4 ms·

Probably need some evidence to back up your claims about their motivation. Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders.

Probably need some evidence to back up your claims about their motivation. Gun control on the state level will not stop the flow of guns across state borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. Speaking as a gun owner.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Here's the trouble with that argument: > Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  We have open borders between states and mostly controlled borders between countries. Regardless, the guns flow out of the US, not into it.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    The "controlled borders" between the US and its neighbors are each more than a thousand miles across, and I'm led to believe that most of those in favor of gun control are sour on the effectiveness of securing them with a wall or other such measures. Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out. And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.
    - chillwaves 7y ago
      The demand would drop and so would gun manufacturing. There would be less guns on the street and more effective securing/training of legal guns/owners. Clearly there is a spectrum of choices that can be made, some more effective than others. As mentioned, state borders have effectively zero restriction in movement and should be taken in context with any criticism of local gun laws.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        Why would there be less guns on the street? Aren't the vast majority of those illegally obtained anyways? IMO the more likely response would be that all the guns that were previously stolen/criminally obtained legal guns would become fully automatic since there's no reason not to at that point. (Manufacturing cost difference is basically nil, and if you're already smuggling an illegal rifle might as well make it automatic) Guns aren't exactly rocket science to make, and the plans are available online. Good guns, reliable guns, safe guns? Not so much, but why would the criminals in question care?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

Here's the trouble with that argument: > Gun control on the national level will not stop the flow of guns across national borders. It's dishonest of you to suggest otherwise. People smuggle drugs into this country at scale. The same people who are among the most likely perpetrators of homicides. If prohibiting possession has no effect and prohibiting importation is similarly ineffective then it's hard to see how a national prohibition would do much more than a state one.

mikeyouse 7y ago
We have open borders between states and mostly controlled borders between countries. Regardless, the guns flow out of the US, not into it.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The "controlled borders" between the US and its neighbors are each more than a thousand miles across, and I'm led to believe that most of those in favor of gun control are sour on the effectiveness of securing them with a wall or other such measures. Moreover, contraband flows toward the places where it's prohibited. If certain firearms went from not prohibited to prohibited then they would flow in rather than out. And I'm not saying a national ban would have no effect, only that it would have a similar effect to a state-level ban -- regular people would follow the law, and then you might get e.g. fewer firearms suicides (but more non-firearms suicides). But if you expect gangs to stop arming themselves because of "borders" or national law, just look at Mexico.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    The demand would drop and so would gun manufacturing. There would be less guns on the street and more effective securing/training of legal guns/owners. Clearly there is a spectrum of choices that can be made, some more effective than others. As mentioned, state borders have effectively zero restriction in movement and should be taken in context with any criticism of local gun laws.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Why would there be less guns on the street? Aren't the vast majority of those illegally obtained anyways? IMO the more likely response would be that all the guns that were previously stolen/criminally obtained legal guns would become fully automatic since there's no reason not to at that point. (Manufacturing cost difference is basically nil, and if you're already smuggling an illegal rifle might as well make it automatic) Guns aren't exactly rocket science to make, and the plans are available online. Good guns, reliable guns, safe guns? Not so much, but why would the criminals in question care?