My, but you do rely on the emotional arguments. What your argument misses is the simple fact that the shortages you alluded to and their ensuing demand has no comparative value in a discussion such as this, that is speaking to reasonable restrictions. After all, we're not talking about restricting the supply of guns to law abiding citizens, friend. Do you not have all the guns you could currently afford to have?
I fear you're a little behind the curve here, Danct. If you restrict the availability of firearms in town close to the border, the criminal element will purchase the firearms in places that aren't affected by the restrictions. As Reiver and I have agreed on (imagine that!), if the supply of an item is reduced, demand should be reduced, and the price should increase. But, as has been shown time and time again, the desirability of the particular item is a major component of the demand. Since firearms are a very desirable item to the criminal element, the demand for them if they are restricted should increase. Sorry, Danct, but the reality is that the criminal element will always find a way to obtain - and sell - any item that it restricted. Prohibition didn't work, the war on drugs is a money sinkhole, why on Earth would you believe that restricting firearms has a snowball's chance of success?
Get it exact! The reduction in quantity demanded is a reaction to the change in price. Note also that guns are already 'desirable to the criminal element', as seem by the evidence linking gun prevalence with higher burglary rates.
Where did you hear that? I hear that the drug cartels buy thier guns from the Mexican Army, Mexican Police, and Honduras.
And who here has recommended that, specifically? Your straw man is a distraction from the discussion at hand, and I am amazed that you would accuse ME of being "behind the curve" when you yourself have missed my entire argument apparently. I re-posted it above so that you could fully read it this time perhaps. There is no requirement in this discussion that the gun restrictions should fit YOUR particular restrictions as you've outlined them here, friend. For instance, why would the purchase restrictions be confined solely to the border? What type of restrictions would these be exactly? By YOUR straw man, one would think that these restrictions would be draconian border bans. An idiotic pretense, really. Well, "should" is hardly a compelling verbal auxiliary when used to support an argument, friend. If you can use something more substantial then please do so. Until then,........ This broad observation that relies on a false absolute is relevant why? Another appeal to emotion fallacy perhaps? I see. You have compared two prohibitions with comparatively mild (by world standards) gun restrictions. I fail to see how you could reasonably expect a high school graduate to buy that little bit of hyperbole.
