What would stop criminals from getting any type of gun?
My point was that certain guns are more fatal than others, and for that reason those guns should be illegal. Specifically, automatics and machine guns. Criminals could get other types of guns, but those guns are not going to be as lethal.
One of the factors that helps to make illegal firearms cheaper in the US is their use in murders. Criminals have at least some knowledge that guns can be traced to the crime scene, so they'll get rid of it. Such killers use a gun they purchased illegally, fence it, and purchase another. Supply of guns is kept up partially through this method. Link here showing the relative ease and competitive costs of obtaining an illegal firearm.
The guns mentioned in the article aren't illegal to manufacture, transport or sell in the US. Let's see how much it costs to buy an uzi.
Most of the prices are then inflated to make things profitable for the middleman, in this case the cartels. And individuals selling in an organized crime group often work for less than minimum wage(see Freakonomics, chapter called "Why Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms"). I dunno. Cheap importation prices, complete tax evasion, and paying less-than minimum wage all sound like good reasons why illegal drugs might potentially be cheaper than legal pot.
The government wouldn't pay importation prices or taxes, either.
Argiculturally speaking, marijuana is no more expensive to produce than wheat. Wheat is currently $316 per metric ton. I don't think marijuana is that cheap. But it could be, if produced locally.
Being illegal to sell, and smuggled across a border, does increase the price.
Actually I don't think this is true. As Gwafa noted, drug cartels dodge import taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, minimum wage, and probably a whole lot more. Plus a large portion of their target audience is not rich, meaning they have to sell at low prices to be profitable.
I agree with him about illegal firearms as well. They are not hard to get at all.
I'm not talking about illegal handguns produced and legally sold in the US, then illegally sold to a minor. I'm talking about illegal automatic and machine guns produced outside the US, smuggled across the border, and illegally sold to anyone.
My point was that certain guns are more fatal than others, and for that reason those guns should be illegal. Specifically, automatics and machine guns. Criminals could get other types of guns, but those guns are not going to be as lethal.
What? You were arguing for all guns to be illegal. Why are you changing your stance now?
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
My point was that certain guns are more fatal than others, and for that reason those guns should be illegal. Specifically, automatics and machine guns. Criminals could get other types of guns, but those guns are not going to be as lethal.
Full auto weapons could also protect you from criminals much better than a simple pistol or bolt-action rifle ever could.
The guns mentioned in the article aren't illegal to manufacture, transport or sell in the US. Let's see how much it costs to buy an uzi.
Uzis aren't illegal
There are many, many, many middle men.
And yet marijuana is ridiculously cheap.
The government wouldn't pay importation prices or taxes, either.
The government never pays taxes; it charges them.
Argiculturally speaking, marijuana is no more expensive to produce than wheat. Wheat is currently $316 per metric ton. I don't think marijuana is that cheap. But it could be, if produced locally.
Being illegal to sell, and smuggled across a border, does increase the price.
Yes, invariably, but not to such an extent that it makes it hard to get. Neither guns nor marijuana are difficult to obtain.
I'm not talking about illegal handguns produced and legally sold in the US, then illegally sold to a minor. I'm talking about illegal automatic and machine guns produced outside the US, smuggled across the border, and illegally sold to anyone.
Fully automatic weapons are produced and sold in the US, you just have to have a permit to buy them legally (along with a fine I believe).
Please elaborate.
If there were no guns in the world, people wouldn't get shot. No duh. However, there are, and there are a LOT of guns in the world, so imagining far off scenarios where there aren't any or trying to get rid of them for the sole reason that they cause death is ridiculous.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
What? You were arguing for all guns to be illegal. Why are you changing your stance now?
Please direct me to my post where I recommend "all guns to be illegal".
If you read my posts closely, you'll see that I'm advocating gun control, not gun prohibition.
Yes, invariably, but not to such an extent that it makes it hard to get. Neither guns nor marijuana are difficult to obtain.
Difficulty is relative. And my argument is more about price than procurement. Many criminals could not afford smuggled automatic weapons, even if they could find someone to sell them.
Fully automatic weapons are produced and sold in the US, you just have to have a permit to buy them legally (along with a fine I believe).
My point is that if they were illegal, they would be more expensive than if they were legal. The fact that so many already exist in circulation goes back to my first point in this thread, that it is probably too late for gun control in the US.
If there were no guns in the world, people wouldn't get shot. No duh. However, there are, and there are a LOT of guns in the world, so imagining far off scenarios where there aren't any or trying to get rid of them for the sole reason that they cause death is ridiculous.
You admit that no guns = no people being shot. I proposed that few guns = fewer people being shot. I still fail to see how this is "neither contextually accurate nor relevant" to the issue of gun control
Please direct me to my post where I recommend "all guns to be illegal".
If you read my posts closely, you'll see that I'm advocating gun control, not gun prohibition.
You said if there were no guns, how could there be gun violence. No guns means making them illegal, right? You didn't specify which guns would be illegal in that post, you just said guns. This is the only reason I responded....because making all guns illegal is just plain stupid.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
You said eliminating guns would limit the possibility of gun violence. Eliminating guns means making them illegal, right? You didn't specify which guns would be illegal in that post, you just said guns. This is the only reason I responded....because making all guns illegal is just plain stupid.
Eliminating guns would limit the possibility of gun violence. Although this fact applies to all guns, I was referring specifically to automatics and machine guns, which I think should be outlawed.
Largely due to the impracticability of implementing such a law at this time, I'm not in favour of outlawing all guns. But I am in favour of controlling gun ownership to reduce gun violence, based on (among others) the premise that fewer very lethal guns would result in less lethality, even if instances of gun violence remain the same.
Actually, American grown cannabis is by and large much more expensive than Mexican-bourne cannabis :teach:.
I wasn't the one to originally compare weed to firearms, which isn't a good comparison to make given how many different factors are involved.
Rather than derail this thread by discussing narcotics, I will simply say that, if all other things being equal, a smuggled, illegal good is more expensive than a legal, locally produced good.
Specifically: all other things being equal, a smuggled, illegal firearm will be more expensive than that same firearm if it manufactured and sold legally in the US.
If more lethal firearms are illegal, it is my premise that the premium paid to have those firearms smuggled into the US and sold illegally will preclude a not insignificant number of criminals from purchasing those more lethal firearms, forcing them to buy a firearm with less lethality.
On average, gun violence involving less lethal firearms will result in fewer fatalities, which is a worthwhile goal in my estimation.
Skittles, I would argue that eliminating all guns would increase gun violence. But since that is not what you were saying, then I'm done here. You should have specified what exactly you were talking about.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Skittles, I would argue that eliminating all guns would increase gun violence. But since that is not what you were saying, then I'm done here. You should have specified what exactly you were talking about.
If there are zero guns on the planet, how would gun violence increase? It seems logically impossible.
I do not believe I was ambiguous in any of my posts. I leave it to you to read my posts closely, especially when I'm responding to someone else's post. If you are confused by how I have presented my position, I advise you to ask me to clarify rather than make assumptions.
If there are zero guns on the planet, how would gun violence increase? It seems logically impossible.
By eliminate I mean make illegal, just like i said in my previous post. It is basically impossible to get rid of all the guns on the planet, so I think you are the one being illogical.
I do not believe I was ambiguous in any of my posts. I leave it to you to read my posts closely, especially when I'm responding to someone else's post. If you are confused by how I have presented my position, I advise you to ask me to clarify rather than make assumptions.
I wasn't assuming anything. I took what you said word for word and responded.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
By eliminate I mean make illegal, just like i said in my previous post. It is basically impossible to get rid of all the guns on the planet, so I think you are the one being illogical.
Eliminate and legislate are two very different things.
I wasn't assuming anything. I took what you said word for word and responded.
You either assumed I had said something I didn't, or you took what I said out of the context of the discussion I was having with Ulfsaar, which clearly shows that I advocate gun control (not gun prohibition) as a practical solution to reducing gun violence.
Eliminate and legislate are two very different things.
Certainly. However for the sake of this conversation, I pointed out how eliminate could mean make illegal. You even used the word limit to mean make some illegal, which is no different. Anyway now we are just arguing semantics and it is pointless.
You either assumed I had said something I didn't, or you took what I said out of the context of the discussion I was having with Ulfsaar, which clearly shows that I advocate gun control (not gun prohibition) as a practical solution to reducing gun violence.
Like i said, I read your post and responded. By your own words in the post, it sounded like you wanted all guns illegal. Weather or not you meant it or weather you said something different earlier doesn't matter. And yet again, we are just arguing semantics. If you agree that most guns should be legal then i guess there is nothing to debate here, although it seems like you are under the impression that if all guns were illegal there would be less gun violence, which i disagree with.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
If you agree that most guns should be legal then i guess there is nothing to debate here,
I think that all automatic and machine guns should be illegal. I don't know if that comprises most, or just a few, of all guns. I would also restrict calibres beyond a certain size, although this might be more difficult to implement.
although it seems like you are under the impression that if all guns were illegal there would be less gun violence, which i disagree with.
Although that might be the case, I'm not sure. I was referring only to automatic and machine guns.
Certainly gun accidents would be fewer, but that's a separate issue.
I think that all automatic and machine guns should be illegal. I don't know if that comprises most, or just a few, of all guns. I would also restrict calibres beyond a certain size, although this might be more difficult to implement.
Yes, thats what i meant. Personally, I am still on the fence about this issue.
Certainly gun accidents would be fewer, but that's a separate issue.
Yes, there would be fewer accidents....which is a terrible reason to ban something. I think if we banned guns, criminals would have a lot more power. They would be the only people with guns and they would have no fear of regular people or even cops. Just look at the war on drugs, tons of people die each year because of it. I see no reason to assume it would be different in the case of guns.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
I think if we banned guns, criminals would have a lot more power. They would be the only people with guns and they would have no fear of regular people or even cops. Just look at the war on drugs, tons of people die each year because of it. I see no reason to assume it would be different in the case of guns.
That sounds plausible.
On a different note, how would you (and anyone else) reduce gun crime?
On a different note, how would you (and anyone else) reduce gun crime?
I don't think there is a real, good answer to it. We as people will always have crime, no matter what form. Taking away one tool used to commit that crime doesn't get us anywhere. When you figure out the solution to crime, get back to me, lol.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Argiculturally speaking, marijuana is no more expensive to produce than wheat. Wheat is currently $316 per metric ton. I don't think marijuana is that cheap. But it could be, if produced locally.
Being illegal to sell, and smuggled across a border, does increase the price.
I'll certainly cede to you that it could be cheaper if produced in the US legally. But I suppose my beef is the requirement that it be produced internationally while illegal, and produced locally when legal, when it seems that the optimal course would be importing it when it's legal. In addition, one of the biggest non-moral(my body my choice and etc.) tool used to try and persuade governments to legalize is the potential tax base created by legalizing and tacking on a "sin-tax". Sin-taxes are most assuredly not levied on food and living supplies(like, say, wheat). Try and compare it to tobacco.
Specifically: all other things being equal, a smuggled, illegal firearm will be more expensive than that same firearm if it manufactured and sold legally in the US.
The problem, as I see it here(and above), is that you're creating a false dichotomy. There's two variables here: legality, and production locale. When comparing legal vs illegal, illegal will always be more expensive(while invariably fueling organized crime); production locale works off of a variety of factors, but typically less developed=cheaper to produce(favoring importation rather than homegrowing).
The government wouldn't pay importation prices or taxes, either.
Unless you're suggesting that the US gov't would take over the production of marajuana, methinks there's something screwy with that statement. Government doesn't pay taxes on things they create, but they sure do levy them on producers.
Eliminating guns would limit the possibility of gun violence. Although this fact applies to all guns, I was referring specifically to automatics and machine guns, which I think should be outlawed.
Largely due to the impracticability of implementing such a lawat this time, I'm not in favour of outlawing all guns.
I'm going to take this moment to parrot the genie back in the bottle quote, and then I'm going to ask: if it's impractical to implement now, when will it be practical? When the military will have been operating on DEWs and production of modern firearms has been defunct for 50-100 years?
The problem, as I see it here(and above), is that you're creating a false dichotomy. There's two variables here: legality, and production locale. When comparing legal vs illegal, illegal will always be more expensive(while invariably fueling organized crime); production locale works off of a variety of factors, but typically less developed=cheaper to produce(favoring importation rather than homegrowing).
I'm going to take this moment to parrot the genie back in the bottle quote, and then I'm going to ask: if it's impractical to implement now, when will it be practical? When the military will have been operating on DEWs and production of modern firearms has been defunct for 50-100 years?
I don't think I took a position either way regarding the merits of fully automatic weapons in self-defence.
I know; arguing how dangerous full autos can be in the hands of criminals without pointing out how they can better protect civilians does not support your argument at all!
Replace "uzi" with a firearm that is illegal, then. Let's not quibble.
That was partly my point: you don't know what you're talking about.
But not as cheap as if it was legal and grown in America. Which is the point I'm trying to make about smuggled weapons.
With unions, minimum wage, and taxes for every hour of the day I doubt this. This is why a lot of companies are outsourcing to cheaper countries.
Yes, that is my point. The government does not pay taxes.
Ok, well that's so painfully obvious and completely out of the way of the point being delivered in that part of the post-stream that I don't even know why you mentioned it.
Difficulty is relative. And my argument is more about price than procurement. Many criminals could not afford smuggled automatic weapons, even if they could find someone to sell them.
Yea, you'll be hard pressed to find weed and firearms in a retirement home, but that's besides the point. If you really wanted these things you could obtain them very easily. For a lot of people getting an illegal full auto weapon is much easier than paying the taxes, getting the permit, paying the fees, etc. Plus it doesn't go on their record so when someone in the area dies via a full auto weapon, suspicion does not automatically leap to them.
My point is that if they were illegal, they would be more expensive than if they were legal. The fact that so many already exist in circulation goes back to my first point in this thread, that it is probably too late for gun control in the US.
And my point is you're wrong. Large portions of the black market work practically on slave labor. Why do you think things from China are so much cheaper than things made in America?
You admit that no guns = no people being shot. I proposed that few guns = fewer people being shot. I still fail to see how this is "neither contextually accurate nor relevant" to the issue of gun control
Because there are more guns in America than there are people, and a lot of them are illegal. Instituting a law that restricts gun rights that law-abiding citizens will follow hurts the innocent far more than it hurts the guilty (who will, as previously discussed, find a way to get a gun anyway). Creating arbitrary limitations to calibre and gun type will not help to reduce gun crime; governments in various states already tried passing gun control laws and they did almost nothing to crime rates.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
I know; arguing how dangerous full autos can be in the hands of criminals without pointing out how they can better protect civilians does not support your argument at all!
I'm not arguing for reducing crime, merely for making it less violent. This is a separate issue.
Ok, well that's so painfully obvious and completely out of the way of the point being delivered in that part of the post-stream that I don't even know why you mentioned it.
I didn't raise the issue of taxes; my whole point was that this is a non-issue.
Yea, you'll be hard pressed to find weed and firearms in a retirement home, but that's besides the point. If you really wanted these things you could obtain them very easily. For a lot of people getting an illegal full auto weapon is much easier than paying the taxes, getting the permit, paying the fees, etc. Plus it doesn't go on their record so when someone in the area dies via a full auto weapon, suspicion does not automatically leap to them.
Maybe, but as I said, price is the main thrust of my argument.
And my point is you're wrong. Large portions of the black market work practically on slave labor. Why do you think things from China are so much cheaper than things made in America?
Smuggled weapons will still be more expensive than imported legal weapons.
Because there are more guns in America than there are people, and a lot of them are illegal. Instituting a law that restricts gun rights that law-abiding citizens will follow hurts the innocent far more than it hurts the guilty (who will, as previously discussed, find a way to get a gun anyway). Creating arbitrary limitations to calibre and gun type will not help to reduce gun crime; governments in various states already tried passing gun control laws and they did almost nothing to crime rates.
First of all, you're conflating gun control with crime reduction, which are two separate issues.
Furthermore, as I keep saying, I'm debating the merits of gun control, not how practicable they would be to implement in America. Nearly every other Western developed nation has more gun control, less gun ownership, and less gun violence. But they didn't have two hundred years of lax gun controls and gun nuts. As per my first post in this thread, it is probably too late for the US. So I guess handout automatic weapons like party favours and have fun with your gun-loving experiment.
I'm not arguing for reducing crime, merely for making it less violent. This is a separate issue.
Law-abiding citizens are not violent, so you're argument is neither here nor there. It's but a Utopian dream, and with little application to the real world.
You're either quibbling or this is an ad hominem, and isn't appreciated.
No, dude, take a moment and think: if I made an argument and it poked holes in your argument, and I led you on for quite some time only to reveal that the object in question was not in the state you thought it was in, then telling you that you don't know what you're talking about isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is trying to defeat an argument by attacking the person, whereas I used your ignorance as a sound weapon in revealing your own lack of knowledge on the situation. An example of ad hominem would be me saying you don't know what you're talking about at the beginning of this debate, not me inferring you don't after having the debate with you.
Yes, there are a lot of problems with your weed comparison.
That are relevant to the point I'm making? Elaborate.
I didn't raise the issue of taxes; my whole point was that this is a non-issue.
Taxes effect total price, so yes, they most certainly are an issue.
Maybe, but as I said, price is the main thrust of my argument.
Actually, no, you're wrong: one of your points was that because getting illegal guns was hard, i.e., because they're illegal, that this effected price.
Smuggled weapons will still be more expensive than imported legal weapons.
Really? You haven't taken any measure to prove this is true, and I've already given you examples where it isn't. You're idea is starting to sound more and more like an irrational dream.
First of all, you're conflating gun control with crime reduction, which are two separate issues.
You're the one who's arguing that restricting the availability of certain firearms will reduce crime to a significant enough proportion to the cost. I'm fully aware that they're two separate ideas, but you keep insisting that changing one will dramatically effect the other.
Furthermore, as I keep saying, I'm debating the merits of gun control, not how practicable they would be to implement in America. Nearly every other Western developed nation has more gun control, less gun ownership, and less gun violence. But they didn't have two hundred years of lax gun controls and gun nuts. As per my first post in this thread, it is probably too late for the US. So I guess handout automatic weapons like party favours and have fun with your gun-loving experiment.
Your arguments have little to no application in the U.S., and you even admit it! You're openly comparing apples to oranges.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Law-abiding citizens are not violent, so you're argument is neither here nor there. It's but a Utopian dream, and with little application to the real world.
Law-abiding citizens are not violent until they're are. See any school massacre ever. Limiting the lethality in such circumstances through gun control is laudable.
No, dude, take a moment and think: if I made an argument and it poked holes in your argument, and I led you on for quite some time only to reveal that the object in question was not in the state you thought it was in, then telling you that you don't know what you're talking about isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is trying to defeat an argument by attacking the person, whereas I used your ignorance as a sound weapon in revealing your own lack of knowledge on the situation. An example of ad hominem would be me saying you don't know what you're talking about at the beginning of this debate, not me inferring you don't after having the debate with you.
Then you're quibbling. The validity of my argument is independent of which particular illegal automatic weapon we are considering. That you "led [me] on for quite some time" about uzis so that you can have a "gotcha" moment 20 posts later is irrelevant to this debate (in that it does not address an argument) and simply appears immature.
Actually, no, you're wrong: one of your points was that because getting illegal guns was hard, i.e., because they're illegal, that this effected price.
Really? You haven't taken any measure to prove this is true, and I've already given you examples where it isn't. You're idea is starting to sound more and more like an irrational dream.
Less Lethal Widgets are legal to manufacture and sell in the US, at price $X.
Highly Lethal Widgets (HLWs) are illegal to manufacture or sell in, or import into, the US. I am a smuggler. I buy widgets for $X dollars, and smuggle them into the US. This requires long-distance transport, represented by $Y dollars.
If I am caught I face a long jail sentence. The probability of me being caught is greater than zero. My risk is represented by $Z dollars. As the penalty for being caught, and the likelihood of being caught increases, so too will $Z.
My sale price in the US will be $X + $Y + $Z ($X').
All other things being equal (labour, materials, etc.), widgets manufactured in the US would cost only $X.
I propose that the majority of violent crime in the US is committed by people at the lowest economic rung in society (A).
I also propose that of those violent criminals, a certain number (B) can afford to purchase $X. Of that group, only a certain number (B) would be able to afford $X'. The remainder (A-B=C) purchase Less Lethal Widgets (LLWs). Statistically, the violent crimes committed by group C will be less violent (in terms of lethality) than crimes committed by persons with HLWs.
Therefore, it would appear that restricting HLWs (ie. prohibiting certain highly lethal weapons) results in less gun violence, which is laudable.
You're the one who's arguing that restricting the availability of certain firearms will reduce crime to a significant enough proportion to the cost. I'm fully aware that they're two separate ideas, but you keep insisting that changing one will dramatically effect the other.
I have said multiple times that I am referring to gun violence, not crime rate. If the crime rate stays the same, but fewer people are hurt or killed, I count that as a positive. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Your arguments have little to no application in the U.S., and you even admit it! You're openly comparing apples to oranges.
I'm debating the merits of gun control. Due to the idiosyncrasies of the US, gun control will be difficult to implement, and may be unsuccessful without a number of other policies and societal changes. I don't think that the difficulties therein detract from the worthiness of gun control; this is a complicated issue and throwing our hands up and saying it's just too difficult a problem to solve is lazy and morally bankrupt. Yes, the US is probably screwed. But I don't think "more guns!!!" is the answer.
Perhaps all private guns, or even private automatic & machine guns will be eradicated in the US. But if a not insignificant number are eradicated, and there is a corresponding decline in gun violence, that is better than the status quo.
Most gun related deaths, especially homicides, are committed with handguns. Not fully automatic weapons and not weapons with high calibers. Regulating these firearms will cost money and have little to no effect, as said crimes make up less than 1% of all firearm related homocides. Fully automatic weapons are attainable in the US, however they are both expensive and cost taxes to own. It's actually cheaper to get a lower quality full-auto weapon from the black market than it is to buy one from a gun shop. Uzis aren't cheap.
"Gun violence," refers to what, exactly? The tendency for people to resort to guns or the actually deadliness of said guns once they're pulled out?
The merits of gun control are few and far apart. If you were take a look into a violent area, it wouldn't matter if people were carrying glocks or carrying swords; they'll still kill each other. If you take a look at most massacres, you'll notice that quite often it was a failure of the current system. Not to mention the deadliest massacres are committed via arson and bombing. The answer to the problem of gun violence does not lie within eradicating the variable of guns, or heavily regulating them, it comes from education and intelligent regulation, i.e., screening, permit requirements for certain firearms, etc.
Perhaps all private guns, or even private automatic & machine guns will be eradicated in the US. But if a not insignificant number are eradicated, and there is a corresponding decline in gun violence, that is better than the status quo.
The former will never happen, thankfully. Ownership of firearms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and getting rid of privately owned guns is ridiculous!
I propose that the majority of violent crime in the US is committed by people at the lowest economic rung in society (A).
I also propose that of those violent criminals, a certain number (B) can afford to purchase $X. Of that group, only a certain number (B) would be able to afford $X'. The remainder (A-B=C) purchase Less Lethal Widgets (LLWs). Statistically, the violent crimes committed by group C will be less violent (in terms of lethality) than crimes committed by persons with HLWs.
I propose that most almost 100% of crimes are committed with LLWs, i.e., handguns. I propose it serves little merit to put such priority in an issue that has almost no effect on the nation; banning automatic weapons because the people who were designated to catch the killers is not laudable, i.e., psychologists, doctors, gun salesman, permit offices, etc. Most of these people weren't just good people until one day, bam, they were killers. Most of them were psycho to begin with, and had been flying red flags for a while, and everyone was too worried about offending someone else to say something about it.
Schools are not allowed to have any firearms of any sort. Of course people who go on shooting sprees go to areas without guns!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
My point was that certain guns are more fatal than others, and for that reason those guns should be illegal. Specifically, automatics and machine guns. Criminals could get other types of guns, but those guns are not going to be as lethal.
The guns mentioned in the article aren't illegal to manufacture, transport or sell in the US. Let's see how much it costs to buy an uzi.
There are many, many, many middle men.
The government wouldn't pay importation prices or taxes, either.
Argiculturally speaking, marijuana is no more expensive to produce than wheat. Wheat is currently $316 per metric ton. I don't think marijuana is that cheap. But it could be, if produced locally.
Being illegal to sell, and smuggled across a border, does increase the price.
See my above argument.
I'm not talking about illegal handguns produced and legally sold in the US, then illegally sold to a minor. I'm talking about illegal automatic and machine guns produced outside the US, smuggled across the border, and illegally sold to anyone.
Please elaborate.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
What? You were arguing for all guns to be illegal. Why are you changing your stance now?
All depends on the quality you want. The higher the quality, the more expensive it gets.
Just remember, when talking about cannabis pricing and such, quality is, by far, the largest factor.
Full auto weapons could also protect you from criminals much better than a simple pistol or bolt-action rifle ever could.
Uzis aren't illegal
And yet marijuana is ridiculously cheap.
The government never pays taxes; it charges them.
Yes, invariably, but not to such an extent that it makes it hard to get. Neither guns nor marijuana are difficult to obtain.
Fully automatic weapons are produced and sold in the US, you just have to have a permit to buy them legally (along with a fine I believe).
If there were no guns in the world, people wouldn't get shot. No duh. However, there are, and there are a LOT of guns in the world, so imagining far off scenarios where there aren't any or trying to get rid of them for the sole reason that they cause death is ridiculous.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Please direct me to my post where I recommend "all guns to be illegal".
If you read my posts closely, you'll see that I'm advocating gun control, not gun prohibition.
I am not changing my stance. Here is what I originally said about automatics and machine guns: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6404519&postcount=338.
I don't think I took a position either way regarding the merits of fully automatic weapons in self-defence.
Replace "uzi" with a firearm that is illegal, then. Let's not quibble.
But not as cheap as if it was legal and grown in America. Which is the point I'm trying to make about smuggled weapons.
Yes, that is my point. The government does not pay taxes.
Difficulty is relative. And my argument is more about price than procurement. Many criminals could not afford smuggled automatic weapons, even if they could find someone to sell them.
My point is that if they were illegal, they would be more expensive than if they were legal. The fact that so many already exist in circulation goes back to my first point in this thread, that it is probably too late for gun control in the US.
You admit that no guns = no people being shot. I proposed that few guns = fewer people being shot. I still fail to see how this is "neither contextually accurate nor relevant" to the issue of gun control
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
You said if there were no guns, how could there be gun violence. No guns means making them illegal, right? You didn't specify which guns would be illegal in that post, you just said guns. This is the only reason I responded....because making all guns illegal is just plain stupid.
Actually, American grown cannabis is by and large much more expensive than Mexican-bourne cannabis :teach:.
Eliminating guns would limit the possibility of gun violence. Although this fact applies to all guns, I was referring specifically to automatics and machine guns, which I think should be outlawed.
Largely due to the impracticability of implementing such a law at this time, I'm not in favour of outlawing all guns. But I am in favour of controlling gun ownership to reduce gun violence, based on (among others) the premise that fewer very lethal guns would result in less lethality, even if instances of gun violence remain the same.
I wasn't the one to originally compare weed to firearms, which isn't a good comparison to make given how many different factors are involved.
Rather than derail this thread by discussing narcotics, I will simply say that, if all other things being equal, a smuggled, illegal good is more expensive than a legal, locally produced good.
Specifically: all other things being equal, a smuggled, illegal firearm will be more expensive than that same firearm if it manufactured and sold legally in the US.
If more lethal firearms are illegal, it is my premise that the premium paid to have those firearms smuggled into the US and sold illegally will preclude a not insignificant number of criminals from purchasing those more lethal firearms, forcing them to buy a firearm with less lethality.
On average, gun violence involving less lethal firearms will result in fewer fatalities, which is a worthwhile goal in my estimation.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
If there are zero guns on the planet, how would gun violence increase? It seems logically impossible.
I do not believe I was ambiguous in any of my posts. I leave it to you to read my posts closely, especially when I'm responding to someone else's post. If you are confused by how I have presented my position, I advise you to ask me to clarify rather than make assumptions.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
By eliminate I mean make illegal, just like i said in my previous post. It is basically impossible to get rid of all the guns on the planet, so I think you are the one being illogical.
I wasn't assuming anything. I took what you said word for word and responded.
Eliminate and legislate are two very different things.
You either assumed I had said something I didn't, or you took what I said out of the context of the discussion I was having with Ulfsaar, which clearly shows that I advocate gun control (not gun prohibition) as a practical solution to reducing gun violence.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
Certainly. However for the sake of this conversation, I pointed out how eliminate could mean make illegal. You even used the word limit to mean make some illegal, which is no different. Anyway now we are just arguing semantics and it is pointless.
Like i said, I read your post and responded. By your own words in the post, it sounded like you wanted all guns illegal. Weather or not you meant it or weather you said something different earlier doesn't matter. And yet again, we are just arguing semantics. If you agree that most guns should be legal then i guess there is nothing to debate here, although it seems like you are under the impression that if all guns were illegal there would be less gun violence, which i disagree with.
I think that all automatic and machine guns should be illegal. I don't know if that comprises most, or just a few, of all guns. I would also restrict calibres beyond a certain size, although this might be more difficult to implement.
Although that might be the case, I'm not sure. I was referring only to automatic and machine guns.
Certainly gun accidents would be fewer, but that's a separate issue.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
Yes, thats what i meant. Personally, I am still on the fence about this issue.
Yes, there would be fewer accidents....which is a terrible reason to ban something. I think if we banned guns, criminals would have a lot more power. They would be the only people with guns and they would have no fear of regular people or even cops. Just look at the war on drugs, tons of people die each year because of it. I see no reason to assume it would be different in the case of guns.
That sounds plausible.
On a different note, how would you (and anyone else) reduce gun crime?
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
I don't think there is a real, good answer to it. We as people will always have crime, no matter what form. Taking away one tool used to commit that crime doesn't get us anywhere. When you figure out the solution to crime, get back to me, lol.
I'll certainly cede to you that it could be cheaper if produced in the US legally. But I suppose my beef is the requirement that it be produced internationally while illegal, and produced locally when legal, when it seems that the optimal course would be importing it when it's legal. In addition, one of the biggest non-moral(my body my choice and etc.) tool used to try and persuade governments to legalize is the potential tax base created by legalizing and tacking on a "sin-tax". Sin-taxes are most assuredly not levied on food and living supplies(like, say, wheat). Try and compare it to tobacco.
The problem, as I see it here(and above), is that you're creating a false dichotomy. There's two variables here: legality, and production locale. When comparing legal vs illegal, illegal will always be more expensive(while invariably fueling organized crime); production locale works off of a variety of factors, but typically less developed=cheaper to produce(favoring importation rather than homegrowing).
Unless you're suggesting that the US gov't would take over the production of marajuana, methinks there's something screwy with that statement. Government doesn't pay taxes on things they create, but they sure do levy them on producers.
I'm going to take this moment to parrot the genie back in the bottle quote, and then I'm going to ask: if it's impractical to implement now, when will it be practical? When the military will have been operating on DEWs and production of modern firearms has been defunct for 50-100 years?
They are corollaries.
That's what I was suggesting.
Probably never. Your country is screwed.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
I know; arguing how dangerous full autos can be in the hands of criminals without pointing out how they can better protect civilians does not support your argument at all!
That was partly my point: you don't know what you're talking about.
With unions, minimum wage, and taxes for every hour of the day I doubt this. This is why a lot of companies are outsourcing to cheaper countries.
Ok, well that's so painfully obvious and completely out of the way of the point being delivered in that part of the post-stream that I don't even know why you mentioned it.
Yea, you'll be hard pressed to find weed and firearms in a retirement home, but that's besides the point. If you really wanted these things you could obtain them very easily. For a lot of people getting an illegal full auto weapon is much easier than paying the taxes, getting the permit, paying the fees, etc. Plus it doesn't go on their record so when someone in the area dies via a full auto weapon, suspicion does not automatically leap to them.
And my point is you're wrong. Large portions of the black market work practically on slave labor. Why do you think things from China are so much cheaper than things made in America?
Because there are more guns in America than there are people, and a lot of them are illegal. Instituting a law that restricts gun rights that law-abiding citizens will follow hurts the innocent far more than it hurts the guilty (who will, as previously discussed, find a way to get a gun anyway). Creating arbitrary limitations to calibre and gun type will not help to reduce gun crime; governments in various states already tried passing gun control laws and they did almost nothing to crime rates.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
I'm not arguing for reducing crime, merely for making it less violent. This is a separate issue.
You're either quibbling or this is an ad hominem, and isn't appreciated.
Yes, there are a lot of problems with your weed comparison.
I didn't raise the issue of taxes; my whole point was that this is a non-issue.
Maybe, but as I said, price is the main thrust of my argument.
Smuggled weapons will still be more expensive than imported legal weapons.
First of all, you're conflating gun control with crime reduction, which are two separate issues.
Furthermore, as I keep saying, I'm debating the merits of gun control, not how practicable they would be to implement in America. Nearly every other Western developed nation has more gun control, less gun ownership, and less gun violence. But they didn't have two hundred years of lax gun controls and gun nuts. As per my first post in this thread, it is probably too late for the US. So I guess handout automatic weapons like party favours and have fun with your gun-loving experiment.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
Law-abiding citizens are not violent, so you're argument is neither here nor there. It's but a Utopian dream, and with little application to the real world.
No, dude, take a moment and think: if I made an argument and it poked holes in your argument, and I led you on for quite some time only to reveal that the object in question was not in the state you thought it was in, then telling you that you don't know what you're talking about isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is trying to defeat an argument by attacking the person, whereas I used your ignorance as a sound weapon in revealing your own lack of knowledge on the situation. An example of ad hominem would be me saying you don't know what you're talking about at the beginning of this debate, not me inferring you don't after having the debate with you.
That are relevant to the point I'm making? Elaborate.
Taxes effect total price, so yes, they most certainly are an issue.
Actually, no, you're wrong: one of your points was that because getting illegal guns was hard, i.e., because they're illegal, that this effected price.
Really? You haven't taken any measure to prove this is true, and I've already given you examples where it isn't. You're idea is starting to sound more and more like an irrational dream.
You're the one who's arguing that restricting the availability of certain firearms will reduce crime to a significant enough proportion to the cost. I'm fully aware that they're two separate ideas, but you keep insisting that changing one will dramatically effect the other.
Your arguments have little to no application in the U.S., and you even admit it! You're openly comparing apples to oranges.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Law-abiding citizens are not violent until they're are. See any school massacre ever. Limiting the lethality in such circumstances through gun control is laudable.
Then you're quibbling. The validity of my argument is independent of which particular illegal automatic weapon we are considering. That you "led [me] on for quite some time" about uzis so that you can have a "gotcha" moment 20 posts later is irrelevant to this debate (in that it does not address an argument) and simply appears immature.
I'd rather not; I think it's comparing apples and oranges.
If the taxes are unpaid in either scenario, they are not an issue.
Bolded, since you apparently missed it the first time around.
Less Lethal Widgets are legal to manufacture and sell in the US, at price $X.
Highly Lethal Widgets (HLWs) are illegal to manufacture or sell in, or import into, the US. I am a smuggler. I buy widgets for $X dollars, and smuggle them into the US. This requires long-distance transport, represented by $Y dollars.
If I am caught I face a long jail sentence. The probability of me being caught is greater than zero. My risk is represented by $Z dollars. As the penalty for being caught, and the likelihood of being caught increases, so too will $Z.
My sale price in the US will be $X + $Y + $Z ($X').
All other things being equal (labour, materials, etc.), widgets manufactured in the US would cost only $X.
I propose that the majority of violent crime in the US is committed by people at the lowest economic rung in society (A).
I also propose that of those violent criminals, a certain number (B) can afford to purchase $X. Of that group, only a certain number (B) would be able to afford $X'. The remainder (A-B=C) purchase Less Lethal Widgets (LLWs). Statistically, the violent crimes committed by group C will be less violent (in terms of lethality) than crimes committed by persons with HLWs.
Therefore, it would appear that restricting HLWs (ie. prohibiting certain highly lethal weapons) results in less gun violence, which is laudable.
I have said multiple times that I am referring to gun violence, not crime rate. If the crime rate stays the same, but fewer people are hurt or killed, I count that as a positive. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm debating the merits of gun control. Due to the idiosyncrasies of the US, gun control will be difficult to implement, and may be unsuccessful without a number of other policies and societal changes. I don't think that the difficulties therein detract from the worthiness of gun control; this is a complicated issue and throwing our hands up and saying it's just too difficult a problem to solve is lazy and morally bankrupt. Yes, the US is probably screwed. But I don't think "more guns!!!" is the answer.
Perhaps all private guns, or even private automatic & machine guns will be eradicated in the US. But if a not insignificant number are eradicated, and there is a corresponding decline in gun violence, that is better than the status quo.
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)
"Gun violence," refers to what, exactly? The tendency for people to resort to guns or the actually deadliness of said guns once they're pulled out?
The merits of gun control are few and far apart. If you were take a look into a violent area, it wouldn't matter if people were carrying glocks or carrying swords; they'll still kill each other. If you take a look at most massacres, you'll notice that quite often it was a failure of the current system. Not to mention the deadliest massacres are committed via arson and bombing. The answer to the problem of gun violence does not lie within eradicating the variable of guns, or heavily regulating them, it comes from education and intelligent regulation, i.e., screening, permit requirements for certain firearms, etc.
The former will never happen, thankfully. Ownership of firearms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and getting rid of privately owned guns is ridiculous!
I propose that
mostalmost 100% of crimes are committed with LLWs, i.e., handguns. I propose it serves little merit to put such priority in an issue that has almost no effect on the nation; banning automatic weapons because the people who were designated to catch the killers is not laudable, i.e., psychologists, doctors, gun salesman, permit offices, etc. Most of these people weren't just good people until one day, bam, they were killers. Most of them were psycho to begin with, and had been flying red flags for a while, and everyone was too worried about offending someone else to say something about it.Schools are not allowed to have any firearms of any sort. Of course people who go on shooting sprees go to areas without guns!
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited