What legal gun owners are really afraid of.......

basic economy thoery states that banning something will decrease its supply. of course smuggling and the black market will continue to exist. but the overall availability of guns of all types will be much lower. And that's the point.

 

I don't think you know what you agree talking about coming from an economic standpoint. I will remove "guns" completely from my explanation of a basic economic stand point.

Item A is banned by the government and the supply of item A is completely wiped out. No more item A. What does this do to the demand for item A? Well, there is a vacuum demand for item A and the demand will stay the same if the demand is very inelastic. If item A demand is very inelastic, the price for item A will go up until the demand for item A meets current market demands for item A, regardless of political or legal pressure for the banning of item A. This creates a black market that will either foster the illegal production of item A, importation of item A, or substitution of item A with a similar product.

The market will always have a demand for personal protection. Guns are very sought after because there is no other weapon on the planet that can give one person the ability to defend themselves versus several attackers at the same time. This is also one reason why guns are used in crimes in the United States; they give one person a plethora of power to do what their mission is.

No government body will be able to create a law that will force a person act in a moral way that they would have not done other wise. Bad people will do bad things. Violent criminals will commit violent acts. Good people will commit good acts. Trying to will just alienate people that would otherwise help you. Wanting to reduce violent crime and deaths/murders every year is a noble thing. You should be proud of that, but your method to do so is flawed because the tool that you are trying to ban doesn't have a mind and doesn't choose what to do and when to do it. Only the person operating the item has that option. A gun is just an inanimate object that is capable of doing intense good or untold evil and damage.

 

That is exactly what it is, a theory. Banning will only stop most legal owners from having them. In the illegal market, once something is banned, they increase production for it. It happened with drugs, it will happen with guns, there is already a market for automatic rifles and automatic handguns, what makes you think that market won't become stronger if a ban is passed.

 

The whole point is that item A on the black market will be 1) much more expensive and 2) harder to obtain

this will reduce the availability of item A, which is the whole point of gun control.

Sounds like you take your political philosphy from a children's book. Real life is far more complex than that. Criminals are human beings, and all human beings respond to incentives. I don't believe in "good" people or "bad" people. people are people--we are just confronted with a different set of incentives. As such, if you manipulate these incentives, you can change peoples actions. By making guns harder to get, we are making crimes harder to commit. Some criminals may find ways to commit crime anyway. But many will not. And thus overall gun violence will go down.

 

of course a black market will arise if we ban guns. but guns on the black market will be much more expensive and harder to obtain than they are now. That will decrease their overall availability, and that's the idea.

 

If law-abiding citizens have no guns, then criminals have less need to carry them, and risk arrest for possession itself as well as the crime. That's been the experience in the UK where you can get 10 years for supply or possession of a handgun.

 

Unless an oppressive regime ever seizes power in future generations yet to come. With the population completely disarmed, there may be little to stop this.

less guns = more home invassions, more robberies, more rapes

That makes absolutely no sense. If a criminal wants to kill someone, he is certainly not going to be deterred by extra punishment for having a gun. And punishing a murderer who used a gun more than a murderer who did not makes absolutely no sense. It just shows the irrationality of progressives and their prejudice against guns. A criminal uses a gun because it gives him power, the ability to threaten lives. If a criminal does not intend to threaten lives, he will have no need to carry a gun. If he does intend to threaten lives, he will want whatever tool best enables him to do so.

 

Not even close. Blunt objects and cars both kill more people in the US than guns do.

 

Right. We can continue to kill thousands of citizens a year with accidental shootings alone, because we may have to go to war with our leaders after we elect them by popular vote...

So you're saying every other first-world democracy has more home invasions, more robberies and more rapes than the US? I'd like to see the evidence that statement is based on.

And gun owners repeatedly insist that "blunt objects" and/or "cars" are more dangerous than guns... please explain.

 

Alright, so you eliminate the supply of item A, but you cannot guarantee that item B, which is similar to item A, is better, worse, or the same as item A.

Markets for a weapon don't disappear because you wish them to. They either find their way around the "ban," as we saw with the first AWB, or use something different to commit evil acts like knives in China.

 

What the heck are you talking about? Unless people start smuggling in cheap chemical weapons, what's man-portable and worse than the weapons that are currently legal with a Class 3 license?

Right, compare Sandy Hook to the earilly similar occurance in Chengping where a knife was used...
All the Chinese victims survived, none of the Sandy Hook ones did.
Sounds like knives are a lot less efficient at killing, so the same attempted evil act (killing kids) was not as easily accomplished by the Chinese lunatic as it was by the American lunatic...

