Gunloons often like to use the example of prohibition when raising the canard of total gun bans. Here's a fairly typical gunloon use of the analogy:
Also, gun control will not work because we already had something like it a few times and each time it has failed. Remember the Prohibition? From 1919 till 1933 owning, producing, and selling alcohol was illegal. Some people believed that alcohol was a bad thing and that it caused people to do terrible things. To these people it seemed like a good idea at the time to make alcohol illegal.
However, outlaws and gang members decided to keep making alcohol anyway. It was obvious that the Prohibition had failed. The latest ban that is having problems is the illegal drug bans.
The above argument is flawed in several respects; primarily, owning and consuming alcohol was not illegal. Prohibition outlawed the manufacture and sale of alcohol--but you could drink it without penalty. In fact, the Volstead Act allowed individuals to legally make 200 gallons per year of wine or hard cider. The author also neflects to note prohibition had taken place in many states by the time of national prohibition---in fact, by 1916, half the states in the US had prohibition.
Of course, the prohibition laws were extremely flawed. In addition to the fact that alcohol could be legally consumed and certain types of spirits could be legally made for personal use--the use of whiskey as a medicinal was legal for doctors to prescribe. Some clever bars--known as "blind pigs"--would circumvent laws by offering patrons a novelty act for which they'd pay a fee and receive a complimentary cocktail. Further, despite what you see in the movies, prohibition was not widely enforced.
Of course, we're all familiar with the negative externalities--crime gangs who engaged in bootlegging flourished.
But did Prohibition fail?
The answer is no.
Despite flawed laws, little enforcement, and a huge blackmarket--Prohibition actually achieved its primary purpose: to reduce alcohol consumption. In fact, US alcohol consumption remained below pre-Prohibition levels for nearly 50 years after Prohibition's repeal.
Regarding guns--let's remember it's pretty difficult to make guns at home. As to bootlegging of guns, they'd probably have to come from Eastern Europe and we have improved our surveillance and enforcement capabilities since the 1920s.
As with all gunloon arguments--this one fails badly.
"Regarding guns--let's remember it's pretty difficult to make guns at home. "
ReplyDeleteNot really. All you need is a sturdy pipe, a spring, something to use as a firing ping, and some ammunition. Of course, this is not the most high tech firearm, but it will fire one shot and that one shot is all you need to procure a better gun.
Prohibition was a success because it wasn't effective, and since it wasn't effective it worked.
ReplyDeleteWTF!
That must be why it's still in effect. That's why the St. Valentine's massacre never happened. That's why we don't have present levels of gun control. That's why American beer is not transparent. That's why we don't have NASCAR.
Jade, the fool, as usual.
Image is another success of prohibition.
The only component of a firearm--including fully-automatic firearms (which are, incidentally, simpler to manufacture than semi-automatics)--that would be difficult to fabricate in even a fairly modest basement or garage machine shop, is the rifled barrel.
ReplyDeleteSince barrels (and most other gun parts) are freely sold, without serial numbers, and since the political will to impose such insanely draconian regulation on gun parts does not exist (and will not exist any time soon) in this country, any "prohibition" would simply get the homemade gun industry going full swing.
On the bright side, you might make some good folks (and a very good friend of mine) rich.
As for the "success" of prohibition--all the violence, and the vast wealth poured into Mob coffers--it's all good, eh?
Happy with drug prohibition? Working out fine and dandy, is it?
By the way, Jadefool--aren't you the one incessantly claiming that gun prohibition isn't anyone's goal? Dropping that fiction now, are we?
Jade is wrong again, as usual.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of prohibition wasn't to reduce consumption. It was to reduce percieved social ills associated with consumption.
Read that report, and you might come to the conclusion that sumptuary law restricting the sale and production of said product might benefit society.
Our own history shows this good intention leads to a hell of far worse social ills.
Now, for a thought experiment, substitute "gun" and the report reads like something from the Brady bunch or the Mayors Illegial Bunch, although the actual percentages of gun involvment are far lower in crime than those of alcohol involvment.
Histories of many other countries show that good intention also leads to hell, with Japan the only possible exception.
Jade would still call the resulting hell a success.
All you kings of comparison are completely off the wall. Guns to alcohol, guns to cars, guns to swimming pools, you never stop. One comparison is more absurd than the other.
ReplyDeleteWhile most people only have the general knowledge that prohibition outlawed the sale of alcohol, an over whelming majority of Americans have no idea of the political reasons behind prohibition. Just as a majority of Americans do not want to question why the United States supports a repressive Islamic country like Saudi Arabia, while at the same time challenging a less repressive regime like Iran, most Americans do not want to learn the real reasons why prohibition was instituted. Many people would be surprised to learn that while supporters of prohibition came from a wide spectrum, some notable political supporters of prohibition included the Ku Klux Klan and supporters of the women’s suffrage movement.
ReplyDeleteFor more, check out my blog.
