In the negative response to this question, the obvious benefits of such a law have been ignored and the costs grossly exaggerated. In fact, the benefits of a ban on handguns are enormous, while the civil libertarian costs are virtually nonexistent. Much of the argument for private possession of handguns assumes that gun control would completely "disarm" the public. Even the most dedicated advocates of gun control legislation do not call for a ban on the sale or possession of all firearms. Another fundamental problem with this argument is the conclusion that selective nonenforcement is inevitable. To date it appears that selective nonenforcement in order to benefit or punish particular groups has not been a serious problem. Indeed, the broad nationwide support for handgun prohibition among law enforcement officials suggests that enforcement would be both tough and fair. The alleged value of handguns as tools for self-defense is a major underpinning of this argument. The availability of cheap, easily concealable handguns can be seen as one of the principal reasons for the intolerable crime rate in this country.