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment rights even after 230+ years.
U.S. Supreme Court: DC Gun Ban ‘Unconstitutional’
In 2008, Washington DC (formally, the District of Columbia) attempted to ban possession of all hand guns, including in the home. Anti-gun advocates also attempted to force people to disassemble their weapons, or have a trigger lock preventing their use in the name of ‘safety’ even in their home.
The U.S. Supreme Court made a definitive ruling in this case in District of Columbia v. Heller whereby ‘the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.’
“In Heller, the Court held that
(1) the District of Columbia’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and
(2) the District’s requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”
Thus the High Court said the municipal actions by the District of Columbia rendered firearms useless, whereby citizens could not protect themselves even in their own home; and whereas a gun ban violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
 Government Interpretation
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted various historical to current case law regarding the Second Amendment here. The one notable error in their work, is that they argue, “there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.” If one takes a look at the case law, (several examples cited above) the Courts seem to be pretty clear on this question.
U.S. Citizens have the “right to bear arms” that includes in the home, for self-defense or lawful purposes, and the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller seems to argue that government can’t ban a class of firearms or regulate lawful firearms in the home.
 Possession of Firearm or Ammo ILLEGAL in Mexico.
A Pocket Knife Can Land You in Jail Too!
The right to bear arms is not universal in this world. Our neighbors to the south of the USA have long banned the sale or possession of any firearm or ammunition. Carrying even a pocket knife can get one arrested in Mexico.
Mexico Weapon Laws:
“If you are caught with firearms or ammunition in Mexico…
- You will go to jail and your vehicle will be seized;
- You will be separated from your family, friends, and your job, and likely suffer substantial financial hardship;
- You will pay court costs and other fees ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself;
- You may get up to a 30-year sentence in a Mexican prison if found guilty.
If you carry a knife on your person in Mexico, even a pocketknife . . .
- You may be arrested and charged with possession of a deadly weapon;
- You may spend weeks in jail waiting for trial, and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, court costs, and fines;
- If convicted, you may be sentenced to up to five years in a Mexican prison.”
With such strict gun and knife ban laws in place and for so many years, one would think that Mexico has become the utopia crime-free society? There is just one problem with this, the criminals don’t follow the laws.
 Estimated 70,000 People Killed in Mexico with Guns AND a Full Gun Ban
Even with Mexico’s strict weapons laws, this hasn’t stopped the gun deaths of about 50,000 people in Mexico from December 2006 to September 2011 [article, Point #9]. Just in 2011, there were 27,199 murders in Mexico. That number has climbed to “some 70,000” in the last 6 years.
“(Mexico’s) Attorney General Jesus Murillo said it was estimated that some 70,000 people had been killed since Mr Calderon launched a crackdown on the drug cartels in 2006. A further 9,000 were missing.”
When citizens cannot protect themselves from criminals, and a government deems its citizens as criminals if they try and defend themselves with weapons against would-be attackers, you get 70,000+ murders.
 If we just ban guns in the USA, then people wouldn’t be killed in Mexico, and crime and violence would go away right? Wrong.
According to FactCheck.org, most of the firearms in Mexico did NOT come from the United States. Firearms are manufactured all over the world including but not limited to Canada, China, Israel, Germany, Spain, UK, and Russia (list). These arms are sold worldwide to military, police, and law-biding citizens.
Criminals will get their hands on weapons no matter where they are made or sold. Criminals are not too concerned about gun laws, your safety, your rights, or your freedoms.
 Statistically: Gun Violence is Low in the USA
Despite the high-profile media coverage of gun violence, the data seems to show gun violence is actually very low compared to other crimes that involve violence.
From 1993-2001, only ten percent of all the violent crimes in the USA were committed with the use of a firearm. Offenders who used a firearm where people were actually shot, accounted for just 3 percent of all violent crimes (PDF, page 7-8 highlight added).
What this means is:
(1) 90% of violent crimes were NOT committed by firearms, and
(2) 97% of the people involved in violent crimes were NOT shot with a firearm.
Despite these facts, anti-gun advocates seek to limit or ban firearms anyway.
Anti-gun advocates also argue that there are risks of accidental deaths with firearms. Based on the 2002 report (PDF, page 7-8 highlight added), the fact is that a person is 3 times more likely to die during medical/ surgical complications; 17 times more likely to die due to a fall; and 44 times more likely to die in an auto-accident, than be killed or even shot by a firearm.
Based on this gun control proponent logic, we should then ban medical surgeries, place every living being in a wheelchair to ‘avoid’ falling, and prohibit the use of all motor vehicles.
 Gun Violence Down 15.44 Percent Since 1993
The Department of Justice (DOJ) released a report for December 2012 covering detail statistical crime data. What is interesting to note in Table 9 (above – highlight added) is that gun violence committed against strangers fell from 1993 to 2010 by 15.44% [Math based on DOJ table data above: 12.3% (Firearm crime 1993-1998) – 10.4% (Firearm crime 1999-2010) = 1.9%; then 1.9% divided by 12.3% = 15.44% decrease in gun violence – or 15.45% if round to nearest whole number].
Using the same math above, gun violence increased by 7.14% when the offender knew the victim personally.
The DOJ crime stats show that overall violent crime has gone up since 1993, but NO WEAPON was associated with the crime. Thus, one is almost 6 times more likely to be involved in a violent crime that does NOT involve a gun of any kind. Based on the DOJ crime statistics, the anti-gun advocates are looking to ban something that is not a material element in violent crime (Full DOJ Report PDF, 19pps).
 More Statistical Data:
A 2010 DOJ report showed the following violent crime data:
- Total Number of Violent Crimes: 3,817,380
- Crimes of violence that did NOT involve a weapon: 2,643,420. This represented 69% (sixty-nine percent) of all violent crimes that did NOT involve ANY weapon.
- Violent crimes that involved a firearm: 337,960. Thus only 9% (nine-percent) of all violent crimes in the USA actually involved a firearm.
— Source: DOJ, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010 (Table 4, page 8 of 20, PDF).
The 2010 DOJ data thus found that 91% (ninety-one percent) of all violent crime did NOT involve a firearm.
 How Gun-Control Advocates Help Increase Gun Sales
Now this one should throw some people for a loop. Over the last four years I decided to study why gun sales are soaring. Based on observation, reading major media articles, looking at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) data for firearm background check requests (NICS requests), talking to firearm buyers, dealers, and at trade shows, I have come to the following conclusion.
The more discussion of the threat to limit or ban firearms, the more firearms are sold in the USA. The data seems to support this theory.
 The Most Popular Christmas Gift in the USA: Guns
Each year we hear about what are the hot selling items for the holidays. While people run (or shop on-line) for those Black Friday deals on electronics or other popular items, they also shopped for guns.
“For the second consecutive year, prospective gun buyers joined Black Friday shoppers in record numbers as firearms dealers swamped the FBI with required buyer background check requests.
Nationally, nearly 62% of Friday background check requests involved long guns, according to the FBI.”
— Source: USA Today, 11-26-2012 (PDF)
 Gun Sales Soar to All-Time Record
Gun sales hit an all-time record high in 2012. The FBI reported 19.592 Million background check requests (Source: FBI NICS Background Check System – Chart above).
This translates to about 53,678 background checks every day of the week including weekends and all federal holidays. Given that normal background checks are conducted during FBI’s regular business hours, this number would actually be significantly higher when factoring out weekends and holidays.
The FBI states that background checks do not necessarily translate into exact number of gun sales. A person could have purchased more than one firearm in a single transaction.
The NICS system does not count anyone who “changed their mind,” and did not purchase a firearm even after completing a background check.
Firearm dealers generally require a sizable non-refundable deposit, or fully paid purchase before the background check is submitted. Thus, backing out of a transaction could be costly to the buyer if one “changes their mind” or does not pass the background check. Each licensed dealer will have their own purchase terms.
The NICS data may not track all “private sales” that are exempt from background checks in some states. Using the NICS data, one still can have a reasonable idea of how many potential or minimum firearms that could have been sold during the periods shown (FBI chart above).
The data represents less than 1 percent of denied firearms sales, thus over 99% of firearm purchases are being made by law-abiding U.S. citizens with no criminal record.
The FBI chart above also suggests that over 69 Million legal firearm background check requests have been made since Obama became president in 2008. This number is almost double the amount of arms purchased under Bush’s first term, and exceeds the number of potential arms purchased after the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
UPDATE: March 2014
 186 Million Firearm Background Checks Over Last 14 years
To say that the U.S. doesn’t do background checks to purchase firearms is a bit of a stretch.
We obtained an updated copy of the FBI’s NICS firearm background check system from November 30, 1998 to March 31, 2014. The report includes all 50 U.S. states and territories (Local PDF Chart).
Here are some of the key findings:
1. The largest of the “blue states” (Democrat controlled) by population, California had over 12.5 million new background check requests over this 14 year and 5 month period. That works out to be about one background check request for every 3 people in California based on current population of 38 million. It would seem that California appears liberal, votes Democratic, but they don’t want to give up their guns.
2. Conservative states such as the Lone Star State (Texas), ranked number three in background check requests (14 million), and Kentucky ranked number one with 17.7 million background check requests.
