The Firearms Industry Boycott Grows.

[GatorMid]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

What supplies this black market? If you look at drugs, this is a fairly easy question. It is supplied by criminal organizations in a variety of countries engaging in the growth, production, transportation, smuggling, and distribution of drugs.

However, illegal guns come heavily from 2 sources: Licensed gun dealers acting in an illegal manner and the theft of legal guns. One of the primary methods in which licensed gun dealers act in an illegal manner is through straw purchases, in which one person who can buy a gun buys a gun for a person who can't legally buy a gun.

So two of the major methods by which illegal guns are initially obtained in an illegal manner, theft and straw purchases, would probably be affected by a semi-automatic gun ban. If far fewer people had them in stores or at homes, fewer people would have them stolen. In addition, with lower availability in stores, straw purchases would be more difficult.

So maybe you shouldn't have mocked the idea that banning the legal sale of a gun would have an effect on the illegal availability of that weapon.

Cut off your nose to spite your face....

Now we're back to the making cars illegal to reduce DUIs argument.

Sure, they'd be tougher to come by....but they'd be come by none the less.

And many law abiding citizens would be less safe.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Possibly. The question becomes how much money can be made in the illegal importation of guns. A gun produced in Russia or China will cost the smuggler a decent amount in those locations. Drugs are exceptionally cheap in raw format. Guns are more expensive. So you would need to either see a massive increase in the price, which can only occur if the demand would survive a large price increase, or a fairly low economic cost, which includes punishments for being caught, likelihood of being caught, cost of the good initially, etc, to the smuggling of guns.

It is entirely possible that this situation exists. But guns are harder to smuggle than drugs, so with proper enforcement, the smuggling could probably be limited to only those at the very high end of willingness to pay. For example, how many people do you think would purchase a gun if we could artificially raise the price of an illegal gun to say $15,000?

Some drugs are often smuggled in by the ton. I'm sure they'd figure out how to do guns. Handguns aren't that large. The market would figure out the pricing.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wygator

Some drugs are often smuggled in by the ton. I'm sure they'd figure out how to do guns. Handguns aren't that large. The market would figure out the pricing.

Oh I would imagine they would bring in guns as well. The issue is that the price per pound of guns would likely be much lower than the price per pound of drug (and much more difficult to ship). So they would need to be rewarded at a very high level (pricing). The market would figure out pricing. But the question is, how many guns would be sold for the price that those willing to import them would be willing to accept? Given the high expense at purchase in the foreign country, the high risk of being caught, the high penalties to being caught, and the high likelihood of being caught (as gun deals are different from drug deals in that they are the sale of a durable good compared to a high volume consumable, so a street offender caught with an illegal gun would easily be able to roll back up to the next level up the distribution chain, who would then easily roll up to the next level, etc), that price would be very high. And due to this, the demand would likely be low.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Oh I would imagine they would bring in guns as well. The issue is that the price per pound of guns would likely be much lower than the price per pound of drug (and much more difficult to ship). So they would need to be rewarded at a very high level (pricing). The market would figure out pricing. But the question is, how many guns would be sold for the price that those willing to import them would be willing to accept? Given the high expense at purchase in the foreign country, the high risk of being caught, the high penalties to being caught, and the high likelihood of being caught (as gun deals are different from drug deals in that they are the sale of a durable good compared to a high volume consumable, so a street offender caught with an illegal gun would easily be able to roll back up to the next level up the distribution chain, who would then easily roll up to the next level, etc), that price would be very high. And due to this, the demand would likely be low.

Shipping a ton of goods is shipping a ton of goods. No harder to move guns than marijuana. I think you're underestimating the desire of some to acquire them and overestimating the ultimate cost. Would it have the same profit profile as drugs? Not likely. Would it still be possible to make good money at it? Of course.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by GatorMid

Cut off your nose to spite your face....

Now we're back to the making cars illegal to reduce DUIs argument.

Sure, they'd be tougher to come by....but they'd be come by none the less.

And many law abiding citizens would be less safe.

Cars have a function other than driving drunk. Many guns have limited purpose outside of killing people. But beyond that, restricting care would indeed limit the number of DUIs. We have just determined that the functional benefits of driving cars, which do not include Driving Under the Influence, would likely outweigh the benefits of banning cars. I am not sure we have data to back that same conclusion about semi-automatic guns.

