(while trying to answer this my power supply broke down :( had to go and 
buy a new one).

On 30-1-2011 2:18, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> BTW from what I have heard guns (if you know where to get them) are
>> not outside the budget of a 15 YO.
>
> A 15YO drug dealer, maybe. It's not hard to see what the price of a gun
> is. The price *you* pay for them over there? Not so much.

IIRC from a newspaper article it was in the order of €150-€200. Within 
reach of any paper-boy. Availability is mainly via Belgium, with its 
broader fire arm laws. I don't know who made them.

> I.e., I doubt there's much traffic of inexpensive stolen firearms
> between the USA and the UK.

I don't think they need to be stolen.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic_class
>
> Then, if you can't actually import them, you can do this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun
>
>> BTW I was not blaming anyone. I was just pointing out that also people
>> abroad may die as a result of a US policy on guns. In the Netherlands
>> they are mainly foreigners involved in drugs who get shot here, but
>> still.
>
> While I understand your concern, blaming firearm deaths on other
> countries having a big market for firearms is like blaming automobile
> deaths on other countries having a big market for automobiles. It
> basically doesn't really make much sense. The link between "americans
> are allowed to have guns" to "fred shot sam in the UK" is tremendously
> tenuous, methinks.

Proving it in a particular case is rather useless. And I am not blaming 
anyone. There was a discussion on whether the net effect of the US gun 
laws is more or less victims. My point was that you might need to look 
further than your own country. What I proposed was to compare two 
situations 1) the current one where the NRA is the main direct and 
indirect factor in gun control and 2) the fictitious USA where gun 
control is comparable with e.g. the Netherlands (which is where I live 
BTW). In the latter situation not only would the market be smaller, 
there would be less choice and not being legal would have an additional 
effect on the price. All these factors would mean that the number of 
guns in other countries would also be smaller. At least that is what I 
think. That is not a moral judgement however.
Probably the gun manufacturers and dealers would move to Canada or 
Mexico, still reducing the legal market would have an effect.


>> Ok, you are blaming the EU for a decision in Africa by leaders that
>> are more concerned about themselves than their people?
>
> The same as you're blaming America for a decision made by criminals in
> your country.

Again, I am not blaming anyone.

>>> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Bettertostarve.shtml
>> That sounds not so objective.
>
> I gave you the link to the newspaper, too. Of course it's not objective
> - it's a blog.
>
>>> Honestly, Mexico is worse. They have just as many guns, if not more.
>> Yes for exactly that reason.
>
> Mexico has many guns for exactly *what* reason? Because Americans can
> own guns? They're not especially regulated in Mexico either, you know.

Sorry, that was meant for the sentence before. Mexico is worse because 
of it's own mixture of drugs and availability of fire arms.

Post a reply to this message