Should low quality firearms be eliminated or raise the price?

[Jiro]

This is so not true about the criminal mind set. Those who break laws use cheap guns because they intend to throw it away so it can't be tied to them if this comes back to bite them in the behind. It's rare to see a punk toss an H&K, Beretta, or Sig - those they hide well. A cheap gun they have no problem with tossing and they cover themselves (they think). Smarter criminals use revolvers - or pick up the brass from the semi autos so police have nothing to go on but the bullet in the body.

a smart criminal tosses away a gun. it's a hot gun. it doesn't matter if you use a revolver or handgun... you can just toss it at crime scene as long as there's nothing traceable to you.

a revolver is very expensive. that's why you don't see bunch of criminals using revolvers nowadays. and a cheap gun would be a bad idea if you're gonna do a hit job because it's gonna jam on you. i've seen plenty of videos where criminals' guns always jammed during robbery and hit job. it's so comical.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PsgaLcmQ_8[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKjE2x955HQ[/ame]

 

[naisho]

It seems that there were already some cheap/junk gun laws in the past. Some information on how they went:

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence - http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

There is evidence that legislation banning the sale of junk guns directly affects the number of firearm homicides. A 2002 study of Maryland’s junk gun ban found that the ban resulted in an 8.6% decrease in firearm homicides in the state – an average of 40 lives saved per year – between 1990 and 1998

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730198/pdf/v011p00077.pdf

Suicide rates also dropped by some percentages, but the relationship is not fully understood.

 

[Steinhauer]

I would think that if there was a ban on cheap guns, that criminals bent on destruction would find some other means to wreak havoc. Take Walter Seifert for example:

Cologne school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He had made a home made flame thrower out of gardening supplies and also used a lance.

You can also take Timothy McVeigh as another example - he didn't use firearms at all to destroy the lives of 168 people.

This is a pdf format file - anyone who wants to seriously debate this issue should read it (Written by Dr. James Wright - hired by the Carter Administration to do a DOJ investigation into gun control laws - Dr. Wright IS NOT a conservative republican, he is a democrat liberal by his own admission):

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080708_1988912secondthoughtsaboutguncontroljamesdwright.pdf

(scroll to page 14 where he discusses the "Saturday Night Special" - re - serious criminals prefer more expensive big bore guns than cheaply made ones ).

The Saturday Night Specials are mainly bought for trail guns - to protect a hunter/hiker from wild fauna.

 

[jonnyghost]

This is so not true about the criminal mind set. Those who break laws use cheap guns because they intend to throw it away so it can't be tied to them if this comes back to bite them in the behind. It's rare to see a punk toss an H&K, Beretta, or Sig - those they hide well. A cheap gun they have no problem with tossing and they cover themselves (they think). Smarter criminals use revolvers - or pick up the brass from the semi autos so pojlice have nothing to go on but the bullet in the body.

That was exactly my point. They don't care about quallity because they will probably need to ditch it at some point. If you get rid of the cheapest gun they'll move on to the next price range.

 

[jonnyghost]

I can agree that they will move onto something else if one gun is no longer easy to get. But if all cheaper guns are no longer easy to get, I think that's when we can start seeing less lives taken away from people being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Raising prices of cheap guns don't violate the constitution, it's not like the weapons have became banned - they can still be sold. I can see it making it harder since prices increasing the amount of time it takes a poorer person to get one, so they can't just get it after one paycheck. They would have to save up for a month or more depending on the amount they earn.
Also then the thing about death by cars vs crime/death by guns is a misnomer though. Deaths caused by vehicles are are almost always involutary while more deaths caused by guns were done voluntarily.
While I understand the importance of 2a, it's not like the constitution is perfectly written for everything. If you want to get into semantics, look at 6a. It's is still a little broken when we're supposed to get fair trials, but when the defendant is represented by a court appointed counsel becomes more likely to be convicted than someone who can afford private practice. Probably just increased their chances of getting convicted by 20-30% with a court appointed defender.

So if it doesn't violate the constitution then why don't we raise the price to a million? Then only the rich can have guns. Besides i didn't say it violated the constitution only makes it imposible for some to exercise that right. By raising the price you make it unatainable.

I'd like to see some evidence that getting rid of cheap guns lower suicide rates. I don't buy that for a second.

The seconds amendment doesn't say you have the right to the best gun just like it doesn't say you have the right to the best lawyer. Besides i don't think pointing out supposed flaws in other parts our legal system proves anything about this argument.

 

[jonnyghost]

There's a lot of crappy guns that firearms owners shouldn't have to deal with. However despite what the news would lead people to believe, many guns are stolen - from police and civilians and many are good quality guns. That said, while I'm no fan of Taurus (Beretta knock off as I call them) or Bersa, or any of these other not so great firearms, they have a right to sell just as much as Glock S&W, H&K or anyone else. You don't like it, you don't need to buy it, yes? As for the prices, they're already high enough. It makes more sense to raise the price of fast foods and sodas IMO. Law abiding gun owners, of which I'm one, aren't involved in criminal acts and I shouldn't be punished for what some wack job does. It makes more sense to increase the jail time for offenders using guns during a crime - regardless of age.

Laura

They are not talking about taurus and bersa. They are talking about ravens and jennings. They are made from cheap cast pot metal. While it wouldn't be my first pick if i had nothing else i'd carry one.

Friend of mine is a taurus fan. We've put a lot of rounds down range with them. You might argue they are not the quallity of beretta but they are not far off. Certainly not cheap. Bersa is not as good as taurus but i've been impressed with what they are for what they cost.

 

[Reba]

...Raising prices of cheap guns don't violate the constitution, it's not like the weapons have became banned - they can still be sold. I can see it making it harder since prices increasing the amount of time it takes a poorer person to get one, so they can't just get it after one paycheck. They would have to save up for a month or more depending on the amount they earn.

Yes, it would violate the Constitution if the price were artificially increased by a government agency just for the sake of making them less attainable.

I don't know how many "poor" Americans you know but it takes more than just saving up for a month or two for some people to afford a gun. (Law abiding people, that is.) Not a problem for law breakers.

 

[Cappy]

Criminals really dont care if its a HI-Point, Jennings, Glock or $3000+ Cabot. No matter the cost of the tool. What they do is illegal. Rising the prices would do nothing to stop the criminals. It would only hurt the law abiding citizens.

What would you think, if it's suddenly $100 per gallon for gas, because someone had the bright idea that drunk drivers cannot afford more expensive gasoline? All of a suddenly all non-drunk driving vehicle owners are screwed, cannot afford it! due to the F-up of a few drunks?

Nice to know there are 2A supporters here on AllDeaf. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.