Topics for conversation in this report will include:
Gun control assumes some fundamental things to hold true. It assumes that all people are law abiding, responsible, and well intended; we know this is not the case or their would not be a gun debate. Since the above does not hold true we have markets that will work against gun control, called "Black Markets". Gun control works for the normal market, where there is a series of checks and balances to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals and people with mental disorders through background checks and waiting periods. What happens with the people that are not allowed to buy a gun because of their background? They say "OK" and are kept from buying guns. WRONG this is where some, not all, turn to the "Black Market". The "Black Market" has only one check and balance, risk vs. reward. How much can be charged for a gun vs. the legal problems that can be caused for the seller and buyer. If the risk is worth the reward we have a "Black Market" where people can buy and sell guns without the controls of the normal market, but are under pressure of legal action if caught. The stronger the laws are restricting gun ownership in our "Normal Market" the more demand for "Black Market" guns will grow. This market shift was seen during the probation of alcohol and the resulting "Black Markets" for production and distribution of the contraband. We should remember the social unrest that accompanied that "Black Market" occurrence.
The argument Polsby makes is "the higher the number of victims a criminal assumes to be armed, the higher will be the risk-the price-of assaulting them." This is what I call victims vs. criminal evaluation. This creates yet another market, the one of victims. I see a demand and supply curve for victims where price is actually the amount of risk a criminal is willi