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.... guns just make it a whole lot faster and easier.

 

all right, what law could be passed that would not infringe upon the Right to keep and Bear arms? What other Right must be given up to enforce a gun ban? A moronic idea at best.....................

 

collaborators eveywhere you look..............

- - - Updated - - -

collaborators eveywhere you look..............

 

These public debates about gun control have only increased the holding value of all my guns. Thanks guys!!!!! You're going to allow me to re-retire.......

- - - Updated - - -

Prove this or you are a liar...

 

It's almost sad that you still think the world "collaborator" means anything to anyone.

 

you mean like traitor? i know it's only a word....................but you are still a collaborator.............

 

col·lab·o·rate/kəˈlæb əˌreɪt/ Show Spelled [kuh-lab-uh-reyt]
verb (used without object), col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing.
1. to work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work: They collaborated on a novel.
2. to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation, especially with an enemy occupying one's country: He collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.

I assume you refer to the second definition? Could you illustrate what foreign invading/occupying nation I am guilty of collaborating with?

 

at this point, you are the invader. You are actively seeking to eliminate our BoR. You are collaborating with the UN...........and foreign subjects...............you know, traitorous activities

 

The second amendment is not the Bill of Rights.

I am actively seeking to minimize the ability of criminals and morons to murder civilians of all ages. Your willingness to put your desires and 'entitlements' above the welfare of the society in which you live highlights exactly what you are.

Threatening rebellion against the government - just because you are unwilling to give up a dust collector that threatens the safety of everyone around you - is not traitorous?

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

 

First, you show your lack of education concerning what a Right is and what an entitlement is. Since you do not know, then you deserve no Rights.
Second, show me where anyone is threatened around me. Since you don't live under my roof, you are ignorant about what happens here...but I bet you sure would like to know, wouldn't you?
Unlike you, I don't stand around with my hand out begging for table scraps. Recall that I am shameless, that old rhetoric from JFK fails on me................as far as I'm concerned, I support my country at the point of a gun. Forced taxation, enhanced police state..no thanks, I won't support that. (legally quit paying taxes years ago)
Quit being emotional and show me the pictures of those murdered children from Sandy Hook......and I'll paint you a picture of dead bodies piled up 8 feet high of enemy combatants from Viet Nam. Funny, you wont be able to, but I can, because I was there in Nam, and you weren't there at Sandy Hook.............can you get a cheaper shot in?

 

Even if you were correct in relation to my lack of knowledge, can you show where the Bill of Rights says our rights are limited to people who are knowledgeable?
Who's trying to eliminate the BoR now?

How can you remain on this notice board and still be totally ignorant of statistics relating to accidental shootings? Amazing...

I've never taken a tax free dollar since I landed my first job at 14, but -as I'm sure you know- the fact that you live tax free (legally or not) makes you part of the 47% the last conservative loser referred to when he discussed "entitlements"...

Were their tear stains on my post? Referring to a topical incident that supports my point of view isn't "being emotional", it's called "making a point"... You should try it some time rather than attempting to hurl insults that mean nothing to anyone but you.
I understand that you were in the Navy during the Vietnam conflict... on ship and giving rides to Infantry Marines so they could actually create those 8 foot piles of bodies, no doubt... I, on the other hand, was one of those Infantry Marines during the first Gulf War. Stop being emotional about it.

 

nope. Wrong again. I spent 4 months RAG duty before getting wounded ...then gave the other part of the Navy their free ride for the rest of my hitch

 

Wow, I made sweeping generalizations about your whole life, and I was wrong about 4 months... Not bad for a grunt, if I do say so myself.

 

Ayuh,.... That's done a Great job on drugs, 'n guns in yer hometown, ain't it,..??

 

Yes. People kill people. People also defend other people and using the best tool to stop a murder, rape, violent assault, or multiple attacker scenario is a gun. I do not tell the police "you need to use something besides a gun because it is not useful in stopping violent crime" from some misguided notion that getting rid of an inanimate object will somehow cause fewer ruined lives. Guns do allow a person to kill a lot of people very quickly, but guns also allow one person to fight back with the best tools available to them to stop the crime that is in progress.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

http://www.mail.com/video/topvideos/1809580-georgia-mom-shoots-invader-5-times.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...y-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Protect-2-Month-Old-Son-Against-Armed-Robber

These are just the cases that made headlines in the news. You tell me with a straight face that those people did not have a right to defend themselves with firearms.