guns vs conspiracy - General

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48516303]People coming in with the European argument seem to not realize banned firearms would only open up a massive market for smuggling them in from Mexico. The notion that criminals would still be able to get guns even if there was a full-blown blanket ban and confiscation is a very likely foresight.[/QUOTE] One can presumably start with international arms treaties, which is as good a step to take as any. [url]http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/[/url] I mean this shit is hard considering all that's going on in the world, but it's a good idea to start somewhere.

How is an arms trade treaty going to stop people from hiding weapons in secret compartments in their car and getting them over the border? We can't stop them bringing drugs, people, or just about anything. We're supposed to add guns to that list? I'm not too keen on personal attacks, but I just don't understand how someone can be so delusional to think laws, treaties, whatever, would do anything to stop people from doing what they want to do. Putting a gun free zone sign on a theater doesn't stop someone from shooting it up. Signing an arms trade treaty won't stop people from smuggling weapons in. Background checks and all that shit don't stop felons from buying via proxy. I see a lot of people saying guns are bad mkay, but nobody in this thread thus far has suggested a realistic and effective means of removing said guns and the problems they potentially cause.

Maverick, I'm pretty sure they dont smuggle guns into the USA from Mexico. I'd be suprised to learn about that, but my knowledge was the guns went into Mexico from the US, were traded for drugs, and fuel the drug war.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48516426]I'm not too keen on personal attacks, but I just don't understand how someone can be so delusional to think laws, treaties, whatever, would do anything to stop people from doing what they want to do.[/quote] Then why bother with laws at all for anything? [quote]I see a lot of people saying guns are bad mkay, but nobody in this thread thus far has suggested a realistic and effective means of removing said guns and the problems they potentially cause.[/QUOTE] The arms treaty I quoted is being enacted by most of the countries in the world, presumably they aren't doing it just for laughs.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48516442]Maverick, I'm pretty sure they dont smuggle guns into the USA from Mexico. I'd be suprised to learn about that, but my knowledge was the guns went into Mexico from the US, were traded for drugs, and fuel the drug war.[/QUOTE] They go both ways. The dude who brought the SKSes over would pick them up for 50 bucks a pop over there and then sell them for 200 over here to turn a profit. I have a hard time imagining he's the only one doing it, and surely wouldn't be the only one doing it if they were banned here as the profit margins would grow tenfold. [editline]22nd August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48516452]Then why bother with laws at all for anything?[/QUOTE] Because most laws can be ENFORCED. We would have to completely revamp the border situation in order to enforce a treaty like that. Billions of dollars, maybe trillions. Our border with Mexico is fucking gigantic. We'd have to be pulling people out of their cars and X-raying every vehicle as dogs cannot sniff guns. The logistics and manpower required would be absurd. Going back to a previous point I made, you're suggesting doing all of this, passing all of this legislation and spending all of this money trying to enforce it just for a CHANCE at improving the situation. As your own sources have proven, there is no direct correlation between firearms and crime. So there is far from any guarantee the removal of firearms would lower crime rates or anything like that, it's all speculation. Does it honestly seem logical to you to go through all of that work spending all of that money based on a blind hope it improves things? What happens when all of that shit is implemented and nothing changes? Just, "Oh well, we tried," and on with your day because hey, it's not your country so who cares if a fuckton of taxpayer dollars were wasted on an idea that was nothing but a stab in the dark.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48516466]Because most laws can be ENFORCED.[/QUOTE] Presumably the ATT was made with the intention of being enforced, because a lot of countries signed it. [quote]"The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place [b]enforceable[/b], standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria."[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#Content[/url] This is an enforceable treaty, don't pretend that it isn't.

Whether or not its enforcible is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with civilian gun ownership. [QUOTE]According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, the treaty will not do any of the following: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in Member States; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm States' legitimate right to self-defence; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place. [/QUOTE][url]http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44539&Cr=arms+trade&Cr1#.VdiFPmb3bCS[/url] [editline]22nd August 2015[/editline] Which should be fairly obvious, since it deals primarily with things like tanks and missiles that don't have much of a civilian market

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48516466]They go both ways. The dude who brought the SKSes over would pick them up for 50 bucks a pop over there and then sell them for 200 over here to turn a profit. I have a hard time imagining he's the only one doing it, and surely wouldn't be the only one doing it if they were banned here as the profit margins would grow tenfold. [editline]22nd August 2015[/editline] Because most laws can be ENFORCED. We would have to completely revamp the border situation in order to enforce a treaty like that. Billions of dollars, maybe trillions. Our border with Mexico is fucking gigantic. We'd have to be pulling people out of their cars and X-raying every vehicle as dogs cannot sniff guns. The logistics and manpower required would be absurd. Going back to a previous point I made, you're suggesting doing all of this, passing all of this legislation and spending all of this money trying to enforce it just for a CHANCE at improving the situation. As your own sources have proven, there is no direct correlation between firearms and crime. So there is far from any guarantee the removal of firearms would lower crime rates or anything like that, it's all speculation. Does it honestly seem logical to you to go through all of that work spending all of that money based on a blind hope it improves things? What happens when all of that shit is implemented and nothing changes? Just, "Oh well, we tried," and on with your day because hey, it's not your country so who cares if a fuckton of taxpayer dollars were wasted on an idea that was nothing but a stab in the dark.[/QUOTE] There's so much against trying to enable a ban on guns in the U.S. it should always be out of the question. It's like trying to ban every grain of sand on a beach, it's gonna cost a fuckton of money, take a long time, and it's just gonna wash right back in anyway (Mexico).

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;48516526]Whether or not its enforcible is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with civilian gun ownership. [url]http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44539&Cr=arms+trade&Cr1#.VdiFPmb3bCS[/url][/QUOTE] It covers international trade in firearms, something that does affect the issue at hand because it will be controlling or monitoring where weapons are going over international borders. Indirectly it's going to have an impact on the topic being covered here. Again, I said it's a start, and if the proliferation of arms in Mexico or the porous border or lack of order are the problems, these can each be tackled. [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48516535]There's so much against trying to enable a ban on guns in the U.S. it should always be out of the question. It's like trying to ban every grain of sand on a beach, it's gonna cost a fuckton of money, take a long time, and it's just gonna wash right back in anyway (Mexico).[/QUOTE] Nobody here is talking about banning guns.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48516466]They go both ways. The dude who brought the SKSes over would pick them up for 50 bucks a pop over there and then sell them for 200 over here to turn a profit. I have a hard time imagining he's the only one doing it, and surely wouldn't be the only one doing it if they were banned here as the profit margins would grow tenfold.[/QUOTE] We (well not you and I specifically) have been over this in previous gun-control threads. The number of guns coming back from Mexico is negligible in comparison to those that go over to Mexico. Guns go over, drugs come back. Not guns go over guns come back. For example "80% of guns found in crime scenes in Mexico and Canada are illegally imported from the US" ([url]http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-traffickingprivate-sales-statistics/[/url]) (they cite their sources, don't worry). When you have some of the biggest arms manufacturing industries in the world holed up in your country and fairly unrestricted civilian ownership, why the hell would it be easier to import guns illegally when you can just vanish them from production lines or steal/ privately buy a gun? Gun controls can work quite well without stopping you from owning guns totally. It is entirely possible to actually own a number of different guns over here, mainly for pest control and sports purposes. Owning them requires a bit of effort sure, but it largely ensures that only the people who need them or have been vetted enough to be deemed actually safe can own them.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;48516684]We (well not you and I specifically) have been over this in previous gun-control threads. The number of guns coming back from Mexico is negligible in comparison to those that go over to Mexico. Guns go over, drugs come back. Not guns go over guns come back. For example "80% of guns found in crime scenes in Mexico and Canada are illegally imported from the US" ([URL]http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-traffickingprivate-sales-statistics/[/URL]) (they cite their sources, don't worry). When you have some of the biggest arms manufacturing industries in the world holed up in your country and fairly unrestricted civilian ownership, why the hell would it be easier to import guns illegally when you can just vanish them from production lines or steal/ privately buy a gun? Gun controls can work quite well without stopping you from owning guns totally. It is entirely possible to actually own a number of different guns over here, mainly for pest control and sports purposes. Owning them requires a bit of effort sure, but it largely ensures that only the people who need them or have been vetted enough to be deemed actually safe can own them.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I never said we don't supply Mexico with guns, I never said it isn't a negligible amount that is come over here. What I said was guns do come over here (albeit in small numbers) which is a proof of concept that they can easily be smuggled past the border. Which means if guns were banned, the numbers being smuggled over would go from negligible to vast because of the profit margins in it. Gun controls stop poor people from owning guns. "Only people who need them or have been vetted enough to deemed actually safe." AKA: People with money. Only people with money can go through the licensing processes. Concealed carry permits are already hundreds of dollars, I sure as fuck couldn't afford one. Who would decide who needs one? Is, "I need to protect myself," not a valid reason for needing a gun? Would we have to take time out of our day to go get interviewed or drop paperwork off at the police station fill out permits get fingerprinted wait 6 months for it to be processed only to be told "home defense," is not a valid reason for wanting an AR-15? I worked 14 hour days 6 days a week just to keep my head above water and I'm single. When is someone like that with a family supposed to get all of that shit done? The impoverished tend to be the ones who need guns for defense because impoverished areas have higher crime rates. Gun control/regulation takes guns away from the ones who ACTUALLY need them and lets those who just want to go shoot shit on the weekends keep them.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48516303]That reminds me of the night I spooned with my AK because I heard some guys right outside my apartment window having a conversation about how they just felt like shooting someone that night. Anyone. How they'd probably shoot the first motherfucker they saw. This was right outside my bedroom window (the laundry room right outside it was a common social place). They could have easily just turned their heads to the left and gone, "Let's make it him." They actually did go shoot up a house that night, just somewhere in a different part of town. The main problem with gun control is money can always make an exception. With enough money, you can pay for all of the tax stamps and licenses and whatever, own whatever gun you want. Gun control does not affect people with money. It does, however, affect the poor, that's who it disarms. Gun control doesn't take the AR-15 away from the Billy Badass with a ranch who makes shitloads of money and can afford a minigun, it takes the 100 dollar Jennings .22 from the mother of 4 living in Detroit. It takes the AK away from the guy who lives right next to a Motel 6 in town known for spawning most of the convenience store robbers and violent crime offenders. Hell, guns are distributed freely in Texas, yet I still saw a lot of them being brought over from Mexico. In high school, a guy would pull up in the parking lot after school and sell SKS rifles for 200 bucks a pop that he picked up in Mexico. People coming in with the European argument seem to not realize banned firearms would only open up a massive market for smuggling them in from Mexico. The notion that criminals would still be able to get guns even if there was a full-blown blanket ban and confiscation is a very likely foresight.[/QUOTE] I'm curious, what happened to those dudes that randomly shot up a place? Did they hurt anyone?

I think they hit someone in the house they shot at, but it wasn't fatal. Not sure what evidence led to them getting caught, but I remember the police showing up to the complex en masse one night to apprehend them, complete with their girlfriends or whatever screaming their heads off at the cops.