Chicago's Anti-gun Forces Dealt Setback in Court

[EatLeadCommie]

I'll take thinly veiled racism for $300, Alex.

The actions in Japan vs. the actions after Katrina speak for themselves, shithead. But yes, demographics and history are very much a part of our behavioral mindset as well. Feel free to find a way to blame me for the disproportionate amount of gun violence in the black community though.

 

[elkman92]

Banning drugs and weapons are not really relatable. Drugs are small (sold by the gram), evade metal detectors, are of extremely low cost to produce illegally, or low cost to acquire, do not require any degree of mechanization, acquirement of base materials, or the production of a heat footprint to manufacture, are easily transportable, of low weight, and do not require any mechanized skill to create (no moving parts, low expertise, etc.). Banning guns would be much, much easier than banning drugs, because the opposite is true in each of the above categories. After the first decade or two, the guns already in circulation would be breaking down, have been identified, or would be of such value that they'd be very unlikely to make public appearances. You can't ever eliminate a controlled target completely, but guns are easier than most things because the average joe can't just make one at home (at least not effectively on a macro-level) and importation of illegal guns would be extremely difficult logistically. And we haven't even discussed the second prong, which would be an ammunition ban as well.

It would be much easier to stop gun smuggling at our borders (you'd need trucks, large cargo movement capability, and would have to evade metal detection). It would be much easier to halt domestic production of guns (you'd need factories, raw materials, and high-skill laborers in a large, hot building). It would be much easier to track and halt internal black markets (for many of the above reasons).

And finally, what most fail to appreciate is that, given all these limitations, guns, which are now of low cost, would instantly skyrocket in black market value and cost. Low-level street people -- your typical housebreaker or stickup artist -- simply would be priced out if guns became a scarce, illegal commodity. Further, low level junkies etc. are not likely to hang on to objects of high value, as those things tend to be the first thing that gets pawned. Add in stiff penalties for mere possession, and you'd find it easier to ban guns than you'd think, IMO. International examples bear this out quite clearly.

Not saying we should ban guns, just saying that it's possible to do much more effectively than drugs. Drugs have extremely high value at low weight, meaning it is profitable to smuggle small packages into the and around the country. This does not apply to guns. I think a ban would work, given two decades of leeway.

I hope a lot of what you posted is what you think might theorically work, rather than what you hope for.

Regarding halting of domestic firearms production, there is no government arsenal that produces small arms for the military. Every rifle, pistol, shotgun or belt fed machine gun that our military uses is made by a company that also produces arms for civilians. I do not think any domestic firearms maker at this point in time can simply survive on government or police only sales.

I also believe it is against the law for a pawn shop to accept a firearm if the pawn shop does not have an FFL.

International examples of gun bans do not fit here given the laws of the land. Also, all of the gun laws in the land did not prevent the ATF from allowing 2000+ firearms procured via straw purchase (felony) to cross the southern border into Mexico via Operation Gunwalker...

 

[KanhojiAngre]

International examples of gun bans do not fit here given the laws of the land. Also, all of the gun laws in the land did not prevent the ATF from allowing 2000+ firearms procured via straw purchase (felony) to cross the southern border into Mexico via Operation Gunwalker...

Gun bans are quite a bit easier to enforce when the only way you can get to a country's borders is by boat or air.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

I was just discussing the practicalities of enforcing a national gun ban and stopping a potential drug smuggling trade at the borders, and how such a scheme would bear little relation to the failure of the war on drugs because of the inherent differences of the two products. There were a few studies on this issue in the last last decade, and the conclusions were the same: gun bans are, in fact, likely feasible (in the long term) because of the factors I mentioned. It's hard to make, conceal, and ship illegal guns in quantities that make the trade profitable (given the risk of seizure, and the ease of detection).

Two major factors: guns being a) semi-complex mechanical devices with multiple parts, and b) guns being constructed of metal pieces, make gun smuggling and illegal domestic production much harder to pull off than drug smuggling.

Drugs are almost impossible to control because they are cheap and easy to produce with almost no mechanization required, with source material that simply grows from the earth, and the value by weight is so high that shipping losses are not really an issue in the smuggling game. You can send 40 shipments hoping to get 5 through, and still make a huge profit. These factors are not true with guns, making illegal gun smuggling (under a gun ban) an incredibly high risk activity with a precarious profit margin (in terms of loss through seized shipments).

