/ wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:'Strictly regulated' means what exactly? Class 3 firearms?
Substitutes always abound. If one can't legally obtain a full auto rifle, then they can convert the semi-auto into automatic. Parts for the AK47 costs about $200, and it doesn't seem too complicated to do.
Never underestimate the laziness or incompetence of a criminal...
But no, I am fully aware that there are pros and cons to each side, and as I said on the front page, violence is really a negligible factor in the modern world to begin with. What I really take issue with is how criminals are so enabled to maintain their sources. The Tiahrt Amendments need to be repealed, all relevant law enforcement agencies should be allowed to pursue this cases doggedly. Serial numbers need to be monitored strictly, if the gun is registered to to the criminal's brother they both need to be held fully accountable.
As the article above says, "Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms." These dealers need to be shut down for good, and their punishments should be harsh enough to send a message to anyone else who wants to get into the business, crime
cannot be allowed to pay off.
BigBallinStalin wrote:It comes down the rules of exchange and production. Prohibitions of certain items (like drugs) induce the development of black markets with their violent means of resolving contract disputes, thus increases crime (while providing plenty of network effects to induce more crime). Obviating the tendency toward a black market requires legalization, so it becomes obvious as to 'what must be done' in order to reduce crime.
While I'm not a vocal prohibition activist or anything, I still find this line of reasoning to be flawed. It's clear that prohibition works to an extent, it's not an overnight cure though, it's a war of attrition, slowly wearing the undesired element out of the nation's psyche.
What has been slowly worn down? US is #1 in per-capita prison population. That's extremely unproductive. Unemployment rates for the poor, especially for young African Americans is 33%. This is mainly due to prohibition and its unintended consequences (profits of black markets are high compared to unskilled/low-skilled labor).
Those increase over the years, especially as more resources are dedicated toward prohibition. There's no wearing down of this; you'd see an inverse relationship between "prohibition spending" and "crime," but you don't--from what I recall. You can't remove black markets and their effects with policies which bring them into existence. That's counter-productive.
We've had great historic case of prohibition: The Prohibition, and it was a failure. It even created the new training grounds for criminal syndicates (since they developed during the prohibition of alcohol).
/ wrote: Prohibition may have been a mess, but that doesn't mean it wasn't going to work if it lasted more than 14 years, it it were so immutable then the Muslim world would be nothing but speakeasys and we'd all be jonsing for some black market laudanum here in the states. If you live in a country like Japan or England where guns have been banned since Grandpa or Great-Grandpa's generation, you'll see that eventually people get tired of fighting the laws and eventually just forget about guns.
What's the drug of choice these days? As always it's something easily available and being capitalistically peddled every eight seconds. More people die these days from prescription drug abuse than every illegal drug combined. It's clear to me that people absolutely cannot be trusted to use the free market responsibly when it comes to brain altering chemicals.
The prohibition on drugs has been around for >roughly 60 years (interdiction rates varied), and crime has increased through the 20th century (especially as the drug war was ramped up during Reagan's reign). Crime peaks in 1993, and it's not due to further increases in government spending on prohibition.
The underlined is not a sufficient explanation. "They got tired." Are the criminal organizations which currently operate in the UK and Japan tired? No. If they 'forget about guns', have criminals forgotten about knives and other weapons? No. This is why saxi keeps mentioning the similar crime crates of UK and US--given their different gun laws. Again, it shouldn't be about gun laws if your goal is to reduce crime.
Much of the crime is perpetuated because black market 'businesses' can't seek resolution through the courts system; therefore, they must rely on crime (e.g. hitting people). There's no refuting that, nor is it possible to refute the benefits of bringing black market activities under the equality of the law (i.e. by legalizing it). Regarding costs, taxation is another issue if consumption levels are your concern. Besides, taxation would be cheaper than interdiction (drug war). One form of legalization leads to the government regulation of the entire market, thus it would be much more visible--thereby mitigating any shifts, thus expenditures, toward a police state.*
*It shouldn't be a surprise if the Drug War bureaucracies dislike legalization since legalization would remove the need for their existence.
