Ban all guns (part 2)

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by LiberalActivist, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well tight regs against freedom will cause law abiding people from obtaining firearms. However the bad guys will have guns if they want them. Nice! The good news for freedom loving Americans* is that pro firearm groups and common sense has prevailed in recent Supreme Court decisions, allowing a broad definition of who can (most citizens, not just cops, the militia etc) own and bear firearms.

    * The UK etc firearm loving men remain self neutered in a freedom sense, while they are watched and overseen by cameras manned by overseers as they somewhat exist in the preplanned maze of Orwellian reality. No thanks. However if they are happy and I am sure the next generation will be conditioned to be, then let them live there. However I am appealing the anti freedom type crusaders not to come to our shores pleading for so called freedom control...er gun control.

    Rev A
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regulation will have the desired effect on supply and demand conditions. Appropriately done it will eliminate the coercive losses that authoritarians want to impose on us
     
  3. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You do know that the people who committed most of those murders probably didn't acquire the gun legally anyway, right? The only people you would take guns away from are the people who follow the law. And those are the exact people you DO want to have guns. Not only that, but crime would increase significantly in places that do currently allow guns. I have seen with my own eyes on many occasions how the knowledge that someone around you might have a gun will prevent you from doing something stupid. Why don't you come on over and try to take my gun. ;)
     
  4. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It says militia earlier in the amendment, but this clearly says THE PEOPLE.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think the empirical evidence regularly rejects the premise that deterrence effects dominate(i.e. gun prevalence isn't found to reduce crime)?
     
  6. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, there is statistical prove that legal gun owners reduces crime. Its a pretty well known fact, but just let me know if you disagree and I shall site some reading for you. Furthermore, to think that taking away guns from law-abiding citizens takes guns away from those who break the law. And to say that it makes it harder for criminals to get guns is unlikely, because most get their guns illegally anyway. At best, it would just be more expensive. A THIRD point I have, is that if you banned guns, you would make a criminal out of me and lots of others who are currently legal gun owners, because I would not give up my guns no matter what the government chooses. i would rather be able to protect my family and those I love and go to prison for the rest of my life, than be helpless.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A literature review will show that the majority of studies rejects the 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis. Fire up your ScienceDirect and check!

    Why didn't you support your post with evidence?
     
  8. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because, everyone I have argued with before has at least agreed to that. I would be happy to site any examples I can find. (Finding a source that everyone can agree is at least semi-reliable can take time on the internet, please allow me to search for a credible source and not some random site.)
     
  9. danboy9787

    danboy9787 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know how reliable this website will be to YOU, but it has alot of q and a's. I even learned something

    "True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns."

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your defence for not using evidence is that you've argued with people that don't know what they are talking about?

    Try to use good practice, giving author/title/journal/volume/page numbers. A meta-analysis would suffice
     
  11. theadler

    theadler Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, the only people in America who would be giving up their guns would be the law abiding citizens. No matter how many laws you create, the criminals will always have guns and usually they're the people doing the killing. Makes sense. Let's create more laws to limit the rights of the law abidiing citizens and make is impossible to defend themselves. Murder will surely drop then. Absolutely psycotic!
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The legal and illegal markets are inherently linked. Its those links that ensure the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. It makes no sense to ignore the external costs generated by our personal preferences. The losses imposed on folk would be significant.

    Now this doesn't mean we should ban guns. However, it would be reasonable to conclude that the pro-gun lobby are motivated by ensuring that coercion is ignored.
     
  13. LeConservateur

    LeConservateur New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most of the guns in the drug war are coming in from the US. Restrictions in the US would help both countries and would help stop the flow of illegal immigrants.
     
  14. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How would restricting the right of a farmer in Minot, North Dakota to purchase a firearm help stop the flow of illegal immigrants?
     
  15. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    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.
     
  16. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which still represents an increase in transaction costs (and therefore significant impact on demand)
     
  18. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ensuring a reduction in quantity demanded and therefore an overall success in policy. Well done!
     
  20. Hate_bs

    Hate_bs New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What's your plan to protect me from non gun crime and violence?
     
  21. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And that's why Prohibition was such an unqualified success!

    Uh-oh... reality raises its ugly head. :shock:
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're comparing guns with an addictive product? Golly!
     
  23. SpotsCat

    SpotsCat New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  24. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    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.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An increase in price leads to a reduction in quantity demanded. Are you seriously going to question basic economics? I wouldn't recommend it
     

Share This Page