Didn't you hear though? Banning guns will increase the supply of guns.
Reading comprehension issues, this one has.
Didn't you hear though? Banning guns will increase the supply of guns.
He thinks the problem is gun free zones and "racial."
So by saying our gun violence issues are complex, I've supposedly limited the problem to gun free zones and "racial" and am naive/willfully ignorant about gun issues????It's pretty naive or willfully ignorant to suggest we don't have a gun problem in the US.
Reading comprehension issues, this one has.
You specifically said it would increase suppliers but dodged the question on whether it would increase supply. You also said this in response to a conversation about how people didn't see how a rational argument could be made that banning guns would increase the number of guns. Seems more like an articulation issue on your part rather than a comprehension issue on my part. Explain your positions more clearly and there will be fewer comprehension problems. So suppliers increase but guns will decrease in sum if all guns were banned? Just clarifying now.
Or to blame the NRA.....instead of addressing the complex issues of violent gun use in this country, which would include the expansion of gun free zones where most of these mass killings occur and/or the racial aspect of the issue in general. Being PC means not addressing complex issues.
So by saying our gun violence issues arecomplex, I've supposedly limited the problem to gun free zones and "racial" and am naive/willfully ignorant about gun issues????
Does anyone believe that the problem of guns in the US is not complex?
Some things are obvious. No one said the gun supply would increase. The profit per sale would increase. New suppliers would enter the market to make up for those that end up in the justice system. The overall supply would fluctuate in a black market as in any other. You would likely have fewer gun sales because of higher prices, but those who wanted them (people who make a living in crime) would have them.
Okay solid. So there isn't really a logical argument out there that banning guns would not decrease the amount of guns in the United States? That was the focus I think, not what it would do to the cost of guns - although I guess that's somewhat interesting too
Does anyone believe that the problem of guns in the US is not complex?
My point was that it matters who has the guns, not just the total amount of guns in the market. If someone wants to buy cocaine, they will be able to find it on the black market for a reasonable but inflated price. Same for guns. If you want to buy a gun illegally you will be able to. Disarming the general population while leaving the criminals and the police armed does not necessarily make anyone safer (except for maybe the criminals).
. Disarming the general population while leaving the criminals and the police armed does not necessarily make anyone safer (except for maybe the criminals).
Other than the fact that ISIS just killed >500 people in 6 countries in attacks that are escalating? Radical Islam is a serious threat to the Liberal fundamentals we believe in, and the global economy. I think it's fairly obvious why that moves the needle.
As far as non-Islamic terrorist mass deaths are concerned, the gun control lobby uses every one of them to get rid of guns. It's pretty obvious that for them, there will never be enough gun control until all guns are gone. All that does is ratchet up the opposition. Apparently guns rights even expanded after Sandy Hook....in response to the reaction by the gun control lobby. If the press pushes the needle on this too hard, lots of people will stop watching.
http://www.wral.com/states-expanded-gun-rights-after-sandy-hook-school-massacre/15174833/
My point was that it matters who has the guns, not just the total amount of guns in the market. If someone wants to buy cocaine, they will be able to find it on the black market for a reasonable but inflated price. Same for guns. If you want to buy a gun illegally you will be able to. Disarming the general population while leaving the criminals and the police armed does not necessarily make anyone safer (except for maybe the criminals).
But it would still take a lot of effort to get a gun, and a lot of people who commit gun crimes aren't career criminals who would put that much advance thought into getting a gun if it wasn't so easy. Sure the Bloods and Crips will still have and be able to get guns, but they're not currently getting into shootouts with everyday people. What disarming the general population would do would be to prevent the regular dude who just snaps and shoots someone because he would normally get in a fistfight with them (or just even give them the finger) but instead shoots them because a gun is nearby and he is really pissed and not thinking clearly. And I think those types of pissed off shootings are far more common than actual premeditated, planned-out shootings. So I think most people not living in criminal circles would be safer.
But it would still take a lot of effort to get a gun, and a lot of people who commit gun crimes aren't career criminals who would put that much advance thought into getting a gun if it wasn't so easy. Sure the Bloods and Crips will still have and be able to get guns, but they're not currently getting into shootouts with everyday people. What disarming the general population would do would be to prevent the regular dude who just snaps and shoots someone because he would normally get in a fistfight with them (or just even give them the finger) but instead shoots them because a gun is nearby and he is really pissed and not thinking clearly. And I think those types of pissed off shootings are far more common than actual premeditated, planned-out shootings. So I think most people not living in criminal circles would be safer.
2&2 on a good post roll recently. Keep it up, bro.But it would still take a lot of effort to get a gun, and a lot of people who commit gun crimes aren't career criminals who would put that much advance thought into getting a gun if it wasn't so easy. Sure the Bloods and Crips will still have and be able to get guns, but they're not currently getting into shootouts with everyday people. What disarming the general population would do would be to prevent the regular dude who just snaps and shoots someone because he would normally get in a fistfight with them (or just even give them the finger) but instead shoots them because a gun is nearby and he is really pissed and not thinking clearly. And I think those types of pissed off shootings are far more common than actual premeditated, planned-out shootings. So I think most people not living in criminal circles would be safer.