On 7/9/2010 2:14 PM, Sam wrote: > Missed that, and it wasn't your original. I was paying more attention > to this: "Less guns bought to be stolen does lead to less guns to buy > illegally."
Different point for a different part of the conversation. Basic supply and demand says that if there are less guns sold, there are less guns that can be acquired illegally and they will cost more pricing them out of range of lower criminals. Whether or not that is worth pursuing as a policy and if it is constitutional in the USA is a completely different argument. But one is not supporting ones side well if one argues from the assumption that removing guns overall will have *no* effect on illegal guns. > So you've changed that from less sales to less victims of gun theft? Not changed, added a second point. I'm capable of discussing multiple factors of a debate. Another way to make less guns end up on the illegal market thus lowering their supply is to make policy to encourage legal owners to not to allow theirs ending up there. Such as, just a wild and probably unpoliceable idea that may or may not already be policy, that if ones gun(s) are stolen, one suffers stiffer penalties if the gun was lying unsecured in a bedside night table or under the pillow rather then being properly secured. But that would just be one idea for one possible vector of legal guns becoming illegal. The main point of my arguments is that there is a lot of legitimate room for reasonable discussion between moderates, if the extremist rhetoric from both ends of the spectrum can be cut out. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:322809 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
