Quote:
Originally posted by VulcanRider:
quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
As much as logic dictates that criminals will be more bold when the general population is restricted from purchasing certain arms, logic also dictates that over time criminals will have harder time finding the restricted weapons to use. Crime might not neccessaryly lessen, but crime involving the restricted weapons probably will as the supply of the weapons dries up.
|
My law of supply & demand trumps your probability 
. Unless you can remove them from everywhere on the planet, AND remove the knowledge to make more, there will always be a supply of guns. The question is, do you feel more comfortable with just the criminals armed, or with criminals and honest citizens armed? We've gotten the answer straight from the horse's mouth. Interviews with people in jail all support the conclusion that when the criminal has to worry about the victim shooting back, he's less likely to commit the crime in the first place. [/QUOTE]Well, the assumption I see here is that in a nation like the U.K. the criminal underground will manufacture or smuggle enough fire arms to sustain a blackmarket for petty crooks and robbers for the decades to come. I have a different take .
Supply will inevitably shrink if smuggled arms are the only significant new source and confiscation rates outpace import rates. This will cause the price of fire-arms to rise well above the means of your average house robber or mugger. Thus demand will shrink as the majority of the base criminal-minded are left with the body limbs and broken bottle to terrorize the townsfolk with.
Will it get rid of all guns? No. But gun crime will inevitably decrease over time as firearms become harder to find and more expensive -not to mention quite risky to smuggle.
Would this ever work in America? Not even. We have a proud history of shooting things, including people. We do have a right to bear arms with a responsible reason. Regardless, the right to bear arms is not a directive to bear arms.
I also think that it is a price we pay for having cheap, easily available guns is that criminals also have access to cheap ,easily available guns. Supply and demand works opposite in this scenario. Guns are cheaper when supply and demand are plentiful, except in places like NY and Chicago where bans have artificially raised the street price of firearms.
Anyway, I'm against blanket bans of guns( but not against common-sense regulation) here in America, but I won't deny the logic of sufficiently enforced bans and the predictable results over a long-term.
2nd-edit for spelling.
[ 05-29-2005, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]