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.
Merely, I think it is utterly ironic for an anti-gun person to be protected by armed guards.
So you oppose the police?
This is something that I am curious about. I am pretty sure about most people's answers though.
Why do politicians get armed security? People like the President are protected around the clock obviously, but what about other government officials who frequently have armed security? Congressmen, judges, and all of that? When they speak to the public they get protection? These questions are important to ask of those officials who want more gun control. Officials who would ask to be protected by men who carry guns that most of us would need a license to purchase right now (automatic weapons).
This does not make sense to me. Our most basic right of self defense is asked to be taken away by people who higher armed guards? Is that not hypocrisy? People like Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnel have armed security, and yet they do not see the irony in denying individual citizens, who cannot afford to hire armed security, the ability to purchase a firearm for self defense? Just another reason to hate politicians and hollywood idiots who think it is ok to deny us important rights that allow us to protect ourselves.
The police aren't anti-gun rights. Rosie O' Donell and Michael Moore are.
Federal judges get protected by federal marshals when a threat is made.
Congressmen can request escort by the capital police when there's a problem, but if you go to DC, they're walking the streets just like everyone else.
There is the underground tram that runs from the office buildings to the capital. I've been on it twice. Really cool.
No, I mean the police are armed guards.
Are the police advocating against gun rights? No, they are not.
I am not focused on the polie. I am focused on those who are anti-gun, yet defend themselves with armed guards.
But everyone does that - by having and paying taxes for a police department.
Surely you arent equating policemen as being armed guards and 'paid protection'???But everyone does that - by having and paying taxes for a police department.
You can't go there any more. 9/11 and all that.
Not everyone is an outspoken anti-gun person, and is protected by armed guards. Those who are known to be anti-gun, as in Michael Moore/Rosie O' Donell, and are protected by armed guards, are ironic.
You vague connections are not working, misterman.
Was on it after 9/11. The same night they declared war on Iraq and started the missile launching. Talk about an awesome story for the grandkids. Saw John Kerry and Bono too.
Surely you arent equating policemen as being armed guards and 'paid protection'???
Because it isnt in any way shape or form part of their job under even the broadest of definitions. They deal with crime AFTER the fact. If you are hiring a bodyguard to watch you after you got your ass beat...you are doing it wrong.Why shouldn't I?
Because it isnt in any way shape or form part of their job under even the broadest of definitions. They deal with crime AFTER the fact. If you are hiring a bodyguard to watch you after you got your ass beat...you are doing it wrong.
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.
Cops don't prevent crime? Sure they do.
I understand your point, but I'm making a much broader one.
And yet...not very well. Cops dont exist to prevent crime. When the example is hypocrites that spout off against gun ownership hiring armed guards and the equal assignment of tasking by you is Joe Citizen and the strength of the police force at large...sorry...you are adding trees plus tuna and claiming it equals spaceship.Cops don't prevent crime? Sure they do.
I understand your point, but I'm making a much broader one.
I do have a point and I simply do not understand how you do not see it.
And yet...not very well. Cops dont exist to prevent crime. When the example is hypocrites that spout off against gun ownership hiring armed guards and the equal assignment of tasking by you is Joe Citizen and the strength of the police force at large...sorry...you are adding trees plus tuna and claiming it equals spaceship.
I just said I see your point.
I'm making another point that washes out yours.
Cops don't prevent crime? Sure they do.
I understand your point, but I'm making a much broader one.
How so? It would not be a free access system. It would invariably involve pounds of red tape around a million signatures.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?