How do we reduce mass-shootings?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I have no illusions that centrist dems will do anything about the problem, regardless of how many children get mowed down. Do-Nothingism is their bread and butter.

What specific type of bill do you want the Dems to pass if they win back the House next year and decide to kill the filibuster?

Details, por favor.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

What specific type of bill do you want the Dems to pass if they win back the House next year and decide to kill the filibuster?

Details, por favor.

Realistically liberals need to claw back control of SCOTUS before doing anything. Fortunately the current SCOTUS justices, particularly the right wing of the bench, are transparently corrupt. Seems an open-and-shut case to impeach Thomas and the case for expanding and packing the court has never been stronger.

The right wing of the democratic party won't stand for it though, even if there was a blow-out electoral win. Funny how that always works out, it's always heads-we-lose or tails-they-win with the dems.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Realistically liberals need to claw back control of SCOTUS before doing anything. Fortunately the current SCOTUS justices, particularly the right wing of the bench, are transparently corrupt. Seems an open-and-shut case to impeach Thomas and the case for expanding and packing the court has never been stronger.

The right wing of the democratic party won't stand for it though, even if there was a blow-out electoral win. Funny how that always works out, it's always heads-we-lose or tails-they-win with the dems.

Impeaching Thomas, while justified, would require 66 Senate votes. Not gonna happen.

Expanding the Supreme Court to 11 or 13 seats? Also not gonna happen.

What about the new big gun law you want to pass? What would the details be?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Impeaching Thomas, while justified, would require 66 Senate votes. Not gonna happen.

Expanding the Supreme Court to 11 or 13 seats? Also not gonna happen.

What about the new big gun law you want to pass? What would the details be?

Sure, this is a pie-in-the-sky type thought experiment. I have no illusions about Democrats sweeping into power anytime soon.

If you really wanted to reduce gun deaths you'd need to ban handguns almost entirely (which are responsible for the overwhelming amount of gun deaths), and likewise self-loading rifles. Basically outlaw anything but a very narrow, proscribed list of sporting arms that require an arduous application process to that involves proving actual participation in sport shooting or hunting. Or not, who cares about whether Fudd can go shoot doves or not.

This would of course necessitate confiscation or otherwise eliminating existing guns of this type.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Sure, this is a pie-in-the-sky type thought experiment. I have no illusions about Democrats sweeping into power anytime soon.

If you really wanted to reduce gun deaths you'd need to ban handguns almost entirely, and likewise self-loading rifles. Basically outlaw anything but a very narrow, proscribed list of sporting arms that require an arduous application process to that involves proving actual participation in sport shooting or hunting.

This would of course necessitate confiscation or otherwise eliminating existing guns of this type.

So ban all semi-auto guns. Confiscate the ones currently owned.

Yes this would definitely reduce the number of mass-shootings. No such laws would pass nationally within the next 50 years but they would eventually do some good.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

So ban all semi-auto guns. Confiscate the ones currently owned.

Yes this would definitely reduce the number of mass-shootings. No such laws would pass nationally within the next 50 years but they would eventually do some good.

Ban all handguns semi auto or not, with maybe an exception for rimfire sporting pistols if you're being generous. A revolver or two could still make quite a mess out of a classroom for someone on a suicide mission or in a drive by, so semi-auto is not the only decisive factor. Portable, concealable firepower is the problem

Likewise with rifles you'd probably need more than just a ban on semi-auto rifles, but a ban on repeaters and removable magazines of any kind. Sporting guns like over/under shotguns and single shot deer guns really don't need box mags or fast actions.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Ban all handguns semi auto or not, with maybe an exception for rimfire sporting pistols if you're being generous. A revolver or two could still make quite a mess out of a classroom for someone on a suicide mission.

Likewise with rifles you'd probably need more than just a ban on semi-auto rifles, but a ban on repeaters and removable magazines of any kind. Sporting guns like over/under shotguns and single shot deer guns really don't need box mags or fast actions.