No doubt some people would come by those guns. However, scale is an important variable. The number of people with those guns would likely be much smaller as the price would explode.

And what you mean to say is that some law abiding citizens would feel less safe. You have provided no statistical evidence that restricting gun supplies actually make the citizenry less safe.

[GatorMid]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Cars have a function other than driving drunk. Many guns have limited purpose outside of killing people. But beyond that, restricting care would indeed limit the number of DUIs. We have just determined that the functional benefits of driving cars, which do not include Driving Under the Influence, would likely outweigh the benefits of banning cars. I am not sure we have data to back that same conclusion about semi-automatic guns.

No doubt some people would come by those guns. However, scale is an important variable. The number of people with those guns would likely be much smaller as the price would explode.

And what you mean to say is that some law abiding citizens would feel less safe. You have provided no statistical evidence that restricting gun supplies actually make the citizenry less safe.

Thanks for telling me what I really means, but all the same, why should those law abiding citizens have to feel less safe? They've done nothing wrong....

I don't get into the whole statistics thing - I stand on my principles that we shouldn't limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves with semi-auto guns if they so desire, just for the sake of trying to make it tougher for criminals (who by definition are law-breakers) to obtain them - they whole argument is back-assward to me.

But I hear Chicago and other places have extremely high gun crime rates despite more strict gun laws - there's some evidence for ya.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Cars have a function other than driving drunk. Many guns have limited purpose outside of killing people. But beyond that, restricting care would indeed limit the number of DUIs. We have just determined that the functional benefits of driving cars, which do not include Driving Under the Influence, would likely outweigh the benefits of banning cars. I am not sure we have data to back that same conclusion about semi-automatic guns.

No doubt some people would come by those guns. However, scale is an important variable. The number of people with those guns would likely be much smaller as the price would explode.

And what you mean to say is that some law abiding citizens would feel less safe. You have provided no statistical evidence that restricting gun supplies actually make the citizenry less safe.

99.999% of the firearms in this country will never kill a human being so you can not honestly say that is their primary purpose. There are millions of Americans who enjoy target shooting and hunting.

However, when it comes to the second amendment, hunting is not mentioned. It is not a qualification for restricting gun rights to limit it to needs for hunting.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wygator

Shipping a ton of goods is shipping a ton of goods. No harder to move guns than marijuana. I think you're underestimating the desire of some to acquire them and overestimating the ultimate cost. Would it have the same profit profile as drugs? Not likely. Would it still be possible to make good money at it? Of course.

Not exactly. I could ship a ton of cotton balls and a ton of iron. Which do you think would take a larger space and be easier to detect? Guns are fundamentally not shaped for easy shipping. They are not compressible. Drugs can be compressed into incredibly dense and small places. This is very good for smuggling.

The profit profile for drugs is what motivates people to engage in the business, as the associated costs are exceptionally high. Basically, you get people who value monetary gains at a very high level or who value those costs at very low levels. If you lower the profit margin, then you restrict the supply of people who are willing to do it. That doesn't mean it goes to zero. It is simply lower, which again raises the price.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by GatorMid

Thanks for telling me what I really means, but all the same, why should those law abiding citizens have to feel less safe? They've done nothing wrong....

I don't get into the whole statistics thing - I stand on my principles that we shouldn't limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves with semi-auto guns if they so desire, just for the sake of trying to make it tougher for criminals (who by definition are law-breakers) to obtain them - they whole argument is back-assward to me.

But I hear Chicago and other places have extremely high gun crime rates despite more strict gun laws - there's some evidence for ya.

For the same reason that I have to observe speed limits despite the fact that I have never caused an accident. Or for the same reason that I can't make homemade explosives in my backyard despite my lack of desire to hurt people with them.

I know that Chicago has become everybody's favorite piece of anecdotal evidence, but statistically, assault weapons bans are associated with lower gun deaths (as are trigger locks and safe gun storage requirements).

[GatorMid]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

For the same reason that I have to observe speed limits despite the fact that I have never caused an accident. Or for the same reason that I can't make homemade explosives in my backyard despite my lack of desire to hurt people with them.

I know that Chicago has become everybody's favorite piece of anecdotal evidence, but statistically, assault weapons bans are associated with lower gun deaths (as are trigger locks and safe gun storage requirements).

Were you ever given a constitutional right to speed?

