BoatShoes;1382336 wrote:Chicago gangbangers can easily get guns in Indiana or that have freely traveled into Chicago from Indiana. Seems like it should not be in dispute.

So the bad guys got guns despite the laws. Interesting.

And you can add liberal goals on healthcare for that matter. It's pretty interesting to see a lot of gun-rights conservatives talking about the poor state of mental health care in this country. Mental Health services would be included in medically necessary care if we had Medicare for All. Yet, do you think Ted Nugent would get behind that???

WebFire;1382340 wrote:So the bad guys got guns despite the laws. Interesting.

Not all that interesting. "Bad Guys" have a much harder time getting guns when gun control is enacted on a national level where there is not free and open travel across borders. That is what the evidence indicates anyway...Not sure how that will compare to a preconceived heuristic i.e. "When you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns"

BoatShoes;1382349 wrote:Not all that interesting. "Bad Guys" have a much harder time getting guns when gun control is enacted on a national level where there is not free and open travel across borders. That is what the evidence indicates anyway...Not sure how that will compare to a preconceived heuristic i.e. "When you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns"

You cannot buy handguns across state lines legally. Many states ban the sale of long guns to out of state people as well.

LJ;1382352 wrote:You cannot buy handguns across state lines legally. Many states ban the sale of long guns to out of state people as well.

Right...but you're guaranteed the right to freely travel across state lines.

You go across into Gary, Indiana and buy a handgun. No customs agent is stopping you to search for guns when you drive back into the Chicago.

It is a lot harder to buy a gun in America and go into Japan and smuggle a gun past a custom's agent, for example.

BoatShoes;1382373 wrote:Right...but you're guaranteed the right to freely travel across state lines.

You go across into Gary, Indiana and buy a handgun. No customs agent is stopping you to search for guns when you drive back into the Chicago.

It is a lot harder to buy a gun in America and go into Japan and smuggle a gun past a custom's agent, for example.

Is it difficult to bring a gun across the Mexican or Canadian border? I've crossed several times and only been stopped once. I have no idea how difficult it is to buy guns (that weren't sold by the US govt) in either of those countries but it seems to me your idea is better in practice than in production.

FatHobbit;1382400 wrote:Is it difficult to bring a gun across the Mexican or Canadian border? I've crossed several times and only been stopped once. I have no idea how difficult it is to buy guns (that weren't sold by the US govt) in either of those countries but it seems to me your idea is better in practice than in production.

Well I'm not sure...but surely if you wanted to enact large-scale, sweeping gun control....some measures, perhaps large measures should be done at the national borders to attempt to stop gun smuggling.

Not really much concern in the minds of border patrol over gun smuggling from Windsor to Detroit when you can get all of the guns you want in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, etc.

BoatShoes;1382336 wrote:Chicago gangbangers can easily get guns in Indiana or that have freely traveled into Chicago from Indiana. Seems like it should not be in dispute.

The guns are easily transported for more reasons than one.

BoatShoes;1382345 wrote:And you can add liberal goals on healthcare for that matter. It's pretty interesting to see a lot of gun-rights conservatives talking about the poor state of mental health care in this country. Mental Health services would be included in medically necessary care if we had Medicare for All. Yet, do you think Ted Nugent would get behind that???

I don't know about others, but my impression of that discussion was not of the poor state of mental health CARE, but of mental health INFORMATION. I don't believe their goal is to make a mentally unwell man well so that he can carry a gun. I think their goal is for better communication OF mental records so that mentally unwell men/women cannot buy guns, as that is currently the law.

BoatShoes;1382373 wrote:Right...but you're guaranteed the right to freely travel across state lines.

You go across into Gary, Indiana and buy a handgun. No customs agent is stopping you to search for guns when you drive back into the Chicago.

It is a lot harder to buy a gun in America and go into Japan and smuggle a gun past a custom's agent, for example.

Hardly. Our customs are hilariously ineffective. The sheer volume of illicit drugs, human slaves, stolen goods, and yes, weapons, that get imported to this country now is a testament to the ineffectiveness of trying to prevent the import of any "product" with a substantially profitable market.

Realistically, putting the guns back in Pandora's box is a pipe dream, methinks.

BoatShoes;1382409 wrote:Well I'm not sure...but surely if you wanted to enact large-scale, sweeping gun control....some measures, perhaps large measures should be done at the national borders to attempt to stop gun smuggling.