My bolt-action rifle takes a magazine, so I do not approve of your ideas.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Ban all handguns semi auto or not, with maybe an exception for rimfire sporting pistols if you're being generous. A revolver or two could still make quite a mess out of a classroom for someone on a suicide mission or in a drive by, so semi-auto is not the only decisive factor. Portable, concealable firepower is the problem.

I remember when the largest gun control group in the U.S. was called Handgun Control Inc. And they were right - that was the focus that would have reduced deaths the most. (They later merged in with the Brady group.)

In that regard I'm out of the mainstream with the American gun control movement.

To me the biggest worry about rifles is not mass shootings. It is that they are so popular with those who want to have the ability to violently overthrow our government. We are a democratic republic, we already have the ability to overthrow our government no guns required. And the people who hoard the guns to fight the civil war are aligned with the most anti-democratic politicians and religious leaders.

It has become an means unto itself. We need guns to protect our rights. What rights? The right to own guns. Screw the others, we'll force schools to post religious scripture, force raped 10-year old girls to carry those babies to term, ban belief systems we don't like, make it ever harder to people we don't like to vote.

But we'll claim freedom because we still have our Jesus Guns.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by crescent

I remember when the largest gun control group in the U.S. was called Handgun Control Inc. And they were right - that was the focus that would have reduced deaths the most. (They later merged in with the Brady group.)

In that regard I'm out of the mainstream with the American gun control movement.

To me the biggest worry about rifles is not mass shootings. It is that they are so popular with those who want to have the ability to violently overthrow our government. We are a democratic republic, we already have the ability to overthrow our government no guns required. And the people who hoard the guns to fight the civil war do are aligned with the most anti-democratic politicians and religious leaders.

It has become an means unto itself. We need guns to protect our rights. What rights? The right to own guns. Screw the others, we'll force schools to post religious scripture, force raped 10-year old girls to carry those babies to term, ban belief systems we don't like, make it ever harder to people we don't like to vote.

But we'll claim freedom because we still have our Jesus Guns.

A perverse effect of recent gun control schemes is that often existing guns aren't touched, but future transactions are banned.

This only cements into place the current ideological divide of guns. Every right wing freak that's been listening to Alex Jones since Waco has a full arsenal of guns, but well meaning libs who might be starting to worry that their neighbors want to pogrom them will find that it's illegal for them to get similarly well armed.

Every Fox News grandpa that pisses his pants and grabs a gun whenever the doorbell rings has had a small arsenal since the 90's. Libs who think maybe they have the right to win elections should probably start thinking about what it means for a heavily armed minority to lose elections they think are illegitimate and assumes their opposition are unarmed pushovers ripe for the taking. Recent history should show that cops aren't exactly impartial or reliable in these kinds of disputes either.

General gun bans are probably the right idea, but liberals unilaterally disarming while about 1/3 of the country is openly contemplating killing the majority and ruling by force is probably not a good idea.

[jimbob]

The topic is not the other posters, nor is it moderation

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

How do we reduce mass-shootings?

If you're asking this in good faith --- and I'm yet to read anything of this thread beyond just the OP, so for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt --- then the answer's completely entirely obvious:

Just get rid of all guns. No one is to get any kind of gun lincese, unless they can show particular reason why they might need one. Not "Let everyone have the means of killing people en masse unless there's reason why some specific person should be barred"; but "Allow only those who can show some genuine reason why they might need access to instruments of en masse killings to actually own and operate them." And what's more, keep the bar of the "requirement" pretty much high, so that crazed paranoid nutjobs don't get their paws on guns.

Allow only those who genuinely need them, and who can show that they're mentally capable of safely handling them, and further who keep up with all of the necessary training and safety measures, to have access to guns.

This is such a no-brainer, that I can't imagine why it should need a separate thread just to ask that question, the answer to which is so completely obvious. Still, and like I said, benefit of the doubt.



(How to sell this obvious and completely reasonable position to the cross-eyed loons that can't sleep at night without the barrel of a gun inserted deep inside their anus, that of course is a completely separate question than "How do we reduce mass-shootings?")

