My point is we have all this law on the books to punish felons in possession, and what has happened because of the law?
Nothing much, so far as I can tell. In CA (and elsewhere), the felons carry concealed without permits (illegal), shouldn't have a weapon anyway, discharge weapons within city limits (illegal)...usually in the conduct of an illegal act.
Criminals usually won't give you a **** in a tin potty for written law. They don't care. People like Obama think that law and talk is really something because they have never done anything else. They are wrong.
None of the written law does anything to prevent this from happening unless a criminal decides for whatever reason to quit being a criminal.
An AWB is not going to have any affect on the cartels, and that should be the point to make in any discussions with anti's...not how many guns go south, IMHO.
I'll admit right up front that this is nitpicking, but it's just something that bothers me.
Yes, these laws
do have an effect. We can argue
how much of an effect, but it's non-zero. I have little doubt that if we instituted a nationwide handgun ban tomorrow that handguns would still be available illegally. But, with one major point of supply eliminated (theft from the law abiding) and absent any decrease in demand, the price would go up. Thus less would be able or willing to buy one. EDIT: And with a decrease in demand, thus steady prices, the number of guns on the street would decrease as well.
Laws on the books to bust felons in possession
do have an effect. Because now, instead of having to catch them during or after a robbery committed with a firearm, you can prosecute them
just for having the firearm. Which means if you find the gun during a random stop prior to the crime, arrest them, try them, and convict them then
you have prevented that crime.
Again, it may not be a dramatic effect, but it's non-zero.
Same goes for a theoretical AWB in an attempt to restrict guns to cartels. Take the weapons off the shelves in the U.S., and out of citizens' houses, and you are effectively drying up one supply of weapons to Mexico (whether through straw purchases or theft). Yes, there are other supply routes; however it's pretty obvious that this route is utilized because it is either cheaper or safer (or both) than the alternatives. Force them to utilize alternate supply lines, and obviously you've either increased their costs or increased their risk of interdiction.
Again, the effect may be marginal...but it's non-zero.
The problem with "arguing" with an anti-gun activist is that none of this will matter. See, they put a zero value (or negative value) on firearm ownership (or possibly just some forms of ownership, like "assault weapons")...so telling them that this will have near-zero or even
zero impact south of the border isn't going to sway them one bit. You're talking about people who would be fine with the restrictions
in and of themselves.
EDIT: And the second you claim it will have
no effect you lose any credibility with any rational fence-sitters; because they're going to realize that basic economics suggests it will have
some effect, and thus you are pretty obviously wrong.
