In countries where terrorism is a constant threat bomb control works on several levels. For example police usually set up those websites with bomb tutorials and post information on forums and in chats encouraging potential terrorists to join in discussion and leave some kind of trace. Double agents and undercover agents also present.
Aside from the problems of due process in what you ask, how do you remove their access to a pressure cooker or welding supplies?
The fact that determined individuals are able to circumvent most deterrents, is no reason not to have them.
It already is.
If you are caught killing people you could be executed or spend the rest of your life in prison. But gun control is more like deterring drunk driving by banning all alcohol and putting a governor on all cars so they can't go over 30kph.
North of the border we don't have the death penalty - but we do have gun control.
No. It really isn't. Gun control does not equate with gun elimination. Lots of my neighbours have guns. During hunting season, I can sit right here at my computer and hear the shots being fired in the woods that neighbours mine. My neighbours all understand they can't purchase a gun (or cross-bow) without a firearms license. Some weapons are prohibited. Others need special permits. We have local gun ranges but I've never encountered an enthusiast who wants American style weapons proliferation or concealed carry. It's a mindset thing as much as it is a regulatory reality but the regulations are still necessary.
I mentioned both death penalty AND life in prison, which you likely have. Those are the "legal deterrents to murder" and the equivalents to the punishments for drunk driving you mention.
I didn't say elimination - I said it was like banning alcohol AND making cars slow to stop drunk driving accidents. Most gun control programs call for the outright elimination of some classes of arms and then limitations placed on the rest, along with various licenses, requirements, background checks and greater chance of accidentally violated a law for gun owners or borrowers.
What’s wrong with speed restrictions and alcohol control? In Singapore they are quite severe (max 50 km/h in city limits) cars are equipped with Speed Limiter Check devices and alcohol sold only in certain places for a considerable amount of money. Because of this road fatalities rate are lower than in any Megalopolis.
Well they do have a point. Any gun that can be easily concealed needs to be banned. If you want to have a gun to protect your home rifle or shotgun is enough. And its harder to hide them in public.
Criminals don't purchase handguns from legal gun stores. If guns were rounded up tomorrow, the criminals would simply buy ones smuggled in with all the cocaine and heroin they distribute.
They do before commiting their first crime.
Except it’s not simple at all. You need to have right connections in the criminal world and more money than actual price tag. And there’s no guarantee that your package will be delivered. You can be easily cheated by smugglers or caught by police. I highly doubt some smalltime street bully or troubled teenager is able to go buy himself gun and ammo on black market.
Singapore is actually a great example of what I meant by modern Athenian democracy. Voting is compulsory for everyone older than 21 years (if you skip elections you must pay 35$ fine), plurality voting system is implemented, person can be disqualified from voting.
The greatest majority of firearm murders in the US are by gang members that distribute illegal drugs. I don't think it is a stretch at all to believe that the smuggling and distribution system that supplies the drugs would also serve to supply the firearms used to defend distribution real estate.
Even then it doesn't tell us much, because we have places like California, New York, Chicago and Washington DC that have or had huge restrictions in firearms, and it seemed to have little impact compared to states with few gun laws. But that probably had more to do with the economic basis of crime than laws involved.
Sadly that's just another argument to support my point about different rights and restrictions depending on social class. I'm sure people from suburbs would benefit greatly if someone would ban all the guns and include severe punishment for owning one. Or we can continue to pretend that everything is ok and watch another “Boyz n the Hood” recap. At least they are free and in their rights to kill each other.
I'm not sure if you understand, but the guns in the "hood" are being illegally distributed, so they are already "banned", and they already come with severe punishments if you're caught with one - especially in connection with a crime, like distribution of drugs.
Yes, but for some reason in some other countries police is able to prevent suburbs from deteriorating into gangs warzone. So it’s either problem with police or availability of legal guns countrywide also have certain effect on illegal distribution by making it easier (steal a gun, sell your legal gun to some guy without license, etc).
Still there are lot of times when ex-con involved in another and yet another shooting. It means that punishment is not so severe. I'm not saying life sentence, but still less than 15 years for carrying and using illegal gun seem too lenient punishment to me.
Or maybe other countries don't have as large an underclass while still having a ton of disposable income to spend on recreational drugs? Again, economics.