 

[DirkTheDeac]

I was just discussing the practicalities of enforcing a national gun ban and stopping a potential drug smuggling trade at the borders, and how such a scheme would bear little relation to the failure of the war on drugs because of the inherent differences of the two products. There were a few studies on this issue in the last last decade, and the conclusions were the same: gun bans are, in fact, likely feasible (in the long term) because of the factors I mentioned. It's hard to make, conceal, and ship illegal guns in quantities that make the trade profitable (given the risk of seizure, and the ease of detection).

Two major factors: guns being a) semi-complex mechanical devices with multiple parts, and b) guns being constructed of metal pieces, make gun smuggling and illegal domestic production much harder to pull off than drug smuggling.

Drugs are almost impossible to control because they are cheap and easy to produce with almost no mechanization required, with source material that simply grows from the earth, and the value by weight is so high that shipping losses are not really an issue in the smuggling game. You can send 40 shipments hoping to get 5 through, and still make a huge profit. These factors are not true with guns, making illegal gun smuggling (under a gun ban) an incredibly high risk activity with a precarious profit margin (in terms of loss through seized shipments).

Or, to put it in business-speak, the barriers to entry in the drug smuggling business are considerably less than the gun smuggling business. The analysis is spot on.

 

[elkman92]

I was just discussing the practicalities of enforcing a national gun ban and stopping a potential drug smuggling trade at the borders, and how such a scheme would bear little relation to the failure of the war on drugs because of the inherent differences of the two products. There were a few studies on this issue in the last last decade, and the conclusions were the same: gun bans are, in fact, likely feasible (in the long term) because of the factors I mentioned. It's hard to make, conceal, and ship illegal guns in quantities that make the trade profitable (given the risk of seizure, and the ease of detection).

Two major factors: guns being a) semi-complex mechanical devices with multiple parts, and b) guns being constructed of metal pieces, make gun smuggling and illegal domestic production much harder to pull off than drug smuggling.

Drugs are almost impossible to control because they are cheap and easy to produce with almost no mechanization required, with source material that simply grows from the earth, and the value by weight is so high that shipping losses are not really an issue in the smuggling game. You can send 40 shipments hoping to get 5 through, and still make a huge profit. These factors are not true with guns, making illegal gun smuggling (under a gun ban) an incredibly high risk activity with a precarious profit margin (in terms of loss through seized shipments).

I guess those studies you read, in the long term, depended on banning private ownership of firearms in the United States by the law abiding? What a waste of time. Forty-nine of fifty states now have some sort of concealed carry law. Check that number against what it was twenty or thirty years ago. I would wager that you and I will be pushing up daisies or will have been cast in a river long before private ownership of firearms in the US is deemed illegal....

 

[Shooshmoo]

Elkman - He's pretty clearly speaking in hypotheticals. We all know it's not going to happen. I just wish it would as I think a lot of lives would be saved. But folks love their guns too much, for whatever reason.

 

[elkman92]

Elkman - He's pretty clearly speaking in hypotheticals. We all know it's not going to happen. I just wish it would as I think a lot of lives would be saved. But folks love their guns too much, for whatever reason.

I am aware of that, but I think that a large number of people on this board are not aware of current laws regarding gun ownership, hence my responses with some facts.

Shoo, I am assuming you are a resident fo Chicago, given your participation in this discussion. Does it not bother you that every alderman in Chicago has a right to own and carry a handgun given the elevated title of that office? Or that Dick Daley wants the citizens of Chicago to pay for his armed guards for life, yet he does not want law abiding citizens to keep a handgun in their homes?

 

[Shooshmoo]

I am aware of that, but I think that a large number of people on this board are not aware of current laws regarding gun ownership, hence my responses with some facts.

Shoo, I am assuming you are a resident fo Chicago, given your participation in this discussion. Does it not bother you that every alderman in Chicago has a right to own and carry a handgun given the elevated title of that office? Or that Dick Daley wants the citizens of Chicago to pay for his armed guards for life, yet he does not want law abiding citizens to keep a handgun in their homes?

Yes, both of those things bother me and I would take away their guns too, which would eventually eliminate the need for bodyguards (not that there's a legit need for bodyguards now).