Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: [m j p] at [austin.ibm.com]  (Michael J. Phelps)
Subject: Re: Hungerford Facts (was Re: Part 1 of 3: The Case Against Gun Control)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 22:29:37 GMT


|> Yes.  Cocaine is far more valuable (anywhere, not just the US) by 
|> weight or volume than firearms, so more worth a smuggler's trouble.  
|> Obviously the US border is so much more permeable than ours that it 
|> would be far more work to patrol, but the discrepancy between drugs 
|> and guns would remain whatever the policing problems.
|> 
|> [ was mjp's post an implicit admission that the much-used DC example
|>  doesn't work, or wasn't it? ]

Not quite.  Right now, smuggling firearms isn't real profitable.  Make them
illegal, and it becomes more viable, which trashes the relative cost 
issue.  Same thing happened with alcohol in the US during prohibition; 
it became viable to smuggle booze (or manufacture it); it also gave
organized crime a foothold in the US, one that they haven't given up.

Also, note that, according to the ATF, 60% of the guns in Washington DC
are either stolen from the Washington police (40%) or handmade (20%); 40%
are smuggled in from the outside (BATF, "Analysis of Operation CUE
(Concentrated Urban Enforcement)," interim report (Washington D.C.,
February 15, 1977), pp. 133-34).  IOW, if you were able to prevent all
illegal guns from entering DC illegally, you'd account for less than half.
Taking the guns away from the DC police would be easier and just as
effective (:-()..

Can you explain why DC is so much more violent than other cities the US?  
Their homicide rates are double even NY city. 
-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) [m j p] at [vnet.ibm.com] 
                (internal) mjp at kingston
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..