I guess Chinese laws don't curb criminal demand for guns by that logic, or Singaporean laws for drugs don't curb demand for drugs either.
I never said that. The fact that a country is socialist just means that they are more corrupt, simply because there are more laws to break and government officials have reason to be bribed, which indeed increases impunity(in case you didn't see the short video from Friedman I posted, I recommend you do, it is very interesting). But since you mentioned China and you are so worried about children take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres_by_death_toll This shows school shootings in many countries and in all of these, except the US, guns are banned, but what do you know? They all have school shootings and China is one of the countries with the most, despite being a very strict country where even a Deadpool movie is forbidden to be played.
But you convenietly ignored all the points I made, especially comparing it with drugs, which make your gun ban suggestion invalid. The simple thing is: you'll create a huge black market that is small today because there is not a big restriction on guns within the country. Like with every product, if you forbid it and the demand is still there, a black market will be created. And in the black market, criminals rule and violence spreads, hurting not only those that actively participate in it, but also people that have nothing to do with it. Just like in the drug case.
Actually, no. To this day, there are people who even with the possibility of having the death penalty, they try to bring drugs to countries like Indonesia. There is a very famous case of a surfer from the city I live in (Curitiba), the guy was trying to bring in drugs inside his surfboard. He was executed a few years ago. What this does is increase the price of drugs, because these people will naturaly charge much more for the risk of being killed, but eventually a price that they think is worth it will be offered and they will do it. And obviously this is not just one isolated case, there are many people who do it to this day. Agreed, in the case of the death penalty, even thought there will be some drugs coming in, it will be less than otherwise. But do you think the death penalty will be put to effect for an eventual gun traffic in the U.S.? And even if you did, what about the millions of weapons that are already inside the country, like @Tsing Tao pointed out so many times? Criminals will still be criminals, so they would simply use these. The only thing you'd get is, MAYBE a price increase on these weapons, but since you would have banned guns for law abiding citizens, these will no longer have them so they would flood the black market making the price stable, maybe even go down.
I dunno, Fast and Furious? What regulation can you put in place to prevent the estimated 4.5 million illegally owned firearms from being used or changing hands?
China doesn't have hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation. Singapore has strict drug laws, but drug usage still exists. The difference is that when someone uses drugs, they aren't directly threatening someone who does not use drugs.
Yes, and we found out about it because guns came back into the US from criminals. Or did you think those criminals that got guns from the US government made sure they never made it back across the border? Wasn't a border patrol agent killed with one of them? From your beloved CNN: During the Fast and Furious investigation, nearly 2,000 firearms were illegally purchased for $1.5 million, according to a DOJ inspector General report. Hundreds of guns were later recovered in the US and Mexico.
No, you keep ignoring my arguments and only attaching yourself to anecdotes. I was very clear that that was an extreme case, and that EVEN SO drug traffic in these extreme cases exists. The war on drugs in the US has been going on for decades now and every single measure there was to curb the entrance of drugs in the country has done nothing to stop it. The same will happen to guns, if a ban takes place. How about addressing the points I made instead of running away? You can even pick one and try to answer since you couldn't do it in any of them. For example, the link I showed you that documents all those school shootings in countries were guns are banned, China being a great example, with several school shootings, but also Canada, Germany, France, Brazil and even Japan has had one... Are you going to actually argue against what I say or just going to keep picking phrases and putting them out of context in order to try to avoid answering what I said?