Gun Control - Pro

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:04 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by RACastanet:
Hello all. Yes, I am all for 'gun'

Yes, 'gun' control is important and requires regular practice (by the way, never call the M16 a gun, it is a weapon).

Regards, Rich<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOW THAT'S GUN CONTROL!

Excellent grouping Rich.

Weapon/gun been there. Made the mistake once in Gagetown New Brunswick.

The RSM had me visit all barracks and recite:

This is my weapon,it is for killing. (Present arms)

This is my gun,it is for fun,Hold crotch and give big verticle tug.

After explaining this to Company.

A,B,&C and anyone encountered on the way I
never forgot.

Laird

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:41 am

I don't want to offend any of you fine folks but......having said that he proceeded to do just that

Actually why do I have to justify my owning a weapon?

I own several,I like them.I'd like more,have my eyes on a few.

I also own about thirty professional cooks knives. Everything from some really great boning knives to some 12" chefs knives to 14 inch butcher knives ,scimitars etc. I have even been known to walk the street with all thirty wrapped in a knife roll hung from my shoulder.

These tools are always razor sharp,they cut thru bone.Attack me when I'm caring and you just might become tomorrows shabushabu.

Then again failed meals sometimes just end up in the garbage. The point is I could kill folks really quick with these tools if I choose. These tools even stand up to Canada's oppressive weapons regulations. Those aren't weapons officers those are the tools of my trade. I'm just walking home.

Why do fire arms get subjected to such an intense level of scrutiny.

People can kill with pillows,cutlery,non prescription medicine,electricity,water,etc I don't need any special permit to use these items.

Why have I been singled out for firearms?

Laird

[This message has been edited by uglyelk (edited March 30, 2001).]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:50 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by uglyelk:
I don't want to offend any of you fine folks but......having said that he proceeded to do just that

Actually why do I have to justify my owning a weapon?

I own several,I like them.I'd like more,have my eyes on a few.

I also own about thirty professional cooks knives. Everything from some really great boning knives to some 12" chefs knives to 14 inch butcher knives ,scimitars etc. I have even been known to walk the street with all thirty wrapped in a knife roll hung from my shoulder.

These tools are always razor sharp,they cut thru bone.Attack me when I'm caring and you just might become tomorrows shabushabu.

Then again failed meals sometimes just end up in the garbage. The point is I could kill folks really quick with these tools if I choose. Not because I am some kind of FMA expert, but the knives would be deadly weapons if used that way. These tools even stand up to Canada's oppressive weapons regulations. Those aren't weapons officers those are the tools of my trade. I'm just walking home.

Why do fire arms get subjected to such an intense level of scrutiny.

People can kill with pillows,cutlery,non prescription medicine,electricity,water,etc I don't need any special permit to use these items.

Why have I been singled out for firearms?

Laird

[This message has been edited by uglyelk (edited March 30, 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 5:38 am

Okay, I'm going to have to do this in segments, since there's so much to cover. I'll try to do this in fairly rapid succession, but I'll put stuff out as I write it. Remember please that these arguments are to explore the issue, and that I personally do not recomend a ban on guns, nor do I lend outstanding credence to all of my arguments (though I am probably more in favor of gun controls then most forum users, and do believe at least some of my arguments).

So here is the list as it currently stands. I'm going to coverthese points to start with, but if there are others I'll tackle those as well.

1. For dispatching suffering animals.
2. For procurement of livelihood I.E. hunting.
3. For entertainment, collection, sporting, or other recreational purposes
4. For personal defense against wild animals
5. For personal, or societal defense against invading nations.
6. For personal, or societal defense against tyrannical government.
7. For personal, or societal defense against invading nations.
8. Because as the Bill of Rights indicates, a fundamental right exists to own weapons
9. For personal defense against domestic animals
10. For personal defense against criminals.
First, let me state that the premise of this argument will be that all guns should be banned.
I will start by examining, in order, the reasons to have handguns. Rember, for the purposes of this argument, a "gun" is assumed to mean a handgun, unless otherwise stated.

