Comparing Gun Control to Prohibition is Silly

[mikeb302000]

The gun-rights crowd love to say that Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, why do we think gun control will. They say this in a condescending way, as if everyone is stupid but them. They often compare suggestions for common sense gun control laws to the War on Drugs. People still get heroin and cocaine, don't they? They repeat these things in various ways, over and over again, picking them up from one another, but I wonder if any of them ever stopped to consider what they're really saying and how nonsensical it is.

If we said the solution to gun violence is to make civilian ownership of guns illegal, no exceptions, and to confiscate all the guns out there to have them destroyed, then they would have a valid comparison. Then they could say, Prohibition failed and so would your attempts to eliminate guns. Then they could say, the War on Drugs is a dismal failure, so would your attempts to eliminate guns be. That would make sense.

But, we don't say civilian gun ownership should be illegal and they should all be confiscated and destroyed, do we?

No, what we propose are sensible ways to focus on the major sources of guns used in crime and by the mentally ill. But rather than deal with that, they come up with one false argument after another. First it's things like gun control won't work, Prohibition failed, then it's criminals will always get guns anyway.

I believe these bumbling attempts at denying the obvious are evidence that the gun-rights folks are losing the argument. They try to make up for that in numbers and repetition and with these bizarre arguments, but they're losing.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000 http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/

[Glaug-Eldare]

1. The problem is people like you

who lead gun owners to the correct conclusion that those who favor "reasonable, common-sense" gun laws are merely pursuing an incremental strategy towards complete registration, prohibition, and confiscation. There is no interest in balancing safety with freedom -- the entire focus is on restriction, and putting gun owners into a smaller and smaller pen. The past success of this movement relied almost solely on white fear of blacks, but racial fear is giving way. We value our right to keep and bear arms more than we value keeping blacks helpless now, and we've seen what happens when you trust a controller to do what he says. He divides and conquers, he breaks every promise, he lies and distorts and tries to spread ignorance and fear. It's not going to work again.

[mikeb302000]

51. That's paranoid nonsense nt

[Glaug-Eldare]

54. It's happened, and it follows a pattern.

Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, California...peel off one subset at a time, promise safety to the rest, peel off another, promise more safety...

We're wising up to what happens when we trust a controller to stop where they promise to.

[holdencaufield]

2. "we don't say civilian gun ownership should be illegal"

Not openly

Not yet

[mikeb302000]

52. Your conspiracy fantasy is silly. nt

[holdencaufield]

57. I'm pretty sure when it comes to fantasies ...

... yours involves a lot more boots and leather. Maybe even a lot of flags.

Is it just a fantasy for you? Or a longing to return to the "good-old days" when all the trains ran on time?

[glacierbay]

59. Ahhhhh

but Mikey, you have advocated for complete ban on handguns, haven't you? And don't try to deny it, it's been posted on DU many times.

[Recursion]

3. Ah, but DC *did* ban civilian ownership of guns

... for 30 years.

So, at least for those of us who live here, the gun control debate is very much comparable to Prohibition and the war on drugs.

[holdencaufield]

5. To their credit ...

... the gun ban in DC resulted in a drastic reduction in murders committed in DC.

Oh ... wait

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. Oh Wait....

Let me guess.....did it EVER occur to you that gun crime may be the very reason the overwhelming majority supported the restrictions, including five mayors, a dozen different city councils and just about all the populace except for a disgruntled implant from Florida?

[gejohnston]

22. after a steady dose of propaganda from

armed hypocrites like Carl Rowen? If you rewrote the fourth and fifth amendments in modern language, a lot of people would screech it is "soft on crime".

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. If you oppose gun control....

...you are,

[gejohnston]

24. everyone is for gun control

the issue is to what degree. You might be too young to remember Carl Rowen was a gun control advocate and a columnist for WP. He shot some kid skinny dipping in his swimming pool while trying to claim self defense with a pistol that was illegal under DC law. I call that a hypocrite. What do you call it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. everyone is for gun control?

You'd never know it on this board.

And yes....he is a hypocrite.....but what does that have to do with anything other than to support the notion gun control is needed.

[gejohnston]

31. have you seen anyone here wanting to repeal all gun laws?

Including the Gun Control Act and NFA? Unless you actually know someone who thinks a ten year old should be able to order a functioning machine gun from Amazon, and have UPS bring it to their door, everyone is for gun control.

Was, old age caught up with him some years ago. Since he did not buy it legally anyplace, I fail to see how it supports the notion that more gun control is needed. It happened during the DC ban. He was a DC resident, meaning buying a gun in any place other than DC from a DC resident or through a DC FFL would have been a federal crime under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Any violation of the GCA can get you up to ten years. That is as logical as the Toronto Star clamoring for a handgun ban after the Jul 17 mass shooting. Some gangbangers without restricted PALs or any PALs, with unregistered guns and illegal magazines, starts shooting and hits a bunch of people, and killing two. One of them just left court after being convicted of having an illegal gun. The Star's editors opinion? Confiscate all of the registered guns from licensed gun owners. Completely illogical and had nothing to do with the crime.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Don't you know that if you don't want what *they* want it means you don't want any controls at all?