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

If you're asking this in good faith --- and I'm yet to read anything of this thread beyond just the OP, so for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt --- then the answer's completely entirely obvious:

Just get rid of all guns. No one is to get any kind of gun lincese, unless they can show particular reason why they might need one. Not "Let everyone have the means of killing people en masse unless there's reason why some specific person should be barred"; but "Allow only those who can show some genuine reason why they might need access to instruments of en masse killings to actually own and operate them." And what's more, keep the bar of the "requirement" pretty much high, so that crazed paranoid nutjobs don't get their paws on guns.

Allow only those who genuinely need them, and who can show that they're mentally capable of safely handling them, and further who keep up with all of the necessary training and safety measures, to have access to guns.

This is such a no-brainer, that I can't imagine why it should need a separate thread just to ask that question, the answer to which is so completely obvious. Still, and like I said, benefit of the doubt.



(How to sell this obvious and completely reasonable position to the cross-eyed loons that can't sleep at night without the barrel of a gun inserted deep inside their anus, that of course is a completely separate question than "How do we reduce mass-shootings?")

Unfortunately since it's not going to happen, "get rid of the guns" is really not a viable and practical solution to our current problem.

What sort of gun laws short of this, would actually help?

[lobosrul5]

Nothing. The political will to pass any sort of meaningful legislation does not exist at the federal level. That will not change within the lifetimes of any member of this forum. There will never be 60 votes in the Senate, and the SCOTUS will just overturn any sort of law anyways.

There are no state or local laws that will make any real difference. No one live more than 3 or 4 hours drive from a state with basically no gun laws. California bans all guns. So what? Anyone can drive to Nevada and buy an AR-15 and 30 round mags.

It does seem like since Uvalde, police have been quicker to respond, so perhaps the number of victims per shooting will trend down.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

My bolt-action rifle takes a magazine, so I do not approve of your ideas.

Almost all bolt-action rifles designed since around 1890 have a magazine. Its whether its removable or not. I believe SMLE's are legal in the UK, they just must have the magazine welded to the receiver.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Nothing. The political will to pass any sort of meaningful legislation does not exist at the federal level. That will not change within the lifetimes of any member of this forum. There will never be 60 votes in the Senate, and the SCOTUS will just overturn any sort of law anyways.

There are no state or local laws that will make any real difference. No one live more than 3 or 4 hours drive from a state with basically no gun laws. California bans all guns. So what? Anyone can drive to Nevada and buy an AR-15 and 30 round mags.

It does seem like since Uvalde, police have been quicker to respond, so perhaps the number of victims per shooting will trend down.

Sadly I agree. There is no political will in Congress to pass a kind of laws that would make a real difference. And the laws that would make a real difference would likely be struck down as unconstitutional by our current Supreme Court.

It appears we're going to have to wait at least one generation before we can seriously tackle this issue.

But one thing we could definitely do right now is fund and expand muvh more mental health resources. And work to reduce socioeconomic inequality and increase job and job training opportunities. But for some reason these solutions always tend to end up in the back burner in favor of more flashy but clearly less viable screams of "ban da guns!!!".

#Sad

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Sadly I agree. There is no political will in Congress to pass a kind of laws that would make a real difference. And the laws that would make a real difference would likely be struck down as unconstitutional by our current Supreme Court.

It appears we're going to have to wait at least one generation before we can seriously tackle this issue.

But one thing we could definitely do right now is fund and expand muvh more mental health resources. And work to reduce socioeconomic inequality and increase job and job training opportunities. But for some reason these solutions always tend to end up in the back burner in favor of more flashy but clearly less viable screams of "ban da guns!!!".

#Sad

How is that going to work though? First off we need funding... and right now the US is in danger of defaulting on our debt because a slight majority of congress is terribly concerned with spending levelswilling to play Russian-roulette to get re-elected. But actually more than that, how many of the mass shooters would have sought mental help had it been offered, even if it was offered for free? Or are we talking about involuntary commitments? Or are we talking about red-flag laws that are actually enforced?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

How is that going to work though? First off we need funding... and right now the US is in danger of defaulting on our debt because a slight majority of congress is terribly concerned with spending levelswilling to play Russian-roulette to get re-elected. But actually more than that, how many of the mass shooters would have sought mental help had it been offered, even if it was offered for free? Or are we talking about involuntary commitments? Or are we talking about red-flag laws that are actually enforced?

