Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2007-11-28 15:00:59
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6929|Northern California
To LBNinja's ill-informed diatribe, I'd comment that if you read the bill of rights, you'd see the pattern in the language specifically saying the "right of the people" etc, etc.."shall not be infringed upon.  This is the basis of the case in terms of collective or individual rights for guns, speech, security, etc. 

I don't think I could say it better than the 2 or 3 people above who have clearly schooled you on what the 2nd ammendment reads, so I won't..but I will paraphrase since I can't not say something! lol

"In order to maintain a well regulated militia, the right of the people who make up that militia shall not have their right to own and carry arms infringed upon."

If the bankrupt colonial armies had to supply arms to the militia members when they got summoned for duty, they'd not have a very well regulated militia..nor a very well armed militia.   On the other side of the coin, if the militia members couldn't own and use their own weapons for defense in their homes (often on frontier land) or hunt for food, it'd be pretty stupid as well.  So it makes no sense that the people would not have the right to have weapons.

Oh yeah, I'm a liberal and I went from being an ass backwards anti-gun lobby fool to a pro-gun fool...possibly a gun-nut one day though my arsenal is small.
2007-11-28 15:08:44
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6929|Northern California

apollo_fi wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

As a side note, the police have no duty to protect individual citizens
Non comprende. Who does your police protect, then?
No, it's actually true.  THe police do not include the duty of defending people from assailants.  In other words, the police are not legally bound to protect you.  If a gunman enters your home, you call the police who are across the street, and 20 minutes later the gunman kills your family and rapes your dog, the police who drove by your house to answer other calls CANNOT be sued.

I read an article about this the other day.  Just look on some NRA type sites and you'll find the references.  Sure they are there to stop crime and even kill evil gunmen in your home, but they are not responsible for their failures.
2007-11-28 15:30:47
PureFodder
Member
+225|6723

S.Lythberg wrote:

"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns."
But the outlaws end up with WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less guns. As there are lots of people who don't have guns and lots of people who have guns but aren't carrying them at all times, the unfeasably massive reduction in the number of guns in the hands of criminals is actually of benefit to the majority of the population.

Gun crime and ownership is a reasonably complex issue. Chances are if an argument fits on a bumper sticker is a load of crap.
2007-11-28 15:40:29
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6929|Northern California
It's naive to think that less legally owned guns would reduce gun crimes at the hands of criminals.  True it is that 70% of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns, but this does not mean said criminals would just end their crimes if there weren't guns in homes. 

DC is the example.  Look at the robbery stats in DC.  Since the 70's, there's bee no legal ownership of handguns....gun crime has not plummeted as supposed.  Where are they getting their guns?  Exactly, the blackmarket.  And in ANY city where legal handgun ownership disappears, the blackmarket for them will surge.

Further, it would be a simple solution if people carried instead of having to store at home.  Most crimes occur outside the home.   Another aspect of this debate is to simply lock up guns so they can't be stolen.  You don't even need a heavy safe to secure weapons, just some ingenuity.
2007-11-28 17:25:13
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7152|US

LaidBackNinja wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

As such, since sidearms are nearly universal accessories for today's soldiers (getting back to your handgun statement),
False. I don't know about the U.S. army, but I sure as hell haven't been issued a handgun. Only medics and officers get em here.
But that's besides the point.
I can't speak for the Army, but the USAF issues pistols to a lot of our armed airmen.
I have seen nearly an equal number of M4 rifles and M9 pistols.  Granted, this is not a combat zone, but issued pistols are very common amoung USAF Security Forces.  One of my friends who was deployed to Kirkuk, Iraq was issued both an M16A2 and an M9.

Mikkel wrote:

I think the second amendment is aimed at protecting the individual by means of a well-regulated militia to rise up against decisions by a government or foreign force adverse to the security of the population and the ideals of the individual.

That in my head does not translate to a carte blanche for gun ownership. I don't believe in outright banning weapons, but I believe in very strict control from the second they're manufactured or imported 'till they day they're destroyed, with mandatory bi-annual examinations by the ATF or other government organisation to verify that the weapons are in the possession of the registered owner.

Anyone unable to account for the whereabouts of a firearm that is registered to be in their possession and hasn't been reported stolen, whether it's a private person, a gun store owner, an importer or a manufacturer should face heavy fines and possible jail sentences. Repeated reports of stolen firearms should result in fines and ultimately a loss of the right to own a firearm for a period of time.
How would your strict accountability not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms in practice?  Your idea of monitoring firearms does not necessarily infringe on the right, but it could VERY easily.  It might also touch on unreasonable search and seizure...

