Which ignores the fact that BOTH the restrictions and the extreme cost ONLY apply to the law-abiding.
The criminals will get what they want, for cheap, because the restrictions (that drive the costs) don't apply to them, and these things just are NOT hard to create/fabricate/modify.
The problem with your argument is that it suggests that gun control is effective, when it is NOT. That it accomplishes the touted aims, when it does not.
Question, and I ask this respectfully...Do you have a source of info where you're seeing crimes during which full auto weapons are used? I'm talking full auto AK's, AR's, UZI's, MP5's, Full-auto Glocks, etc.
I've got just a few friends in law inforcement, and at least in their experience, this isn't the case... (admittedly, they're just normal PD and might not be privvied to the same type of info you are)
I guess I just don't hear about these being used on an everyday basis.
In addition to this, even very, very pro-gun sources are using numbers that suggest that military style weapons whether full-auto or semi, are HARDLY ever used in crimes. (Which begs the question of why they're always in the crosshairs of anti's)
So, I guess, yes, I am saying that gun control DOES seem to remove certain items from general circulation, but what I DO not agree with, is that it effectively stops violence...
Violence is human nature, IMO. If a person wishes to cause harm, they are going to seek out the most effective means of doing so. No law is going to legislate that out of existence.
I DO see historical evidence that anti "this weapon" or anti-"that weapon"
does change the means by which such actions are perpetrated.
No machine guns? Semi autos, then.
No guns? Knives, then.
No concealable knives? Machetes, then.
And so-on... That's my opinion, anyways.