Hell in a Handbasket

One of the justifications trotted out by those who favor gun control is that outlawing firearms will result in less criminal use. After all, if the bad guys can't get their hands on any guns, then they can't shoot anyone. Right?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it falls apart pretty quickly if one should actually study the history of firearms. Guns are machines that wear out, it is true, but they are extremely well made machines that take a very long time to break beyond all hope of repair.

Case in point is the bad boy below, the hoary Madsen machine gun.

(Please click on all pictures to see if a larger image is available.)

Originally developed in 1882, before Hiram Maxim patented his own machine gun and a mere 18 years after own American Civil War ended, the design was shelved because the black powder used at the time created too much fouling for the gun to function with any degree of reliability. It was slightly modified in 1907 and put into production, some say production actually started in the 1890's, and it was one of the first light machine guns.

The armed forces of many countries have used the Madsen over the years, and production of the gun ceased sometime around 1950. So no new parts or guns for at least 50 years.

The reason why I'm mentioning this old gun is because Strategypage.com is reporting that the very last of the Madsen machine guns on active duty have been retired.

Think about that for a moment. It took over 50 years of heavy use before it became too costly and difficult to keep these old guns functioning. Not too shabby for a Victorian era design.

But guns made now are more rugged than the Madsen. Glocks, for example, are expected to last for at least 15,000 rounds before they require major repairs. Firearms made in the 1950's, which are still plentiful and easy to acquire, would usually only expect to last through about 1/2 that.

Would an outright global ban on the manufacture and ownership of all firearms, something that is pretty much impossible to enforce, result in less violent criminal attacks? Sure, eventually. It would take a few centuries before the stocks of firearms available to criminals would begin to wear out, though. And that is only if no one cheats and knocks together a functional gun using nothing more than a moderately well equipped basement machine shop.

And, during those ten generations while we wait for the criminal's guns to eventually break to the point that they have to be scrapped, the law abiding who gave up their guns would be helpless before them.

Just something to think about.

UPDATE
In the comments, Joe M points out that I misspoke when I said that a global ban on firearms would eventually result in fewer violent attacks. He correctly says that violent crime increases when innocent people are denied the means of self defense.

What I should have said is that a global ban would result in fewer shootings after being rigidly enforced for a few centuries, but criminal assaults would rise almost immediately.

Sorry for the mistake, everyone.