There are parts of the world where firearms are manufactured by hand. Cartels would gladly sophisticate the process if there was demand for it.
Which parts? How many? How much could they increase production for how much demand? I've been searching for some kind of source but all I've seen is quite the contrary, the cartels arming themselves with guns they purchase from the U.S.:
Example 1,
Example 2
Barring that, there's also the fact that there are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation today. Some platforms, such as the AK-47, had been produced by the tens of millions and will last for generations to come with minimal upkeep. A ban will not prevent them from reaching the hands of people who intend to use them maliciously.
And they can be destroyed. Similar to what Australia did, as the source in my previous post says (a post which, by the way, has not been addressed by any of the "impossibility to take the guns from the people" supporters), some steps that might help head in the right direction would be:
- A schedule and a monetary recompense for giving one's weapons, after which, strict laws that punish people who are found with banned weapons.
- Strict gun ownership laws. Which weapons should people be allowed to own, and the need for people to provide a reason before being able to acquire a gun. Have practical and theoretical tests that need to be passed before allowing someone to buy a gun. Weapons to be used and displayed only within that reported reason (e.g. taking a hunting rifle from home to the hunting area and from the hunting area home).
- Ban certain type of weapons. What business does any regular person have owning an AK-47? A high-calibre sniper rifle? Semi-automatic weapons? Silencers?
What's exactly the use the average Joe can give to a weapon like this?
Why would anyone need an arsenal like this?
I'm definitely not an expert on law making or gun control, but similar measures seem to really work in Australia in helping them control gun ownership and death-by-gun rates, or are working in other countries to prevent a rise in gun-related crime.
I never stated drugs were similar to guns: I asserted that our government is incapable of effectively enforcing a ban. The addictive property of the product is inconsequential as well as it completely misses the point. A person bent on committing criminal acts will not allow something as simple as a law stop them from acquiring a firearm (This is backed by the fact that most firearms used in crime are illegally obtained).
A person bent on comitting criminal acts will not allow something as simple as not getting a gun stop them from comitting a crime. Again:
Gun violence in the United States is unusually high for a nation of such wealth. Although there is little difference in the overall crime rates between the United States and other high-income countries, the homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than the combined homicide rate of 22 other high-income countries.[5] This is because of the firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is twenty times greater than in these other high-income countries. The higher prevalence of gun ownership and much less restrictive gun laws are important reasons why violent crime in the U.S. is so much more letal than in countries of similar income levels.*
Black markets always adapt to fill demand that isn't being filled by the legitimate economy. This has been true since the advent of regulatory oversight of economic activity.
This is true. However, laws can shape a society too. Will the demand be the same after 5, 10, 20 years? I don't think anyone believes this could be achieved just in time for the next presidential election.