longbough

Straw purchases and illegal arms dealers are a significant source of illegal gun purchases.

Even if the majority of guns were purchased in this fashion, a complete ban on gun ownership doesn't selectively affect unethical gun dealers - it affects the ethical dealers (who are in the vast majority) as well as private citizens who happen to be gun-owners like myself.

A ban would probably make a dent in the availability of guns to criminals but it would certainly make an even bigger dent in the availability to law-abiding citizens (i.e. law-abiding citizens won’t have any at all). And if straw purchases and dishonest gun-dealers were eliminated as a source – do you, honestly, think the most problematic criminals wouldn't generate alternative means to obtain them?

When legal means of alcohol were eliminated during prohibition (where, undoubtedly, it was most readily available) did the use of alcohol cease? No. That just transferred existing demand to a flourishing black market of illegal smuggling. The same is true for marijuana, heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. There’s no reason to think that gunrunning wouldn't flourish as well. Gunrunning is as old as guns themselves.

I’ve made these points before and I will continue to say the same things as long as you ask the same questions.

Contrary to how it may sound, I’m not making the case to arm more civilians nor to make firearms more universally available to the public. Some degree of legislation is certainly in order as well as the funding for resources to address underlying social problems as well as the means to fight criminal activity – but a comprehensive gun-ban is NOT the solution. I think it’s important to enact laws that would have a more SPECIFIC effect on the availability of handguns to the criminal population.

A gun ban means that I, as a law-abiding citizen, will be required to turn in any handguns in my possession. Tell me specifically how that makes me safer? On the basis of principle you might believe that “society as a whole” is better because of “one less gun” in the world – but that has absolutely no relevance on my personal well-being within my lifetime.

Increasing the resources of law enforcement is important, but that also has nothing to do with my ability to protect my family against a home invader intent on doing harm. Ask any police officer and they’ll tell you that their job “isn’t to prevent crime.” And it's not realistic to expect that of them. In a home invasion scenario, for example, you’re on your own.

I don’t think a gun is only a neccessity when there are gun-toting criminals – I may resort to deadly force against someone armed with a knife, baseball bat or a tire-iron - if they represent a real and unavoidable threat. The elimination of guns among criminals doesn’t eliminate my need to have it as a means of self-defense. At face value that may seem like an excessive use of force against someone with a knife, but it is legally and realistically justifiable to use a firearm to defend my family against a home invader armed with a knife who is intent on doing harm. What is unrealistic would be for me to have to use a knife or club to fend off an attacker. That is also true if confronting a looter with a tire-iron or a baseball bat.

A point of contention is one we’ll never agree on – and that is the possibility of having to confront a life-or-death situation - that may neccesitate the use of deadly force. You might dismiss my scenarios above as unrealistic and unlikely – and only a possibility for the hopelessly paranoid.
I, on the other hand consider them unlikely, but not unrealistic - at least not so much that I can dismiss them altogether. With my history, my background and my experiences how would I think otherwise?

I am not going to convince you that you may have that experience (and I hope you never do) – that’s why I’m not even going to try. Conversely you can’t convince me that I will never need to use a gun for self-defense.

Contrary to what you may believe – pepper spray, stun-guns and tazers do not replace the utility of a firearm. I have had experiences with all three as well as benefiting from the experiences of my friends in law enforcement – and these devices, though useful, do not always work. Even a person’s response to tazering or stun-gunning is entirely unpredictable. There are people, for whom one or more of those methods is, surprisingly, ineffective – I haven’t researched the ultimate explanation, but it’s true.

I’d like to keep from turning this into a battle of facts and figures because it has been done countless times before. I’ve done it enough on enough forums to understand that an outspoken gun-control advocate will choose to dismiss any references and arguments I produce as biased and irrelevant. To your credit, willravel, I would consider you much more open to discussion and fair consideration than the vast majority of gun-control advocates – otherwise I wouldn’t be taking my time responding to you.