Firearms

[/]

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.

Yes the US has a lot of inmates, but that's because it has had a lot of inmates for quite a long time. The facts are quite the opposite of what you present.
Drug expenditures are dropping. (see page 11)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publica ... d_2002.pdf
Drug related homicides are dropping
http://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm
Prison population percentages are dropping.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... -guess-why

One thing that has been increasing is the abuse of legal painkillers.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/

Freer access to narcotics is unnecessary and possibly dangerous. Most of us can remember meeting or being that "bad kid" at one point, the one that snuck that cigarette or beer from dad and offered it to friends after school. What if that was a crack-pipe instead? Many of our lives might be quite different today.

But go ahead, I'm open minded, can you provide any statistical evidence that legalizing a controlled substance has ever had a positive corollary effect on aggregate crime?

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.

For someone who plays the "strawman" card so often, you should be more aware of your opponent's actual argument. Did I say that we needed to get rid of guns? I'm pretty sure I specifically said that wasn't the point twice now. I simply want the proper measures in place to curb unlicensed individual's illegal access to guns, do you have any specific problem with that?

[AndyDufresne]

I sometimes listen to the '1920's Radio Network' while I work, which has songs from the 20's, 30's, 40's, and some 50's.

This song came on this morning, and it sort of gave me a wry smile. It was a nice patriotic song WWII era, but it is interesting out of context a little as well:




--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, that song is fun nonsense, Andy!

[Symmetry]

I am kind of curious, what are the rates of knife crime in the US compared to the UK. It seems to come up as a bit of a strawman argument when people want to compare gun crime to something else as if one simply replaces the other.

[BigBallinStalin]

You'd want to compare all non-firearms-related crimes--not just 'knife crimes', since substitutes for firearms are not only knives but a wide variety of other 'goods' (bads).

[Symmetry]

You'd want to compare all non-firearms-related crimes--not just 'knife crimes', since substitutes for firearms are not only knives but a wide variety of other 'goods' (bads).

Of course, it's one of the reasons why I'm dissatisfied with the argument you alluded to above. It relies on comparing knife crime statistics in the UK to US murder rates by firearms. I too find them difficult to compare at best, and irrelevant if I'm feeling generous. Do you consider them worthwhile?

[thegreekdog]

(1) Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States. None of the weapons used in the shooting sprees were automatic weapons.
(2) Do you know how many gun deaths in the United States are caused by guns that are illegally owned?

(1) FALSE! No they are not. Perfectly legal to buy, own and shoot/blow up any class 3 weapon. Not as simple as a walmart shotgun but after some paperwork and a 1930s tax stamp, boom. I mean boomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomboom.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/10/19/how-to-buy-class-three-weapons/

Do the rest of the statements stand?
(1) Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States. None of the weapons used in the shooting sprees were automatic weapons.
(2) Do you know how many gun deaths in the United States are caused by guns that are illegally owned?

1. That's true, though one might argue that supports claims that it is in fact extremely difficult for criminals to obtain strictly regulated weapons.
2. For mass shootings, 49 out of 62 had legally obtained their weapons. For crime in general, the vast majority of criminal's guns are illegally owned; however most are legally purchased by a friend or family member, then illegally given to the criminal, or are sold by a corrupt federally licensed gun dealer.
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/ ... and-youth/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

My question is where does someone get a 1930s tax stamp?

And my point is that current legislative proposals do not restrict gun ownership such that we should see a reduction in gun-related homicides.

[Symmetry]

Mexico disagrees.

Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms,[1] but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult.[2] "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."[3] Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.[4][5] In other cases the guns are obtained through Guatemalan borders[6] or stolen from the police or military.[7] Consequently, black market firearms are widely available. Many firearms are acquired in the U.S. by women with no criminal history, who transfer their purchases to smugglers through relatives, boyfriends and acquaintances and then smuggled to Mexico a few at a time.[8] The most common smuggled firearms include AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, and FN 5.7 caliber semi-automatic pistols. Many firearms are purchased in the United States in a semi-automatic configuration before being converted to fire as select fire machine guns.[9] Mexico seized in 2009 a combined total of more than 4,400 firearms of the AK-47 and AR-15 type, and 30% of AK-47 type rifles seized have been modified to select fire weapons, effectively creating assault rifles.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico

[thegreekdog]

Mexico disagrees.

Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms,[1] but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult.[2] "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."[3] Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.[4][5] In other cases the guns are obtained through Guatemalan borders[6] or stolen from the police or military.[7] Consequently, black market firearms are widely available. Many firearms are acquired in the U.S. by women with no criminal history, who transfer their purchases to smugglers through relatives, boyfriends and acquaintances and then smuggled to Mexico a few at a time.[8] The most common smuggled firearms include AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, and FN 5.7 caliber semi-automatic pistols. Many firearms are purchased in the United States in a semi-automatic configuration before being converted to fire as select fire machine guns.[9] Mexico seized in 2009 a combined total of more than 4,400 firearms of the AK-47 and AR-15 type, and 30% of AK-47 type rifles seized have been modified to select fire weapons, effectively creating assault rifles.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico

I've highlighted (in handy red type) the important parts for you.

[Symmetry]

Mexico disagrees.

Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms,[1] but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult.[2] "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."[3] Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.[4][5] In other cases the guns are obtained through Guatemalan borders[6] or stolen from the police or military.[7] Consequently, black market firearms are widely available. Many firearms are acquired in the U.S. by women with no criminal history, who transfer their purchases to smugglers through relatives, boyfriends and acquaintances and then smuggled to Mexico a few at a time.[8] The most common smuggled firearms include AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, and FN 5.7 caliber semi-automatic pistols. Many firearms are purchased in the United States in a semi-automatic configuration before being converted to fire as select fire machine guns.[9] Mexico seized in 2009 a combined total of more than 4,400 firearms of the AK-47 and AR-15 type, and 30% of AK-47 type rifles seized have been modified to select fire weapons, effectively creating assault rifles.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico

I've highlighted (in handy red type) the important parts for you.

I'm surprised that you didn't consider the part of about 70% of drug cartel weaponry coming from the US to be an important part. But hey, to each his own.

[BigBallinStalin]

You'd want to compare all non-firearms-related crimes--not just 'knife crimes', since substitutes for firearms are not only knives but a wide variety of other 'goods' (bads).

Of course, it's one of the reasons why I'm dissatisfied with the argument you alluded to above. It relies on comparing knife crime statistics in the UK to US murder rates by firearms. I too find them difficult to compare at best, and irrelevant if I'm feeling generous. Do you consider them worthwhile?

I didn't wish to launch into a treatise, so I stuck with 'knife crimes' only to provide an example of people's innovative willingness to respond to changes in price (e.g. stricter enforcement) by seeking substitutes. Humans do this all the time, so the substitution effect will always exist; however, the extent of the magnitude remains somewhat unknown (sax provided some stats awhile ago somewhere, which reinforces my point; however, I've no desire to spend 30-200 minutes examining the literature. I'm only pointing the way for those who are interested in challenging and supplementing their views).

The firearms crimes and non-firearms crimes are related because they're an outcome of substitution. Some people still have a desire to rape, pillage, and plunder, so a prohibition on one tool will induce them to seek substitutes. It's not like prohibition eliminates people's valuations for bad-good exchange (i.e. rape, pillage, plunder). Even prohibitions on bad-good exchanges are ineffective, which again reinforces the point that the rules of the game (institutions) should be examined and reformed, instead of focusing on prohibiting one particular good/bad (firearms).

A main point to reconsider is that prohibitions cause the development of black markets which provide high profits to the criminal enterprise system. A state intervention changes the institutions which then leads to unintended consequences, and then many people look at those unintended consequences and advocate for further state intervention without realizing that the previous state intervention led to the current problems. With intervention begetting intervention, it's no surprise that the fundamental problems would remain unresolved (negligible caveats may apply but don't refute this basic argument).

[thegreekdog]

Mexico disagrees.

Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms,[1] but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult.[2] "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."[3] Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.[4][5] In other cases the guns are obtained through Guatemalan borders[6] or stolen from the police or military.[7] Consequently, black market firearms are widely available. Many firearms are acquired in the U.S. by women with no criminal history, who transfer their purchases to smugglers through relatives, boyfriends and acquaintances and then smuggled to Mexico a few at a time.[8] The most common smuggled firearms include AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, and FN 5.7 caliber semi-automatic pistols. Many firearms are purchased in the United States in a semi-automatic configuration before being converted to fire as select fire machine guns.[9] Mexico seized in 2009 a combined total of more than 4,400 firearms of the AK-47 and AR-15 type, and 30% of AK-47 type rifles seized have been modified to select fire weapons, effectively creating assault rifles.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico

I've highlighted (in handy red type) the important parts for you.

I'm surprised that you didn't consider the part of about 70% of drug cartel weaponry coming from the US to be an important part. But hey, to each his own.

Wait, are we discussing U.S. gun homicides, Mexican gun homicides, worldwide gun homicides, or the potential impact of a law that would restrict (but not ban) the sale of weapons that look like automatic weapons?

I was discussing U.S. gun homicides and the ineffective proposals to ban semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons. This seems to be another situation (barring the confusion) where you and I both think that guns should be outlawed in the United States, but where you see "thegreekdog" as the poster and your brain says "DISAGREE!" If we're going to have gun control, let's have effective gun control.

If, on the other hand, we're talking about Mexican drug smuggling, perhaps we should figure out how the Mexicans are getting these weapons. Like /'s post above - strawman purchases are a huge problem (especially in Philadelphia), perhaps we should be figuring out how to deal with those rather than making sure the AK-47-type weapons are banned (when the way around it is to make the same weapon not look like an AK-47).

[BigBallinStalin]

Mexico disagrees.

Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms,[1] but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult.[2] "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States."[3] Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.[4][5] In other cases the guns are obtained through Guatemalan borders[6] or stolen from the police or military.[7] Consequently, black market firearms are widely available. Many firearms are acquired in the U.S. by women with no criminal history, who transfer their purchases to smugglers through relatives, boyfriends and acquaintances and then smuggled to Mexico a few at a time.[8] The most common smuggled firearms include AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, and FN 5.7 caliber semi-automatic pistols. Many firearms are purchased in the United States in a semi-automatic configuration before being converted to fire as select fire machine guns.[9] Mexico seized in 2009 a combined total of more than 4,400 firearms of the AK-47 and AR-15 type, and 30% of AK-47 type rifles seized have been modified to select fire weapons, effectively creating assault rifles.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico

I've highlighted (in handy red type) the important parts for you.

I'm surprised that you didn't consider the part of about 70% of drug cartel weaponry coming from the US to be an important part. But hey, to each his own.

In light of substitutes, if the US prohibited all firearms*, would all imports of firearms to Mexico decrease, increase, or remain constant?

If the supply of firearms in one country is reduced, while the buyer's profit of acquiring firearms remains, then wouldn't other suppliers fill in the gap--to take advantage of the greater profit opportunities? If so, then new suppliers would provide the weapons to those demanders in Mexico.

*Firearms would still be demanded by the war industry, so this creates additional opportunities from black markets, graft, and corruption in order to distribute weapons elsewhere.

[Symmetry]

You'd want to compare all non-firearms-related crimes--not just 'knife crimes', since substitutes for firearms are not only knives but a wide variety of other 'goods' (bads).

Of course, it's one of the reasons why I'm dissatisfied with the argument you alluded to above. It relies on comparing knife crime statistics in the UK to US murder rates by firearms. I too find them difficult to compare at best, and irrelevant if I'm feeling generous. Do you consider them worthwhile?

I didn't wish to launch into a treatise, so I stuck with 'knife crimes' only to provide an example of people's innovative willingness to respond to changes in price (e.g. stricter enforcement) by seeking substitutes. Humans do this all the time, so the substitution effect will always exist; however, the extent of the magnitude remains somewhat unknown (sax provided some stats awhile ago somewhere, which reinforces my point; however, I've no desire to spend 30-200 minutes examining the literature. I'm only pointing the way for those who are interested in challenging and supplementing their views).

