School Shooting in CT leaves several children dead.

[Duh]

Some of you folks' misconceptions about the ability of a law enacted to control and/or eliminate guns you are basing off perceptions of today's industry. That the means of transport and production and their limits would apply to such a market if it went underground.

Its not about making sth impossible, but about raising the costs and risks (and therefore the final price) of illegal production and distribution to a level that cannot be carried by the demand. Bringing forward an experimental technology and a project that aims to use it in a pioneer manner isnt a strong argument. These things may play a role in the future, but one cannot say if or when it will become relevant. However even if we consider this to be a viable alternative to industrial production, guns still lack an important component to survive a well enforced prohibition - inelastic demand. Drugs are only so succesful, because of the counter measures driving up the price, while simultaneously not losing their consumers. It is rather unlikely that the same situation would arise for guns as there is no biological addiction to them. Furthermore you assume a total prohibition, yet the government could reach a desired reduction of guns simply by taxing them more and/or by making the regulations on them stricter and/or requirements to obtain them tougher. As long as these legal costs are below, equal to or barely above illegal prices, a criminal industry would have little room to flourish.

 

[ealabor]

Bringing forward an experimental technology

Its not longer within the realm of experimental as several working guns have already been printed.

It is rather unlikely that the same situation would arise for guns as there is no biological addiction to them.

Biological addiction required? hardly.

As with the software piracy on the net, the only thing people need is a compulsion for it to exist. People's desire to own firearms wouldn't go away on any level of banning, and they would certainly seek them out even on the means of today's industry abilities, but factor in the capacity to shortly down the road be able to print them out using materials bought off the shelf? forget about it, as then it would be beyond control.

 

[Mage246]

Watching a show illegally online is hardly comparable to buying a firearm to (potentially) shoot someone. I'm sure black market dealers will always exist, but they certainly will never be as omnipresent as data pirates.

 

[wrc]

Mental healthcare isn't a panacea either. Eventually, you're always going to have crazy people that get homocidal. The question is: do you want them to shoot 20 or stab 5? Thelatter is clearly preferable.it's no real consolation if you're one of the 5 that are stabbed, but society ought not make policy decisions based on individual fears.

This pretty much sums up most of the things said about mental illness and similar.

A much better mental health system would not only prevent these mass killings but also allow the mentally ill to lead a somewhat normal and happy life. Restricting gun control so that the crazy ones can't get them is fixing a symptom not the cause of the problem itself. If more time and money was put into helping those who need it in ways other than pumping them with sedation drugs and putting them in an institution.

You're right but note that some third world countries don't have enough money to spend on better mental health system but their strict gun laws at least prevented cases like the last one happened in the US. The EU have exerted strong pressure on the almost all countries in Europe concerning gun-laws, hence the statistics of pretty much ridiculous numbers of homicides with firearms included comparing to the numbers in the US. 

Anyway, I got impression that some folks from the US consider that there are more mentally ill people in their country than in Europe, so the only way to protect themselves is to carry a weapon. Even more ridiculous presumption is that they are going to stop some robbery, ongoing crime or even mass-murder if they come across such a situation, so I'm not sure why the **** do they pay the police force for then, they could spend money on a good shotgun every month instead.
People are the same almost everywhere, they function within the system, if you allow them to eat each other and if some ridiculous Amendment adopted 2 centuries ago allows them to do so, then they'll certainly do that.

 

[Duh]

Bringing forward an experimental technology

Its not longer within the realm of experimental as several working guns have already been printed.

That doesnt clash with it being experimental.

It is rather unlikely that the same situation would arise for guns as there is no biological addiction to them.

Biological addiction required? hardly.

What basis do you have to assume a non addictive good would develop in the same way an addictive good did, when prohibited and/or regulated?

As with the software piracy on the net, the only thing people need is a compulsion for it to exist. People's desire to own firearms wouldn't go away on any level of banning, and they would certainly seek them out even on the means of today's industry abilities, but factor in the capacity to shortly down the road be able to print them out using materials bought off the shelf? forget about it, as then it would be beyond control.

Software piracy is free. If the cost is 0 and the risk is low, then any amount of demand is enough motivation for people to obtain it. Its also about as much of a market as breathing is (exceptions being the cases where you pay for access). This isnt the case for material goods such as guns though, as costs are never 0.

The point is that it doesnt matter whether people would still like a gun. The question is what they are willing to pay for it. Which means that the effectivness of supply-side policy largely depends on elasticity.

Spoiler

Therefore even if your exaggerated down-the-road example came to be true, an elastic demand would still allow prohibition. If people are not willing to pay and risk what illegal obtainment requires, then they wouldnt do it. This is also true for the production side - if they cannot profit enough to cover costs and risks, they would not produce. As mentioned before - such policy is particularely effective, if there are legal alternatives/substitutes, which are not extraordinarly more costly (required work+money+time) than the illegal goods.

Either way  - No regime is total. There is very little, if anything, which we can entirely prevent. The importance (in regards to such a policy) is whether it can reduce the trade, market and industry in a relevant manner.

--------------------------

Its also somewhat amusing that you seem to argue that people who are interested in owning a gun, would be likely to break the law to obtain one.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

That gun was only "printed" in the lower receiver, not the entire gun.



By the way, people who love guns are usually not the type good with computers and would probably end up in a police sting if they looked for 3D gun schematics.

 

[Krik]

But it's not even illegal, the police couldn't really set up a sting for something purely legal. Whether it should be legal or not is an entirely different matter but at the moment it isn't.

 

[Orion]

By the way, people who love guns are usually not the type good with computers and would probably end up in a police sting if they looked for 3D gun schematics.

Care to back this up with relevant statistics, or are you making up correlations?

 

[K-64]

Ooh, someone hit a nerve there methinks

 

[Mage246]

Orion's grandparents are helping him use his computer.

 

[Orion]

Orion's grandparents are helping him use his computer.

Why would you go and ruin it? Now they know.

 

[FrisianDude]

And where would one steal a firearm if they are not available for purchase? 

Ammo was stolen from a university in PA not too long ago. I doubt it would be that hard.

Did that university keep a stockpile of ammo? (if so, why?) or was it an individual's ammo which got stolen? (In which case Kobrag's post here still applies.)

 

[Jhessail]

I know it hurts the feelings of those who support the notion "der bannin' guns gunna fix the porblem", that the idea really won't solve the issue, and that having to face the reality of established history with prohibition and war on drugs being a fine example of such failed doctrine is a nightmare for them.

Except it worked in Japan, it worked in Australia and it worked in UK. But no, USA is a special place!

1. Government organizes a buy-back program.
2. Police offers people chance to anonymously drop off illegal guns.
3. Sale of further guns is banned except through a rigorous permit program for collectors and so on

The difference is that vast majority of humans want to consume mind-altering substances every now and then. The vast majority of humans do not want guns on the same level. Which is why prohibition and war on drugs won't work, but total or nearly total gun ban can work. Again, I've posted working examples in this thread but you just keep pushing your head deeper into your ass.

Also, to people who say that illegal guns would become dominant - well, the illegal guns must come somewhere in the first place. No matter what sick fantasies ealabor has, 3D printing will not start dominating gun manufacture any time soon. American gun companies are already partially responsible for heating up the drug wars in Mexico, seeing how their products end up south of the border constantly. Put those companies out of business or only allow them to sell to governments and another problem eased, if not solved. British criminals have trouble getting ammunition for the few illegal guns they have smuggled over here.

 

[Goker]

Not sure what it is you are still arguing about, but gotta love 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee talking about the shooting.

"Shootings happen and schools become places of carnage because God was taken out of them" is what he claims. Well, ****. Didn't know God was so powerless in places he isn't taught about. If he wasn't powerless, that's worse. Then he's ****ing evil.

Oh yeah, he is against gun control, by the way. http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Huckabee/Gun-Control.php

He's a real idiot;

• Huckabee also explained the rationale behind his stance: "There are 700,000 physicians in the US and the number of accidental deaths caused by them per year is 120,000, making the accidental death rate per physician 17%. Using the same logic, there are about 80 million gun owners, and the number of accidental gun deaths per year among all age groups is 1,500. The same calculation reveals the number of accidental deaths per gun owner to be 0.00188%. In other words, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 more times more dangerous than gun owners. Yet, I hear no one suggesting we ban doctors."

 

[Bluehawk]

He's obviously talking about the morale guidance prayer in school would supposedly provide, not the actual powers of God Himself. What he said is pretty stupid, but don't be obtuse in interpreting his words.

 

[Jhessail]

But Goker's point is still valid - if the religious crowd claims that their god is powerless in places its not invited in, it's not an omnipotent being, is it?

 

[Kobrag]

I think it's rather telling that a culture cares more about being able to indulge in playing around with lethal weaponry than the lives of their children.
And please don't turn this into another religious debate thread. :c

 

[Bluehawk]

But Goker's point is still valid - if the religious crowd claims that their god is powerless in places its not invited in, it's not an omnipotent being, is it?

But that wasn't what he was claiming.

 

[Kobrag]

*sighs*
But it is what can be interpreted.

 

[Goker]

And please don't turn this into another religious debate thread. :c

It's people like Huckabee and Bryan Fischer who make everything about religion, unfortunately. And they do a great job at making their God look like someone with a grudge because he was "kicked" from schools. Fischer says back when they had prayer, Bible and the Ten Commandments, they did not need guns.

But that wasn't what he was claiming.

I was mocking the other people who made similar claims, like Fischer, but forgot to put it on that post.