Many nations survive with regulated gun laws. As it is a logical thing to do. Also gun demand for criminals is much easier to track when firearms are banned in general society. And btw, apple pie was never american. Apples in pastry was eaten long before usa was created. Although how this was tied to the usa, is a mystery.
No it is not legal neither is bring drugs to the US that is where the black-market come in. That does not explain where the full auto weapons in Mexico come from since those are illegal in the US. Some were sent from the US to Mexico for use by the Mexican army yet corruption let them fall into cartel hands. China, Russia, and Iran also supply arms to the region.
I agree the personal sales issue is lacking. That is a result of how politics in the US works common sense is not very common. We do attempt to regulate,however the large amount of firearms available around 280 million make that task difficult. Handguns are the main choice of criminals due to conceability, however I have seen studies that estimated if only half of the criminals substitute long guns because of lack of handguns the death rate would increase. I am all for enforcing laws to punish those that abuse firearms or allow others to do so. The task of rounding up the firearms in the US is impossible it can not be done. The cost would outweigh the possible social benefit. We have had cities that have used the same programs to turn in illegal guns. They have never been shown to reduce violence. The ones that turn them in either would not have used them or had better ones at home. Would be my guess as why.
They are either illegal or the users possess a very costly and hard to get permit. They are not available to the general public. They are well tracked and the owners would not be able to sale those weapons without approval from the government. The fully automatic weapons in Mexico did not come from US gun stores or citizens. They sale rifles that look military but are not automatic weapons.
We do attempt to regulate firearms it is not a simple task in the US. The mere thought of gun bans prevent common sense controls from being considered. LOL, it was just a figure of speech, I am actually not fond of apple pie myself.
Check out El Paso, TX, Population about 650,000, on the border with Mexico, and has more guns than people. In 2009 there were only three murders for the entire year.
Civilian ownership of full-auto is extremely tightly controlled and extremely expensive. You can't just walk into a store and buy one. You have to submit an application to the federal gov't, pay a $200 tax, register the gun, and then take possession of it from the seller. Of course you will have to pay the seller and that will be many thousands of dollars. Newly manufactured full-autos have been banned for civilians since 1986. So the supply is limited and demand has driven the price very high. Also, you have to demonstrate to the feds that you have safe storage for the gun and submit to unannounced inspections of your property to make sure that the gun is indeed stored securely. Also, you have to be fingerprinted and your background investigated by the FBI before your request can be approved. Theft of a full-auto is rare. The Mexican drug lords are able to buy genuine machine guns and select-fire AK-47s in third world countries for about $50 apiece and smuggle them in at the same time they smuggle in the drugs. It doesn't make economic sense to pay hundreds of dollars in the U.S. for a semi-auto knock-off of an AK when you can have the real thing for a few tens of dollars from China, or North Korea.
No, only civilisation does reduce crime. When there was civilsation there was very low crime. Violent computer games and movies (social engineering), drugs, are the cause behind increased crime. Lots of prisons could be shut (saves billions) Crime has become an industry (includes the war on drugs) The system make loads of money and gets more and more control over society. This system is the opposite of a normal one.
Actually the permit is only $200 but it registers it with the Federal government. The real cost is in the weapon itself since no one can buy one new after 1986, which has driven up the price of something like an M16 to around $16,000. Criminals are not buying these. The only ones that can buy post 1986 machine guns are dealers for demonstration purposes. Full auto unmarked AK47's from overseas though can be had for $75 in Mexico. US full auto comes from weapons sold to the military and police from the US Government.
LOL, now that Wisconsin recognizes the Indiana carry license, I can "transport" one of those evil weapons through Illinois. Good thing that Illinois does not allow law abiding citizens to carry since they are such a problem.
If the "crime rate" goes "down" that could just mean less people are getting caught or that a bunch of criminals caught a cold. I would not put too much significance on certain crime rates. Mostly due to prohibition, crime will always be here. More guns doesn't necessarily mean more crime, the crimes will definitely still be committed, but more guns would make it easier to do the crime or get away with it. Some legally obtained guns will eventually find their way into the hands of criminals. Of course criminals have access to guns but more guns would make for easier access and it would be increasing the market size. More guns would mean more criminals are likely to use clean/unused weapons, instead of using weapons which have been used multiple times.
The $200 is the cheap part all the other cost that come with it make it very expensive, way out of my price range. The US not a place cartels will come to buy that kind of weaponry.
I am late to this thread BUT, in answer to your question, you have to remember Gun Control is not about controlling guns but instead exerting government control over people. The advocates have little interest in guns except as religious symbols imbued with supernatural abilities to make normal folk commit crimes. If they could convince idiots that candlestick control would cure obesity we would see a loud and annoying movement advocating that.
The empirical analysis of course takes into account other factors that impact on crime rates (particularly economic variables). That analysis shows that your conclusion is wrong. Try taking all of the available data and using an appropriate regression methodology
The first problem with all studies is that a proxy has to be used for gun ownership since real data is not available. The second problem is that you also cannot compare country to country for any kind of relationship since different cultures have different cultural gun usage. So all you can do is make observations without real data. My suggestion is to look at how well banning handguns for law abiding citizens is doing in Chicago.
False claim! Only some of the available evidence uses proxy information, typically to ensure a disaggregated analysis that is more robust. Red herring. Cross-country analysis isn't required.
You've already given this fib and, to be honest, I'm not interested. I will only discuss this topic with people who can show a level of objectivity.
You can believe whatever you want but some of the previous studies you have alluded to state the same thing so use proxies. There is no real gun ownership data available in the United States. That is a fact.
Again, only some of the studies use proxies (typically to ensure disaggregated analysis which is more robust) No, there is no disaggregated data capable of running specific forms of panel analysis. Your ignorance of that doesn't interest me. I won't be responding to any more obvious fibs
