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.
Only marginally would this affect criminals. They will still find ways to get them and unless you've totally buried your head in the sand, you know this. The only significant thing that will happen (and is happening in the major cities where they're banned) is law abiding people won't be able to defend themselves and crime will get worse. There's a thriving black market in guns that would only grow exponentially if we had a nationwide ban. After all, how's that total ban on drugs working? I'm not for lifting any ban on drugs, but it's a good example on what would happen if we had your "prohibition" on firearms.
Now before we battle back and forth further, I'm going to state that I agree with you somewhat, depending on what these tighter gun laws are. Examples that I can see a reason for trying to ban would be armor piercing bullets, any fully automatic weapons, large capacity clips, guns larger than a certain caliber (within reason), as well as having felons with records for any type of aggravated assault not being allowed to own or possess a firearm. I also believe in background checks as well as a reasonable delay (1 week or less) before being allowed to purchase any firearm. I do NOT agree with the fanatics who propose that authorities try to strong arm the populace to categorize every existing gun currently owned.
I'm not an NRA eccentric, but I fully believe in the right to bear arms for varmint hunting, regulated hunting, and protection.
You needn't be an NRA eccentric - though you did a disservice to many people with that qualifier - to enjoy the freedoms and liberties given us by the Constitution. You did leave out the words "keep and" in your last sentence. Is the 2A of less importance than your right to freedom of speech?
Why does your last sentence include stipulations of use? Define "regulated hunting".
Do you want to regulate "protection"?
Yes, another proof that the existing laws aren't good enough and we need much tighter gun laws.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
But criminals are affected by changes in the law. Tighter gun laws = harder for criminals to get guns.
Somehow gun nuts can't seem to grasp this simple concept.
.
Quoted for one of the dumbest posts this summer.
The concept that apparently alludes you is that criminals don't care how strict/tighter gun laws are. Why?
Because they are criminals already, so why would they care if another law is added to the books.
Logic, which you seem to be bereft of on this subject obviously means only law abiding citizens will obey the law, therefore more gun control will only effect law abiding citizens.
There was a documentary about how criminals got guns, and no type of gun laws were going to stop the flow. When several were interviewed, they took the attitude that they needed guns to make it easier to rob people and protect themselves.
What makes your liberal mind think any law/s will stop criminals with that type of mentality?
So you really think that the U.S. with a total ban on firearms will keep them out of the hands of criminals. Remember China? One of the strictest government in the world ready to crack down hard on it's citizens if they don't completely toe the line. The black market in guns is already taking off in that country and China is struggling to contain it. The wild east | The Economist
Do you realize that you are referencing an article published in 2001?
In the 14 years since it was published, China has not experienced one single mass shooting. Guns are still extremely rare to see, to the tune that when Mike Daisey fabricated a story about seeing armed security guards at a Chinese Apple factory, it was immediately seized upon as information that cannot possible be true.
Basically you just made the point for me. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgg
Wait until we ban them in America with all our free trade agreements. Guns from the far east (Indonesia, Vietnam, China, you name it) are going to pour into this country either smuggled into our ports or where else, the Mexican border, when we open up this new and highly profitable market. You're right about one thing, the money will be in the smuggling and just like anything, when the supply starts quadrupling, prices will become very affordable.
That almost never happens in real life. Smuggling is a tough and dirty business. No one would do it unless the margin is huge. Something that is smuggled is never going to be affordable.
Besides, Mexico gets their guns from USA. If USA bans guns, it would effectively cut off the supply to south of the border. Mexican drug lords are also filthy rich and they have ongoing turf wars 24/7 across the region and drug money eagerly waiting for weapons. If Asia is going to smuggle guns, most of the profit will be smuggling into Mexico instead of USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgg
One other thing, do you think that the international gun smuggling rings with connections to Russia aren't going to get in on the picture. You don't really think that Russia will try to limit manufacturing of the AK's that are in every terrorists hands now? They would like nothing better than to undermine our safety by bumping manufacturing and arranging for distribution. We've even opened up a new distribution location called Cuba.
You think the Russians are going to give you a discount on the AK-47s they took so much risk to smuggled into the US soil? Do you?
Econ 101, knowing that an AK-47 cost over $15,000 in Australia, why would the Russians smuggle them into USA if its price is less than Australia? Answer: they won't. The Russians are not going to "expand" into this market unless the profit margin is greater than or equal to the margin elsewhere.
Bottom line: something that is smuggled is always going to have huge markup to make it worth the risk.
.
Stupid gun grabbers don't get the concept of "Guns don't kill; people do."
People will kill with their hands/feet if need be. Plenty do already and it is a large statistic.
That's true.
Well, if people are going to kill why make it easy for them? All I'm saying is, if a criminal wants to murder someone he will have to do it the old fashion way with a knife or bare hands.
.
The concept that apparently alludes you is that criminals don't care how strict/tighter gun laws are. Why?
Because they are criminals already, so why would they care if another law is added to the books.
Logic, which you seem to be bereft of on this subject obviously means only law abiding citizens will obey the law, therefore more gun control will only effect law abiding citizens.
There was a documentary about how criminals got guns, and no type of gun laws were going to stop the flow. When several were interviewed, they took the attitude that they needed guns to make it easier to rob people and protect themselves.
What makes your liberal mind think any law/s will stop criminals with that type of mentality?
`
You said my post is dumb yet what you quoted are things that I didn't say and completely besides the point. If you're going to say my post is dumb, the least you can do is demonstrated that you actually read it.
I give you more chance to read it again so maybe we can actually have a chance at meaningful discussion. What you've quoted above has been addressed in unequivocal bullet points, which also addressed things that you missed which completely debunks your so called logic.
When the cost of illegal firearm cost more than a car's down payment, you will see firearms drastically disappear from the criminal world. The fact that criminals have to buy illegal firearms from the black market is why the scenario I described above rings true.
.
As a kid that grew up in the 1940s not very far from New York City. I still remember when most gang killings were done with home made guns. New Yourk at the time had the toughest hand gun laws in the world. It was virtually impossible to legally own a hand gun in New York. But the criminals were still well armed.
I do not own any firearms, I have no use for them although in my younger years I enjoyed target shooting and had a rather large firearms collection. Mostly antiques but a few very good target rifles and pistols.
Overall I doubt if higher prices will slow down gun ownership among criminals as usually they do not pay for their guns.
I was a machinist. If guns became illegal anyone with machining knowledge could buy a mill and a lathe in their garage and manufacture guns.
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.
