Ban all guns (part 2)

**SpotsCat** · Dec 27 2011, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Danct

Are you sure your question isn't misleading?

The types of laws that would begin to address the cross-border gun trafficking most likely would not affect the farmer you spoke of. I suspect you already knew this.

I find it interesting how your ilk are so quick to consider the total effects on citizens for gun restrictions, while being purposefully obtuse of the effects on citizens for the lack thereof.

Personally, I would prefer a balance of consideration such that the Framers preferred, in my opinion.

You're forgetting the ripple effect.

If you tighten gun laws within a 100 mile radius of the border, criminals will buy guns to be smuggled across at shops located 150 miles from the border. If it becomes difficult to buy guns in Yuma, the criminals will go to Phoenix. When it becomes difficult in Phoenix, they'll go to Flagstaff. When it becomes difficult in Flagstaff, they'll go to Utah, and so on, and so on.

Restrictive gun laws in New York City haven't stopped firearms from being brought into the city - it's merely given rise to another criminal act, that of gun smuggling.

From the New York Times --

Eight current and former New York Police Department officers were arrested early Tuesday on federal charges including gun trafficking and conspiracy to smuggle cigarettes, according to people briefed on the case.

This is what you and those of your ilk fail to acknowledge - the more something is prohibited (drugs, alcohol, firearms), the more the criminal element not only desires it, but is willing to go to greater risk to obtain, and possibly financially profit from it. Prohibition gave rise to the organized crime element that still plagues us to this day.

A quick anecdote -- Recently I had a head cold, and stopped in a store in another state to buy some Actifed. Because I was an out-of-state resident, I was not able to purchase Actifed because it contains pseudoephedrine - the main chemical used in making crystal meth. I have no desire to use meth, I am not a "smurf" who buys Actifed and resells it to people who make meth - I'm merely a traveler with a head cold. But, because of the failure of the government to regulate sales of this pharmaceutical, I have to suffer.

Which brings me back to my original point - why does the farmer in North Dakota have to suffer because of the failure of the government to stem gun flow across the Mexican border?

**Reiver** · Dec 27 2011, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

You're forgetting the ripple effect.

Which still represents an increase in transaction costs (and therefore significant impact on demand)

**SpotsCat** · Dec 27 2011, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Reiver

Which still represents an increase in transaction costs (and therefore significant impact on demand)

For once you and I agree!

The demand from the criminal element will still be there, while the desirability of the item will increase. The supply will diminish, while the price will increase.

If a gun obtained in Yuma costs $400 smuggled across the border, it should then cost $500 if obtained in Phoenix and smuggled across the border, $700 if obtained in Flagstaff, and so on.

**Reiver** · Dec 27 2011, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

while the price will increase.

Ensuring a reduction in quantity demanded and therefore an overall success in policy. Well done!

**Hate_bs** · Dec 27 2011, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by LiberalActivist

First maxed, making second.

As I stated in the OP:

Not ONE good argument brought to me. Come on, cons, let's see you argue.

What's your plan to protect me from non gun crime and violence?

**SpotsCat** · Dec 27 2011, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Reiver

Ensuring a reduction in quantity demanded and therefore an overall success in policy. Well done!

And that's why Prohibition was such an unqualified success!

Uh-oh... reality raises its ugly head.

**Reiver** · Dec 27 2011, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

And that's why Prohibition was such an unqualified success!

You're comparing guns with an addictive product? Golly!

**SpotsCat** · Dec 27 2011, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Reiver

You're comparing guns with an addictive product? Golly!

It's all about the desirability of the product. Black markets in tires, meat, sugar, and gasoline sprung up during the Second World War - all non-addictive products.

Supply was diminished, price rose, demand was still there, and alternative (criminal) methods arose to supply the product.

Why would you think firearms would model any differently?

**Danct** · Dec 27 2011, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by SpotsCat

You're forgetting the ripple effect.

If you tighten gun laws within a 100 mile radius of the border, criminals will buy guns to be smuggled across at shops located 150 miles from the border. If it becomes difficult to buy guns in Yuma, the criminals will go to Phoenix. When it becomes difficult in Phoenix, they'll go to Flagstaff. When it becomes difficult in Flagstaff, they'll go to Utah, and so on, and so on.

Restrictive gun laws in New York City haven't stopped firearms from being brought into the city - it's merely given rise to another criminal act, that of gun smuggling.

From the New York Times --

This is what you and those of your ilk fail to acknowledge - the more something is prohibited (drugs, alcohol, firearms), the more the criminal element not only desires it, but is willing to go to greater risk to obtain, and possibly financially profit from it. Prohibition gave rise to the organized crime element that still plagues us to this day.

A quick anecdote -- Recently I had a head cold, and stopped in a store in another state to buy some Actifed. Because I was an out-of-state resident, I was not able to purchase Actifed because it contains pseudoephedrine - the main chemical used in making crystal meth. I have no desire to use meth, I am not a "smurf" who buys Actifed and resells it to people who make meth - I'm merely a traveler with a head cold. But, because of the failure of the government to regulate sales of this pharmaceutical, I have to suffer.

Which brings me back to my original point - why does the farmer in North Dakota have to suffer because of the failure of the government to stem gun flow across the Mexican border?

I already addressed this in my prior post. I see you failed to fully cover that.

The types of gun laws that would be directed at drug smuggling are typically transport laws, Gun Show laws, and multiple-gun-purchase laws, amongst others. These laws would have little to no effect upon that farmer unless, that is, he is a gun smuggler.

Your Appeal to Fear fallacy has no basis in reality.