I wasn't satisfied with Saxi's stats, for reasons I outlined above. To be absolutely fair, I did spend a bit of time looking up relevant points of comparison. I simply couldn't find knife crime rates in the US comparable to the data drawn from the UK, and was hoping that you'd done more in bringing it up.

As is, it's an "apples and oranges" kind of argument. Comparing the firearms homicide rate in the US to the rate of knife crime in the UK which includes assault, possession, and robbery among other things seems pretty much a flawed argument.

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: apples and orange, (sorry, I added more after seeing that you disagree with the comparison):

The firearms crimes and non-firearms crimes are related because they're an outcome of substitution. Some people still have a desire to rape, pillage, and plunder, so a prohibition on one tool will induce them to seek substitutes. It's not like prohibition eliminates people's valuations for bad-good exchange (i.e. rape, pillage, plunder). Therefore, a reduction in firearms-related crime would not end All crime since you'd have people using different tools to implement crimes (e.g. 'knife crimes').


To get beyond this narrow disagreement, we still need to address the problems of prohibition. Even prohibitions on bad-good exchanges are ineffective, which again reinforces the point that the rules of the game (institutions) should be examined and reformed, instead of focusing on prohibiting one particular good/bad (firearms).

A main point to reconsider is that prohibitions cause the development of black markets which provide high profits to the criminal enterprise system. A state intervention changes the institutions which then leads to unintended consequences, and then many people look at those unintended consequences and advocate for further state intervention without realizing that the previous state intervention led to the current problems. With intervention begetting intervention, it's no surprise that the fundamental problems would remain unresolved (negligible caveats may apply but don't refute this basic argument).

[thegreekdog]

RE: apples and orange, (sorry, I added more after seeing that you disagree with the comparison):

The firearms crimes and non-firearms crimes are related because they're an outcome of substitution. Some people still have a desire to rape, pillage, and plunder, so a prohibition on one tool will induce them to seek substitutes. It's not like prohibition eliminates people's valuations for bad-good exchange (i.e. rape, pillage, plunder). Even prohibitions on bad-good exchanges are ineffective, which again reinforces the point that the rules of the game (institutions) should be examined and reformed, instead of focusing on prohibiting one particular good/bad (firearms).

A main point to reconsider is that prohibitions cause the development of black markets which provide high profits to the criminal enterprise system. A state intervention changes the institutions which then leads to unintended consequences, and then many people look at those unintended consequences and advocate for further state intervention without realizing that the previous state intervention led to the current problems. With intervention begetting intervention, it's no surprise that the fundamental problems would remain unresolved (negligible caveats may apply but don't refute this basic argument).

I still can't get over that firearms allow people to kill more effectively. Two quick examples:

- I heard a story over the weekend about police officers in New York City confronting some criminals. The police officers shot into the crowd of people, wounding or killing (I can't remember) two innocent bystanders. If the police officers had batons instead of guns, zero innocent bystanders would hvae been wounded or killed.

- Rocket propelled grenade launchers are not legal in the United States. If they were legal, do you think more or less people would be killed? Of course, RPGs can kill or wound more people with one shot than a shotgun or handgun; but perhaps you're not willing to concede that point.

[Symmetry]

RE: apples and orange, (sorry, I added more after seeing that you disagree with the comparison):

The firearms crimes and non-firearms crimes are related because they're an outcome of substitution. Some people still have a desire to rape, pillage, and plunder, so a prohibition on one tool will induce them to seek substitutes. It's not like prohibition eliminates people's valuations for bad-good exchange (i.e. rape, pillage, plunder). Even prohibitions on bad-good exchanges are ineffective, which again reinforces the point that the rules of the game (institutions) should be examined and reformed, instead of focusing on prohibiting one particular good/bad (firearms).

A main point to reconsider is that prohibitions cause the development of black markets which provide high profits to the criminal enterprise system. A state intervention changes the institutions which then leads to unintended consequences, and then many people look at those unintended consequences and advocate for further state intervention without realizing that the previous state intervention led to the current problems. With intervention begetting intervention, it's no surprise that the fundamental problems would remain unresolved (negligible caveats may apply but don't refute this basic argument).

