[lutorm]

I don't know any source, but it sounds entirely plausible to me that most criminals get guns that entered the US legally. If handguns were outlawed in the US so there was no legal supply chain, where would the criminals get them? They'd need to set up a supply chain from some country with abundant gun supply. Instead, we now have Mexico complaining about rampant assault rifle flux across the border from the US.

If you define the question as "do most criminals get guns by stealing them from another law-abiding person", then maybe you're right. But there are many more sources that transfer legal guns to criminals, like: getting guns before becoming a criminal; stealing them from the supply chain (gun shops, manufacturers, etc); getting them through corruption in the supply chain; convincing a legal owner to lend/sell a gun to you, etc. If you define the question in a broader sense as in "do the guns most criminals possess come from a legal source inside the US" then it seems highly likely that's true, and the only reason that availability exists is because the legal supply exists.

[talmand]

To address one point, it is becoming clear that the reason so many weapons were entering Mexico was because of an ill-guided US government program to allow the weapons to leave the country.

As for the second point, since the primary sources of weapons for criminal acts are legal then we should make weapons themselves illegal? All that does is punish law-abiding citizens since all criminals have one thing in common, they break the law. How about we consider increasing the punishment for using a weapon in the course of committing a crime instead?

One thing to keep in mind, the original intention for having US citizens to be armed is not to protect against criminals. Though this is useful since the police do not have an obligation to protect you from criminals. The original intention was to have an armed populace to protect against a tyrannical government.

[lutorm]

The original intention was to have an armed populace to protect against a tyrannical government.

Well, yes, and IMHO that's a completely and utterly obsolete clause. In the extremely unlikely event that this would actually be justified, do you really think that a bunch of citizens with handguns will make any difference against the largest and most high-tech military in the world?

As for the second point, since the primary sources of weapons for criminal acts are legal then we should make weapons themselves illegal? All that does is punish law-abiding citizens...

If one accepts that the desired outcome is to lower the amount of crime perpetrated against law-abiding citizens and that having guns is a means to that end, rather than an end in and of itself (in which case this particular argument is moot), then it would seem to follow that if it is found that the drawbacks of an increased supply guns trickling down to criminals outweigh the advantages in citizens being able to "defend" themselves, the rational conclusion must be that making guns illegal across the board is not in fact "punishing law-abiding citizens" but rather saving them from unnecessary crime.

A correlation of crime/murder rates and gun ownership across different nations does not give much support to the idea that having more guns make people safer. It seems like "security theater" to me.

[Karunamon]

>do you really think that a bunch of citizens with handguns will make any difference against the largest and most high-tech military in the world?

Considering the difficulty our armed services are having against even less sophisticated resistance in the middle east, i think you seriously underestimate the average american and overestimate the average soldier.

>the rational conclusion must be that making guns illegal across the board is not in fact "punishing law-abiding citizens" but rather saving them from unnecessary crime.

Save for that whole pesky second amendment thing, which affirms the right to keep and bear arms, "rationality" be damned.

[talmand]

>completely and utterly obsolete clause

I heavily disagree that it is a completely and utterly obsolete clause. Events happening around the world right NOW prove this incorrect. I also believe that an armed populace can successfully engage and defeat a government's military. Now, if that government somehow disarmed that populace under the guise of "safety" then you may have a point.

>but rather saving them from unnecessary crime

I see your point but I think you are being a bit naive here. Criminals will always commit crimes, regardless of your stance on the legality of how they go about it. Plus, if owning a weapon is legal one day but then illegal the next due to actions not performed by the person you are disarming, then you are in effect punishing that person to protect them from something that might not even happen.

[sp332]

The federal government isn't the only government. There are also small-town cops and local legislatures to contend with.