3. Over 14 years and 5 months (November 30, 1998 to March 31, 2014) there were over 186.5 million background check requests in the USA. There were only 489 guns returned over this same period, and most coming from three states – New Hampshire (158), Pennsylvania (134), and Washington (173).
- FBI: Firearm background check requests hit record 21 Million in 2013 (FBI/DOJ chart).
 Why Are Gun Sales Soaring in the USA?
Even one of the most restrictive gun sale states, California was on-track for record firearm sales in 2012. Journalist Terry Collins for NBC Bay Area (San Francisco region) where a large portion of the state’s Liberal population (political map, PDF) lives said, “No one seems to have an answer as to why (gun) sales are up” (PDF).
Well, that isn’t exactly true. Most rational people have figured out this equation. Gun sales have soared especially since Obama won the 2008 election (Source: CNN). Gun sales continued to break all-time records in 2009 (Source: Fox News), record gun sales in 2010 (Source: FBI), record gun sales in 2011 (Source: CNN), record gun sales in 2012 (Source: Reuters), and record gun sales in 2013 (Source: Washington Times). Gun and ammo sales have soared because of the left-political landscape that threatens to ban various firearms, or regulate ammunition sales.
“American gun sales have been climbing for nearly a decade, but they have surged under President Barack Obama — particularly after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting in December 2012. According to FBI data, the number of firearm background checks has risen dramatically during the Obama era.”
— Zack Carter, Huffington Post, Dec. 6, 2013 (PDF)
Since the U.S. economy peaked in 2006, firearm background check requests are up 90 percent. Even after the so called “economic recovery” that some economists claim began in March 2009, firearm sales have still rocketed to new all-time records, and every year since.
 Obama Withdraws From U.N. Arms Sales Treaty Right Before 2012 Election
Just about 2 months before the November 2012 election, and where Mitt Romney was gaining more support, President Obama pulled out of the controversial UN Army Treaty that he previously supported for the last two years (Source: Huffington Post, PDF).
Now before you get your hopes up, we are updating you now.
 New Secretary of State Signs U.N. Arms Sales Treaty AFTER 2012 Election
Now that the 2012 election is over, and Obama won, and after Hillary Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State, the new Secretary of State, Democrat John Kerry signed that exact same U.N. Arms Treaty that Obama “backed out” of before the 2012 election [Sources: Fox News (PDF), Huffington Post, Reuters (PDF)].
Secretary Kerry has this fantasy that a piece of paper signed by a bunch of non-elected diplomats will somehow:
2. That this move here is somehow not a Constitutional attack on the Second Amendment? As an U.S. official, Sec. Kerry is required by law to uphold all the laws of the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Now that we know the truth of who is not defending the oath of office (per Constitutional law). Lets take a look back when this liberal gun control fantasy ideology got started.
 U.S. Government Planning to Disarm Americans for 51 years: The Plan
In September 1961, radical liberal progressives came up with a plan to ban all weapons from citizens in the U.S. and the world. We call this Fantasyland:
Objectives: (Partial list)
1. “The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form…”
2. “The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery…”
3. “The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations” (all on page 2).
— Source: U.S. Department of State Publication #7277 (September 1961) (PDF)
4. “As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened…” (page 3).
[So, all of us should give up our arms, while a 99% foreign 3rd-party quasi-government (UN) builds up their arms?]
5. “States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country” (page 4).
[In other words, war is illegal. If we just passed a law and made war illegal, we would have no more wars?].
6. “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order” (page 5).
— Source: U.S. Department of State Publication #7277 (September 1961) (PDF)
In other words, the U.N. will provide for the entire world’s security. No one country needs their own military or weapons of any sort, and the manufacture or sales of weapons are just not necessary for anyone except for the UN?
Can you imagine Russia, China, Iran, Libya, etc., members of UN security forces coming to your home to take away your guns?
Anyone who thinks that sending in the UN to say: Now, now terrorists, please don’t fight those westerners any more. Like the terrorists will say: OK, sorry, our bad?
Under this 1961 State Department fantasy, terrorism, war, murder, cannot exist per U.N. treaty. Any and all power and arms would be under the control and use of the U.N. to enforce “peace” as the U.N. – NOT the U.S. or another sovereign nation sees fit. This would violate at least the U.S.’s 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms).
We are told (per the 1961 State Dept. in the U.N. plan) that we are allowed to keep a basic force for domestic enforcement (police). It would be so gracious that a foreign group of unelected bureaucrats would permit the U.S. to have a domestic police force.
The drive here is to live in some ideological world that never has existed, and in all likelihood, won’t exist.