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-11-28 17:31:41)

2007-11-28 18:46:49
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina

Dragonclaw wrote:

Blame the pacifist liberals. They only see one side of things. They dont give a fuck about the constitution as long as the can try to turn the whole population into sheep by removing freedom of speech and the right to own firearms. Go hippie communism!
CyrusTheVirus has a new name?...  Is that you, Poe? 
2007-11-28 18:55:34
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7068|Washington, DC

The 2nd Amendment not only lets me save my ass if some asshole tries to rob me, but it's also the "reset" button built into the Constitution in case the government gets a little too totalitarian.
2007-11-28 18:58:56
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6906
I think that Americans do have the right to own some types of rifles, shotguns and handguns. However many guns are over-kill and should only be allowed to be used by the military and police. You don't need an M60 to go hunting or protect yourself, there is a huge difference between a gun designed to kill ducks and a gun designed to kill Victor-Charlie.
2007-11-28 20:02:15
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7152|US
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting!  The "security of a free state" in the militia clause is important (not the acting portion, but still there for a reason).
2007-11-28 20:22:36
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|6435

LaidBackNinja wrote:

False. I don't know about the U.S. army, but I sure as hell haven't been issued a handgun. Only medics and officers get em here.
But that's besides the point.
No, as far as the second amendment is concerned, it's precisely the point.  Members of the militia are presumed to be able to be assembled prepared with the basic implements of war.  Being prepared with some variety of a backup weapon seems to me to be fairly common sense.

I am fiercely against people owning "home defense weapons," even though I am trained to handle a firearm.
Why?  Does a person not have a right to defend himself, his family, and his home from criminals?  This is somewhat divergent from a second amendment issue and (as I mentioned in passing in my last post) more related to a ninth amendment argument, but I'm more than willing to discuss it here.

But, I speak only for my own country. I must admit, if I lived in America, I'd probably want a gun on me at all times. You don't seem to trust your own police and from what I've seen, I don't trust them either.
In my case, it's not that I don't trust police.  I've had cops live next door to me for years, and a cop rent a room from me for about six months last year.  I trust them, for the most part.  I just refuse to be compelled to rely upon them for my own personal safety.

guns are so rare here that even if someone were to break into my house he will most likely be unarmed and I could just beat his ass up, if he doesn't run away (which they do in 99% of cases anyway.)
Well that's super for you, but what about someone who's in their late 70's and confronted by a home invader?  Or what if you're burglarized by three or four unarmed men?  Bruce Lee you may be, but not everyone is as Kung Fu as you.

But bear this in mind: having a gun in your house almost triples the chance of you getting shot. (Most of the time by someone you know, most of the time BY YOUR OWN WEAPON.)
This statistic is somewhat misleading, as included are instances where the house is occupied by criminals who get into a fight among themselves, or domestic violence cases where the abuser gets fed up with the abusee or the abusee finally defends themself against the abuser.
2007-11-28 21:28:27
mikkel
Member
+383|7039

RAIMIUS wrote:

Mikkel wrote:

I think the second amendment is aimed at protecting the individual by means of a well-regulated militia to rise up against decisions by a government or foreign force adverse to the security of the population and the ideals of the individual.

That in my head does not translate to a carte blanche for gun ownership. I don't believe in outright banning weapons, but I believe in very strict control from the second they're manufactured or imported 'till they day they're destroyed, with mandatory bi-annual examinations by the ATF or other government organisation to verify that the weapons are in the possession of the registered owner.

Anyone unable to account for the whereabouts of a firearm that is registered to be in their possession and hasn't been reported stolen, whether it's a private person, a gun store owner, an importer or a manufacturer should face heavy fines and possible jail sentences. Repeated reports of stolen firearms should result in fines and ultimately a loss of the right to own a firearm for a period of time.
How would your strict accountability not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms in practice?  Your idea of monitoring firearms does not necessarily infringe on the right, but it could VERY easily.  It might also touch on unreasonable search and seizure...
Any well-regulated militia has a weapons inspection. It wouldn't be well-regulated otherwise. That neither infringes on the right of its members to be armed, nor falls outside the purview of the state in regards to reasonable searches. You can argue against the federal government carrying it out, but a state organisation would be acceptable.