I Will start with the right to bear arms. The basic point here is that our fundamental rights are reguarly abridged as trade-off for various ends. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example. However, the right to bear arms isn't the freedom of speech, so I won't try to treat it on this basis alone. In general, however, there are two possibilities for how one can think about this right. One could think of it as absolute, or one can think of it as mutable. By absolute, I mean both "without limitation" and "undeniable."; by mutable I mean simply that the possibility exists that restrictions violationg this right could be justifiable and acceptable.

Given the definition of absolute, an absolute interpretation implies that private citizens should be allowed any and all weaponry up to and including grenade launchers, plastic explosives, jet fighters and even nuclear bombs. I cannot argue with anyone who believes in an absolute right to bear arms, other that I don't believe any such right exists, regardless of whether the framers of the Bill of Rights did or not.

Anyone willing to accept a mutable interpretation of the right to bears arms, however, is willing to accept that some line can be drawn between weapons that are acceptable for general ownership, and weapons that are unacceptable for general ownership. Any such line must presumably be drawn based upon an estimated balancing of the risk to other people, or to society at large, and encroachment upon an individual's right to bear arms.

Therefore, a ban on guns constitutes simply a more extreme example of acceptable restriction on personal rights. The objection to such a ban on these grounds then is only the statement "I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs in this particular instance" rather than the fundamental statement "These measures are invalid because they would violate a fundamental right." Accordingly, the rest of this argument will handle the issue of fundamental rights as an implicit function of whether or not a ban on guns would be beneficial. Then once the degree of beneficence has been determined, we can return to the issue of wether it is enough to justify the cost in freedoms.

This said, let's look at the potential benefits of banning guns. The most prominent is the effect of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Many people use the addage "if you criminalize guns, then only criminals will own guns." While this is trivially true logically, (Ax(GunOwner(x)->Criminal(x))->~Ex(GunOwner(x) AND ~Criminal(x))), what people really mean is that criminals will still have guns while regular citizens won't. In order to resolve this argument, let's look at the sources from which criminals get their guns.

The sources of guns can be grouped broadly into stolen guns, and purchased guns. The source of stolen guns would effectively dry up if it were illegal for John Q. Citizen to keep one in his house. Other forms of gun theft (from police, or warehouses) are far riskier, and if criminals were forced to rely on them, the price of blackmarket guns would increase beyond the means of common criminals.

If it were illegal to sell guns, then one of the only remaining sources of purchasable guns would be corrupt individuals within the supply line from the manufacturers to the police. If police were the only legal owners of guns, it would be possible to closely monitor the fate of each gun manufactured and purchased by police departments, making it difficult for corrupt insiders to steal them safely.

The only other source of guns would be guns illegally smuggled into the country. Some would argue that banning guns would have the effect on gun smuggling that banning drugs has had on drug smuggling, namely that drug smuggling is hardly curtailed by the illegality of it. Yet running guns differs from running drugs in two important ways. One is that it is harder to conceal guns, another is that guns are harder to produce, and the other is that for their bulk and weight drugs are far, far more profitable than guns. If every criminal that wanted a gun had to pay for an equivalent weight of crack cocaine (or more, due to the added difficulties of smuggling guns), far fewer common criminals would find them attainable.

This brings me to the use of guns for personal defense against criminals. For a gun to be useful and neccesary to prevent physical harm to a victim, the following conditions must be met.

First, the offender would have to physically harm the victim if the victim did not resist, this includes both instances where the original motive is physical harm, and where physical harm is incidental to the original motive.

Secondly, the victim must have sufficient lead-time to bring the gun to bear on the offender.

Thirdly, the victim must be able to effectively stop the offender with the weaopon.

Even if everyone owned a gun, these conditions would not be met in the majority of crimes, for the following reasons. The third condition is probably the most certain to be mey, though there is a still a certain percentage of cases where it would not be met, most notably when the offender is also carrying a weapon.

The first and second conditions are interrelated, and are the most significant cause for the ownership of a gun to be moot. The essential situation is that when a criminal is intent on attacking someone who is otherwise minding his or her business, it will be too sudden and violent for the victim to bring his or her weapon to bear, or the victim will otherwise be put out of a position to use a gun for defense. Most random street crimes, home invasions and other unselective crimes the motive is robbery, and the victim will remain unharmed if he or she either stays out of sight, or give the criminal what he or she wants. The notable exception to this is the case of rape, and domestic abuse.

