To gun, or not to gun?

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/2000-illegal-weapons-cross-us-mexico-border-every-day
Now using the simple concept of supply and demand, we see that if the supply in the U.S. drops, and the demand increases, the flow can reverse in an instant. And to be frank, our border security sucks.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 31, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 30, 2015 ---

There's a reason that most people obtain the gun legally (or steal it from a family member): There's less risk. Police aren't going to apprehend you for following the law, and a family member isn't as likely to bring charges. However, it seems obvious to me that if a criminal wants a gun, he/she will obtain it whether its illegal or not.

 

If you outlaw guns, then the law-abiding demand for guns disappears, so demand does not increase, it craters, so there's no reason for the flow to reverse. It's the same reason why there isn't a huge illicit trade in guns from the US to Canada.

If a criminal wants a gun, and even if we had solid policies and procedures in place to prevent him from purchasing one due to felony or mental history (hint: we don't), then all he has to do is drive to the local Walmart, pull on car door handles, and ten minutes later he's got a selection of weapons to choose from. It's this easy because:

1) "Responsible gun owners" are irresponsibly stupid a lot of the time.
2) Depending on where you live, guns are everywhere.

 

Youll never get my guns. just sayin

 

I got 2 right here *Kisses biceps*.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 31, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 31, 2015 ---

Law abiding demand will disappear, but do you think criminal demand will? Of course not, and the flow reverses. Remember, in Mexico, citizens can't really obtain guns, and there isn't a lot of demand. All the gun trafficking if for criminals, and as we know, criminals don't give a crap about the law. Hence, they are criminals.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 31, 2015 ---

Nice assertion there...

 

And the criminal demand is, what, 1/100th of total US demand? So if 99% of your customer base disappears, that's not an increase in demand, that's a collapse.

What, you need proof that gun owners can be stupid? You've never encountered this idea before? Okay then, for serious:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

And for fun: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/31/texas-man-wounded-shooting-armadillo/30971441/

 

Except it isn't the legitimate customers that drive the illicit trade. So the trade loses no demand, it just changes supplier.

No, I want you to prove your assertion, that they're stupid a lot.

Well, I'd like to point out that they only did the study in cities, and that suicides can't really be counted in something like this, because if someone's life is so messed up that they want to kill themselves, not having a gun isn't really a problem, is it? Anyway, are you going to go somewhere with that?

 

Demand is demand whether it's illicit or not.

Already did. I'll repeat: For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. That's a lot of stupid.

Repeat again: for EVERY time a gun in the home was used in self-defense OR a legally justifiable shooting, such a gun shot someone unintended FOUR TIMES.

Yeah, people in the country are geniuses, amirite? LOL.

 

You know, I was typing up this lengthy rebuttal, Debathiest style, but I though of an easier way to phrase it: you're an idiot. Tell me, is there any non-criminal demand for cocaine in the U.S.? Or how about heroin? Of course not, because it's a fu***** crime to buy that stuff. Just as every ounce of the illegal gun trade between the U.S. and Mexico is illegal. So let's say we remove a criminal's ability to obtain guns legally. Guess what he'll do? Get them illegally. Where's he going to do that? Mexico. Suddenly, the cartels can turn a huge profit off of selling guns. So what do they do? Start smuggling guns, ofc. Now we have eliminated all guns from law abiding citizens' hands, and done nothing about the criminals.

 

lol

 

Is there any non-criminal demand for guns in the US? Of course there is, therefore, you've just made an epic fool of yourself, and this debate is over.

 

A little late to jump in, but one of the biggest issues is the age-old North vs. South regions of the U.S. The South is historically conservative where as the North tends to be liberal. I live in Massachusetts, which as many people know is pretty much die-hard blue.

My personal view is that the North is keeping up with the times whereas the South can't separate Church and state and love their guns and their war and their democracy (even though the US is a Republic, end of story) and their sleeping with their cousins don't hurt me it's a joke from one of my friends.

Ultimately, the South is more like (read this with a think southern accent) WE LOVE OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR GUNS AND HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL where the North is more focused on "We need to make real changes because America can't stay the same in a changing world" which is the root cause of why America has become somewhat of a political and social (but for other reasons) laughing stock. The divide in political ideology in the Government makes getting things done nearly impossible these days, the cause of the major gun debate in America rn.

If you ask me, the current government no longer works and needs to be restructured into something that does.

On a side-note, in an alternate timeline the North and South should become their own nations, maybe in a simulation. That way, we can see which America survives longer.

 

Oh my fu***** God.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 1, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 1, 2016 ---

At least both sides can agree that this is the problem (the political divide in general, not just the guns.)

Not a half bad idea, except that our population is split 50/50 between 2 very different desires.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ifies-for-white-house-response_n_2125159.html
I would so move to Texas if this happened (assuming they'd let me in xD).

 

I think it really depends on the situation. While the ban of some guns could help in an area, it could do serious harm in another. Overall though criminals do not obey the law, and they will still find a way to get a gun if it is desired enough. Therefore gun bans hurt the law abiding citizens by reducing their right to protect themselves. As I said before, this is not always the case.

 

Ok, I did some research into the different cities they used, and let me tell you, it is fabricating results from the get-go. Violent crime rates of Seattle: 99% higher than national average. Violent crime rates of Memphis, 350% higher than national average, and in Galveston, it is 33% higher than the national average.
http://www.areavibes.com/seattle-wa/crime/
http://www.areavibes.com/memphis-tn/crime/
http://www.areavibes.com/galveston-tx/crime/

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 2, 2016 ---

Thank you, someone, for realizing this.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 2, 2016 ---

*This debate is over because I'm either too stupid to understand the opposing argument, or I know it's correct and don't want to admit it.*
logical fallacy

 

I don't know much about this topic. So I can't act like I do.
But this reminds me of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I've learned:
How did the public respond to alcohol prohibition? MOOORREEE ALCOHHOOLLL!

 

You do realize to eliminate guns would mean repealing the second amendment. The vast majority of Americans aren't stupid enough to try to do that. We don't want to take away guns. We just want to close the loopholes on background checks. Without federal regulation of guns, easily obtaining guns from other parts of the country would be more of a threat than (much less easily) obtaining guns from Mexico.

Your guns aren't going anywhere. Law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about. It's reforming gun laws to make them safer and keep up with the times that truly matters. Over 11,000 people die each year to mass shootings. What has congress done? Absolutely fricking nothing. They could pass a meaningless law saying "anyone who kills an innocent person with a gun is a jerk" and it would still be more than anything they've ever done to address the issue.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 8, 2016 ---

Gonna add on to what I just said. Nobody is trying to ban guns.

 

right
i stand corrected

 

it's worth noting you've probably never been at a gun range, or actually seen someone not on the Media with a gun. Almost all of gun owners are responsible, the Media WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY overblows any and all shootings.

 

I spent two years patrolling a ship every fourth in-port day with a Colt M1911A1 strapped to my hip, did a security drill that involved the .45, a 12-gauge shotgun, or the M-14 in my hand on those same days, occasionally stood a different watch with the M-14 from a high perch, and I qualified on every one of those weapons every six months at the range, so that's a colossal fail for you.

ETA: Just to clarify, I stood the armed watch for two years, the security training, drills, and range trips continued for another two after that.

But please explain how it's possible to overblow a situation in which elementary school students are randomly gunned down.

 

Instead of being stupid and relying off of personal attacks and assumptions, try to come up with an actual argument. You might actually learn something from both sides and improve your stupidity.