Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomrkba,

In regards to the number of transactions question, we were discussing the difference in the black markets around drugs and guns. You are correct, they are very different.

The point was, there are a LOT more drug users, buyers, sellers, and transaction in the illegal drug market than the illegal gun market. As such, the infrastructure of the drug market is very different than the infrastructure of the gun market.

Don't particularly disagree with any of your points, but that was not really the context of the original discussion.
 
The point was, there are a LOT more drug users, buyers, sellers, and transaction in the illegal drug market than the illegal gun market. As such, the infrastructure of the drug market is very different than the infrastructure of the gun market.
The point is that anyone who wants a gun OR meth can get either.

All the rest is misdirection and deceit on your part.

It reminds of the old "no showers at Auschwitz" trick...
 
General response: When I am talking about cost and transactions, I am referring to criminals attempting to obtain weapons illegally, not legal purchases or transfers through an FFL. UBC and a database would have no impact on those sales/transfers.

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

Not possible without violating a whole bunch of state constitutions. They will need a bad SCOTUS decision and a bunch of Federal laws to get that.

Don’t disagree that the implementation may or may not be easy, but at the moment I am more concerned with the IMPACT if they were implemented. So, yes, there would be a big ol’ legal battle for sure.

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

Risk for who? Crimes committed with guns already add significant time. None of that matters with the current "revolving doors" on our prisons.

Risk for the person selling the gun to a prohibited person.
Currently, in many state, selling guns to criminals is a pretty low risk proposition.
There is no way the gun can be traced to you if recovered by LE, and even if it IS traced to you, the “private sale” laws are so lax that it is very difficult to prosecute.
Adding UBC and a traceable database would reduce the number of guns that could reach the black market that can’t be traced and make non-UBC sales very easy to prosecute.

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

Have you checked the prices of HK and SIG pistols lately? Retail cost is at $900-$1050. Glocks are at $600. I am not sure where your argument is going here. Are you advocating for a very heavy tax on all firearm sales?

No, not talking at all about the retail price or taxes. Talking about the cost in a black market.
That cost is determined by supply, demand, and risk to the seller. If you decrease the supply and increase the risk to the seller, the cost in the black market will go up, pricing out low-end criminals.

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

So now the poor and middle class cannot afford guns due to some sort of tax. How does that work with the actual right to keep and bear arms? The policy contradicts the right, resulting in strangulation of the right. The government is not supposed to do that.

Not relevant, the cost in retail to law abiding buyers would not be affected (slight increase in used gun transfers for the background check, but not significant)

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

How so? It is already a felony in various ways to do sell a gun to a criminal. Why do you think it is not risky for the law abiding citizen to sell a gun to a criminal?

Actually, no, it is not a felony (at least in my state) to sell to a felon.
It is a felony to KNOWINGLY sell a gun to a criminal, but that is not the same.
If I meet the requirements of law in my state (check ID for residency and ask them if they are a prohibited person) and sell to a criminal that lies to me, I have not committed a felony and I can’t be prosecuted.
Unless the prosecutor can prove that you KNEW you were selling to a felon, the actual sale is not illegal.
UBC changes that. By forcing every sale to go through a background check, if I sell to a felon without a check, I have committed a crime, there is no grey area of “knowingly” to hide behind.

Your actual goal here is to replace the right to keep and bear arms with the privilege to keep and bear arms. That goal requires some significant legislative and judicial gyrations to accomplish.

No… not really, not at all in fact. Adding UBC and a traceable database would have no significant impact on anybody’s ability to own a gun. It would add a minor logistical step in obtaining a used gun, but there is no real impact on the ability of anyone (outside of prohibited persons) to own a gun. You could own every gun you can own now, you could buy those guns from the same people/places you buy them from now, you could buy them at the same prices you buy them now.
 
The point is that anyone who wants a gun OR meth can get either.

That is your CLAIM.

You have not supported it by evidence.

My claim is that getting a gun is not as easy as getting drugs and that NOT anyone can get a gun.