I don't see how that changes my point, unless you want to talk about your wider points rather than the issue I was addressing, If you want to do so, that's fine, and I think you have some interesting ideas to address. The finer points- that UK knife crime is equitable with US firearm homicide rates, is still, I think a weak point in the debate.

[thegreekdog]

Symmetry, here is an example of what I'm talking about.

Today there was a 13-person killing committed by more than one person in Washington, D.C. Ignoring that more people are killed in inner cities by handguns in a day than was killed in DC at this particular shooting spree, let's examine Senator Feinstein's points.

Without getting into any details, Senator Feinstein stated:

There are reports the killer was armed with an AR-15, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol when he stormed an American military installation in the nation’s capital and took at least 12 innocent lives.
This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/feins ... -shooting/

A shotgun and a semi-automatic pistol were never made illegal or otherwise prohibited from being sold in the United States. The latest proposals for gun bans included a new assault weapons ban (last implemented by President Clinton's administration and allowed to lapse under President Bush II). The AR-15, which the California senator calls a military-style assault rifle, was also not banned under the Assault Weapons Ban. Under the previous AWB, the following features, which were applicable to the AR-15 among other weapons, were banned: collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs.

The AR-15 was first sold to the U.S. military, so Senator Feinstein might be correct. Except, as noted in the link below, Colt (the manufacturer) began selling a semi-automatic version of the rifle to civilians in 1963. Therefore, Senator Feinstein is not correct. This is not a military-style rifle. This is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_States

Again, I'm not arguing that this weapon should not be banned. Rather, I'm arguing that current proposals to ban certain aspects of this weapon ("We don't want to make our deadly weapons look too scary) are absurd political pandering. Most homicides in the United States are committed using handguns, not semi-automatic weapons, rifles or shotguns. Why are there no proposals to ban handguns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushom ... weapon.svg

I ultimately have no problem banning guns (but only if guns are banned for police as well), but all this political pandering, fear-mongering, and lack of factual data bothers me.

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: apples and orange, (sorry, I added more after seeing that you disagree with the comparison):

The firearms crimes and non-firearms crimes are related because they're an outcome of substitution. Some people still have a desire to rape, pillage, and plunder, so a prohibition on one tool will induce them to seek substitutes. It's not like prohibition eliminates people's valuations for bad-good exchange (i.e. rape, pillage, plunder). Even prohibitions on bad-good exchanges are ineffective, which again reinforces the point that the rules of the game (institutions) should be examined and reformed, instead of focusing on prohibiting one particular good/bad (firearms).

A main point to reconsider is that prohibitions cause the development of black markets which provide high profits to the criminal enterprise system. A state intervention changes the institutions which then leads to unintended consequences, and then many people look at those unintended consequences and advocate for further state intervention without realizing that the previous state intervention led to the current problems. With intervention begetting intervention, it's no surprise that the fundamental problems would remain unresolved (negligible caveats may apply but don't refute this basic argument).

I still can't get over that firearms allow people to kill more effectively. Two quick examples:

- I heard a story over the weekend about police officers in New York City confronting some criminals. The police officers shot into the crowd of people, wounding or killing (I can't remember) two innocent bystanders. If the police officers had batons instead of guns, zero innocent bystanders would hvae been wounded or killed.

- Rocket propelled grenade launchers are not legal in the United States. If they were legal, do you think more or less people would be killed? Of course, RPGs can kill or wound more people with one shot than a shotgun or handgun; but perhaps you're not willing to concede that point.

Well, I'm not arguing that the various tools of crime do not differ in their efficiency/effectiveness; I'm just saying they're substitutable. They may not be perfect substitutes, but a substitute by definition need not be perfect.