Get back to me when the number of guns used in murders as a percentage of the total amount gets in the same stratosphere as a similar percentage of vehicles operators who break traffic laws.

Your answer seems to be to punish the EXTREME majority of gunowners through legislation that will "hopefully" curb the gun violence of the EXTREME minority of ~Lawbreakers~. It makes absolutely no sense and is morally wrong.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

For the same reason that I have to observe speed limits despite the fact that I have never caused an accident.

Because you don't like generating revenue for the state? Speed limits are as much a way to tax the public as they are about safety. Same goes with those red light cameras. Of course, driving is not a constitutional right either

Or for the same reason that I can't make homemade explosives in my backyard despite my lack of desire to hurt people with them.

Actually you can make homemade explosives. They just have to be low strength (think small fireworks) or you have to meet certain storage and licensing requirements depending on how much damage they are capable of doing. Explosives generally don't fall under the definition of "arms" in the second amendment, and even if it did, the current manner in which they are regulated would meet even strict scrutiny requirements

I know that Chicago has become everybody's favorite piece of anecdotal evidence, but statistically, assault weapons bans are associated with lower gun deaths (as are trigger locks and safe gun storage requirements).

Trigger locks pretty much make any gun useless in the event of an invasion and can pretty easily be defeated if the gun is stolen. Gun safe requirements I think of a little differently: for some, they are completely appropriate. For others who have no danger of kids or someone mentally ill accidentally getting a hold of the gun, they are not really necessary except when you aren't home. Another problem is that the safes that allow quick access that can be opened under pressure (via biometrics, etc) either are hit or miss when it comes to unlocking or are very expensive.

IMO, just make it illegal with heavy penalties if a gun is stolen and used in a crime due to negligent storage, but there is no need to make criminals out of those who really do have no need to lock their guns up at all times except when they are shooting them at someone. There is also the matter that Heller found that to legislatively render a gun inoperational for all intents and purposes for personal defense is unconstitutional and the same as banning the gun outright.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by GatorMid

Were you ever given a constitutional right to speed?

Get back to me when the number of guns used in murders as a percentage of the total amount gets in the same stratosphere as a similar percentage of vehicles operators who break traffic laws.

Your answer seems to be to punish the EXTREME majority of gunowners through legislation that will "hopefully" curb the gun violence of the EXTREME minority of ~Lawbreakers~. It makes absolutely no sense and is morally wrong.

Apparently I wasn't given the constitutional right to own many arms, such as Surface-to-Air Missiles either.

But I guess we are already punishing those legal gun owners by not allowing them to have these arms. So that must make no sense and is morally wrong as well, right?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by helix139

Because you don't like generating revenue for the state? Speed limits are as much a way to tax the public as they are about safety. Same goes with those red light cameras. Of course, driving is not a constitutional right either



Actually you can make homemade explosives. They just have to be low strength (think small fireworks) or you have to meet certain storage and licensing requirements depending on how much damage they are capable of doing. Explosives generally don't fall under the definition of "arms" in the second amendment, and even if it did, the current manner in which they are regulated would meet even strict scrutiny requirements



Trigger locks pretty much make any gun useless in the event of an invasion and can pretty easily be defeated if the gun is stolen. Gun safe requirements I think of a little differently: for some, they are completely appropriate. For others who have no danger of kids or someone mentally ill accidentally getting a hold of the gun, they are not really necessary except when you aren't home. Another problem is that the safes that allow quick access that can be opened under pressure (via biometrics, etc) either are hit or miss when it comes to unlocking or are very expensive.

IMO, just make it illegal with heavy penalties if a gun is stolen and used in a crime due to negligent storage, but there is no need to make criminals out of those who really do have no need to lock their guns up at all times except when they are shooting them at someone. There is also the matter that Heller found that to legislatively render a gun inoperational for all intents and purposes for personal defense is unconstitutional and the same as banning the gun outright.

I have proposed this as a solution before (high penalties for not storing guns safely).

Why shouldn't explosives be considered an arm? Don't tell me that it isn't. I am aware of that. Why shouldn't it be?

[GatorMid]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Apparently I wasn't given the constitutional right to own many arms, such as Surface-to-Air Missiles either.

But I guess we are already punishing those legal gun owners by not allowing them to have these arms. So that must make no sense and is morally wrong as well, right?