That lot acts like those who disagree with them sneak over here from Sovereign Citizen Underground...

[holdencaufield]

26. In the worlds of Benjamin Franklin ...

... "Those who are willing to give up their freedoms to obtain security are MO-RONS"

Franklin was a funny guy.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

27. Freedom?

War is peace.
Coal is clean.
Hunger is good.
Guns save lives.

Such is your 1984 definition of 'freedom'.

[holdencaufield]

30. The Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms ...

... you know, in the "Bill of Rights"?

[Eleanors38]

37. "1984." George Orwell. Wanna know his views on guns?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. No

[Glaug-Eldare]

40. Naturally. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Orwell described *that* attitude rather nicely in '1984'- "Ignorance is Strength"

Who knew that people would be taking that aphorism as sound advice decades after he wrote it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. Which is why >>>>I<<<<. Quoted Him

[holdencaufield]

56. You don't even see what you did there, do you?

How cute!

[Eleanors38]

50. You know 'em, aye?

[4th law of robotics]

34. Terrorism was the reason people supported the patriot act

that doesn't mean the PA actually kept us safe from terrorism.

People sometimes respond emotionally to problems in ways that don't actually do a good job of addressing those problems.

More on this story as it develops (over the past 10,000 or so years).

[mikeb302000]

53. That sounds more like a gun-free zone than a prohibition of civilian ownership. nt

[Glaug-Eldare]

55. Only someone like you would accept

Last edited Sat Nov 3, 2012, 05:29 AM - Edit history (1)

that a district where 600K people live, from the Potomac to the Maryland line, from the White House all the way into their bedrooms, could be a legitimate "gun-free zone." It is disgusting that some would deny civil rights on the basis of one's ZIP code. Would you even bat an eye if the entire District were proclaimed a "warrantless search zone" where the 4A didn't apply? After all, it's a sensitive place -- what if somebody's got a bomb?

EDIT: On second thought, a gun controller probably would. DC is majority-black, after all. Those negroes are daaangerous folks to trust with civil rights.

[Recursion]

58. Actually it's no longer majority black

About the time that changed, SCOTUS overturned DC's gun control.

Many of us do not see that as a coincidence.

[LawnKorn]

4. To ban guns all you need is a Constitutional Amendment

I suggest you get started right away, it is going to take you a while.

[holdencaufield]

6. They should probably ...

... start working on a Phaser ban -- because it will take AT LEAST that long.

[rl6214]

7. Your entire anti-gun arguement along with your constant blog spamming is silly

Yet here you are...

"But, we don't say civilian gun ownership should be illegal and they should all be confiscated and destroyed, do we? "

YES, YOU DO...I'm not going to search for the post right now because it's not worth my time but yes, you have said that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. "Would you buy a used car from this man?" As trenchant a question now as it was in 1960.

Only the subject has changed...

[4th law of robotics]

35. I think he meant they're not generally pushing that line right now

Just like theists are pushing for a state religion in the US, now.

They're starting small (like forced prayer in school and the 10 commandments everywhere).

Give them those and see if they stop. I'm guessing no.

[MrDiaz]

8. hows

that ban in Detroit and D.C. working out for you?

[safeinOhio]

9. What ban in Detroit?

Lived in that area most of my life and don't remember it.

Restrictions on some weapons actually work well. Currently it is very hard and expensive to buy and own a full auto machine type gun. Still legal, just very hard to do. The argument that criminals will get them, just like they do illegal drugs, doesn't seem to hold water with full autos. Of course gangs and mass murderers would rather have full autos and if the argument that restricting any type of gun does not work, every punk crook on the street would have a REAL assault weapon.

The poster may have a valid point about the difference in restrictions vs outright ban, like drugs.

Seems the biggest protest here is the "slippery slope" argument like the one use to justify Vietnam war. Public attitude and the 2nd kind of puts that away. While a small vocal minority may wish for an out right ban on guns like the one on cocaine, they are no more likely to win than some that call for no laws on weapons.

[Recursion]

11. Criminals don't want full autos. They're not very useful

Machine guns aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to make people take cover.

[safeinOhio]

15. I think the military use them to kill, not make

The enemy just take cover. Criminals would love to have full autos. They just can't find them or afford them and there are so few, they can't even steal em in B and Es.

[Recursion]

16. I was a machine gunner

The purpose of the automatic rifleman is to make the enemy take cover so the rifleman and grenadier can maneuver. That's in the Marine Corps at least; the army may have different doctrine, but the fact remains that automatic weapons are basically impossible to aim.

