Upscale wrote:

It's been admitted time and time again that the criminals don't
usually buy legal guns. So where do they get them then?
The only answer is that guns are either stolen from legal gun owners
or they're brought into the country. What if legal ownership was
terminated and border control was increased? Where would the criminal
element get their guns from when their source dries up?

I would suggest there is no hope of the supply of guns ever drying up, even with
a total ban on legal guns. First, there is a vast supply already here. Second,
see how effective the war on drugs is on keeping drugs out. Anyone who can't
find a supply of their chemical of choice, isn't looking. -- Doug

In article , Douglas Johnson wrote:
see how effective the war on drugs is on keeping drugs out. Anyone who can't
find a supply of their chemical of choice, isn't looking. -- Doug

That's a point that is all too frequently ignored in the debates over gun
control: how well have the drug ban laws worked? What reason is there to think
that gun ban laws will work any better?

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
Upscale wrote:

It's been admitted time and time again that the criminals don't
usually buy legal guns. So where do they get them then?
The only answer is that guns are either stolen from legal gun owners
or they're brought into the country. What if legal ownership was
terminated and border control was increased? Where would the criminal
element get their guns from when their source dries up?

I would suggest there is no hope of the supply of guns ever drying up,
even with
a total ban on legal guns. First, there is a vast supply already here.
Second,
see how effective the war on drugs is on keeping drugs out. Anyone who
can't
find a supply of their chemical of choice, isn't looking. -- Doug

True. Ask a school kid what is easier to get, crack or alcohol. He will tell
you crack.
The upside of the US: you can get anything you want.
The downside of the US: you can get anything you want.
No law will change that.

Douglas Johnson wrote:

Upscale wrote:

It's been admitted time and time again that the criminals don't
usually buy legal guns. So where do they get them then?
The only answer is that guns are either stolen from legal gun owners
or they're brought into the country. What if legal ownership was
terminated and border control was increased? Where would the criminal
element get their guns from when their source dries up?

I would suggest there is no hope of the supply of guns ever drying up,
even with
a total ban on legal guns. First, there is a vast supply already here.
Second,
see how effective the war on drugs is on keeping drugs out. Anyone who
can't
find a supply of their chemical of choice, isn't looking. -- Doug

Even for the moment accepting the premise that in a couple of generations,
the supply of guns were to dry up and ammunition become unavailable. Anyone
who thinks that the elimination of the tool would solve the problem of
violent crime need only look to Great Britain to be disabused of that
notion. Remember back when gun control was first proposed in the US and the
first reaction of gun owners was to ask, "What? You gonna ban knives and
sticks next?" To which the gun grabbers answer was, "Don't be a silly jerk
with that hyperbole -- Nobody is talking about that, we are talking about
real weapons designed to kill people. Ban knives, you are really stupid
people for such a silly silly argument". Fast forward to the 21'st century
where Great Britain is now doing exactly what that "silly hyperbole" was
asking. They are enacting knife bans and going after bats and other
"dangerous weapons". Seems that the criminals in GB are still bent of
violence and are turning to other handy weapons of choice. So, since just
getting rid of the tools didn't work the first time, the geniuses in the
British government are doubling down and going after more tools. After all,
it's not the behaviour and attitude that's the problem, it's the
availability of the tools.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Upscale wrote:

It's been admitted time and time again that the criminals don't
usually buy legal guns. So where do they get them then?
The only answer is that guns are either stolen from legal gun owners
or they're brought into the country. What if legal ownership was
terminated and border control was increased? Where would the criminal
element get their guns from when their source dries up?

I would suggest there is no hope of the supply of guns ever drying up,
even with
a total ban on legal guns. First, there is a vast supply already here.
Second,
see how effective the war on drugs is on keeping drugs out. Anyone who
can't
find a supply of their chemical of choice, isn't looking. -- Doug

Even for the moment accepting the premise that in a couple of
generations,
the supply of guns were to dry up and ammunition become unavailable.
Anyone
who thinks that the elimination of the tool would solve the problem of
violent crime need only look to Great Britain to be disabused of that
notion. Remember back when gun control was first proposed in the US and
the
first reaction of gun owners was to ask, "What? You gonna ban knives and
sticks next?" To which the gun grabbers answer was, "Don't be a silly jerk
with that hyperbole -- Nobody is talking about that, we are talking about
real weapons designed to kill people. Ban knives, you are really stupid
people for such a silly silly argument". Fast forward to the 21'st
century
where Great Britain is now doing exactly what that "silly hyperbole" was
asking. They are enacting knife bans and going after bats and other
"dangerous weapons". Seems that the criminals in GB are still bent of
violence and are turning to other handy weapons of choice. So, since just
getting rid of the tools didn't work the first time, the geniuses in the
British government are doubling down and going after more tools. After
all,
it's not the behaviour and attitude that's the problem, it's the
availability of the tools.