Maybe, but what's done is done. One big issue I personally have is the "give an inch, take a yard" mentality of the gun control crowd.

Once legislation goes into effect and you're proven wrong about a decline in gun violence (or violence in general), they'll come after the semi-auto shotguns, and so on and so forth.

You continue to ignore the point that you'll be severely punishing an extremely inordinate amount of law abiding citizens to keep criminals from breaking the law - something that they'll be doing regardless of the law enacted to stop them. It makes no sense.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by GatorMid

Maybe, but what's done is done. One big issue I personally have is the "give an inch, take a yard" mentality of the gun control crowd.

Once legislation goes into effect and you're proven wrong about a decline in gun violence (or violence in general), they'll come after the semi-auto shotguns, and so on and so forth.

You continue to ignore the point that you'll be severely punishing an extremely inordinate amount of law abiding citizens to keep criminals from breaking the law - something that they'll be doing regardless of the law enacted to stop them. It makes no sense.

So have I been severely punished in not having the right to a surface-to-air missile?

And you simply assume I would be proven wrong. Given the relationship between assault weapon bans and lower gun crime rates, why would you make that assumption? It isn't backed by data.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I have proposed this as a solution before (high penalties for not storing guns safely).

Not the same thing. In my solution, if there is no harm there is no foul and it is left up to the individual to weigh their own risks. In yours, a single guy who lives alone and keeps his pistol accessible in his nightstand as opposed to locking it up every night in a safe is punished despite there being no real danger of the gun being stolen.

Why shouldn't explosives be considered an arm? Don't tell me that it isn't. I am aware of that. Why shouldn't it be?

For the same reason an 18 wheeler shouldn't be considered a car. Arms of the time of the 2nd amendment were generally understood to mean individually carried weapons that generally don't cause significant collateral damage. Ordinance was generally considered to be cannons and the like and were never protected. There wasn't really a definition of explosives as they weren't really used by the military at the time, but in function explosives would be significantly closer to ordinance than arms, as they cause indiscriminate devastation on a large scale as opposed to comparatively limited damage caused by a targeted bullet, slug, or shot shell

[GatorMid]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So have I been severely punished in not having the right to a surface-to-air missile?

And you simply assume I would be proven wrong. Given the relationship between assault weapon bans and lower gun crime rates, why would you make that assumption? It isn't backed by data.

Not yet, but that's not the point. Cruise missiles aren't exactly commonplace in this country - thugs with guns wanting to rape/murder/burglarize sadly are...

Earlier you seemed to lump all semi-autos into the same category - is it just "assault weapons" you're after now? What exactly is an "assault weapon"?

I can carry three 10-round clips and get them all off pretty quickly - not too much longer than one may take to get off a single 30 rounder.

Or are the AR 15's just a little too scary looking....

I waterfowl hunt - I absolutely love it....and I love my 2 benelli semi-autos. Heading out on a snow goose hunt in a couple days and have already modified one of them to be able to hold extra shells - if ARs are banned, the crazies and the thugs will still have plenty of options to carry out their sick intentions. And my guns will be on the short list to be banned.

Regardless, I wonder AGAIN, what the number of ARs used in crimes would look like as a percentage of those owned by law abiding citizens...and I continue to wonder why some want to punish so many by limiting their abilities to continue lawfully owning, in an effort to curb the unlawful activities of criminals that represent such a small fraction.

It's just not right.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by wygator

Shipping a ton of goods is shipping a ton of goods. No harder to move guns than marijuana. I think you're underestimating the desire of some to acquire them and overestimating the ultimate cost. Would it have the same profit profile as drugs? Not likely. Would it still be possible to make good money at it? Of course.

An unlimited supply of guns will simply walk over the Arizona and New Mexico borders. Pipelines for a black market in weapons will thrive. The prices will be higher but not that much.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

No, not really. Even with the current Supreme Court's (5 of them anyway) tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment, these types of restrictions would still be a perfectly valid exercise of the police powers of a State.

And to answer your first question. I have expressed my views on this board previously that in my opinion this country needs to disarm. California seems to be moving in that direction, which is a good thing.

you can move to one of your liberal anti gun paradises like England if you want, no one is stopping you from leaving and you can be in your gun free double rainbow utopia like all the other unicorn riders

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

What supplies this black market? .

The Federal Government and it's fast and furious programs