These myspace pics got this guy arrested!

[Boozy]

I'd qualify that by saying that it would be more likely to be used in a serious crime. Smoking pot (and its possession etc) is against the law, but it's generally a low risk problem.

I agree, and I should have put the last sentence of my last post in a separate paragraph to make myself clear. What I meant was just that the costs of enforcing handgun laws are less than the costs of handgun crime, and the self-defense benefits of owning a handgun are less than the risks of restricting their sale to begin with.

[Rapscallion]

What are the costs of handgun crime? I'm curious. People do put monetary value on human life, and while I'd be quite happy to see certain people disappear, there are a number of decent people out there. Can that sort of cost be ever justified?

*ponder*

Rapscallion

[Evandril]

The problem is, in the areas of the US I've visited...It's literally easier to get a gun illegally than legally....Just more expensive/dangerous. *shrugs* I do agree that the areas that are gun-free are fine the way they are, I just don't feel trying to restrict gun ownership more will help. Raise the price of ammo, restrict it more, and wait for the idiots to run low...It won't *STOP* people shooting each other...but I do feel it would cut down on people shooting quite so carelessly.

[Boozy]

What are the costs of handgun crime? I'm curious. People do put monetary value on human life, and while I'd be quite happy to see certain people disappear, there are a number of decent people out there. Can that sort of cost be ever justified?

I'm not really referring to financial cost here, I'm referring to the human cost. You don't need to valuate a human life to do the math. If unrestricted handgun use saved more lives than it destroyed, then that would be an argument against gun control. If restrictions saved more lives than it destroyed, then that would be an argument for gun control.

However, we do put value on on lives all the time, whenever we evaluate risk. Cars kill tens of thousands of people every year, but most people still travel by car whenever they have the option. There's a risk of death, but it's less important to us than the time we save by driving instead of walking.

[Rapscallion]

If unrestricted handgun use saved more lives than it destroyed, then that would be an argument against gun control. If restrictions saved more lives than it destroyed, then that would be an argument for gun control.

Bugger of an experiment to try out, eh?

Rapscallion

[Sylvia727]

The guy in the OP sounds low on common sense. Posting pictures on the internet is like hanging fliers on the neighborhood telephone poles, and you've no right to complain when you get busted for doing something illegal.

The problem is, in the areas of the US I've visited...It's literally easier to get a gun illegally than legally....Just more expensive/dangerous.

Yup. I'm all for not selling guns to crazies and criminals, but when the cost of gun control on John Q. Citizen gets too high, he'll go to an illegal source, and have less respect for the other laws of the country. Same thing happened with Prohibition (of alcohol, in the 1920s, for the non-Americans). People drank nearly as much as they had before, and were more likely to break other laws, since they were already in for a penny. Old guns are the middle class's version of gun dealers; they were grandfathered in under the gun registration act, and while it's illegal to transfer ownership without filing documention, it's also very hard to prove that you didn't have it in your attic all these years. Well, it's getting easier to prove as the original owners grow old and die, but it's still nearly impossible to trace.

The roots of gun culture in America are twofold: one, guns are a useful and often used tool, for legal and practical purposes. Yes, I know some people who keep a pistol under the nightstand in case of a robbery or who carry concealed in case of a car jacking, but I know far more who keep guns for hunting. I know one redneck family where the father literally stepped out the back door and shot a squirrel for the evening's stew.

Two, we don't trust our government. Part of this is ingrained in the American psyche, from the time of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, when our governments were brutalizing our citizens both metaphorically and literally. It also partially stems from the modern turmoil. The perception is that there are Rightwing/Leftwing Extremists in our government, and crazies outside of it, just waiting for the proper moment to take over. There is corruption and dissention around every corner. At any moment civil war could erupt, and who will protect your family then? Another part of the mistrust is the belief that any government that feels the need to disarm its citizens is a government that needs them helpless for some nefarious reason. It's not about exercising your rights just to exercise your rights; it's about exercising your rights because The Man doesn't want you to.

[Boozy]

Yup. I'm all for not selling guns to crazies and criminals, but when the cost of gun control on John Q. Citizen gets too high, he'll go to an illegal source, and have less respect for the other laws of the country.

I tend to agree, which is why gun control works well in countries like Canada and the UK, but may not in countries like the US. Americans love love love guns. Canadians and Brits don't, and furthermore, just don't get it.

The cultural difference is partially why the thread here about gun control in the UK was such an exercise in futility, in my opinion. Neither side would ever convince the other. Ever.

[Evandril]

I tend to agree, which is why gun control works well in countries like Canada and the UK, but may not in countries like the US. Americans love love love guns. Canadians and Brits don't, and furthermore, just don't get it.

The cultural difference is partially why the thread here about gun control in the UK was such an exercise in futility, in my opinion. Neither side would ever convince the other. Ever.

That's why I'm arguing different sides in the different threads...I've actually *travelled*, so I know what works in one place won't in another.

Going with the prohabition point, back when I was growing up, it was legal to drink beer when you were 18, but anything more than that was 21+ Most people would stick to beer for that time, and had gotten used to drinking by the time they were old enough to drink what they wanted. Now the age is 21 across the board...and the kids are drinking hard alcohol right from the start, since they are already breaking the law...