Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

[DammitBoy]

Advocates of a nation wide gun ban, of which there are few to none in the US, don't expect such an initiative to be 100% effective in preventing criminals from owning guns. Rather, the expectation of gun ban proponents is to reduce the number of criminals who have access to guns and thus reduce incidents of murder. They also are looking at long term in which laws would eventually whittle away the number of available guns on the street thus making supply much lower than demand. I doubt anybody expects that high level criminals will ever be unable to get guns but rather that scarcity and associated black market costs would put them out of the reach of most common criminals. Also, mentally disturbed people like Adam Lanza, who generally lack criminal connections, would become unable to get them. Most gun control advocates I know realize that a national gun ban in the US is completely unrealistic because there are so many existing in private hands. Effective confiscation would require draconian measures and other major infringements of civil liberties.

To use your phrase: utter nonsense. All we have to do is look at prohibition in the past or current prohibitions to understand that it does not work at all.

I completely lack any criminal connections and within the hour I could buy any prohibited drug you care to name.

 

[Warp]

To use your phrase: utter nonsense.

Yup

 

[Pizzapinochle]

You know, I am reading through this and the same thought is crossing my mind:

"Is it even worth trying to explain my position to these people? The clearly do not understand my position and are not going to make any attempt to understand my position, no matter how I try to explain it."

 

[JustinJ]

I have unapologetic "simplistic black and white view points" about quite a few things, including but not limited to:

So then I assume you would support legislation to prevent and punish those acts? What happens when that legislation infringes on civil liberties? Still black and white?

To use your phrase: utter nonsense. All we have to do is look at prohibition in the past or current prohibitions to understand that it does not work at all.

I completely lack any criminal connections and within the hour I could buy any prohibited drug you care to name.

Can you get an RPG within an hour? Vial of anthrax? How about a pound of phenylacetone? What about just a hand grenade?

The effectiveness, or lack thereof, of drug laws to limit access is a whole other animal. The demand is quite different as are the profit margins. 2.2 pounds of cocaine smuggled in can net over a hundred grand and takes up very little space. Yeah, step off a plane in London and you can probably score some dope pretty quick. A gun? Doubtful. As I said though, almost nobody believes a gun ban in the US is practical, not even those who would like to. The US is an entirely different situation than England as the rate of gun ownership there before banning was extremely small compared to ours.

 

[jerkface11]

Can you get an RPG within an hour? Vial of anthrax? How about a pound of phenylacetone? What about just a hand grenade?

Maybe not an hour but given the cash it could be done within a week. Although you may not get to be picky about what type of rocket launcher you get.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

To use your phrase: utter nonsense. All we have to do is look at prohibition in the past or current prohibitions to understand that it does not work at all.

I completely lack any criminal connections and within the hour I could buy any prohibited drug you care to name.

Really?? You sure?? Have you ever TRIED this?

Because... while I don't join them, I know people who enjoy partaking in a broad range of illegal drugs. They have sources, they know how to get the stuff. And RARELY can they get what they want in an hour. In fact, I have witnessed them spending several days trying to track down what they want, sometimes without success.

But YOU, of course, can just assume that you could find anything you want as easily as you want because you think it is probably just that easy.

And of course, because your thought experiment regarding drugs (with no real world experience to back it up) indicates that it should be easy to find illegal drugs, this leads you to the conclusion that no matter what laws might be passed, it would be easy for criminals to buy guns.

Please, if you would, establish the reasoning and basis for your position.

As I understand your argument:

Statement 1: You think you could get any illegal drug you want in an hour
-you have never tried
-you have no experience procuring illegal drugs
-What is the basis for your assumption?

From your belief in Statement 1, you believe that the same would be true of any criminal trying to get a gun regardless of any laws that might be passed.

Is this correct?

 

[Warp]

It's not that hard to get illegal drugs.

But since this is THR and since y'all are talking about doing illegal things, that's all I'll say.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Maybe not an hour but given the cash it could be done within a week. Although you may not get to be picky about what type of rocket launcher you get.

"given the cash"

EXACTLY!

If you want to procure these items, it takes a lot of money. You know why?? Because there are LAWS that make them illegal so there is a high RISK associated with selling them.

You know who does not have a lot of money? Common criminals.

If you increase the RISK in the marketplace for criminals to obtain guns, the COST ($$$) to acquire the guns goes up.

If the cost goes up, less criminals will be able to acquire guns because they lack the $$$ to do so.

It is simple marketplace economics.

Grrr... I am doing it again. Trying to explain a position to people who won't listen.

 

[Warp]

Fortunately for the criminals in that situation their victims would be disarmed, thus greatly increasing the reward of having a gun of their own.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Warp,

Why would the victim be disarmed?

And:

You are correct, that having a gun is even MORE powerful if the victim is not armed (although I am not sure why that would be the case).

But, that is irrelevant if the criminal does not have the $$$ to obtain a gun.

 

[DammitBoy]

Really?? You sure???

Yes, really, I'm sure. While I don't associate with the folks who do, I know who they are and how to contact them if I was so inclined.

An amazing coincidence - these would be the same folks to contact if you wanted an untraceable firearm...

 

[Mike1234567]

I have NO such expectation and that's backed up by literally DECADES of personal experience.

What I DO expect from them is:

• irrationality bordering on the delusional.
• astonishing ignorance of the subject.
• levels of dishonesty I've seen only in Holocaust deniers.
• the sort of racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny and homophobia one would expect from the Aryan Brotherhood.

I know EXACTLY what to expect from anti-gunners and they RARELY disappoint.

Nope... not all of them. They often base their ideals on what little information they've been "spoon-fed". Many of them are actually intelligent and open-minded. We just need to "spoon-feed" them better data.

 

[Mike1234567]

To use your phrase: utter nonsense. All we have to do is look at prohibition in the past or current prohibitions to understand that it does not work at all.

I completely lack any criminal connections and within the hour I could buy any prohibited drug you care to name.

Agreed... the post you responded to (#76) is pure unsubstantiated silliness.

 

[Mike1234567]

So then I assume you would support legislation to prevent and punish those acts? What happens when that legislation infringes on civil liberties? Still black and white?



Can you get an RPG within an hour? Vial of anthrax? How about a pound of phenylacetone? What about just a hand grenade?

The effectiveness, or lack thereof, of drug laws to limit access is a whole other animal. The demand is quite different as are the profit margins. 2.2 pounds of cocaine smuggled in can net over a hundred grand and takes up very little space. Yeah, step off a plane in London and you can probably score some dope pretty quick. A gun? Doubtful. As I said though, almost nobody believes a gun ban in the US is practical, not even those who would like to. The US is an entirely different situation than England as the rate of gun ownership there before banning was extremely small compared to ours.

Please open your mind just a little bit... just a crack. Stop falling back on what your parents taught you and think for yourself. All that really takes is just a little listening, thinking and some research. If you still think American citizens should be disarmed then, by all means, continue to argue your point. But please... stop doing so in ignorance and stop making silly "hand grenade" arguments.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Yes, really, I'm sure. While I don't associate with the folks who do, I know who they are and how to contact them if I was so inclined.

An amazing coincidence - these would be the same folks to contact if you wanted an untraceable firearm...

So what you really know is how to CONTACT people who you know could eventually get you drugs. That is a LONG ways from actually getting your hands on them in under an hour.

Same with guns. You can speculate all you want about what the illegal gun trade is like, but that is a long ways from actually participating in it and understanding how it works.

And all of that is even further removed from any sort of realistic understanding of how gun laws might affect that market.

So, you (or anyone) just SAYING that "Criminals will always be able to get guns" without some reasoning to back it up carries no weight. It is just speculation on your part, and there is evidence that it is not true (countries with strict gun control laws were, for the most part, criminals CANNOT get guns).

I've never seen a progression laying out why gun laws can't/won't affect criminals ability to get guns.

Repeating:

"Criminals will always be able to get guns"
"Criminals will not get background checks"
"Criminals will just break the law"

Is NOT an logical explanation.

Something like this is a logical explanation:

1. Nationwide gun laws (such as UBC and a traceable database of sales) could significantly increase the risk associated with selling illegal guns.

2. Increasing the risk associated with selling an item increases the cost.

3. Increasing the cost reduces the number of criminals able to afford that item.

4. Reduce the number that can afford it, the number using it (obviously) decreases.

5. Thus, increase the risk of selling guns to criminals = decrease the number of criminals with guns.

If there is a logical mistake in that progression, please point it out. Reference the specific point and provide a specific fault in the reasoning.

 

[Deanimator]

I completely lack any criminal connections and within the hour I could buy any prohibited drug you care to name.

And we have a winner...

 

[Pizzapinochle]

But please... stop doing so in ignorance and stop making silly "hand grenade" arguments.

How about instead of just calling someone "silly" and engaging in ad hominem attacks, you actually offer some reasoning of your own.

Here is an example of reasoning:

Statement 1.
A hand grenade is an item that has been banned from civilian ownership.

Statement 2:
Obtaining a hand grenade is very difficult.

Statement 3:
If guns were banned from civilian ownership, obtaining a gun would be very difficult.

How is that "silly"? Is there a fault in the reasoning? Do you have a logical counter argument?

Or, is the extent of your ability to talk about this subjct limited to calling someone a close minded person who can't think for himself?

I hope you can offer better than that.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

And we have a winner...

We have a commonly held delusion that you can CLAIM all you want, but that does not make it true.

 

[Deanimator]

Nope... not all of them. They often base their ideals on what little information they've been "spoon-fed". Many of them are actually intelligent and open-minded. We just need to "spoon-feed" them better data.

You're talking about the casual "me too" crowd who have neither knowledge nor commitment to the issue.

The ones actively PUSHING gun control can no more be "reasoned" out of their positions than Ernst Zundel can be reasoned out of denying the Holocaust.

A position fundamentally rooted in UNreason cannot be defeated, at least in the holder, by reason.

The hardcore anti-gunners are a right-off. I concentrate on the uninformed and uncommitted.

 

[Deanimator]

We have a commonly held delusion that you can CLAIM all you want, but that does not make it true.

I restrict myself to claiming only things which I know or reasonably believe are true.

The hardcore of anti-gunners are liars, bullies, and all too often, bigots.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I restrict myself to claiming only things which I know or reasonably believe are true.

Ok, how do you KNOW that anyone can obtain any illegal drug they want within an hour?

What is your proof?

 

[DubbytheGreat]

It is hard to obtain things like handgrenades because millions of people don't already have them in their closets. If guns were outlawed a black market would form out of the hundreds of millions of firearms that people already have.

 

[Deanimator]

So then I assume you would support legislation to prevent and punish those acts? What happens when that legislation infringes on civil liberties? Still black and white?

• I support legislation banning acts which do objective HARM to non-consenting people. Explain exactly how my having a shotgun with a 14" barrel harms ANYONE.
• Unless you believe that your having sex with a two year old is a CIVIL LIBERTY, a law banning child molestation in no way infringes on any civil liberty in a fundamental way. You could of course write such a law in an unconstitutional way, but you could write ANY law such as to violate fundamental rights. Apparently you're unable to distinguish between a law which prohibits child molestation and one which prohibits child molestation by Jews, or by Alec Baldwin.

Yet again, we see the virtual impossibility of gun control advocacy or the defense of same without leaps of "logic" which were they translated to the physical realm would cause one to end up on Phobos.

 

[happygeek]

And all of that is even further removed from any sort of realistic understanding of how gun laws might affect that market.

No real reason to speculate, there's lengthy papers out there:

Cook & Ludwig on Chicago
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11737.pdf?new_window=1

British Home Office, The market in and use of illegal firearms
http://webarchive.nationalarchives..../rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hors298.pdf

I'm sure if I spent some time on Google the next time I'm really bored I could find a similar study on the market in Mexico, but they do seem to have at least a few hand grenades for sale there:

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Great post happygeek.

i had not seen that report before, going to read it all the way through.

Some early quotes i found interesting:

"The underground gun market in Chicago appears to be characterized by a relatively small volume of transactions, low gun quality, high prices and often substantial difficulty in arranging transactions. We argue that the frictions in this market are most likely due to the combination of illegality and market “thinness.”

That does not sound like the "anyone can get a black market gun in an hour" world that pro-gun folks says is commonplace.