misterman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 12,913
- Reaction score
- 2,096
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Edit: Forgive any spelling errors. I just got back from the dojo and I am very tired.
Affording armed security? Body guard style protection you are talking about a price that would range easily into $100 a man hour. Plus insurance. It might be less if it was premises guarding ONLY. So we will low ball this for unarmed security and subtract cost of insurance. $25 a man hour and we will say you are guarded for 8 hours at home at night.
$200 dollars a day. How many Americans could afford that?
$1400 for a week. How many then?
≈$6000 for a month. Who can pay that?
≈$73000 for just one year of protection. If you don't pay holidays and give them the time off it would be less. It would be hire if you wanted holidays and didn't give it.
All this is for the cost of a ONE man security team, minus any insurance or license fees the government would probably force you to pay, assuming he is private and does NOT work for a firm (price was based on security guard pay).
The "you can pay for your own protection system" goes out the window for almost EVERY American. The only people who would be able to afford such protections would be: those with government connection, those who are so wealthy that they are beyond even upper middle class and possibily above the top 5%, and perhaps some buisnesses (because that kind of cost is very expensive and also an insurance liability). We are talking about 95% of America being unprotected (unless we count the criminals who as we both know will still be armed). LEO would also have guns, but then again they won't respond quick enough to stop you from getting shanked in a dark alley. They will be there with their doughnuts in hand cleaning you off the sidewallk though.
Do you understand now? My entire premises is this: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." You cannot trust a government. In this case we are talking about an ambition of less gun control to check that of increased gun control. We could also go with Groucho Marx and say that any politician who proposes any form of restriction on firearms is simply diagnosing a problem incorrectly and treating it with the wrong solution too (paraphrased).
Of course my method of protection goes like this:
$200^ for a handgun (doubtfully cheaper).
≈$100 on practice ammo
≈$50 for self defense bullets.
Total= $350 for non concealed carry self defense in home protection. Of course that could be a one time fee, and for many Americans they already have the gun and it doesn't have to be a handgun.
For concealed defense:
$350+
$152 or less for a concealed permit.
Either $10 Safety course fee (for some states)
Or $100-$250 for Concealed Carry specific class.
$25 fingerprint fee.
≈$750 that could be dealt over time or all at once for 24/7 carried protection for those who want it. How many Americans could afford that?
I hate math for the most part, but I will say that it certainly does show who actually cares about the self defense of the average American.
Most Americans can't afford armed guards. Or alot of things. Some cant' even afford guns.
Does that mean those who can shouldn't get them?
Armed guards are irrelevant to whether guns should be restricted or not. I support the right of individuals to defend themselves. I'm just saying you don't have much of a point in this thread.