Again, this comes down to a question of magnitude. For example, if we removed all firearms from the non-governmental population, this would initially increase the transaction cost for the current forms of good-bad exchange (e.g. robbing someone). Transaction costs of crime would increase as lesser efficient tools would be used (like "knives and stabbing weapons"). However, there still remains a profit in such exchanges, and people innovate to reduce costs (such as transaction costs), so to some degree, the less efficient non-firearms could become more efficient by changes in method. For example, instead of holding out one's knife and demanding whatever, one can approach from a different angle--or rely on more than one criminal, or stab the victim anyway since unlike like a gunshot wound, the victim will most likely live. People will innovate, thereby lowering transaction costs.

So, what will the new 'price' for all crimes be? I don't know. I'm just pointing out what can change the price and transaction cost. It becomes an empirical matter in order to reveal the magnitude of "policy: decreased firearms" ----> "decreased crime" (while controlling for changes in # of per-capita police, per-capita private security, policing methods, changes in rules which gear people more toward legitimate labor as oppose to illegitimate labor, blah blah blah). That's a literature review which I don't find interesting enough to write for you fellas.


RE: rocket launchers, the USG has amassed many weapons, and over time, there has been less wars inflicting less casualties, so maybe everyone should be as well-armed as the USG? (:P ).

[PLAYER57832]

RE: apples and orange, (sorry, I added more after seeing that you disagree with the comparison):

The firearms crimes and non-firearms crimes are related because they're an outcome of substitution. Some people still have a desire to rape, pillage, and plunder, so a prohibition on one tool will induce them to seek substitutes. It's not like prohibition eliminates people's valuations for bad-good exchange (i.e. rape, pillage, plunder). Even prohibitions on bad-good exchanges are ineffective, which again reinforces the point that the rules of the game (institutions) should be examined and reformed, instead of focusing on prohibiting one particular good/bad (firearms).

A main point to reconsider is that prohibitions cause the development of black markets which provide high profits to the criminal enterprise system. A state intervention changes the institutions which then leads to unintended consequences, and then many people look at those unintended consequences and advocate for further state intervention without realizing that the previous state intervention led to the current problems. With intervention begetting intervention, it's no surprise that the fundamental problems would remain unresolved (negligible caveats may apply but don't refute this basic argument).

I still can't get over that firearms allow people to kill more effectively. Two quick examples:

- I heard a story over the weekend about police officers in New York City confronting some criminals. The police officers shot into the crowd of people, wounding or killing (I can't remember) two innocent bystanders. If the police officers had batons instead of guns, zero innocent bystanders would hvae been wounded or killed.

- Rocket propelled grenade launchers are not legal in the United States. If they were legal, do you think more or less people would be killed? Of course, RPGs can kill or wound more people with one shot than a shotgun or handgun; but perhaps you're not willing to concede that point.

Well, I'm not arguing that the various tools of crime do not differ in their efficiency/effectiveness; I'm just saying they're substitutable. They may not be perfect substitutes, but a substitute by definition need not be perfect.

Again, this comes down to a question of magnitude. For example, if we removed all firearms from the non-governmental population, this would initially increase the transaction cost for the current forms of good-bad exchange (e.g. robbing someone). Transaction costs of crime would increase as lesser efficient tools would be used (like "knives and stabbing weapons"). However, there still remains a profit in such exchanges, and people innovate to reduce costs (such as transaction costs), so to some degree, the less efficient non-firearms could become more efficient by changes in method. For example, instead of holding out one's knife and demanding whatever, one can approach from a different angle--or rely on more than one criminal, or stab the victim anyway since unlike like a gunshot wound, the victim will most likely live. People will innovate, thereby lowering transaction costs.

So, what will the new 'price' for all crimes be? I don't know. I'm just pointing out what can change the price and transaction cost. It becomes an empirical matter in order to reveal the magnitude of "policy: decreased firearms" ----> "decreased crime" (while controlling for changes in # of per-capita police, per-capita private security, policing methods, changes in rules which gear people more toward legitimate labor as oppose to illegitimate labor, blah blah blah). That's a literature review which I don't find interesting enough to write for you fellas.

Except, while substitution might sound reasonable in an esoteric sense, when it comes to how these crimes happen, why and who does them, then the substitution impact you speak of is not all that valid. I hesitate to give too much data, because this IS a situation where specifics are used to profile/identify specific kinds of criminal behavior, criminals. Still, I don't think we need oodles of data or psych studies to know that someone who will take out a knife and stab someone in a fight is not going to be the same as someone who might plant a bomb.. etc.