[safeinOhio]

46. Here I thought almost every modern-day

infantry soldier was issued a fully auto assault weapon?

[gejohnston]

47. rifle

I don't know about the Marines or Army, but we were taught not to use full auto. They do have them. An assault weapon is something different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-172_SRAW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202_FLASH

[Recursion]

48. Rifle. Assault weapons are not automatic

The M16 has a "burst" setting, which we were trained never to use.

[Trunk Monkey]

18. I doubt very seriously it would be all that hard to bring full auto weapons into this country

by the same route drugs are brought in if there was that much of a demand for them

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Yes, they can kill, but machine guns are primarily suppression weapons.

Yes, machine guns shoot bullets, and bullets most certainly can kill. But machine gun fire from infantry troops is primarily used for suppression of enemy troops until they can be flanked or dealt with with artillery or air support.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. And all this time I thought they were for squirrel hunting!

How do you feel about hand grenades?

[holdencaufield]

28. Impractical for squirrel hunting ...

... and you need a Mk19 to effectively range in a deer because an M203 is only effective out to 150 metres.

On the plus side -- the meat comes out very tender because of the over-pressurization wave.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. In regards to what?

How do you feel about hand grenades?

In regards to what? Private ownership?

Ownership of explosives and other "destructive devices" is highly regulated, and I'm OK with that.

[glacierbay]

42. Crew served machine guns are primarily

suppresion weapons, the assault rifle used by the infantry is a select fire weapon, in Vietnam, my M-16A1 had 3 positions, safe, single fire and what we liked to call, rock and roll, full auto, I think today's M-16/M-4 is still a 3 position rifle, safe, single fire, and 3 round burst. I could be wrong and maybe someone here can either confirm or correct me.

[gejohnston]

44. the M-16A2 is three round burst

not sure about M-4.

[glacierbay]

45. Thanks

I wasn't sure about the A2, our A1's didn't have that feature. just single or full auto.

[holdencaufield]

29. I agree that's the way they're primarly used in combat.

But, the SMG was designed for CQC. In WWI, they called the Thompson .45 SMG a "Trench Broom" because of its ability to fire down the enemy enfilade and clear it out. In an enclosed or restricted movement space, they are positively devastating.

They also were popular with Prohibition-era Gangsters for the same reason.

[gejohnston]

17. criminals rarely used machine guns before NFA

It was only the mob, even then they had few. One of the guns that was used in the St Valentines Day Massacre also was used in a mob hit in Detroit. The public relations fall out after the massacre increased pressure from law enforcement and the public caused the mob to create the Commission. Dillinger et al stole his from a police station, which was finally returned to the PD a few years ago. NFA didn't do anything, the Commission and better security at national guard and police armories did. Even then, Dillinger, Clyde, etc were was a crime spree that covered a short period.
Although gun crimes are fewer in UK and Europe, but they do have more machine gun crime.

In the inner city, knives and cheap pistols were still more common.

[jeepnstein]

12. Don't you mean D.C. and Chicago?

And the comparison to Prohibition is quite applicable. In the face of an outright ban on an item criminals worked out complex smuggling routes to provide the banned item. A case of whiskey is heavy and relatively fragile. Compared to that a crate of AK's or whatever would be simple.

Right now we have a network of criminals in the U.S. who are barely literate and somehow they are managing to purchase product through smuggling routes that pass through multiple nations. And some of them are getting extremely wealthy providing their contraband. There should be a lesson in there somewhere for anyone willing to think about it.

[MrDiaz]

14. yes i did

mean chicago,

[ileus]

10. We need to be more progressive on the 2A...not regressive.

There are way to many useless laws on the books targeted at lawful owners. The burden of any new "controls" should fall on criminals not citizens of the US.

[Eleanors38]

13. You're deceptive: "common sense" to you is "confiscation."

You may wish to consider liberal scholar Sanford Levinson who regularly compares gun prohibition to drug AND alcohol prohibition: None of it works.

[montanto]

39. Talk about silly.

"If we said the solution to gun violence is to make civilian ownership of guns illegal, no exceptions, and to confiscate all the guns out there to have them destroyed, then they would have a valid comparison." Maybe, if that was how alcohol prohibition worked.

Read up on alcohol prohibition in the U.S. before you post this shit. Alcohol could legally be acquired during prohibition. It was not illegal to use alcohol during prohibition. No one was having their personal supply of legally acquired alcohol confiscated and destroyed.

Gungeonmaster: Why is this person allowed to post here?

[Glaug-Eldare]

41. That's how Maryland got the nickname "Free State"

We refused to enact a state enforcement act, so local authorities didn't provide any assistance to federal agents. Some busybody in Georgia called us traitors to the Union, so newspaper editor Hamilton Owens satirically proposed seceding and forming the "Maryland Free State." The name stuck, but it'll take some work to live up to it, particularly regarding the right to bear arms.