I wonder how long it will be before they ban rocks.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Upscale wrote:

It's been admitted time and time again that the criminals don't
usually buy legal guns. So where do they get them then?
The only answer is that guns are either stolen from legal gun owners
or they're brought into the country. What if legal ownership was
terminated and border control was increased? Where would the criminal
element get their guns from when their source dries up?

I would suggest there is no hope of the supply of guns ever drying up,
even with
a total ban on legal guns. First, there is a vast supply already here.
Second,
see how effective the war on drugs is on keeping drugs out. Anyone who
can't
find a supply of their chemical of choice, isn't looking. -- Doug

Even for the moment accepting the premise that in a couple of
generations,
the supply of guns were to dry up and ammunition become unavailable.
Anyone
who thinks that the elimination of the tool would solve the problem of
violent crime need only look to Great Britain to be disabused of that
notion. Remember back when gun control was first proposed in the US and
the
first reaction of gun owners was to ask, "What? You gonna ban knives and
sticks next?" To which the gun grabbers answer was, "Don't be a silly jerk
with that hyperbole -- Nobody is talking about that, we are talking about
real weapons designed to kill people. Ban knives, you are really stupid
people for such a silly silly argument". Fast forward to the 21'st
century
where Great Britain is now doing exactly what that "silly hyperbole" was
asking. They are enacting knife bans and going after bats and other
"dangerous weapons". Seems that the criminals in GB are still bent of
violence and are turning to other handy weapons of choice. So, since just
getting rid of the tools didn't work the first time, the geniuses in the
British government are doubling down and going after more tools. After
all,
it's not the behaviour and attitude that's the problem, it's the
availability of the tools.


Weekly, at least. someone robs someone else in the UK at screw driver point.
No, I can't recall if they were cabinet, phillips, or what. If they are real
serious, they'll bring a chum with a claw hammer. With the exception of
knives and pointy sticks, tools are not yet banned. Well, except for chain
saws where an advanced arborist course is needed for the permit ...

"CW" wrote in message
m...

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Upscale wrote:

It's been admitted time and time again that the criminals don't
usually buy legal guns. So where do they get them then?
The only answer is that guns are either stolen from legal gun owners
or they're brought into the country. What if legal ownership was
terminated and border control was increased? Where would the criminal
element get their guns from when their source dries up?

I would suggest there is no hope of the supply of guns ever drying up,
even with
a total ban on legal guns. First, there is a vast supply already here.
Second,
see how effective the war on drugs is on keeping drugs out. Anyone who
can't
find a supply of their chemical of choice, isn't looking. -- Doug

Even for the moment accepting the premise that in a couple of
generations,
the supply of guns were to dry up and ammunition become unavailable.
Anyone
who thinks that the elimination of the tool would solve the problem of
violent crime need only look to Great Britain to be disabused of that
notion. Remember back when gun control was first proposed in the US and
the
first reaction of gun owners was to ask, "What? You gonna ban knives and
sticks next?" To which the gun grabbers answer was, "Don't be a silly
jerk
with that hyperbole -- Nobody is talking about that, we are talking about
real weapons designed to kill people. Ban knives, you are really stupid
people for such a silly silly argument". Fast forward to the 21'st
century
where Great Britain is now doing exactly what that "silly hyperbole" was
asking. They are enacting knife bans and going after bats and other
"dangerous weapons". Seems that the criminals in GB are still bent of
violence and are turning to other handy weapons of choice. So, since
just
getting rid of the tools didn't work the first time, the geniuses in the
British government are doubling down and going after more tools. After
all,
it's not the behaviour and attitude that's the problem, it's the
availability of the tools.


I wonder how long it will be before they ban rocks.


IIRC, anyone under the age of 18 can be bond over for carrying a rock.