4 ms·

It depends on what you mean by gun control (full ban vs restrictions), but the opportunity cost of banning firearms is not negligible. * There is an economic i

It depends on what you mean by gun control (full ban vs restrictions), but the opportunity cost of banning firearms is not negligible. * There is an economic impact (lost revenue for firearm producers, sellers, resellers, ammunition producers, gun ranges, sport associations, hunting groups, accessory producers, etc). * There is a personal utility cost (enthusiasts, hunters, and sport shooters can't enjoy their hobbies anymore). * There is a communal cost (those people now have fewer reasons to come together and form groups). * There is a personal defense cost (citizens and especially at risk groups are less able to defend themselves). * There is a national defense cost (armed citizens impede invasion). * There may be a military readiness and recruitment cost. * There is an increased probability of tyrannical government (armed citizens impede this, I don't know to what degree). * There are time and legal costs (this will be fought aggressively and take up large amounts of legislator and judicial time which could be spent on other matters). In the US this would require a full constitutional amendment which is by design a non-trivial undertaking. * There are regulatory costs (someone needs to define and interpret what bans mean). * There are enforcement costs (all existing firearms would be grandfathered in. To my knowledge there is no legal basis for eminent domain of firearms or seizure of assets that were legally purchased pre-ban. For example, any alcohol purchased before prohibition took effect was still legal to possess and use. Any automatic weapon purchased before the ban on automatic weapons is still legal). You can argue that it's still a net benefit to ban firearms (and you may be right) but I disagree that there are negligible costs.

ajuc 7y ago
> There is an economic impact Gun control doesn't prevent gun ranges, sport associations, hunting groups, etc - all of these exists in my country (Poland) despite strict gun control. They just have to do more paperwork. You could just as well argue requiring driving licence destroys car industry and hobbies :) > There is a personal utility cost They can, they just have to take an exam, register their guns, and pass some checks. > communal cost If anything there's more reason to come together to shoot - because shooting requires permissions so it's harder to organize it separately. There are many shooting contests in Poland (for example one I participated in as a teen - organized by LOK (League of National Defense)). > personal defense cost That's what police is for, and looking at the homicide and violence stats from all over the world - the less gun ownership in the population - the safe the country is. This isn't a cost, it's a benefit for personal defense. There's +- 1.5 homicides per 100 000 citizens in Poland. And about 5-10 in USA. > national defense cost Armed citizens barely change how hard it is to invade a country. Armies with tanks, planes and missiles doesn't care much about your colt or ar-15. When the government has problem with part of the country - it can just stop supplying it with food, energy and fuel. You'll surrender in a few weeks with no victims :) > military readiness and recruitment cost I had shooting lessons at school for 2 years. Among other stuff (first help training, survival lessons, how to behave when there's a missile attack etc). Our country has strict gun control, somehow it didn't prevent it. Many countries with gun control even have mandatory military service :) Training people to use military rifle takes a few weeks anyway. > increased probability of tyrannical government Tzar Russia had no gun control, yet it got totalitarian communism in a few years. China before Mao had no gun control and got Mao anyway :) Gun control changes nothing, because totalitarian regimes arise with popular support, or invade with armies. Poland after WW2 had lots of firearms in hands of citizens, the biggest resistance in Europe as percentage of population. There was anti-communism resistance fighting till 60s in some cases. Soviets didn't care, most people just wnted them to stop because they were more invconvenient for the populace than for the Russians. At no point were they close to overthrow the government. > time and legal costs These are the only realistic ones, and are negligible compared to other things we have to do to prevent similar number of deaths. > regulatory If you want to divide legal costs into proper legal and regulatory - sure, whatever, still negligible compared to banning cars or curing cancer. > enforcement costs small as well - most people don't do revolutions. We already have state enforce taxes on people, enforcing a few other things as well is easy and in case of gun control - was done in many countries all over the world with next to no problems. I like how pro-gun Americans raise all these points ignoring that literally 99% of the world did this with good results and no problems. Theory is all nice, but you cannot ignore the reality.

ajuc 7y ago

> There is an economic impact Gun control doesn't prevent gun ranges, sport associations, hunting groups, etc - all of these exists in my country (Poland) despite strict gun control. They just have to do more paperwork. You could just as well argue requiring driving licence destroys car industry and hobbies :) > There is a personal utility cost They can, they just have to take an exam, register their guns, and pass some checks. > communal cost If anything there's more reason to come together to shoot - because shooting requires permissions so it's harder to organize it separately. There are many shooting contests in Poland (for example one I participated in as a teen - organized by LOK (League of National Defense)). > personal defense cost That's what police is for, and looking at the homicide and violence stats from all over the world - the less gun ownership in the population - the safe the country is. This isn't a cost, it's a benefit for personal defense. There's +- 1.5 homicides per 100 000 citizens in Poland. And about 5-10 in USA. > national defense cost Armed citizens barely change how hard it is to invade a country. Armies with tanks, planes and missiles doesn't care much about your colt or ar-15. When the government has problem with part of the country - it can just stop supplying it with food, energy and fuel. You'll surrender in a few weeks with no victims :) > military readiness and recruitment cost I had shooting lessons at school for 2 years. Among other stuff (first help training, survival lessons, how to behave when there's a missile attack etc). Our country has strict gun control, somehow it didn't prevent it. Many countries with gun control even have mandatory military service :) Training people to use military rifle takes a few weeks anyway. > increased probability of tyrannical government Tzar Russia had no gun control, yet it got totalitarian communism in a few years. China before Mao had no gun control and got Mao anyway :) Gun control changes nothing, because totalitarian regimes arise with popular support, or invade with armies. Poland after WW2 had lots of firearms in hands of citizens, the biggest resistance in Europe as percentage of population. There was anti-communism resistance fighting till 60s in some cases. Soviets didn't care, most people just wnted them to stop because they were more invconvenient for the populace than for the Russians. At no point were they close to overthrow the government. > time and legal costs These are the only realistic ones, and are negligible compared to other things we have to do to prevent similar number of deaths. > regulatory If you want to divide legal costs into proper legal and regulatory - sure, whatever, still negligible compared to banning cars or curing cancer. > enforcement costs small as well - most people don't do revolutions. We already have state enforce taxes on people, enforcing a few other things as well is easy and in case of gun control - was done in many countries all over the world with next to no problems. I like how pro-gun Americans raise all these points ignoring that literally 99% of the world did this with good results and no problems. Theory is all nice, but you cannot ignore the reality.