#1. I do not believe the Federal debt ceiling is Constitutional so that's a moot point.

#2. We could sufficiently fund and greatly expand local mental health resources around the country and advertise them so people know that help is out there. Local emergency clinics should be fully staffed with psychiatrists and they are not. Feds could pay the bill.

#3. Yes we definitely need many more red flag laws. And make it a federal crime to willfully ignore a dangerous person who is making threats.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

A perverse effect of recent gun control schemes is that often existing guns aren't touched, but future transactions are banned.

I would not mind that so much because it could at least lead to an attritional change. Guns can last forever - but often don't.

One idea would be to grandfather in existing guns, but also require destruction of any that get seized via any legal action that results in conviction.

• Commit a crime with a gun, it gets seized and when it is no longer needed as evidence, it gets destroyed.
• Don't pay taxes on time and go through civil forfeiture? Any seized guns get destroyed, not resold.

So you just gradually whittle away at the supply. Some get destroyed this way, others just get lost through normal attrition like all things.

As it currently stands, many police departments keep such seized guns and then sell them off. Can't destroy them, that would be sacrilege. I mean that, seeing a gun destroyed causes many modern Americans to react as a priest of the Spanish Inquisition might react if you pooped in a bible. Incredulous shock.

Quote:

Recent history should show that cops aren't exactly impartial or reliable in these kinds of disputes either.

Nor is the military. I used to live about 40 miles from Cliven Bundy's ranch, and I worked for the Bureau of Land Management at the time. I followed these militia and Bundy family things closely. I saw the Oath Keepers guarding the Bundys. I saw the Oath Keepers storm the U.S. Capital building. That oath becomes worthless once interpreted religiously - as many do.

I have no doubt that if push came to shove and large scale police action were needed against militia, many cops would just refuse, and others would join the militia. The same would happen if it spiraled up to a military confrontation. The nutheads would not need to defeat the military or police - the military and police would become too divided to pose any threat to them.

[IsThisTheLife]

Presumably those who dream of the day when most civilian-owned guns have disappeared (by whatever means - magically de-materialising or a huge government dragnet) also want to see the various state agencies disarmed (you know, the IRS, FBI, ATF et al.)?

Do they envisage a day when a beneficent government will see to this?

Or would they be quite happy if the state (meaning state employees) remained armed to the teeth?

[novaphile]

I note a couple of problems with the ammunition idea...

Competitive shooters typically load their own rounds and spend about 200 rounds in a practice session.

(I understand this various a lot person to person, but I'm basing this on a person that I've shot with.)

So if you're trying to restrict ammunition, you'd also have to restrict all the loaders, precursors and shell casings (the latter has already been mentioned).

Shell casings can be re-used many times and are probably relatively easy to make (I'm only guessing, but they're quite cheap).

Casting bullets is also very easy and materials are easy to come by.
(I've done that, and the only thing easier is the assembly of rounds using a rotary work-station).

Does the plan include finding and removing all the different propellants?
How about the primers? Have you seen how small they are and wondered about how easy they'd be to conceal?

I suspect that limiting the number of firearms a person can own, limiting how and where they may be stored, and not letting people with a history of mental illness from owning guns, would be much easier.

And what Arth said, guns have not been banned in Australia.

You just need a valid reason to own them.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Presumably those who dream of the day when most civilian-owned guns have disappeared (by whatever means - magically de-materialising or a huge government dragnet) also want to see the various state agencies disarmed (you know, the IRS, FBI, ATF et al.)?

Do they envisage a day when a beneficent government will see to this?

Or would they be quite happy if the state (meaning state employees) remained armed to the teeth?

And what conclusions do you draw from other countries where this might, hyperbole aside, have been or is the case? Western Europe in particular? And can you also talk me through what evidence you have that state employees are regularly "armed to the teeth"?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

What specific type of bill do you want the Dems to pass if they win back the House next year and decide to kill the filibuster?

Details, por favor.

That without the Centrist Dems the Dems cannot win seems beyond some people's ability to understand.
The lost tribe school of politics is a powerful drug.....

