By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Khan said:
thranx said:
Mr Khan said:
 

I've said before, these city-by-city bans won't work because of the loose laws within driving distance. It's easy to buy a gun legally elsewhere and simply drag it back into town. A nationwide ban would make it different.

Like the nationwide ban on drugs? Or would it be the same as now, criminals would buy their guns from the same people they buy their drugs. If you can't stop drugs from coming in what makes you think you can stop guns?

The key difference is that guns aren't addictive (though the way people in America act, you wouldn't think so), and if guns had the kind of markup drugs did, they would be much harder to buy in any event.

Nor is it a valid argument to say that "just because the criminals have them, we should get them." It's as egregious as the argument for nuclear deterrence, and more dangerous (because individuals are less stable than governments)

its a valid argument if you want to protect yourself from said criminals. The police can not be at your house to prevent a shooting, they are their after the fact.

Being addictive has nothing to do it. Any number of banned things are smuggled into the US addictive or not. If its banned there is a black market for it that no one controls but the criminals. Better to have them legal and have some control over it, than ban things and let the gangs have control of it. It didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working for drugs and it won't work for guns. Black markets just give criminals another avenue of income.

 

Why should guns be banned?