The largest US state has a little over half the populace of the UK. The problem the US faces is predominantly in terms of low population densityimortal wrote:
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:
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.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdfimortal wrote:
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:
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.
40% of criminals used their gun in self-defense - it's not a laughable idea that if you are going to break into somewhere to steal stuff where you think there's a chance the occupants will be armed and willing to kill you that it may be a good idea to gave a gun to defend yourself against them.
So you thing that some criminals may go for slightly better guns while a large number will abandon guns altogether. That sounds like a possitive outcome?imortal wrote:
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.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.
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.
I generally agree on the other points that a firearms ban is a pointless endevour if a large percentage of the populace strongly oppose such a thing. My argument isn't that guns have to be banned, but that there are problems caused by legal firearms ownership, but if a populace believe that the possitive aspects outweigh the negative then that up to them, same with other restricted things like drugs, dangerous chemicals, radioactive substances etc.