From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Lines: 40

In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
> 
> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
> 
>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
> 
>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>    No comparison.
> 
> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.

	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation. 
	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.

	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
	thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer
	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
	good dollar/pound deal. 

	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
	pay through the nose for it. 