We currently have large-scale measures to prevent drugs at our national borders, and we have for years, so we're hardly new at it. However, even in our experience, we continue to see drugs as essentially commonplace nationwide, with so much of it being imported.

BoatShoes;1382409 wrote:Not really much concern in the minds of border patrol over gun smuggling from Windsor to Detroit when you can get all of the guns you want in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, etc.

... and Illinois.

Here's something yet to be considered as well. What is to prevent the underground manufacturing of guns if we were to enact a nationwide ban? The physics of a gun are not particularly difficult. I know that with a stock kit and a shovel, you can make an AR-15.

And with legal avenues being completely gone, there would CERTAINLY be a market for it. And hell, as a dealer, you wouldn't have to go through the hassle of background checks, waiting periods, or even lawsuits for faulty weapons that might result in the unintended deaths of people on top of the intended deaths.

To be perfectly honest, even as someone who doesn't currently engage in illegal enterprise, that sounds like a VERY enticing, very lucrative venture.

BoatShoes;1382373 wrote:Right...but you're guaranteed the right to freely travel across state lines.

You go across into Gary, Indiana and buy a handgun. No customs agent is stopping you to search for guns when you drive back into the Chicago.

It is a lot harder to buy a gun in America and go into Japan and smuggle a gun past a custom's agent, for example.

So what are you proposing? A police state where you get checked at every state line?

BoatShoes;1382409 wrote:Well I'm not sure...but surely if you wanted to enact large-scale, sweeping gun control....some measures, perhaps large measures should be done at the national borders to attempt to stop gun smuggling.

Not really much concern in the minds of border patrol over gun smuggling from Windsor to Detroit when you can get all of the guns you want in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, etc.

We can't secure the border from PEOPLE who aren't supposed to be here. How are we going to stop guns?

LJ;1382412 wrote:So what are you proposing? A police state where you get checked at every state line?

You got it. He would love nothing more.

More people are murdered with hammers than with guns in this country. Why don't you work on banning the sale of hammers before you take away our right to defend ourselves?

O-Trap;1382410 wrote: We currently have large-scale measures to prevent drugs at our national borders, and we have for years, so we're hardly new at it. However, even in our experience, we continue to see drugs as essentially commonplace nationwide, with so much of it being imported.

I agree that drug prohibition has been very ineffective in large part. However, it is not a one to one with large scale, country-wide gun prohibition. What you say seems intuitive to me but there is evidence that gun control can be pretty effective. I'm not sure what the underlying reasons are for why that is.

Maybe it's because the dopamine released into the nucleus accumbens is far greater when a human uses drugs as opposed to when one uses a firearm?

Cleveland Buck;1382439 wrote:More people are murdered with hammers than with guns in this country. Why don't you work on banning the sale of hammers before you take away our right to defend ourselves?

"In Any Debate about Gun Control in the U.S. somebody will inevitably say 'X kills more people than guns do'....However, information gathered by the FBI does not support this claim."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

LJ;1382412 wrote:So what are you proposing? A police state where you get checked at every state line?

No...that would be as unconstitutional as banning handguns under current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. If you're going to have effective gun control in the U.S. you're probably going to have to do it on a national level rather than on a state by state basis...thereby requiring more federal border security and with an additional focus on weapons smuggling.

The evidence of Chicago, D.C. and New York seem to indicate that gun control on a state by state and locality by locality basis are pretty ineffective.

(This of course also presumes that some kind of program is put in place to buy back or confiscate the millions upon millions of guns already out there).

BoatShoes;1382443 wrote:"In Any Debate about Gun Control in the U.S. somebody will inevitably say 'X kills more people than guns do'....However, information gathered by the FBI does not support this claim."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

I'm sorry, it was rifles, not all guns. The point still stands. Even one death by hammer is too much to bear. I think the government should crack down. People are obviously incapable of owning a hammer without going on violent killing sprees.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

BoatShoes;1382446 wrote:No...that would be as unconstitutional as banning handguns under current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. If you're going to have effective gun control in the U.S. you're probably going to have to do it on a national level rather than on a state by state basis...thereby requiring more federal border security and with an additional focus on weapons smuggling.

The evidence of Chicago, D.C. and New York seem to indicate that gun control on a state by state and locality by locality basis are pretty ineffective.

