What I would expect to happen if guns were banned nationally
in this country is that in very short order the same supply
lines used to bring in drugs would also be used to bring in
guns, mainly handguns, to supply the demand.
I think this is very likely. Guns are always in demand and
have a wider appeal than drugs. Or to clarify there are
some drug dealers/users that want guns. But their are also
many people that have no interest in drugs that would want
guns.
The other thing is that in this country guns, like alcohol
during prohibition, would not be seen as something the
government should ban [ie many people would believe such a
law to be unconstitutional and thus null and void] and so
like with alcohol, or many drugs for that matter, many
people would be willing to break the law due to their
beliefs and perceptions.
I think we agree that banning anything that really has a
high demand is rather useless--wheter it be sex,
pornography, drugs, religion, weapons, books, etc--in
effect.
Anyway the two main points to me about gun control are:
A) I believe individuals have to rely on themselves for
self-defense based on my personal experience both as a
security guard and as a "normal" civilian"; and that a
handgun is the best choice for that role, a highly trained
dog can be very useful but harder to "make safe" around kids
and is just not practical to keep in apartments and etc.
(also note dog breeds used for home security are getting
banned in many cities and usually as people switch breeds to
stay compliant with the law they just expand the number of
breeds under the ban), a bodyguard can work if you can
afford it and don't mind the invasion of privacy (but what
protects you from the bodyguard? His/her ethics and
moralities and what does the bodyguard use to protect you?)
anyway both trained dogs and bodyguards are very expensive
compared to a handgun. $150 to $300 for handgun and $30 to
$60 per year for maintenance and ammo (minimal approach)
plus $25 to $100 for one class on the use of and safety vs
$500 to $1500 for a protection trained dog plus food, vet
expenses, training time, and then you have to replace the
whole dog every 6 to 10 years. Bodyguard hmm depends on the
quality that you buy but $25,000.00 per year probably around
the floor and I would not recommend one that cost under
$50,000.00 per year.
B) Significantly reducing the number or accessibility of
guns is a practical impossibility. Even if we gave up the
bill of rights. Because guns are very durable goods and
easy to make (for low quality) they don't wear out after a
few years of normal use like cars do. Nor become obsolete
like computers do.
Those are the main points. Based on "logic" and reason
IMHO. Point A is usually countered by "anti gun" people by
saying either:
1) that guns are to dangerous to kids, public, yourself,
etc. to justify their occasional use for self defense.
"1" above can be countered but really boils down to how you
perceive the risks not the reality. I am a fairly
knowledgeable person in this field. BTW the safest way to
keep guns for personal protection is to wear it all the time
so it IS under your control or to disassemble it and store
the pieces in separate locked containers when it is off your
person.
Aside, I don't like the NRA I was a member for a year and
didn't renew because of disgust. But their Eddy Eagle
program is a very useful item. It is a program that teaches
young kids what to do if they see a gun laying around, to
NOT touch it or PLAY with it and go find an adult. The
materials for this are provided free or at cost to schools
and the general public. Usually if a school is willing to
have the program, some schools include it in curriculum the
NRA and other will work to find sponsors to pay for the
materials. Many anti gun groups take legal action and
political action to keep this program out of schools.
2)Or by claiming the need/right of self defense is not valid
or not realistic. ie that you couldn't use it good enough
if you really needed it. Or that police can protect you.
This one again is a matter of perception vs reality IMO.
Police have never protected me or anyone else I know. Other
people have protected me a few times. And I have protected
people and kids several times in my life. I don't see any
real counter to someone bigger/stronger than you than a
handgun for defense. With a lot of training a 4" or bigger
knife could let you fight to a draw against one person ( by
draw I mean you WOULD get hurt but you could convince them
to try a different victim). Against two or more people a
handgun is your only real choice.
Also police are NOT legally responsible to protect you.
Unless you are under arrest then in effect you are their
guardian and they are responsible to protect you. Part of
this is just a reality check. There are only X number of
cops on duty in an area at one time. If there are X+1
people needing help they can only deal with "X" at most.
There is a lot of case and statue law that covers this
stuff.
My understanding is that police give assault calls a low
priority because most assaults are either domestic problems
or bar/drunk/pissed off type of fights that are a pain to
deal with. That is why many places use guards/bouncers
because the cops won't come and deal with the problem.
**********
Feel free to copy/forward this or corect my figures they were mainly WAG's off the top of my head.
Note to LEO: I am not saying that cops don't help people! They have helped me. But I don't think they have the resources or legal obligation to protect me.
Please include link to TFL if you copy or mention this.
