3 ms·

And you think criminals have guns because they are legal?

by corban1 6y ago

altcognito 6y ago
By in large in countries with well functioning governments, guns are kept off the streets.
- TrispusAttucks 6y ago
  Okay. Tell that to Myanmar's unarmed citizens. The government there has reduced the civilian owned guns by over half in the preceding decade. [1] Is Myanmar and example of well functioning? [1] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar
  - altcognito 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you think I was saying. All I said was that it is possible to enforce gun laws if the government is well-functioning, which was probably an overstatement. All I'm trying to say is that if the government is serious about gun control and has control of it's law enforcement (which was a proxy for 'well-functioning', outlaws will not have them) There are a number of countries that have laws on the books, but does a terrible job of enforcing those rules. All of this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the laws should exist or not. For my needs, Myanmar isn't a country worth discussing in terms of gun control because it's not like the citizenry has a voice in drafting policy and owning small arms has been a way of life there for decades, and does it seem to have resolved their issues with "representation"?
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Your stat shows that (i) Myanmar's citizens were not unarmed and (ii) privately owned firearms were more widespread in 2007 when the country had been under the control of an autocratic military junta for decades than in 2017 when it appeared to be transitioning to semi-democracy. Myanmar is certainly not well functioning, but it is also certainly not an example of effective gun controls, or an example of widespread private firearm ownership preventing autocratic regimes from doing what they like.
syops 6y ago
In countries where gun ownership is hard to obtain legally criminals have much lower rates of gun ownership. Banning legal gun ownership does not prevent all criminals from accessing guns but it does prevent most of them from accessing guns. Importantly it prevents for the most part gun involvement in crimes of passion.
- est31 6y ago
  Even if the USA banned gun ownership, which would require a constitutional amendment and given views on the issue by majorities of the populations of some states, would thus be quite impossible, even then there would be the practical issue of enforcing that ban. Immediately after the ban, there would still be gazillions of guns floating around the US. It would take multiple decades after the ban until the positive effects can be felt. During this time, the criminals would absolutely still have guns while the law abiding citizens would not. Furthermore, there are huge smuggling activities at the US's southern border, making it possible for guns to enter on that route. Maybe if a strong border wall is built, it can be pulled off somehow. Also don't forget that there are wild animals in many parts of the US, like say in Alaska. Sometimes you need to have a gun.
  - syops 6y ago
    This is a different argument than the one I responded to. I gather then that you agree with me that the point I responded to is invalid.
    - est31 6y ago
      My point was that it takes decades until the point you responded to becomes invalid. Even if Biden banned all guns tomorrow, it's likely that criminals will keep having guns during the life span of everybody alive today.
      - Ancapistani 6y ago
        Further, if guns were banned tomorrow, there are a significant number of people who would instantly become criminals. It feels like many who advocate banning guns severely underestimate the importance of the issue to the other side.

And you think criminals have guns because they are legal?

altcognito 6y ago

By in large in countries with well functioning governments, guns are kept off the streets.

TrispusAttucks 6y ago
Okay. Tell that to Myanmar's unarmed citizens. The government there has reduced the civilian owned guns by over half in the preceding decade. [1] Is Myanmar and example of well functioning? [1] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar
- altcognito 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you think I was saying. All I said was that it is possible to enforce gun laws if the government is well-functioning, which was probably an overstatement. All I'm trying to say is that if the government is serious about gun control and has control of it's law enforcement (which was a proxy for 'well-functioning', outlaws will not have them) There are a number of countries that have laws on the books, but does a terrible job of enforcing those rules. All of this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the laws should exist or not. For my needs, Myanmar isn't a country worth discussing in terms of gun control because it's not like the citizenry has a voice in drafting policy and owning small arms has been a way of life there for decades, and does it seem to have resolved their issues with "representation"?
- notahacker 6y ago
  Your stat shows that (i) Myanmar's citizens were not unarmed and (ii) privately owned firearms were more widespread in 2007 when the country had been under the control of an autocratic military junta for decades than in 2017 when it appeared to be transitioning to semi-democracy. Myanmar is certainly not well functioning, but it is also certainly not an example of effective gun controls, or an example of widespread private firearm ownership preventing autocratic regimes from doing what they like.

syops 6y ago

In countries where gun ownership is hard to obtain legally criminals have much lower rates of gun ownership. Banning legal gun ownership does not prevent all criminals from accessing guns but it does prevent most of them from accessing guns. Importantly it prevents for the most part gun involvement in crimes of passion.

est31 6y ago
Even if the USA banned gun ownership, which would require a constitutional amendment and given views on the issue by majorities of the populations of some states, would thus be quite impossible, even then there would be the practical issue of enforcing that ban. Immediately after the ban, there would still be gazillions of guns floating around the US. It would take multiple decades after the ban until the positive effects can be felt. During this time, the criminals would absolutely still have guns while the law abiding citizens would not. Furthermore, there are huge smuggling activities at the US's southern border, making it possible for guns to enter on that route. Maybe if a strong border wall is built, it can be pulled off somehow. Also don't forget that there are wild animals in many parts of the US, like say in Alaska. Sometimes you need to have a gun.
- syops 6y ago
  This is a different argument than the one I responded to. I gather then that you agree with me that the point I responded to is invalid.
  - est31 6y ago
    My point was that it takes decades until the point you responded to becomes invalid. Even if Biden banned all guns tomorrow, it's likely that criminals will keep having guns during the life span of everybody alive today.
    - Ancapistani 6y ago
      Further, if guns were banned tomorrow, there are a significant number of people who would instantly become criminals. It feels like many who advocate banning guns severely underestimate the importance of the issue to the other side.