Or, once again, not everything fits into simple market economics.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry, player, but in the real world, people seek substitutes; otherwise, a total ban on all firearms would eliminate any crime in which a criminal would require a tool.

The remaining issues ITT deal with the magnitude of that substitution effect (among many other variables which I've glossed over).

[Phatscotty]

[Lootifer]

Sorry, player, but in the real world, people seek substitutes; otherwise, a total ban on all firearms would eliminate any crime in which a criminal would require a tool.

The remaining issues ITT deal with the magnitude of that substitution effect (among many other variables which I've glossed over).

Tangentially, there are no substitutes that have such high quality as firearms (I am measuring quality in terms of ability to wound, maim, or kill). I mean that, while you cannot possibly gauge the impact of prohibition on crime (since its only distantly related and likely not in the way either side assume), its hard to argue that by removing guns you wont have an impact on the fatality rate of aggressive or violent confrontations (im not taking any view on number of confrontations nor that aggressive or violent confrontations resulting in fatalities are necessarily a bad thing - e.g. self defense).

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry, player, but in the real world, people seek substitutes; otherwise, a total ban on all firearms would eliminate any crime in which a criminal would require a tool.

The remaining issues ITT deal with the magnitude of that substitution effect (among many other variables which I've glossed over).

Tangentially, there are no substitutes that have such high quality as firearms (I am measuring quality in terms of ability to wound, maim, or kill). I mean that, while you cannot possibly gauge the impact of prohibition on crime (since its only distantly related and likely not in the way either side assume), its hard to argue that by removing guns you wont have an impact on the fatality rate of aggressive or violent confrontations (im not taking any view on number of confrontations nor that aggressive or violent confrontations resulting in fatalities are necessarily a bad thing - e.g. self defense).

Well, nearly every good is a substitute of another good. A substitute for posting in CC would be writing on the computer or going outside. A substitute for driving could be bicycling. These opportunities vary in their benefits and costs, so I agree with the rest of your post.

RE: underlined, I agree, and I don't mean to suggest such a thing; IIRC I conclude that I'm not sure (unlike those who magically do know). There should be some impact, but it depends on the relative prices and the profit derived from the investment into lesser useful (yet cheaper) substitutes (knives, teaming up, makeshift guns, etc.). That's the unknown up to this point in this thread. I'm just pointing to one avenue I'd consider when confronted with the question of prohibition.

Also, from what I've heard, a black market revolver can be obtained for about $20, so price-wise the difference between guns and knives might be very small. And for nearly all robberies, it's not like a working gun is needed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Two scenarios. In scenario (1), let's assume no one has firearms--except maybe the state. And in this scenario, two people approach you. Each has a knife and demands your valuables. In scenario (2), there's no prohibition on 'normal' firearms, and two people approach you with guns and ask for your valuables (and you have no gun; no THORNHEART actions are possible).

Would you give away your valuables in either scenario? If yes, then prohibiting firearms won't reduce crimes which rely on such tools (guns, knives, whatever).


But are you more likely to give away your valuables in scenario (1) or scenario (2)?

If you say, less likely in (1), then prohibiting firearms would reduce crime--but by what magnitude? (I don't know; no one in this thread knows either until we get some studies on that substitution effect). I'd imagine nearly everyone would forfeit their valuables in either scenario, and maybe the younger, faster people would be less likely to do so in (1). If that happens, then criminals again would seek substitutes, so they'd be less likely to target the young and quick and more likely to target the older and slower. If so, then prohibiting firearms won't reduce such crimes.

People innovate, 'markets' for crime are not static, and government isn't the only solution. There's many other factors which have been overlooked; therefore, prohibiting only one tool of the trade should not lead us to conclude that crime must decrease.

Instead, other variables related to crime should be readjusted (e.g. increasing the presence/response time of government and market security; decreasing the profits of black markets by encouraging more competition from legalization; reduce barriers for carrying concealed weapons; etc.).