------------------
There can be only one!
in this country is that in very short order the same supply
lines used to bring in drugs would also be used to bring in
guns, mainly handguns, to supply the demand.
I think this is very likely. Guns are always in demand and
have a wider appeal than drugs. Or to clarify there are
some drug dealers/users that want guns. But their are also
many people that have no interest in drugs that would want
guns.
The other thing is that in this country guns, like alcohol
during prohibition, would not be seen as something the
government should ban [ie many people would believe such a
law to be unconstitutional and thus null and void] and so
like with alcohol, or many drugs for that matter, many
people would be willing to break the law due to their
beliefs and perceptions.
I think we agree that banning anything that really has a
high demand is rather useless--wheter it be sex,
pornography, drugs, religion, weapons, books, etc--in
effect.
Anyway the two main points to me about gun control are:
A) I believe individuals have to rely on themselves for
self-defense based on my personal experience both as a
security guard and as a "normal" civilian"; and that a
handgun is the best choice for that role, a highly trained
dog can be very useful but harder to "make safe" around kids
and is just not practical to keep in apartments and etc.
(also note dog breeds used for home security are getting
banned in many cities and usually as people switch breeds to
stay compliant with the law they just expand the number of
breeds under the ban), a bodyguard can work if you can
afford it and don't mind the invasion of privacy (but what
protects you from the bodyguard? His/her ethics and
moralities and what does the bodyguard use to protect you?)
anyway both trained dogs and bodyguards are very expensive
compared to a handgun. $150 to $300 for handgun and $30 to
$60 per year for maintenance and ammo (minimal approach)
plus $25 to $100 for one class on the use of and safety vs
$500 to $1500 for a protection trained dog plus food, vet
expenses, training time, and then you have to replace the
whole dog every 6 to 10 years. Bodyguard hmm depends on the
quality that you buy but $25,000.00 per year probably around
the floor and I would not recommend one that cost under
$50,000.00 per year.
B) Significantly reducing the number or accessibility of
guns is a practical impossibility. Even if we gave up the
bill of rights. Because guns are very durable goods and
easy to make (for low quality) they don't wear out after a
few years of normal use like cars do. Nor become obsolete
like computers do.
Those are the main points. Based on "logic" and reason
IMHO. Point A is usually countered by "anti gun" people by
saying either:
1) that guns are to dangerous to kids, public, yourself,
etc. to justify their occasional use for self defense.
"1" above can be countered but really boils down to how you
perceive the risks not the reality. I am a fairly
knowledgeable person in this field. BTW the safest way to
keep guns for personal protection is to wear it all the time
so it IS under your control or to disassemble it and store
the pieces in separate locked containers when it is off your
person.
Aside, I don't like the NRA I was a member for a year and
didn't renew because of disgust. But their Eddy Eagle
program is a very useful item. It is a program that teaches
young kids what to do if they see a gun laying around, to
NOT touch it or PLAY with it and go find an adult. The
materials for this are provided free or at cost to schools
and the general public. Usually if a school is willing to
have the program, some schools include it in curriculum the
NRA and other will work to find sponsors to pay for the
materials. Many anti gun groups take legal action and
political action to keep this program out of schools.
2)Or by claiming the need/right of self defense is not valid
or not realistic. ie that you couldn't use it good enough
if you really needed it. Or that police can protect you.
This one again is a matter of perception vs reality IMO.
Police have never protected me or anyone else I know. Other
people have protected me a few times. And I have protected
people and kids several times in my life. I don't see any
real counter to someone bigger/stronger than you than a
handgun for defense. With a lot of training a 4" or bigger
knife could let you fight to a draw against one person ( by
draw I mean you WOULD get hurt but you could convince them
to try a different victim). Against two or more people a
handgun is your only real choice.
Also police are NOT legally responsible to protect you.
Unless you are under arrest then in effect you are their
guardian and they are responsible to protect you. Part of
this is just a reality check. There are only X number of
cops on duty in an area at one time. If there are X+1
people needing help they can only deal with "X" at most.
There is a lot of case and statue law that covers this
stuff.
My understanding is that police give assault calls a low
priority because most assaults are either domestic problems
or bar/drunk/pissed off type of fights that are a pain to
deal with. That is why many places use guards/bouncers
because the cops won't come and deal with the problem.
**********
Feel free to copy/forward this or corect my figures they were mainly WAG's off the top of my head.
Note to LEO: I am not saying that cops don't help people! They have helped me. But I don't think they have the resources or legal obligation to protect me.
Please include link to TFL if you copy or mention this.
------------------
There can be only one!