Part II

I decided it was better to divide the last post into two parts since this is really unrelated to the point I was making in my previous post. This is just me engaging in mental masturbation.

One finds that 2,000 guns cross the US-Mexico border to drug gangs.

For example, one cannot make a blanket statement that gun control does not work in reducing that number. This is especially true if we see that "one gun a month" has changed the internal dynamic of illegal guns within the US. Likewise, the only firearms registration program that has existed in the US has been the NFA: how many NFA weapons are found at crime scenes? If a firearms regulation has an effect internally, why not with guns smuggled externally?

We also know internally within the US that guns move from regions of weak regulation to those of stronger regulation. Likewise, the amount of gunrunning from Nations with strong firearms regulation is next to nil (e.g., how many crime guns come from Britain?).

The answer to Mexican Crime guns might indeed be stronger regulation of US firearms, but how likely is that to happen? the problem is that one cannot let their conclusion be clouded by their own opinions if the evidence shows that answer is stronger regulation of firearms, then that should be the conclusion. If Mexican crime guns came from New Jersey, then you might be able to show that gun control had no effect on the issue.

Another point, is that gun control isn't seen as a panacea, but as a method of reducing the flow. Looking at internal US figures, is that a possibility? I believe there are studies showing that "one gun a month" reduces the amount of crime guns from those states and the figure shifts to states without that regulation. SO, if the amount of guns IS reduced by "gun control" one cannot state there is no effect.

OK, there are a lot of factors involved in the above example, but the primary one is that the person who made it "believes in the Second Amendment" freedoms. I could assume some things from that statement, but I can see that her argument is coloured by her belief. The belief isn't challenged and the result is confusing.

That is a blanket statement that gun control will not reduce the amount of crime guns. Likewise, that whatever reduction resulted from US gun control would beneficial.

Of course, the drug lords have enough money that they could set up their own firearms factories making any gun control moot. Which is also a flawed statement on my part as I think about it. Is it more economically sound and practical to set up clandestine gun factories in Mexico? Is it more viable to smuggle guns from the US than make illegal guns in Mexico? This comes in contemplating her point about making weapons from parts kits.

Again, if it is more economically feasible to make a firearm starting from a kit and only produce a receiver in a clandestine factory (Considering all the other factors), this leaves us with a load more questions. Especially if the source for parts kits is the US. Does that mean an even tighter restriction on firearms parts?

Is the actual answer incredibly tight gun controls rather than gun controls are ineffective?

Anyway, it seems I have glommed two posts into one. More as a musing in the Second half. I do like to challenge my beliefs.

Well, I do like a challenge!