PureFodder wrote:
a) There's no evidence from other countries that have had firearms bans that criminals will suddenly go running around with assault rifles. In fact the US has a higher percentage of assault rifles used in crimes than the UK.
Other countires are not the US. Guns have been a part of our national psyche since our inception as a nation; that is much less true in pretty much every other nation on earth, with the exception of a few places in Africa. Europe, for example, has a history of weapons restrictions going back to fuedal times. There is no huge demand for fireamrs in the UK. Here in the US, there is such a demand. You are most likely correct. It is difficult to conceal an assault rifle as you go and do your daily rounds, but if you want to carry a weapon, and that is all that is available... and I hate to say it, but there is a difference of scale. Policing the UK is even easier than policing one of our larger states, population and land area-wise. UK has the added advantage of being an island. However, even with that, didn't the IRA manage to get their hands on some automatic weapons? I never said it was going to be sudden. I didn't even claim the difference was going to be huge.
PureFodder wrote:
b) The majority of gun crimes in the US are not comitted by serious organised criminals. By making the supply of firearms more risky and expensive and by removing the reason that most criminals arm themselves in the first place (self-defence against legal gun owners) which has benefits for the populace as nervous armed criminals tend to do stupid things. Plus you're making the police's job a hell of a lot easier as far more criminals will be unarmed.
Criminals break laws. Just becuase it is illegal, does not mean they won't do it anyway. A lack of availability will make a difference, unless that criminal feels they need a gun, then they will find a way to get one. Criminals do not get a gun to protect themselves from an armed citizen. The very idea is laughable. Citizens with guns don't hunt and prey on criminals, it is not a method of defense for them. Criminals use guns offensively; an armed citizen uses theirs defensively. If you can't see the difference in that, there is no more point in arguing. A criminal goes for easy prey (i.e. an old lady cashing her Social Security check instead of a college linebacker pulling a couple hundred out of an ATM). An armed populace decreases crime against persons (such as muggings) because it is harder for a criminal to properly assess targets for risk. A gun carried by one of these common criminals is a method of intimidation, not of self defense. If the target may have a gun, the risk for the criminal is too high for the reward, and they go on to either an easier area of crime, or looks for a group that is less likely to be armed.
PureFodder wrote:
c) Organised criminals can probably get their hands on whatever they want anyway, evidence from other countries with general firearm band indicates that organised criminals won't be rushing out to get AK's.
You are correct. However, many, if not most of them get along with what they can get their hands on now. It is easier, and it is sufficiant. Now, if they can't just go out and get one- if they have to plan and work at getting a gun, you are more likely to make it worth your while. I used the example of AKs because they are pretty much the most prolific weapon in the world, and most likely the easiest to get on the black market.
Smuggling weapons is a bit different than smuggling drugs. First, instead of suspecting the other side has guns, it is pretty much a sure thing, just due to what you are trading. Any law enforcement trying to stop a buy
must go in with more force, just due to the nature of what is being traded. Since it is so much riskier for the criminals, it has to be worth more money to make it worthwile. If there is more money involved, there is more of a danger of being double crossed. Because there is a risk of a greater prison sentace, there is more motivation by the crimial to evade capture. Hence the increased desire of the criminal to be better armed for this enterprise. Since they are dealing in weapons anyway, they have their own pick. So, pick that which has the best punch.
PureFodder wrote:
d) Illegal weapons are already illegally held.
Yes, and that does not stop them. Excpet that, right now, I am a legal gun owner. Institute a ban, and
I will become an owner of illegal weapons. Not planhing on using them in a crime, but I am keeping at least one. That goes back to the psyche of our nation and all. You would be suprised how common that attitude is among gun owners here. So, by extention, otherwise law abiding citizens here will continue to buy guns. Oh, not in the numbers they do now, but they will.
PureFodder wrote:
e) If you hate the idea of a gun ban (which I would be agaisnt for the US incidentally as I think it would be too long a process and would require full country wide support from the great majority of the populace and both major political parties to gradually remove the illegally held firearms in the US and phase out gun ownership. I don't see any of those things happening which would lead a fragmented attempt that would probably do more harm than good.) then at least making it difficult for criminals to arm themselves by having all states adopt a more stringent set of laws regarding firearms licencing (proper background checks etc.) as the legal populace can still get guns, but you're making it more difficult and expensive for criminals which will discourage many from getting a gun in the first place.
It may suprise you to learn that, here in Texas at least, there is a background check conducted for every single firearm sold by a FFL (federal firearms license) holder to an individual gun owner. The problem is that we do not regulate sales or trades between individuals. To regulate and register to that degree is not accpetable to the people of the US, as we view it as an unnacceptable encroachement by the government into our private lives. Yes, that means we have to accept the concequences of that, which means criminals have better access to guns. So be it. I know it is hard for you fathom that we would intentionally accept things like this. You just don't get the US. I have been using this argument a lot lately, but you just don't have the frame of reference to be able to understand it.
PureFodder wrote:
f) There's a good chance that the reason the US government is so bad at stopping illegal immigrants from getting into the country is because they don't want to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country. Dirt cheap labour is good for the economy if you're a rich business owner. The opinions of rich business owners tend to hold a lot of sway in politics.
That is just suppostion, and mouthing of a political talking point. That being said, it may not be correct. However, it is also a case in point. If guns were viewed that way, then they also would into the country, even illegally, because
we want them. And that argument does not show why drugs make it in so easily as well.