If anyone is unsure about this, just ask all the terrorist groups, and countries such as China, North Korea, and Russia to give up all their weapons to U.N. control. Then we can all meet in Israel with Iran and Hamas for our annual hand-holding candle-light ceremony.
This plan was developed by (Democrat) Progressives in the U.S. government. For those who are thinking, we’ll that was back in 1961, that’s not true today?
The U.S. has implemented some of the steps outlined in the 1961 plan. The U.S. and to some extent, Russia, but not China have decreased their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The only problem here is that since 2007, Russia began planning to develop new nuclear weapons (Source: Reuters).
President Obama also ended the Space Shuttle Program in 2011 (Source: CS Monitor). There’s no need for space exploration and allow the risk of humanoids to pollute other planets, so Obama scraped the space shuttle program.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (actual document) mirrors the 1961 State Department goal of further regulating, controlling the production and sale of small arms (from citizens) (Source: infowars.com). This treaty was set up to be addressed again, after the November 2012 election come March 18-28, 2013, which we noted Sec of State Kerry (appointed by Obama), signed on behalf of the United States.
After the 2012 re-election of President Obama, gun sales soared again (Sources: News Tribune, Star Telegram, Times247). Record gun sales has made good profits for gun makers – the very same people the gun control crowed wants to put out of business.
 Guns Not Available? Not a Problem. Man Stabs 22 School Children
On December 14, 2012, a man in the Henan province village of Chengping (Central China) ran into a grade school and attacked an elderly woman then 22 school children. His method of attack – a knife.
This isn’t the first time this has happened in China either.
“…a string of similar assaults (also with a knife) against school children in 2010… killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.”
In 2004, a man killed 8 Chinese children in their beds – with a knife (Source: Guardian.UK).
In May 2010, another man stabbed 8 people including his mom, wife and daughter in China (Source: Sky News.UK).
China has a gun ban for most private citizens. With all the senseless knife stabbings on young children, shouldn’t China ban knives too? As we discussed earlier, gun and knife bans in Mexico increased murder rates, not decrease them.
We discussed how the Second Amendment is under attack again. As sad and as tragic as events sometimes go, there will always be sick and mentally-ill people who will use whatever weapon is available to them, whether it is a gun, knife, a hammer, a pen, or otherwise.
Early humankind developed primitive weapons for self-defense to protect their resources and family from attackers. As we progressed in technology, weapons also become more sophisticated.
At times of crisis, government, police or emergency crews may not be readily available for everyone when we may need them to keep the peace. We may have to fend for ourselves for awhile.
Banning firearms is just not a likely scenario given the 300 million guns in private hands.
Lawful firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens can also help protect America from foreign ground attacks. This worked against the British who tried to seize guns, ammo, and powder (etc) away from the Colonists in the Battles of Lexington and Concord (Further reading). What followed was the American Revolutionary War (History Channel), the subsequent official independence of the United States of America, and independence ratification from Great Britain.
In countries such as Mexico, China and the UK for example, violence has not declined with such bans. Taking guns and weapons away from citizens in Mexico resulted in nearly 70,000 people killed by guns from 2006-2012. Mexico also has a drug-cartel problem that the government can’t or won’t control. The legalization of many drugs in Mexico have increased the (said) murder rate.
Despite record gun sales in the USA, the Department of Justice data shows that gun violence in the USA has fallen over 15 percent since 1993, and only 9 percent of violent crimes were committed with a firearm.
Gun sales continue to sell at record rates as the Obama Administration and anti-gun advocates think that more regulation, limits or a ban will somehow curb violence. The DOJ’s own data since 1993 just doesn’t support that argument (further report).
What argument can be drawn from the DOJ is the more guns sold, the safer society is in general. Society isn’t impervious to violence, especially since strict gun laws either restrict or prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying them. Criminals ignore the guns laws anyway, so writing a new anti-gun law makes people less safe, and puts the criminals at a tactical advantage.
There have been long-term government plans to further regulate, limit and ban weapons from its citizens. The Obama Administration has taken actions and made statements to support further limits, regulations and or ban of firearms to some extent.
The Father of the U.S. Bill of Rights, George Mason IV said:
“To Disarm the People (is) the Best and Most Effectual Way to Enslave Them…”
There will always be a nut that commits (mass) murder. If more states would allow law-abiding, properly trained citizens concealed weapons permits, citizens could have a fighting chance against these random (lone) gunmen.
If you liked this article, please “like us” on Facebook or share on Twitter or through your favorite social network. We are a non-profit education media org.
Read More of our articles on relating to U.S. Gun Policies, laws, and history here.
Image Credit: Images may be copyright by their respective owner where noted and if known.
Original content copyright © 2012 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
Revised copyright © 2014-2015 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.