Last edited by mikkel (2007-11-28 21:30:49)

2007-11-29 02:29:15
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7279|Cologne, Germany

Hurricane wrote:

The 2nd Amendment not only lets me save my ass if some asshole tries to rob me, but it's also the "reset" button built into the Constitution in case the government gets a little too totalitarian.
the most bullshit argument, if you ask me. Where were you when Bush signed the patriot act ?

I don't think adressing this issue by analyzing the semantics of the 2nd Amendment is fair. The Bill of rights and the constitution were written under specific historic circumstances. It is the language and way of thinking of the late 18th century that is imprinted in it, and to argue that these words would mean the exact same thing today than they meant back then is just absurd. I mean, this is not 1789 any more. Times have changed.

For once, the US has no well-regulated militia. The US has a standing, professional Army. Militias are a thing of the past, in times when young nations didn't have the means to muster a professional army. The idea that people should keep military style weapons at home, in case the regular army fails to defend the nation, is ridiculous, compared to the strength of todays Armed Forces in the US.

Second argument: protection against a possibly totalitarian government. Yeah, right. Maybe democracy was weak and not well established in 1789, but I think it is fair to say that it has developped well since then. And if the patriot act won't make people want to overthrow the government, I don't know what would. The US is in no danger of turning into a dictatorship, and you very well know that.

All you gun-loving people are looking for is a reason to be allowed to keep your precious guns, so you can continue to fire at the next best person to step on your lawn. Fine with me, really. But to quote a law from 1789, that was written with a totally different intention and under totally different historic circumstances, is just insane.

If the majority of Americans believe that they should be allowed to keep a personal firearm at home, to protect their property and family, that's reasonable. But you don't need assault rifles for that. One handgun, one shotgun per household, maybe. Vote for proper legislation, and you'll be fine. That's democracy for you.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides. Personally, I hope that the DC law will be upheld, because if it won't, the concept of effective gun control as a means to prevent crime is essentially doomed. There is no gun control if everyone can buy one like ice cream.

It is possible to stop criminals from aquiring guns. You simply have to have the will to do what it takes to achieve that. And you have to start somewhere, in this case proper legislation. But from what I have drawn from the discussion, I think it is obvious that most Americans don't want effective gun control. You are content with saying "ah, it can't be done anyway, so why should I give up my guns?". You are even willing to live with thousands of innocent people dieing each year because of that. You are a violent nation. Don't try to pretend otherwise. Admit to it.  You love guns.
2007-11-29 03:45:28
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6849|'Murka

Some good points WRT language changing over the years, but I have to respond to these:

B.Schuss wrote:

If the majority of Americans believe that they should be allowed to keep a personal firearm at home, to protect their property and family, that's reasonable. But you don't need assault rifles for that. One handgun, one shotgun per household, maybe. Vote for proper legislation, and you'll be fine. That's democracy for you.
So hunting should be illegal? Rifles are used by hunters to gather deer and other large game, but you don't mention rifles. So, should there be one handgun, one shotgun, and one rifle? What gauge shotgun? What caliber rifle? Shotguns used for hunting have different gauges based on what you're hunting...but you're only allowing for one shotgun.

So I guess hunting is now illegal under your scheme.

B.Schuss wrote:

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides. Personally, I hope that the DC law will be upheld, because if it won't, the concept of effective gun control as a means to prevent crime is essentially doomed. There is no gun control if everyone can buy one like ice cream.
There is a huge difference between gun control and a handgun ban. In one situation, you have circumstances under which various types of firearms can be owned by private citizens, but it is not a free-for-all. DC's handgun ban does just what the name states: private citizens of DC cannot own a handgun legally, under any circumstances. To say that if a total ban fails that gun control itself will fail is faulty. To further state that if a ban doesn't work, then people will be able to buy a gun "like ice cream" is even more faulty. Buying a gun (particularly a handgun) is not quite as simple as many would have you think. Have you actually purchased a firearm in the US before?