[dudalb]

COncentrate on the problem; The problem is automatic weapons.
Ban or severaly restrict those.
Trying to ban ALL firearms is a political impossiblity...and not even sure that is a good idea anyway.
The All Guns Are Evil mantra is stupid. We have onperson here who in a gun discussion did know the diffrence between an Ar15 and a bolt action hunting rifle..and seemed puzzled why that mattered.

[dudalb]

I also think we need to look at why these shootings are happening much more frequently.
But you can't make political points about it, so it's not discussed.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Garrison

End the fetishization of guns in the USA and then move on to discussing reasonable measures like background checks, restrictions on certain classes of firearm and requirements on proper storage and security.

And what do you mean by that?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by dudalb

COncentrate on the problem; The problem is automatic weapons...

Very few if any mass-shootings have been done with automatic firearms.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Trying to ban ALL firearms is a political impossiblity...and not even sure that is a good idea anyway.
The All Guns Are Evil mantra is stupid. We have onperson here who in a gun discussion did know the diffrence between an Ar15 and a bolt action hunting rifle..and seemed puzzled why that mattered.

Yes, banning all guns is stupid and if you are going to be part of a serious discussion about firearms you should be familiar with firearms.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Samson

NZ Aus banned all but pest control style guns that farmers need.

No we didn't.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

My bolt-action rifle takes a magazine, so I do not approve of your ideas.

It's not about you.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And what do you mean by that?

Have you looked at pictures of Republican politicians with their families, all holding guns, recently?
Or political ads of candidates carrying and shooting guns?

Clearly, guns are a fetish in US life that has nothing to do with their real world use.

[8enotto]

In Mexico the average person cannot own a gun. You need to have a profession that requires one nearly to get a permit. Security or police are the most common.

Thats the legal of it. The reality is drug cartels, your neighbor and half the homes have some type of firearm nobody talks about.

Most are ancient and they don't have much ammo. The drug side of it is blatantly packing something and they use them frequently.
A recent event in the north of mexico had two cartels shooting it out again, a dealer and four friends were killed in a house on the next street over from mine.

Maybe the law says no, but the public says different.
I find ammo in loads of scrap, usually random caliber stuff. Most is old military stock but not all.
Ban guns all you want, make it illegal to buy ammo and all that kneejerk stuff and you create a thriving black market.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by 8enotto

In Mexico the average person cannot own a gun. You need to have a profession that requires one nearly to get a permit. Security or police are the most common.

Thats the legal of it. The reality is drug cartels, your neighbor and half the homes have some type of firearm nobody talks about.

Most are ancient and they don't have much ammo. The drug side of it is blatantly packing something and they use them frequently.
A recent event in the north of mexico had two cartels shooting it out again, a dealer and four friends were killed in a house on the next street over from mine.

Maybe the law says no, but the public says different.
I find ammo in loads of scrap, usually random caliber stuff. Most is old military stock but not all.
Ban guns all you want, make it illegal to buy ammo and all that kneejerk stuff and you create a thriving black market.

so why make murder illegal?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by 8enotto

Ban guns all you want, make it illegal to buy ammo and all that kneejerk stuff and you create a thriving black market.

And that is one reason - one of many - why "banning" guns is not and will never be a solution.

Apart from the fact that it has never been done in the history of ever.

[8enotto]

The penalty for being caught with any illegal weapon is fairly stiff. Some just think it doesn't apply to them, others may have one but are very careful about keeping a secret. I suspect most just choose to not risk anything and not have illegal stuff.
Money can be spent on crap that won't ruin your life.

I think the hope lies in getting people to use thier brain before they pick up a weapon of any sort. A social change more than a ban or making it difficult to get one legally.
Yup, another near impossible goal that really can't be a solution in the US right now. I have had friends that felt a gun made them have superpowers.
One got stupid about that and gave 28 of them to the state of CA against his will.
Too many like him to expect thinking is actually an option for some.