The majority of rapes are acquaintence rapes, and date rapes, and in those cases the women will not have her gun readily accessible. The remaining incidents of rape generally occur with a suddenness that precludes bringing even a readily accessible gun to bear. There are exceptions to this which I will discuss if pressed. Domestic abuse is similar to acquaintence rape in that it generally occurs in situations where the woman will typically not have a ready access to a gun. Thus the prevention of harm to victims is only possible in a small percentage of crimes. Accordingly, for personal defense, guns do not have a particularly good success rate in preventing personal injury. The benefits of reduced gun ownership, which I will explain later greatly outweigh their benefit in personal defense situations.

As for defending oneself against a government, either your own tyrannical government, or an opposing nation, handguns and rifles offer little protection against sophisticated modern weaponry. In order to actually revolt against the government, much more serious weaponry that few people consider acceptable for general use would have to be provided.

I will continue this original argument in future posts, as well as respond to posts already made.

[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited March 31, 2001).]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 6:00 am

It's late will respond soon but remember the rule:
Thou shalt not post paragraphs 600 words plus

Laird

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:52 pm

Justin,

Congratulations. You have just entered the Panther's den.

Abandon all hope.

------------------
Van Canna

[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited March 31, 2001).]

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:22 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by uglyelk:
It's late will respond soon but remember the rule:
Thou shalt not post paragraphs 600 words plus
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, sorry about that, the formatting got chewed up when I pasted it in. I'll try and make it a little more readable.

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:51 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:
Women are usually at a physical disadvantage when confronted by a male attacker...those who could benefit most from gun ownership are least likely to own one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point, however, is that this benefit is small for both women and men. Granted it is more beneficial for women, but only in those cases where a male victim would have been able to overpower his agressor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

the concept that guns are evil and promote violence. Thus, those who could benefit most from gun ownership are least likely to own one.

Declaring any physical object as inherently evil is indeed preposterous, and there is indeed no evidence that legal gun owners are significantly more violent than any other group. However there it is a valid point that promoting gun ownership often is accompanied by an "every man for himself" attitude.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
2. ... officers who work on the streets know all too well what the world is like for the rest of us.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a few localities where street violence is an everyday occurance, but for the most part, a person is unlikely to be physically harmed in commision of a crime

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Celebrities and politicians who promote gun control are the ones who don't need to protect themselves.

While this is true, and may say something about human nature, the coorelations between people's positions and their situations do not validate or invalidate their positions. The validity of an argument rests solely upon the merits of it's components, and is entirely unbound by the circumstances of its holder.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
4. Even more significant is the fact that crime decreased in the areas where permits were made available. ... Case after case shows that when cities, states and nations implement gun control, crime goes up. Criminologists explain that disarming the law-abiding population makes life easier for criminals, who are going to ignore the law anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In all of the cases that attempt to show this there are at least two immediate problems. The first is that a coorelational study simply does not prove cause and effect, and all of these examples are coorelational studies. The second reason that these cases do not constitute valid evidence is one of the reasons hat coorelational studies do not show cause and effect, namely that there is a high likelihood of confounding variables. In all of the cities that entered gun control into legislation, the measures taken were limited in scope, leaving plenty of room for criminals to work around them. In New York, for example, criminals could purchase guns in other states, and transport them into New York with almot zero risk of detection.

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Sun Apr 01, 2001 5:41 am

Next I will address the issues of owning guns for entertainment, collection or sporting purposes. While it is certainly important to preserve the freedoms of people to choose forms of entertainment for themselves, it is eminently reasonable to forbid people from activities which are a public health hazard. We do not allow people to collect rotting carcasses in their living rooms. Taxidermy is legal, but few gun owners are interested in having their guns permanently stuffed and mounted. The bottom line is that society has a duty to control those activities that invite abuse. While gun collection and of itself is a harmless pursuit, it is logistically impossible to selectively keep guns out of the wrong people's hands.