B.Schuss wrote:

It is possible to stop criminals from aquiring guns. You simply have to have the will to do what it takes to achieve that. And you have to start somewhere, in this case proper legislation. But from what I have drawn from the discussion, I think it is obvious that most Americans don't want effective gun control. You are content with saying "ah, it can't be done anyway, so why should I give up my guns?". You are even willing to live with thousands of innocent people dieing each year because of that. You are a violent nation. Don't try to pretend otherwise. Admit to it.  You love guns.
So I guess it's possible to stop criminals from acquiring drugs, and stolen cars, and electronics, and...you get the picture. No, it's not. Criminals will continue to break the law and acquire firearms if they are doing so already. It may make it more difficult, but not impossible.

For you to say that most Americans don't want effective gun control is simply wrong. I think what American do want is effective gun control. It's just that no one has come up with a gun control scheme that 1) doesn't shit all over the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights and 2) keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

Regardless of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, DC's gun ban is in complete violation of it. Period.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2007-11-29 06:53:59
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7279|Cologne, Germany

FEOS wrote:

So hunting should be illegal? Rifles are used by hunters to gather deer and other large game, but you don't mention rifles. So, should there be one handgun, one shotgun, and one rifle? What gauge shotgun? What caliber rifle? Shotguns used for hunting have different gauges based on what you're hunting...but you're only allowing for one shotgun.

So I guess hunting is now illegal under your scheme.
I specifically did not include hunting rifles, since hunting is a reckognized sport/ outdoor activity, that usually raises little concerns. As long as there is a distinction made between hunting rifles and self defense weapons, I don't think this will be a problem ( any type of automatic or semi-automatic rifle, for example, would not be considered a hunting rifle ). Few people carry hunting rifles publicly. I would - however - make it mandatory to lock hunting or sports rifles up in a separate locker/safe, and I would create a requirement that every hunter must register himself and every weapon he uses with local, state or federal authorities.

FEOS wrote:

There is a huge difference between gun control and a handgun ban. In one situation, you have circumstances under which various types of firearms can be owned by private citizens, but it is not a free-for-all. DC's handgun ban does just what the name states: private citizens of DC cannot own a handgun legally, under any circumstances. To say that if a total ban fails that gun control itself will fail is faulty. To further state that if a ban doesn't work, then people will be able to buy a gun "like ice cream" is even more faulty. Buying a gun (particularly a handgun) is not quite as simple as many would have you think. Have you actually purchased a firearm in the US before?
well, since I am not an american citizen, the answer to your last question would be no. However, easy access to handguns is quite obvious in most US states, isn't it ? In most cases, all you need is a valid ID, then there is the 5 day waiting period ( which does not come into effect if the person has legally purchased a handgun before ). That's it. I believe there is even a state where you don't have to be 18 to purchase a firearm ( was it vermont, can't remember ). In other words: drinking age 21, firearm age 17 ? talk about priorities.
Then there are the gunshows, and the possibility to buy firearms over the internet. Are you really disputing that handguns are easy to aquire in the US ? In case of the Virginia Tech shooting, the perpetrator had even been admitted to a mental institution, had only a student visa, and was still able to purchase firearms legally.

FEOS wrote:

So I guess it's possible to stop criminals from acquiring drugs, and stolen cars, and electronics, and...you get the picture. No, it's not. Criminals will continue to break the law and acquire firearms if they are doing so already. It may make it more difficult, but not impossible.

For you to say that most Americans don't want effective gun control is simply wrong. I think what American do want is effective gun control. It's just that no one has come up with a gun control scheme that 1) doesn't shit all over the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights and 2) keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
Now you sound like a weakling. Isn't America the prime example for a country where anything can be achieved, if people set their mind to it ? Isn't that what the American Dream is all about ? You don't have effective gun control because it cannot be done, or because some law from 1789 says you can't. Those laws are man-made, and can be changed. I mean, you allow women to vote, don't you ?
The only viable alternative to this is that you don't have effective gun control because you don't want to have it. And that's what I said.

And as far as your supposed lack of a proper gun control scheme is concerned, I would be glad to line one out for you.
2007-11-29 07:34:29
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7174|Salt Lake City

B.Schuss wrote:

I specifically did not include hunting rifles, since hunting is a reckognized sport/ outdoor activity, that usually raises little concerns. As long as there is a distinction made between hunting rifles and self defense weapons, I don't think this will be a problem ( any type of automatic or semi-automatic rifle, for example, would not be considered a hunting rifle ). Few people carry hunting rifles publicly. I would - however - make it mandatory to lock hunting or sports rifles up in a separate locker/safe, and I would create a requirement that every hunter must register himself and every weapon he uses with local, state or federal authorities.
Believe me, they know.  I bought a new hunting rifle this year.  The amount of state/federal paperwork I had to fill out was astounding, and I live in one of the most gun friendly states in the US!  The only other state that may be more gun friendly than Utah is Texas.
2007-11-29 07:40:56
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7147|Charlie One Alpha
To all Americans:

You say that banning guns will just mean that law-abiding citizens have no guns while all the criminals still have 'em.
Then how come that in most other countries most criminals don't have guns? I don't feel I need to have a gun at home because I know that anyone desperate enough to break into my house will not be the sort of organized criminal who has the means to acquire a firearm. Sure, there are still criminals who have guns over here, but they tend not to engage in petty crimes like mugging and burglary.

The very easy availability of guns in your country have made the situation that every mugger and burglar packs heat (or so I am led to believe.)

Less guns in legal circulation = less guns in illegal circulation. In other words

LESS GUNS = LESS GUNS.

That seems to be very hard for you to understand.

EDIT:

Although, now that I think about it, you may well already be past the point of no return. I can see that if every honest citizen hands in their gun now, the criminals obviously won't and there might be a bit of a problem. But you got yourselves into that mess by distributing guns so freely in the first place.

Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2007-11-29 07:47:13)

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-11-29 07:48:08
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7174|Salt Lake City

LaidBackNinja wrote:

To all Americans:

You say that banning guns will just mean that law-abiding citizens have no guns while all the criminals still have 'em.
Then how come that in most other countries most criminals don't have guns? I don't feel I need to have a gun at home because I know that anyone desperate enough to break into my house will not be the sort of organized criminal who has the means to acquire a firearm. Sure, there are still criminals who have guns over here, but they tend not to engage in petty crimes like mugging and burglary.

The very easy availability of guns in your country have made the situation that every mugger and burglar packs heat (or so I am led to believe.)

Less guns in legal circulation = less guns in illegal circulation. In other words

LESS GUNS = LESS GUNS.

That seems to be very hard for you to understand.
Yeah, we tried that with alcohol once upon a time, and trafficking whiskey from Canada and bathtub gin sprang up all over the place, right along with speak easies.  We are still trying that one with drugs, and failing miserably.  The fact is that if you were to totally ban guns the only thing to happen would be a whole new black market.
2007-11-29 07:53:04
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|7147|Charlie One Alpha

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

To all Americans:

You say that banning guns will just mean that law-abiding citizens have no guns while all the criminals still have 'em.
Then how come that in most other countries most criminals don't have guns? I don't feel I need to have a gun at home because I know that anyone desperate enough to break into my house will not be the sort of organized criminal who has the means to acquire a firearm. Sure, there are still criminals who have guns over here, but they tend not to engage in petty crimes like mugging and burglary.

The very easy availability of guns in your country have made the situation that every mugger and burglar packs heat (or so I am led to believe.)

Less guns in legal circulation = less guns in illegal circulation. In other words

LESS GUNS = LESS GUNS.

That seems to be very hard for you to understand.
Yeah, we tried that with alcohol once upon a time, and trafficking whiskey from Canada and bathtub gin sprang up all over the place, right along with speak easies.  We are still trying that one with drugs, and failing miserably.  The fact is that if you were to totally ban guns the only thing to happen would be a whole new black market.
Then why is there no extensive black market here and are most criminals still unarmed?

Because you are already used to having guns, and now, can't do without.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2007-11-29 08:03:08
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7174|Salt Lake City

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

To all Americans:

You say that banning guns will just mean that law-abiding citizens have no guns while all the criminals still have 'em.
Then how come that in most other countries most criminals don't have guns? I don't feel I need to have a gun at home because I know that anyone desperate enough to break into my house will not be the sort of organized criminal who has the means to acquire a firearm. Sure, there are still criminals who have guns over here, but they tend not to engage in petty crimes like mugging and burglary.

The very easy availability of guns in your country have made the situation that every mugger and burglar packs heat (or so I am led to believe.)

Less guns in legal circulation = less guns in illegal circulation. In other words

LESS GUNS = LESS GUNS.

That seems to be very hard for you to understand.
Yeah, we tried that with alcohol once upon a time, and trafficking whiskey from Canada and bathtub gin sprang up all over the place, right along with speak easies.  We are still trying that one with drugs, and failing miserably.  The fact is that if you were to totally ban guns the only thing to happen would be a whole new black market.
Then why is there no extensive black market here and are most criminals still unarmed?

