Imagine a world without guns, part 2...

[seamusTX]

In Dublin, Ireland, March 27 three young young men were relaxing in a public park, drinking vodka at 11:15 a.m. local time, when two assailants shot them assassination-style. The victims are in hospital in critical or serious condition. The assailants fled and have not been identified.

The incident possibly was related to internal politics of some revolutionary group.

Handguns and semiautomatic weapons of any kind are completely banned in Ireland, an island nation—the Bradys' dream world.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre ... king4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, "gun violence" is frequent in Ireland and the U.K. I post only the egregious incidents.

- Jim

[chasfm11]

I think that many in the 2A community miss an opportunity when dialogues are started with Brady activists and situations like this one are not mentioned. The request "Please explain".....your Ireland story might put them on the hot seat for a change. They are always good about attacking over incidents like the Arizona shooting. Why not turn the tables?

I'll be the first to admit that most with whom I've personally had such discussions are devoid of logic. They invent their own cause and effect relationships and require no evidence to support the connections they make. If they can imagine it, the situation is real and even rampant and must be dealt with immediately. It is enough to make me want to hit my head with a hammer because it feels better than trying to reason through Brady style arguments.

[seamusTX]

"Gun control" has no logical basis supported by factual observations.

Nothing can be banned and totally eliminated in a country that is anything short of a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea. Even then the police can be corrupted and allow smuggling or other illegal conduct.

You also can't persuade a person who believes such an illogical mass of garbage. I don't bother to try.

P.S.: If you want to "gig 'em," suggest that the best way to reduce crime is to amend the Constitution (which everyone admires except when they don't) and revoke the pesky 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments. Then the police could stop anyone at any time for any or no reason, search them, and arrest them without probable cause. Bail could be set such that only billionaires could afford it. The death penalty could be applied to crimes like rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and felony theft, the way it was in the good old days.

This system worked well in the Soviet Union. They had very little crime aside from domestic assault, ordinary fights, and prostitution.

- Jim

[BobCat]

Am I the only one who thinks that banning things is a simple way to raise their price, and that those who propose banning things are seeking to cash in on the consequences? Did we learn nothing from Prohibition or from the current "war on drugs"?

This is not to say that the WCTU was run by bootleggers, only that the bootleggers saw a good thing, supported it, and cashed in on it.

[seamusTX]

Probably the core of any fanatical movement is composed of sincere people, however misguided.

As you say, though, opportunists take advantage of the movement. There is no better example than the civil forfeiture, which enriches local police agencies that make drug-related arrests, whether or not the arrests result in conviction.

It would be boring simply to arrest stoners and junkies for public intoxication.

I don't think anyone is making a bunch of money from the "gun control" movement, other than a few at the top who are on the receiving end of contributions. Probably a few thousand people in federal and state government perform background checks and so forth.

- Jim

[BobCat]

Not at this point, since there is no real "gun control" except in places like New York and Chicago - wonder what a 9 mm pistol goes for there?

But if they are able to advance their agenda, prices will rise as availability decreases. For instance, some even today people like to buy privately thinking that "no paper" means that the government will not know they own a particular gun, so it will not be as likely confiscated if-and-when. This is silly for a number of reasons but some people are willing to pay a substantial premium for "no paper" - and this is while no strong prohibitions are in effect.

Remember what the prices of AR-15s did when the AWB passed? "Post-ban" guns were produced, but "pre-ban" guns sold for almost twice as much as identical rifles without flash hiders and bayonet lugs.

You do make an interesting point... who is making money on gun control? I wonder what it actually does cost to buy a pistol in Chicago...

[seamusTX]

I can't tell you the "street price" of a handgun in Chicago.

I have heard that it is substantially more than the legal retail price. Likewise for ammo, which is a "controlled substance" in places like Chicago.

The way this gunrunning traffic works, as I understand it, straw buyers purchase weapons in states like Indiana where there are fewer legal restrictions and then sell them to smugglers, who in turn sell them to gangs.

Obviously this results in markups at each stage, just as with illegal drugs.

Locally stolen firearms go with the market price that is set by smuggled weapons.

The Brady fantasy that criminals buy weapons that are "stylish" or have aggressive-sounding names is just nonsense. Most of the weapons that the police confiscate from criminals are junk, with the occasional high-value stolen weapon.

- Jim