Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And if the cartels do start selling weapons, it will be anything they want, not just what's legal in the US now. We'll start seeing types of destruction we've never seen on ours streets before. Two things that will likely start showing up are hand grenades and submachine guns. Hand grenades are a great weapon for smugglers to bring in. They're small and easy to hide, and are single use, so they're customers will need an ongoing supply. And submachine guns can be made very small, barely larger than pistols, and are very cheap and easy to make compared to other types of guns. So we'll start to see explosive weapons and aerosol lead being sprayed on the streets.
Some of the people reading this are probably scoffing at this, but looking at the history of other types of bans that have failed, and especially the current Opiate epidemic, it make perfect sense. There is huge political pressure to do something about these mass shooting. But a knee jerk reaction won't help, and could likely make the situation worse.
The cartel is using grenades now. They get ak 47 type firearms from China. You are right if we try to ban guns it will get much worse and the cartels will get even richer.
This country is awash with guns and apparently is also awash with nut cases. There are too many of each to do anything about either one so we are basically stuck with the unfortunate consequences.
Parkland shooter had violent outbursts and run-ins with the police from an early age. He had to have a school resource officer in class with to keep him from hurting teachers and other students. He was a loose cannon for years before he snapped. Why didn't anyone help him then? The people in charge didn't want to label him at an early age.
It's being reported that the Dayton shooter kept a hit list and rape list while in high school.
It's being reported that the El Paso shooter did the same as well as killing neighborhood animals.
None of this happened in a vacuum. People knew but no one wanted to step up and do something.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...murder/595498/ has a very telling line "They are fascinated by guns and have little empathy for others." The Atlantic is one of the few reporting on these nut cases before they kill https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...hopath/524502/ At least these kids were pulled out of the general population and put in a place with very limited interaction with normal people. While these kids are probably the worst of the worst, maybe the bar should be lowered on what it takes to get someone locked up no matter what age.
Given the series of mass shooting lately, included the two in one day in Texas and Ohio, the recurring drumbeat for increased gun control is going to spin up again. As it does, it's necessary to look at why even if it was able to succeed politically, it will fail functionally, as far as stopping gun violence, and will likely lead to even more violence.
To see why we have to look at one of the great truisms of American history. Any attempt to control or ban a commodity which can be easily make, or has sources beyond the control of the government, is bound not only to stop the supply of the commodity, but will cause the government to totally lose control of supply of that commodity. To see the proof of this, look at the 1920's-30's alcohol prohibition, and the current failed war on drugs.
The latter is particularly instructive, especially the current combined heroin / synthetic opioid problem. Opiates have been heavily controlled for something like a century. There are legal medical opiates, but they get the strictest level of DEA control. And, of course heroin is abut the most illegal thing someone could possess short of weapons grade plutonium. And yet, we managed to have a situation where legal opiates (in the form of synthetic opioids) were allowed to be distributed easily and widely, well beyond their medical necessity. When it was attempted to stem the misuse of legally obtainable opiates, the users simply turned to illegally imported street heroin. Heroin, which has been illegal essentially forever, is still widely and easily available from street drug dealers, supplied to them by large, well organized transnational smuggling gangs.
So how would this apply to any future gun control situation? First, even if guns were banned, there would still be significant demand for them, first from criminals, who just don't care about the law, and second, from people who normally would be law abiding, but feel (correctly) that they have a right under the Second Amendment to own firearms, including military based ones, and third, from people who feel they need protection, and are willing to violate the law to get it.
And, of course, there is already a vast smuggling network in place to move contraband into the country and distribute it. The players in this market, who are major gun consumers themselves would just see guns as another profit center.
Where would they get guns to smuggle in? Pretty much anywhere. Guns are cheap and easy to make in any area that has at least a late 19th century industrial base. And of course, there are countries out there that would love to both make money off this, and cause as much disruption as possible in the US. These of course are Russia and China, both of which have huge arms industries. The Mexican drug cartels are already dealing with China to get the chemicals they need to make, or just outright buying, synthetic narcotics to sell in the US. Where do you think all the Meth and Fentanyl that are flooding he country comes from? The Chinese would be more than happy to sell the cartels weapons in bulk. I can even make a good guess at at least one of the Chinese companies that will supply them, Norinco. Norinco used to legally sell arms in the us civilian market. But IIRC, they were banned back in the '80s when they were caught smuggling fully automatic weapons into the US.
And if the cartels do start selling weapons, it will be anything they want, not just what's legal in the US now. We'll start seeing types of destruction we've never seen on ours streets before. Two things that will likely start showing up are hand grenades and submachine guns. Hand grenades are a great weapon for smugglers to bring in. They're small and easy to hide, and are single use, so they're customers will need an ongoing supply. And submachine guns can be made very small, barely larger than pistols, and are very cheap and easy to make compared to other types of guns. So we'll start to see explosive weapons and aerosol lead being sprayed on the streets.
Some of the people reading this are probably scoffing at this, but looking at the history of other types of bans that have failed, and especially the current Opiate epidemic, it make perfect sense. There is huge political pressure to do something about these mass shooting. But a knee jerk reaction won't help, and could likely make the situation worse.
You forgot the most important reality: Even if guns were banned, owners wouldn't give them up. Or, at least, not all of them.
It cannot work inside any type of time frame that our attention deficit disorder society would accept due to the ubiquitous saturation of fire arms in the country. If you fully banned guns today it would take multiple generations to see any kind of substantive reduction in shooting events. It could conceivably work, but the time frame would likely be 100+ years before you would start noticing a large difference.
Most likely outcome would be > ban passed > stats change very little to none over the course of the current administration > administration gets voted out for failing to stop the problem because people always expect results NOW (that would likely take over 100 years to really reduce in any substantial way) > next admin reverses changes. So, no - effectively it cannot work in America - our culture and political system makes it effectively impossible.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...murder/595498/ has a very telling line "They are fascinated by guns and have little empathy for others." The Atlantic is one of the few reporting on these nut cases before they kill https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...hopath/524502/ At least these kids were pulled out of the general population and put in a place with very limited interaction with normal people. While these kids are probably the worst of the worst, maybe the bar should be lowered on what it takes to get someone locked up no matter what age.
Yes but it is a very slipper slope to lock people up because "They are fascinated by guns and have little empathy for others." That description sounds like some of the posters here and may describe a good fraction of conservative America. The usual test for locking someone up is a clear danger to himself or others. I doubt that someone who loves guns and has no empathy is going to meet that standard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not all of them.