[erlando]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

We can never prevent mass-shootings. But maybe there are practical steps we can take to reduce the number of mass-shootings in the USA.

https://www.theonion.com/louisville-...n-w-1850319203

[Nessie]

The USA cannot reduce mass shootings. Other countries, where there is a pre-existing high level of gun control, can, such as the UK and Australia. Finland acted after two mass shootings and I expect Serbia to now do the same.

The USA has no functioning gun control. There are multiple laws, which are limited in reach and often ignored, along with a huge number of guns and gun owners who are not subject to any restrictions at all. There is also zero chance of introducing effective, universal gun control.

[arthwollipot]

And as I have said many times before, as long as everybody says it'll never be done, it'll never be done.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by BrettM

That means an end to Hollywood movies where guns are worshipped...

So long , Dirty Harry, nice knowing ya!

Hollywood's not the problem. If it were we'd have the exact same problem as you do.

The first step is to bring current rules back to what the framers of the constitution wrote, ie that the ability to bear any weapons (not own, bear) was dependent on membership in a properly constituted state militia or national army/reserve.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by crescent

I would not mind that so much because it could at least lead to an attritional change. Guns can last forever - but often don't.

One idea would be to grandfather in existing guns, but also require destruction of any that get seized via any legal action that results in conviction.

• Commit a crime with a gun, it gets seized and when it is no longer needed as evidence, it gets destroyed.
• Don't pay taxes on time and go through civil forfeiture? Any seized guns get destroyed, not resold.

So you just gradually whittle away at the supply. Some get destroyed this way, others just get lost through normal attrition like all things.

With the AR-15 specifically, I wouldn't be so sure, at least with current laws and definitions. The lower receiver is the only part actually considered a firearm and it's made of aluminum. It's not the part of a firearm that experiences much mechanical stress and it won't rust even if poorly stored. It'll last forever assuming nothing catastrophic happens to it, and the rest of the rifle is comprised of parts that are not currently controlled by US law. You can get everything else through the mail without so much as a ID check.

Originally Posted by crescent

I have no doubt that if push came to shove and large scale police action were needed against militia, many cops would just refuse, and others would join the militia. The same would happen if it spiraled up to a military confrontation. The nutheads would not need to defeat the military or police - the military and police would become too divided to pose any threat to them.

I suppose that's possible, but more likely is that, instead of joining an extremist group en masse, cops just don't hinder them. These last few years of protests and lack of law enforcement on right wing violent demonstrations have shown that. Groups like the Proud Boys would have free reign from local cops in Portland or Washington State to engage in flagrant lawbreaking and violence while cops did nothing to stop them. Arrests were always begrudging and well after the fact only spurred by public outrage.

Likewise with Jan 6. The event was only successful in significant part because of the lackluster police response. A few libs can't march down the street with a BLM banner without the entire riot squad pulling quadruple overtime to line the streets with robocops, but a clearly telegraphed right wing riot was met with a suspiciously light response of under equipped capitol police.

I'm less worried about cops joining these groups and more concerned that they'll continue this pattern of granting them extreme latitude while simultaneously vigorously policing any opposition.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by 8enotto

In Mexico the average person cannot own a gun. You need to have a profession that requires one nearly to get a permit. Security or police are the most common.

Thats the legal of it. The reality is drug cartels, your neighbor and half the homes have some type of firearm nobody talks about.

Most are ancient and they don't have much ammo. The drug side of it is blatantly packing something and they use them frequently.
A recent event in the north of mexico had two cartels shooting it out again, a dealer and four friends were killed in a house on the next street over from mine.

Maybe the law says no, but the public says different.
I find ammo in loads of scrap, usually random caliber stuff. Most is old military stock but not all.
Ban guns all you want, make it illegal to buy ammo and all that kneejerk stuff and you create a thriving black market.

It's hard to make a comparison because the cartels are so incredibly powerful they might better be described as warlords rather than simply organized crime. They straight up defy the supremacy of the state and pretty much operate outside of the law entirely, so their ready access to guns isn't exactly the same as some small time criminals in the US buying from the black market.

The cartels power comes from the immense black market demand for drugs and all the money that follows. I don't see guns themselves having the same thriving black market if banned. Some would want them and even be willing to pay high prices for them, but I can't imagine the demand being similar to that of narcotics.