(This of course also presumes that some kind of program is put in place to buy back or confiscate the millions upon millions of guns already out there).

Yet you seem to completely ignore the socioeconomic impact on these areas and just blame it on the gun laws in surrounding areas.

Cleveland Buck;1382435 wrote:You got it. He would love nothing more.

Yes with special gold-dust cavity searches reserved for all Constitutionalist-Libertarian Gold-Bugs too because my goal is subject the lovers of freedom to the domination of the leviathan as opposed to think about ways we might eliminate gun violence based upon what has worked elsewhere.

BoatShoes;1382450 wrote:Yes with special gold-dust cavity searches reserved for all Constitutionalist-Libertarian Gold-Bugs too because my goal is subject the lovers of freedom to the domination of the leviathan as opposed to think about ways we might eliminate gun violence based upon what has worked elsewhere.

Has it worked elsewhere? There is no gun violence anywhere but here? And at what cost have they given up their rights? How many tens of millions of people have been slaughtered throughout history after having their guns taken away?

LJ;1382449 wrote:Yet you seem to completely ignore the socioeconomic impact on these areas and just blame it on the gun laws in surrounding areas.

Not really. It is just one aspect to the problem.

You might also try to eliminate the demand for guns as opposed to simply trying to eliminate the supply. You could go a long way toward eliminating drug-related gun violence by legalizing drugs...Or perhaps pursuing large scale fiscal stimulus programs with guaranteed employment and/or education grants that make the drug trade and gang-related activity less attractive.

BoatShoes;1382455 wrote:Not really. It is just one aspect to the problem.

You might also try to eliminate the demand for guns as opposed to simply trying to eliminate the supply. You could go a long way toward eliminating drug-related gun violence by legalizing drugs...Or perhaps pursuing large scale fiscal stimulus programs with guaranteed employment and/or education grants that make the drug trade and gang-related activity less attractive.

The easy way out will always be attractive. We have a sub culture geared towards that in this country.

Cleveland Buck;1382453 wrote:Has it worked elsewhere? There is no gun violence anywhere but here? And at what cost have they given up their rights? How many tens of millions of people have been slaughtered throughout history after having their guns taken away?

As I want to make clear...U.S. culture is unique so nothing is a one-to-one example....

We can still look at other free countries and not see a devolution into tyranny or drastic amounts of crime. Everyone is going to say "Japan is different dar" but a country that built an empire on merciless slaughter has eliminated gun violence and eliminated private gun ownership for the most part and they are still radically free and seem to be under no immediate threat of tyranny or only bad japanese people imposing mass coercion with guns.

So it seems they've given up guns at almost no objective cost except the subjective pleasure/value one gets from private gun ownership.

And since your so gung-ho to strip us all of our basic human rights, why didn't you answer the questions I asked in another thread?

For those of you who are all of a sudden fired up about how life is so precious that we shouldn't have the means to defend it, I have some questions.

The government kills hundreds of times as many people as private individuals do. Why not call to disarm them?

If it is ok for the government to slaughter people, why do you feel the lives they take are less valuable than the tiny fraction that get killed by private actors?

BoatShoes;1382458 wrote:As I want to make clear...U.S. culture is unique so nothing is a one-to-one example....

We can still look at other free countries and not see a devolution into tyranny or drastic amounts of crime. Everyone is going to say "Japan is different dar" but a country that built an empire on merciless slaughter has eliminated gun violence and eliminated private gun ownership for the most part and they are still radically free and seem to be under no immediate threat of tyranny or only bad japanese people imposing mass coercion with guns.

So it seems they've given up guns at almost no objective cost except the subjective pleasure/value one gets from private gun ownership.

Japan was disarmed when our military marched in there and disarmed them at gunpoint, and is still there occupying their land. That's how that worked. Didn't you say you object to doing that here?

Cleveland Buck;1382453 wrote:Has it worked elsewhere? There is no gun violence anywhere but here? And at what cost have they given up their rights? How many tens of millions of people have been slaughtered throughout history after having their guns taken away?

If we're really concerned about being able to fend off Barack's drone invasion...we might organize county level militias/gun depots where citizens could go and train and perform paramilitary training on the weekends, etc under the control of the National Guard....having well regulated militias in other words....as opposed to people hiding out in their cellars in rural alabama.