While a similar argument could be made against the use of guns to procur a living, the more salient point is that there are many other equally effective means by which hunting can go on. Trapping perhaps the most effective, though hunters may employ bows and arrows, which, while obviously less effective than guns, are more than effective enough to provide a hunter with sustenance.

For personal defense against domestic animals. Domestic animal attacks are similar to those attacks by criminals with physical harm as their intent, except that there are several other reasons why domestic animal attacks are not a valid reason to preserve gun ownership, in addition to those relevent to criminal attacks. The first is that children are the victims of many random domestic animal attacks, and thus legalized gun ownership will not help those cases. The other is simply that attacks by domestic animals are rare enough that the compensatory lives saved by a complete ban on guns overwhelm the few cases that legalization prevents.

Wild animal related injuries almost never occur because the victim was unable to acquire a gun for personal defense. The rarity of the initial incident combined with the conditions under which people get attacked by wild animals reduces the role that gun ownership to a level that is all but non-existant.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 02, 2001 6:31 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:

Trapping perhaps the most effective, though hunters may employ bows and arrows, which, while obviously less effective than guns, are more than effective enough to provide a hunter with sustenance.

I've yet to see a bow that can drop a Big Horn Sheep from 400 to 600 yards. Some times that's the only shot you get.

For personal defense against domestic animals. Domestic animal attacks are similar to those attacks by criminals with physical harm as their intent, except that there are several other reasons why domestic animal attacks are not a valid reason to preserve gun ownership, in addition to those relevant to criminal attacks. The first is that children are the victims of many random domestic animal attacks, and thus legalized gun ownership will not help those cases.

What the parents of the child can't dispatch the dog?
The other is simply that attacks by domestic animals are rare enough that the compensatory lives saved by a complete ban on guns overwhelm the few cases that legalization prevents.

So how many have to be saved with a gun to make it okay to own one. I figure one life is justification enough,what we need billions and billions saved all of a sudden?

Wild animal related injuries almost never occur because the victim was unable to acquire a gun for personal defense.

Most cougar and bear attacks actually have happened in National Parks were most people do not have acess to fire arms.

The rarity of the initial incident combined with the conditions under which people get attacked by wild animals reduces the role that gun ownership to a level that is all but non-existant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my little community we have had I person eaten buy a cougar,a half dozen mauled by bear,and about 100 charged and or trampled by elk.In the past 10 years. I've been charged by seven elk and one grizzly. I know lots of folks that can tell the same kind of stories.So Maybe wildlife encounters are rare in LA or NY but that is not the case everywhere. Or is it a case of not enough people getting killed again?

Laird

[This message has been edited by uglyelk (edited May 02, 2001).]

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Apr 03, 2001 2:44 pm

I'm around, just kind of busy right now and the responses to this thread aren't trivial... it will respond when I can devote some time to a proper response.

BTW, one reason why my response has taken so long was because I spent quite a bit of time doing a point by point response of the assertions and erroneous claims that have been made.

Then I realized that no matter how often or how thorough (with cites and sources) I've refuted such outrageous leaps of logic, those refutations (with complete sources and cites), which are still among the historical posts on these forums, do no good.

Therefore, I will "correct the error of my ways" when I reply. It is forthcoming.

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited April 03, 2001).]

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Tue Apr 03, 2001 3:57 pm

The Panther is in __Stalking mode__

------------------
Van Canna

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Apr 03, 2001 6:53 pm

As promised... a response.

However, I will again say that previous and continuous refutations of accusations and erroneous logical claims have been fruitless on these (and other) forums. Regardless of the facts, complete with sources and cites, there are those who incorrectly shape the debate while missing the historical truths.

With that in mind, I offer my response which is a "mending of the error of my ways" and cuts to the crux of the issue.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Apr 03, 2001 7:17 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:

Many people use the addage "if you criminalize guns, then only criminals will own guns." While this is trivially true logically, (Ax(GunOwner(x)->Criminal(x))->~Ex(GunOwner(x) AND ~Criminal(x))), what people really mean is that criminals will still have guns while regular citizens won't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While your symbolic logic may be trivial to some, I'm a little rusty. Please explain it in English. Your answer won't affect my position or remarks. I'm just curious.

