Gun Bans

Contention A presumes that acquiring a gun is, in all cases, as simple as willing oneself one. In fact, the would-be gun-owner is constrained by the economy. To the extent that guns are banned, "civilian" gun manufacturers, gun retailers, and gun owners will disappear. That will reduce the availability of guns and increase their price. Our "criminal" will also need ammunition, which presumably would also be illegal, with similar economic effects (I'm thinking of Chris Rock's "If a bullet cost $5000 there would be no more innocent bystanders"). And he'll also need to avoid getting caught with his gun, which (in the absence of bans) future criminals (and current ones who are unidentified, falsely identified, or with no outstanding warrants) don't have to worry about. If (in the presence of bans) he does get caught with a gun, he'll not only be "without guns" but without freedom as well. Contention B presumes civility and criminality cannot alternate. There is no crime of passion or temporary insanity in this conception of "civilian". The only crimes Con seems to know about are of the habitual variety, which is assumed to be epidemic. "Before" presumes civilians generally find gun-ownership in their best interest. In fact, many households correctly find the cost of guns and ammo, the cost and time expenditure of training, and the inherent risk, not worth the unlikely opportunity to fight off a criminal. These civilians would not have a gun either way, and so would be safer if their gun-owning brethren were not in an arms race with criminals. If PoeJoe is the unlucky child of an unarmed household that's being robbed (or if Brian_eggleston simply finds PoeJoe before PoeJoe finds him), Brian_eggleston, if still masked, should reflect on the legal status of guns: if guns are banned, PoeJoe is no threat and not worth a murder rap; if guns are not banned, perhaps I'll nip PoeJoe in the bud before he can run to one (and be within his rights to kill me). "Criminals kill people" particularly when it would be suicide not to. "Gun bans seek to end gun crimes" or reduce them, but they also seek to end gun accidents. I don't have my statistics in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet PoeJoe is more likely to shoot himself or his friend than play hero. Situation A forgets that, if the burglar takes off his mask (which there is no compelling reason for), it's only because Situation A is so unlikely. It's only because PoeJoe is so unlikely to be home. But in the end you don't go far enough. I will argue against burglary bans. Contention A) Due to the fact that criminals don't obey the law, they would disobey burglary bans. Therefore, criminals burglarize. Contention B) If innocent civilians obey laws, they will obey the burglary ban. If the civilian is indeed innocent, he won't commit a crime, regardless of the ban. If both Contention A and Contention B are true, murder bans are a bad idea. Let us look at a before and after if murder bans are installed. Before: Criminals—burglarizing people Civilians—burglarizing people After: Criminals—burglarizing people Civilians—not burglarizing people Situation A Civilians and criminals, burglarizing at approximately the same rate, retain their natural income distribution. Situation B Criminals, unconstrained by civilian scruples, gain an economic advantage and come to dominate.