Because you are already used to having guns, and now, can't do without.
It's simple economics.  As long as there is a demand, some one will make the supply available.  When it is illegal, the cost is more, so there is more money to be made.
2007-11-29 08:07:16
FredFLQ
S0tp R4p1nG u5!!1one
+47|6969|Donnacona, Quebec

FEOS wrote:

So hunting should be illegal? Rifles are used by hunters to gather deer and other large game, but you don't mention rifles. So, should there be one handgun, one shotgun, and one rifle? What gauge shotgun? What caliber rifle? Shotguns used for hunting have different gauges based on what you're hunting...but you're only allowing for one shotgun.

So I guess hunting is now illegal under your scheme.
I don't think he's saying hunting should be illegal. It's only because there's a huge difference between an M16 and a Remington hunting rifle. Nobody needs an M16 at home (we aren't in Irak ffs).
2007-11-29 08:13:31
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7174|Salt Lake City

FredFLQ wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So hunting should be illegal? Rifles are used by hunters to gather deer and other large game, but you don't mention rifles. So, should there be one handgun, one shotgun, and one rifle? What gauge shotgun? What caliber rifle? Shotguns used for hunting have different gauges based on what you're hunting...but you're only allowing for one shotgun.

So I guess hunting is now illegal under your scheme.
I don't think he's saying hunting should be illegal. It's only because there's a huge difference between an M16 and a Remington hunting rifle. Nobody needs an M16 at home (we aren't in Irak ffs).
No we don't need M16 rifles (no full auto or 3 round burst), but the AR15 is a damn fine varmint gun, and even a decent deer rifle; anything larger needs something with a bigger bullet.  However, the AR15 uses the same exact same .223/5.56mm round as the M16.
2007-11-29 08:14:26
PureFodder
Member
+225|6723

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

It's simple economics.  As long as there is a demand, some one will make the supply available.  When it is illegal, the cost is more, so there is more money to be made.
Simple economics also means that as the difficulty of obtaining it goes up, so does the cost and it becomes increasingly pointless for criminals to arm themselves.
2007-11-29 08:17:41
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7174|Salt Lake City

PureFodder wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

It's simple economics.  As long as there is a demand, some one will make the supply available.  When it is illegal, the cost is more, so there is more money to be made.
Simple economics also means that as the difficulty of obtaining it goes up, so does the cost and it becomes increasingly pointless for criminals to arm themselves.
You still have competition among other suppliers to keep prices in check.  But again my point about drugs, has the high risk, and increased difficulty in getting them into the country stopped it from happening?  Not hardly.  Business is booming.
2007-11-29 09:02:50
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6783|Twyford, UK
Surely you'd have less gun crime if guns were harder to get hold of?

Banning them won't help. Making people lock them up, register them with the police, and not selling them to convicted criminals probably would.
At least teach the goddamn cops to shoot straight.
2007-11-29 09:08:02
PureFodder
Member
+225|6723

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

It's simple economics.  As long as there is a demand, some one will make the supply available.  When it is illegal, the cost is more, so there is more money to be made.
Simple economics also means that as the difficulty of obtaining it goes up, so does the cost and it becomes increasingly pointless for criminals to arm themselves.
You still have competition among other suppliers to keep prices in check.  But again my point about drugs, has the high risk, and increased difficulty in getting them into the country stopped it from happening?  Not hardly.  Business is booming.
The problem we run into here is the lack of any comparable country that has absolutely no drugs that are considered illegal. For all we know the number of people using them would be way higher if they were legal (and given other mind altering drugs like alcohol, caffeine, cigs etc. we have a fairly decent impression that it's true). Alcohol is way more popular than crack. Weed is one of the 'least illegal' drugs and also one of the most popular. 

On the other hand we can compare countries with and without civilian firearm ownership. America is certainly on the high end of crime in general compared to the rest of the western world, but it's not crazy high. Murder with guns though is so far off the scale it's almost hard to believe anyone could stand for it. Americans have guns to protect themselves, yet crime is still booming.

This gives us a couple of unpleasant conclusions, either gun ownership (executions, excessive jail sentencing which are fairly unique to the US) does work, and the fact that America is on the high end of crime despite these things means US society is in real problems, or it simply doesn't work and just provides criminals with loads of cheap easily available guns. Unless someone can think of a third option I've missed.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard