A good logical read on the fallacy of banning guns

[herkyguy]

So I was trolling the news the other and stumbled across this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-and-immigration-laws-wont-help-2016-6

"Let's assume a law banning the sale of assault weapons was passed. That would stop the number of these weapons from rising. But unless the 1.5 million assault rifles already owned were seized, their value would soar and spawn a robust black market."

I was pretty happy to see some mainstream coverage that actually makes sense in terms of ineffective gun bans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pushrod]

The major fallacy of banning guns is that it would not put a dent in crime or murders. That has been proven before and remains a fact now.

 

[Onewolf]

I think the correct figure is around 8 million 'modern sporting rifles' sold.

 

[200Apples]

.

herkyguy

I was pretty happy to see some mainstream coverage that actually makes sense in terms of ineffective gun bans

Indeed, and the story delves into issues even more pressing, but are issues that may not be considered to be *directly* firearms-related, so, I shouldn't comment on them.

Just posting here to say thanks for the link.

 

[RA40]

Interesting read, thanks.

 

[barnbwt]

We offer: A Good Logical Read on the Fallacy of Banning Guns
They offer: The "Freedom from Fear Act"

You see why we can't play tennis with these people?

TCB

 

[CapnMac]

Well, the story would be even more poignant if world-wide numbers were used. A ban would have to address the 6-8 million EBR presently (estimated) in the US; there are around 100 mil;lion AK variants out there, too, probably near 30-40 million M-16 variants, too.

The border that cannot stop 2kg of contraband is unlikely to suddenly stop 4kg rifles.

In most of central Africa, an AK is about US$25; only about $45-50 in South America; M-16 variants about double that.

It's a crime to buy them in those places; it'd be a crime to bring any to the US--but it's equally criminal to bring contraband, too--that spigot is not sjut off.

 

[herkyguy]

Agreed on all. Still, I liked the article.

Our land borders are tough enough to control, the open seas are even more of a challenge. If guns were outright banned, I am certain there would a very robust black market with shipments arriving from land and sea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[200Apples]

We offer: A Good Logical Read on the Fallacy of Banning Guns
They offer: The "Freedom from Fear Act"

You see why we can't play tennis with these people?

TCB

Hah!

You're too funny, sometimes...

Well played, sir.

 

[JTHunter]

From time immemorial, we have had prohibitions on murder, theft, adultery, etc.
More recently, there have been bans on drugs and alcohol.

How have any of those bans worked?

So what is this delusion that leads these people to think that another ban, this time on guns, would be any more effective than all these previous ones? :banghead:

(Bueller . . .? Bueller . . .?)

 

[Flechette]

The real fallacy is that they really care about reducing crime.

They will use the whole subject of reducing crime to try and get gun laws passed but even they know the facts are against them.

The REAL reason is that they do not like the type of people who own guns.

 

[JohnKSa]

The "beauty" of gun-control is that since it doesn't reduce crime, you can always come back in a year or two and make the laws more restrictive because crime still hasn't dropped.

Because the stated goal of the law isn't consistent with the actual effect of the law, anti-gunners can continue to use the stated goal to justify more and more restrictions with the confidence that there's no danger that the restrictions might actually reduce crime so much that no further restrictions would be justified.

 

[benEzra]

think the correct figure is around 8 million 'modern sporting rifles' sold.

Much more than that. That would be the approximate number of AR-15' s alone.