Is there a reason why some people think a Gun Ban will be more successful than Banning Alcohol & Drugs?

^this

jewbacca wrote:

jewbacca wrote:

Drunk drivers kill about as many people as are murdered by guns.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides.

So if your moral compass says alcohol is cool, guns must be cool as well. Or else you're a hypocrite.

Furthermore, guns are used on a daily basis to stop crime, something alcohol has never done.

Alcohol 0 Guns 1

People who oppose gun ownership are ignorant fools.

msolympia wrote:

Washington DC was a peaceful utopia when guns were banned.

^Fact.

thejeff wrote:

Is there a reason why some people think a Gun Ban will be more successful than Banning Alcohol & Drugs?

It seems like banning guns would simply open opportunities for black market activities, much like Prohibition in the 1920s and most drugs today.

Correct!

the attitude wrote:

People just want to do "something." Even if the something won't help in any way shape or form.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Link wrote:

Duhs wrote:

Banning guns will do no good and I think it is ridiculous that the Democrats are pouting to try and get their way. Regardless of if guns are banned or not, they will still get into the hands of criminals. So why are we voting to take guns from innocent, hardworking people?

Banning nuclear weapons will do no good and I think it is ridiculous that the Democrats are pouting to try and get their way. Regardless of if nuclear weapons are banned or not, they will still get into the hands of criminals. So why are we voting to take neuclear weapons from innocent, hardworking people?

There. All fixed.

Your post is Reductio ad absurdum personified. You proved nothing.

This is a fact.... wrote:

msolympia wrote:

Washington DC was a peaceful utopia when guns were banned.

^Fact.

This is dumb. It's like stating that the Olympics will be drug-free if Russia is banned from attending. You need to address the problem on a larger scale before any change can be realized.

I am always amazed and appalled that right wingers can't tell the difference between banning guns and gun control.

Also the premise of this thread is silly. The fact that a black market exists for drugs like heroin is not a reason to stop banning heroin.

Just like the fact that some people get away with running red lights is no reason to stop enforcing red lights.

The point is that even if some people get away with breaking the law, enforcing said laws will save some lives.

Joplas wrote:

I am always amazed and appalled that right wingers can't tell the difference between banning guns and gun control.

Are you saying that banning guns isn't being considered as part of gun control? While I'm not really a "right winger" I'd like to point out that this statement is in reverse. It should read "left wingers can't tell the difference between banning guns and gun control." Because banning guns is literally on the table. Many right wingers are for gun control, but against banning guns.

Also the premise of this thread is silly. The fact that a black market exists for drugs like heroin is not a reason to stop banning heroin.

Do you realize this is exactly the reason Prohibition ended? And the reason many are against the war on drugs? I find the subject of the thread very relevant, because the same people who claim prohibition never work are working to prohibit AR-15s and related guns. It seems more a case of "I want to allow what I like (alcohol) while banning what I don't like (guns)."

The people that are so passionate about legalizing drugs are also strong advocates of gun control. Of course it isn't logical but like a 3 year old, "they want what they want."

jewbacca wrote:

While I feel this is true, and would also agree that most people are for increased measures for gun control (myself included), the logical end point of banning any weapon (in this case assault weapons) results in banning all weapons. Let me explain:

No need to explain, we understand that the "slippery slope" argument is a major tenant of the NRA's position. We also feel that this is a 'lowest common denominator' rationalization for the Right - something all their constituents can wrap their mind around.

If we used this rationalization for all the things that are regulated in this country then we would be in a fine mess. So your fear of gun regulation spiraling out of control, whether justified or not, has no bearing what so ever on the sausage making of gun law.

If you and your ilk cannot find a way to come to the table to hammer out a solution, because make no mistake, a solution is long past due, then one will be forced upon you people and it will be worse than what you could have done in a good faith environment.

But I don't blame gun owners for buying the NRA's dogma, hook, line and sinker, I'm more inclined to say that we should cut the head off the snake and find a way to dismantle the NRA and its influence on congress.

There is nothing for an AW ban to "succeed" at. Gun violence is a media myth, it has been declining for a long time according to the FBI.

What needs to be banned is the damn yellow journalists that keep telling people everyone's gonna get shot and freaking them out. Then they crash their car and die...

As for drawing a line, the 2nd Amendment clearly implies that armed citizenry was a means of national defense, not just a right, and included "militia" type weapons. This goes along with prohibiting a standing national army. They figured, correctly, that a population that is well armed with personal weapons is not an attractive target for invaders, such as the British again, or whoever. Nobody wants to occupy a land filled with partisans.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

jewbacca wrote:

jewbacca wrote:

Drunk drivers kill about as many people as are murdered by guns.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides.

So if your moral compass says alcohol is cool, guns must be cool as well. Or else you're a hypocrite.

Furthermore, guns are used on a daily basis to stop crime, something alcohol has never done.

Alcohol 0 Guns 1

He is a liberal. Of course he is a hypocrite.

Joplas wrote:

I am always amazed and appalled that right wingers can't tell the difference between banning guns and gun control.

Also the premise of this thread is silly. The fact that a black market exists for drugs like heroin is not a reason to stop banning heroin.

Just like the fact that some people get away with running red lights is no reason to stop enforcing red lights.

The point is that even if some people get away with breaking the law, enforcing said laws will save some lives.

I am all for enforcing laws already in place (the point in your last paragraph). I am also in favor of discussing new ways to decrease gun violence.

But, as to your other analogy, sometimes so many folks run a red light that the powers that be realize that a roundabout is a better option :-)

To the people that deny that an outright ban on guns has been proposed, wake up. I don't claim that this view represents the majority of the opposition, but it has CERTAINLY been suggested.

Thejeff can you point to a politician in the current environment that has CERTIANLY suggested a total ban on guns?

Also, the person earlier who mentioned things like better locks and background checks has a sensible answer, the rest is just partisan nonsense, Including my first sentence.

Perhaps. But you have to draw the line somewhere. A mass shooter with an assault weapon is going to take down infinitely more people than with a handgun. While not ideal, it is an improvement on the prior scenario. Fewer deaths = happier public. I doubt you'll see propositions of banning handguns. Particularly since handguns are a staple of law enforcement, home safety, etc. The pros still outweigh the cons.

Perhaps wrote:

Perhaps. But you have to draw the line somewhere. A mass shooter with an assault weapon is going to take down infinitely more people than with a handgun. While not ideal, it is an improvement on the prior scenario. Fewer deaths = happier public. I doubt you'll see propositions of banning handguns. Particularly since handguns are a staple of law enforcement, home safety, etc. The pros still outweigh the cons.

Let me ask you this: When the next mass shooting occurs (and it will), and it is carried out with handguns instead of an AR-15, will this be considered a success or failure of gun control?