<hr>

Your premise that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the goal of gun control is incorrect. "Gun control" has but a single purpose. Mao was quite correct that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The real purpose of "gun control" is to transfer political power from the sovereign People to a corrupt elite that has commandeered the People's creation - government. It is part of an ongoing struggle between those who would subjugate others and those who have no such desire. This historic struggle between freedom and tyranny has been going on since the beginning of time. It was only with the founding of our Nation that mankind had its first whiff of truly free air. Alas, the tides of tyranny are as patient as the tides of the sea. America has been worn down by modern liberalism as surely as a rock on the beach will eventually succumb to the waves.

Your myopic analysis of stolen guns, supply lines and black-market economics completely misses the point (or was that the point). "Gun rights" are not an end in themselves. Guns are the teeth of liberty.

Modern liberal protestations notwithstanding, "gun safety", "protection of the children", "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" and similar phrases are simply emotional smoke screens meant to confuse the ignorant in a blatant move to obscure and obfuscate what is really going on.

As elucidated in the Declaration of Independence, we each have natural, inalienable rights (albeit occasionally limited on a right-by-right basis to ensure that others may exercise their natural rights - for example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, breeding Ebola-infected pigeons, or using suitcase nukes as piñatas).

If we have natural rights, they cannot (at some irreducible level) be justly subject to legislative or mob rule fiat. These rights are "inalienable", which Webster’s defines as: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. At this point, I'm not even alluding to guns or the right of self-defense. I'm speaking generically of the pantheon of innumerable natural rights that we all possess.

Given that we all possess a set of priceless, irreducible, inalienable rights that are beyond the just capacity of democratic nullification by majority rule, it is incumbent upon us to ask ourselves, what form of government will best ensure that our rights are protected? (this necessarily being the primary purpose of government.) Note that our heritage of rights is the most precious gift we can hand down to future generations.

If, upon serious reflection, we agree with the Founders of this nation that a Constitutional Republic might best do the trick, we might further ask ourselves what additional safeguards there might be that would discourage any would-be local, regional or national government servants from morphing into rights usurpers. We would necessarily reach the conclusion that the last ditch safeguard of our precious rights is our own use of force or the threat of force. Not coincidently, this right to use force to protect our other irreducible rights is itself irreducible and was spoken to explicitly in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Government's natural tendency is to subjugate the people and become tyrannical. This was well understood by the founders.

<blockquote>"We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest -- which will be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves."

-Thomas Jefferson</blockquote>

The purpose of our Constitution is to restrain government. Eventually, when enough constitutional safeguards have failed due to the never-ending attack on our American traditions, culture and institutions by the tide of modern liberalism, our government will have only one thing keeping it from becoming the omnipotent Orwellian police state to which it aspires: the shotguns, rifles and handguns squirreled away by the lovers of freedom all over this land. Unfortunately, by then it might very well be too late.

The last thing a potential rape victim should do is willingly allow herself to be handcuffed by her kidnapper. Once captured, rape and death are probable. Escape is unlikely. But once the handcuffs are on, escape becomes impossible and rape or worse becomes a certainty.

Asking the People to buy into sophisticated disarmament arguments is like the kidnapper/rapist plying his prey with liquor, sweet talk and promises of a real good time - if only she'll put on the handcuffs.

Well, expecting us to willingly put on your handcuffs (give up our guns) is not just stupid, it is traitorous, it is national suicide, and it is a hideous, unthinkable betrayal of not only our freedoms, liberties, rights and heritage, it’s a betrayal of our children and grandchildren.

Which of our inalienable rights are you willing to see vanish soon after guns have been outlawed? If you believe you can keep your freedoms after our guns are gone, think again. However, the proof that a people, armed with inferior weapons, can stand up against the might of a military super-power has already occurred. Afghanistan immediately comes to mind.

