NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,303
That's the best you could come up with? Seriously?Yeah drugs and guns take up the same space and weight.
You used the right emoji, anyway.
That's the best you could come up with? Seriously?Yeah drugs and guns take up the same space and weight.
Jig, you're pretty smart, I agree with you on a lot of things, particularly when it comes to criminal justice. You have to know that drugs come across our borders by the ton. A boat dropping off cash or drugs could just as easily be stacked with weapons if we created a more rewarding market for them.Yeah drugs and guns take up the same space and weight.
It depends greatly on the demographic. Guys over 35 (except sex offenders who need to be shot anyway) are far less likely to re-offend. People statistically age out of crime. The social aspect of the criminal lifestyle isn't there for them any more and they aren't drawn to it like they were when they were young.What are the stats now on released prisoners becoming repeat offenders and returning? It used to be pretty high.
http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/29/percent-of-released-prisoners-returning-to-incarceration/It depends greatly on the demographic. Guys over 35 (except sex offenders who need to be shot anyway) are far less likely to re-offend. People statistically age out of crime. The social aspect of the criminal lifestyle isn't there for them any more and they aren't drawn to it like they were when they were young.
Any restrictions on the federal level certainly are.Don't come in here with that dribble all aspects of the constitution are subject to interpretation there is nothing that he stated that is not already on the books, please show me what you believe he said was unconstitutional or are you saying any restrictions are so?
Never said it would stop guns from getting in I said they would not be as readily available as they are now and access would not be as easy as it is now.Jig, you're pretty smart, I agree with you on a lot of things, particularly when it comes to criminal justice. You have to know that drugs come across our borders by the ton. A boat dropping off cash or drugs could just as easily be stacked with weapons if we created a more rewarding market for them.
Let's not even talk about the horrid stuff like human trafficking, which you have to admit is probably way more difficult than shipping inanimate guns that you can disassemble, and don't need food, water or air. Plus in the advent of 3d printing, criminals may not even need to import.
One thing you might consider re: the effect of banning guns, what type of guns end up out there if they are being smuggled in from Mexico. If you're facing time for getting caught with a gun, might as well go out and get automatic weapons. About the cheapest and easiest guns to make are submachine guns. Ak47s aren't far behind that. Beyond that you're looking at people resorting to car bombs. A gun ban could result in escalation rather than elimination of the problem.Never said it would stop guns from getting in I said they would not be as readily available as they are now and access would not be as easy as it is now.
What about that is untrue?
Let's not get off target on what I was originally responding to, Iamtdg said banning guns would have no effect on criminals getting there hands on them which is why I said what I said.
I am not for banning guns but by any logical thought process you have to realize how much easier it is now to get guns.
This drug analogy really has no bearing you can get a large quantity of drugs and make a lot more money than with the same space and wieght you would use to smuggle guns, why smuggle a gun when that space can be used for a coupleof more kilos of coke, smack or weed which is probably more valuable.
Can we agree on that?
This topic has gone down the rabbit hole.One thing you might consider re: the effect of banning guns, what type of guns end up out there if they are being smuggled in from Mexico. If you're facing time for getting caught with a gun, might as well go out and get automatic weapons. About the cheapest and easiest guns to make are submachine guns. Ak47s aren't far behind that. Beyond that you're looking at people resorting to car bombs. A gun ban could result in escalation rather than elimination of the problem.
The feds and the courts like to use shaky or patently false definitions of words to increase the power of government outside of its right boundaries though. This has been going on since pretty much the dawn of the Republic. For instance, the garbage they allow under the guise of 'interstate commerce' is appalling and infuriating.Memory serves me that the constitution is only about 16 and one half pages so with all the constitutional law that has been written it would seem that the majority is likely interpretation.
I would say it depends on availability. If you have coke you may choose to import coke, but you have coke and guns, you'll likely manage to smuggle both across. It's not like the ease of drug trafficking has prevented the much more complicated human trafficking.Never said it would stop guns from getting in I said they would not be as readily available as they are now and access would not be as easy as it is now.
What about that is untrue?
Let's not get off target on what I was originally responding to, Iamtdg said banning guns would have no effect on criminals getting there hands on them which is why I said what I said.
I am not for banning guns but by any logical thought process you have to realize how much easier it is now to get guns.
This drug analogy really has no bearing you can get a large quantity of drugs and make a lot more money than with the same space and wieght you would use to smuggle guns, why smuggle a gun when that space can be used for a coupleof more kilos of coke, smack or weed which is probably more valuable.
Can we agree on that?
Are you really trying to argue that guns will be as readily available as they are now if there was a ban?I would say it depends on availability. If you have coke you may choose to import coke, but you have coke and guns, you'll likely manage to smuggle both across. It's not like the ease of drug trafficking has prevented the much more complicated human trafficking.
If there's a market for it, some cartel will gladly throw their resources at it. So now gun manufacturing will be a part of their large profit margins.
As available? No. As available to criminals, yes. Provided they're willing to pay for them..Are you really trying to argue that guns will be as readily available as they are now if there was a ban?
Because that's the only point I have been discussing, you keep framing your argument as if I am saying there would be no market or demand when I have never disputed that, my entire point was access to guns in the market place.
Anyway I m done on this topic it has run it's course.
The only real difference I guess would be that if an officer stumbles upon a weapon they can arrest the person immediately before they potentially commit a crime. Which sounds great but the trade off is that no law abiding citizen would be allowed to have a fire arm. I'd say the the costs in such a situation would far exceed the benefit.As available? No. As available to criminals, yes. Provided they're willing to pay for them..
How hard is it for a convict to illegally obtain a weapon right now?
It's not hard because they are more readily available to the general public meaning legal guns can be easily bought and then sold illegally.As available? No. As available to criminals, yes. Provided they're willing to pay for them..
How hard is it for a convict to illegally obtain a weapon right now?
like I said they would have to pay for it. But don't think a ban takes guns off the streets. We are far too saturated with weapons in this country even if we forced every legally owned weapon to be melted down, there'd still be millions swirling around in the black market. How many convicts own a gun right now? How many gun runners have stockpiles? If all you wanna do is eliminate law abiding citizens and low low level criminals from owning guns you can do that, but it'd only mean gangs and cartels are that much more powerful.It's not hard because they are more readily available to the general public meaning legal guns can be easily bought and then sold illegally.
And guns would be much more expensive which using basic economics would also make them harder to get right?
Really Towns you are just fuckin me now right?
So you just ignored evrything i said about guns still being available but not as easily with a ban or that I have never advocated banning guns.like I said they would have to pay for it. But don't think a ban takes guns off the streets. We are far too saturated with weapons in this country even if we forced every legally owned weapon to be melted down, there'd still be millions swirling around in the black market. How many convicts own a gun right now? How many gun runners have stockpiles? If all you wanna do is eliminate law abiding citizens and low low level criminals from owning guns you can do that, but it'd only mean gangs and cartels are that much more powerful.
You're effectively saying that a monopoly given to violent criminals will somehow eliminate violent crime.
I agree with that point, but it would not make them significantly more difficult to acquire. So what's the point?Let me try again, a gun ban would make guns harder and more expensive to get nothing more or less and I have never advocated having a ban it was a simple supply argument.
Let's just agree to disagree.I agree with that point, but it would not make them significantly more difficult to acquire. So what's the point?