The study agrees with me:

"Even local gun brokers report that a large share of their transaction attempts goes unfulfilled – around 30-40%. Reasons included the inability to get a gun from a supplier; the customer and broker could not agree on the location for the transaction; and the broker either did not trust the customer’s intentions or thought he or she was an undercover police officer."

- 30% to 40% of people who TRIED to get a gun were unsuccessful. And that is JUST of the people that succeeded in making contact with a gun broker. That does not take into account individuals who never reached a broker. 30-40% failure to acquire means that not ANYONE can get a gun.

-Gun brokers do not have an unlimited supply of guns

-Gun Brokers are not willing to sell to "anybody" because they don't trust them and there is a risk to the seller. If you institute UBC, that risk goes up even higher and their willingness to sell is reduced.

"Interviews with 17 young adults who consider themselves “regular” thieves, self-defined as deriving a substantial share of income from crime and engaging in at least four thefts per year, further support the general finding. Of the 17 interviewees in this group, only one person said they could find a gun in less than a week."

-Individuals who have attempted to get guns have not found them easy to obtain.

These are very clear statements that contradict your claim.

That is EVIDENCE that supports my claim.

If you have some EVIDENCE to supply that supports your claim, please supply it.
 
Last edited:
It reminds of the old "no showers at Auschwitz" trick...

And yes, by all means, demonstrate the validity of your position by equating the person you disagree with to Nazis. That is a great way to use logic, facts, and well-reasoned discussion to support your position.

:banghead:
 
Mike1234567-

I MIGHT know what you are looking for.

Here is my claim:

More restrictive gun laws can impact the ability of criminals to obtain guns for use in crime.

1. Nationwide gun laws (for example: UBC and a traceable database of transfers) could significantly increase the risk associated with selling illegal guns.
2. Increasing the risk associated with selling an item (a gun, in this case) increases the cost.
3. Increasing the cost reduces the number of criminals able to afford that item.
4. By reducing the number of criminals that can afford a gun, the number of criminals using a gun in crime will decrease.
5. Thus, if you increase the risk of selling guns to criminals through legislation, you will decrease the number of criminals with guns in crimes.

So, that is my claim and the reasoning behind my claim.

Do you agree or disagree with my claim?
If you disagree, for what reason do you disagree?
Pizzapinocchio... Thank you but, no, those are not metrics. Those are mere words... no better than mine.
 
And yes, by all means, demonstrate the validity of your position by equating the person you disagree with to Nazis.
Not Nazis (necessarily), Holocaust deniers.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier, but not to my knowledge a member of any self-declared National Socialist group.

You, he and Ernst Zundel use the same sorts of rhetorical tricks to gull the unwary.
 
It's undeniable fact.

So, YOUR opinion is undeniable fact, anyone who disagrees with you is deceitful.

Got it.

This is when the question that this thread started with comes into play.

Is it worth talking to someone who has no interest in listening?

Answer.... nope.
 
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.

Assumptions on your part are as silly as your suppositions on criminal activity.

I've spent the better part of thirty years working in construction. Commercial, residential, and in the movie industry. Large jobs, small jobs, gigantic jobs, all over the country.

From my firsthand observation over those years, every single job had drug users, drug suppliers, and those dealing in illegal firearms on them. Every single job with workers numbering in the dozens, to hundreds of workers. From small towns to large cities.

I've been on jobs where the drug supplier would be handing out bags of drugs in a line to guys who just got their paycheck in the pay line on a military base. I've seen guys in machine shops making full auto firearms.

Should I believe you and some study or my lying eyes for the last thirty years?
 
Have to bring them to the range. As an instructor, I have NEVER heard, i didnt like that and I'll never do it again. Bring them shooting. They'll be hooked.
 
So, a conversation that began as a question about the value of arguing on Facebook with anti's about posts they make, on Facebook, has morphed into pro-gunners arguing with each other over the value of arguing, about what I'm note sure.

But its defintely worth it, because 7 pages later we sure solved a bunch of stuff.


Except the original question.


GBExpat said:
Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

Sometimes it is not worth arguing with the Pros.


And I think that's a good note to close on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top