Not sure what inalienable rights I’m referring to? Here’s a short list (there are others not listed as pointed out in the 9th Amendment). Which are your next choices to fall after the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

Freedom from subjection to ex post facto laws
Freedom from unjust imprisonment (habeas corpus)
No unjust government taking of life, liberty or property
Freedom of exercise of religion
Freedom of speech and press
Freedom of assembly
No cruel and unusual punishment
Two witnesses required to convict a person of treason
No punishment of families of a person convicted of treason
No quartering of troops
No warrantless searches or seizures
Grand jury protection
No double jeopardy
No unjustly compensated taking of private property
Right to a speedy trial
Right to trial by impartial jury
Right to trial in the location where crime occurred
Right to confront witnesses
Right to require witnesses to appear in court
Freedom from excessive bail
Freedom from excessive fines

How about the freedom of ourselves and our families to be left alone.

It may be too late to prevent the nightmarish world you are proposing to drag us into (kicking and screaming, I might add). And frankly, those of the communist, socialist, statist and modern liberal ilk (but then I repeat myself) might ultimately win. You may yet get the police state you describe and dream of. History has been pushing us toward tyranny for 150 years. We, the people, might get raped in the end. But it will not be with handcuffs on, and the rapists will have to pay dearly for their pleasure.

<blockquote>"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed."

- George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790,
printed in the Boston Independent Chronicle,
January 14, 1790.</blockquote>

As for me, I won’t accept your sweet talk and promises of a real good time – and I’ll never allow you to put me or my loved ones into your handcuffs.

Scaramouche · Post by **Scaramouche** » Tue Apr 03, 2001 8:17 pm

"If it were illegal to sell guns, then one of the only remaining sources of purchasable guns would be corrupt individuals within the supply line from the manufacturers to the police. If police were the only legal owners of guns, it would be possible to closely monitor the fate of each gun manufactured and purchased by police departments, making it difficult for corrupt insiders to steal them safely."

First off, I strongly disagree with the claim you make in your first sentence. I'll follow up on that later though.

There was story in the newspaper a few years back that revealed that many of the police in Mexico City no longer had their handguns, having sold them on the black market. Also, I have seen numerous stories about cops in the U.S. taking drugs from evidence storage areas for illegal purposes. Items held by law enforcement have definitely been known to be stolen.

"The only other source of guns would be guns illegally smuggled into the country."

This is incorrect. Anyone with a good machine shop can make a functioning firearm.

"Some would argue that banning guns would have the effect on gun smuggling that banning
drugs has had on drug smuggling, namely that drug smuggling is hardly curtailed by the
illegality of it. Yet running guns differs from running drugs in two important ways. One is that it is harder to conceal guns, another is that guns are harder to produce..."

I think that this logic is sloppy. In some ways firearms would be easier to conceal and smuggle. As they are just steel in many cases, they could probably not be found by drug sniffing dogs. You could also hide guns in places that would ruin drugs, such as inside a gas tank, immersed in the fuel. They also take up less space than, for example, bundles of marijuana.

Drug sources are often found via spotting agricultural activity from the air, and guns can be made in a machine shop, which can be easily concealed. Drugs can take months to produce (grow and refine). A good machinist can make a gun in a matter of hours. In some respects guns are much easier to produce than drugs.

"...and the other is that for their bulk and weight drugs are far, far more profitable than guns. If every criminal that wanted a gun had to pay for an equivalent weight of crack cocaine or more, due to the added difficulties of smuggling guns), far fewer common criminals would find them attainable."

Have you any hard data that supports your argument that in a country where both drugs and guns are illegal, guns would cost the same as the equivalent weight of crack, or any other illegal drug, for that matter?

Also, a drug user's expenses will be greater overall, as an addict may buy drugs on a weekly or even a daily basis. Even if each dose was fairly inexpensive, it would add up to a huge sum over the months or years of regular drug use.

An illegal gun though, you could buy once, and quite possibly never have to buy another.
Thus, even if guns _did_ cost the same as crack per weight, you ultimately would spend less money being an illegal gun buyer. Thus, in the long run, even if they were as expensive as you (without supporting data)claim, illegal guns would be much cheaper than illegal drugs.

Also, it is my understanding that some criminals rent guns from other criminals. If this is true, then a criminal who wants a firearm would not have to pay the full cost of such a weapon anyway.

Scaramouche