Once more, the usual suspects are in denial.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we have the "I can make an AR-47 in my basement with an old newspaper, a wire coathanger, and some duct tape" claim. Can you make something that shoots a projectile across the room most of the time? Yeah, probably--but you're probably not going to make anything more than a slingshot.
Second, we have the "if prohibition was so successful--why'd they end it--huh?" challenge. This argument assumes that because something ends, it was unsuccessful. A logical fallacy. Prohibition ended because people wanted to drink and the Govt. missed tax revenues.
Third, we have the "Prohibition caused organized crime" nonsense. Organized crime was around before Prohibition and when Prohibition ended, organized crime still flourished. In fact, the heyday of org crime actually began in the late 40's and up to the late 60's.
Was Prohibition perfect? Of course not. But neither was the legislation or the enforcement. But it can't be denied Prohibition did make a large impact as to its goals.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteAll you kings of comparison are completely off the wall. Guns to alcohol, guns to cars, guns to swimming pools, you never stop. One comparison is more absurd than the other.
Actually, this discussion seems to be about comparing prohibition to . . . prohibition--making it, really, not a comparison, in the usual sense.
AztecRed Said:
ReplyDeleteNot really. All you need is a sturdy pipe, a spring, something to use as a firing pin, and some ammunition. Of course, this is not the most high tech firearm, but it will fire one shot and that one shot is all you need to procure a better gun.
This is a really bizarre comment to me since I want to know how zipgun guy is going to "procure a better gun"????
Is he going to go to a concealed carry or open carry gun and rob them of their weapon?
Is he going to go to a gun store and knock it off?
Are the people with real guns going to give in?
I mean seriously someone would give up their gun if they had a Sig-Sauer p226 with a 15 round mag loaded with hollow points to a person with something that is likely to blow up in that person's face.
Are you sure a firearm is the best self-defence weapon if you are going to be outgunned by a POS zipgun???
Laci
"This is a really bizarre comment to me since I want to know how zipgun guy is going to "procure a better gun"????"
ReplyDeleteIf you can't figure this one out on your own, is an explanation really going to help you?
I'll give it one shot (pardon the pun).
Do you know anything about the Warsaw ghetto uprising and specifically how they procured weapons during their brief and unfortunately doomed fight?
"I mean seriously someone would give up their gun if they had a Sig-Sauer p226 with a 15 round mag loaded with hollow points to a person with something that is likely to blow up in that person's face."
ReplyDeleteWell given that you turds would be banning all guns anyway, the people with the sigs would be Police, who are plainly labeled for a sneak attack. Its a pretty common concern for uniformed police.
I'm sure Laci thinks he'll be some sort of prized "inner party member" that will have special privileges, and certainly those who will be running the confiscations will want to keep that dream alive until the very last minuet.
All of this is wild conjecture anyway since you turds are officially politically irrelevant at this point, so your thoughts and opinions fall on deaf ears.
Officially politically irrelevant?
ReplyDeleteWell, if Weerd says it it must be so. After all, all the political parties are clamoring for his support.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2022516,00.html
Sure Jade, prohibition “worked” in the sense that only those who didn’t want to break the law stopped buying alcohol. Gun prohibition would do the same. Tens of millions of people who don’t want to risk going to prison (that is the law-abiding people we have been talking about) would be the ones disarmed. These are the people whom your side claims to not be after.
ReplyDeleteMy thought for the easiest zip gun to make would be a blunderbuss. You don’t need rifling, you don’t even need manufactured ammo- and deadly at close range. Zip guns can also be disguised to not even look like guns.
jadegold shouldn't issue death threats
ReplyDeleteDo you know anything about the Warsaw ghetto uprising and specifically how they procured weapons during their brief and unfortunately doomed fight?
ReplyDeleteMost weapons were improvised, there were some smuggled firearms.
But, that is a ridiculous statement since the Germans could have driven a couple of tanks through the Ghetto and wiped it out.
Oh, yeah, that's exactly what Jürgen Stroop's SS did.
Laci
Jadefool:
ReplyDeleteFirst, we have the "I can make an AR-47 in my basement with an old newspaper, a wire coathanger, and some duct tape" claim. Can you make something that shoots a projectile across the room most of the time? Yeah, probably--but you're probably not going to make anything more than a slingshot.
I make no such claims, but I have made three fully functional AR-15s from incomplete receivers(and lower receiver parts kits and upper receivers)--no government documentation, and completely legal. I have another 5 incomplete receivers on the way, as well.
Laci is correct. I've always wondered why the gunloons like to refer to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. To be sure, it was a terrifically brave event but the reality is that the Jews of the Ghetto suffered huge casualties (~15,000, IIRC) while the Germans claimed just over 100.
ReplyDelete"Most weapons were improvised, there were some smuggled firearms."
ReplyDeleteAnd with those improvised and smuggled weapons, they captured German weapons, by stalking and killing German soldiers and Jewish collaborators who operated as police officers in the ghetto.
With those weapons, people with no training whatsoever held off the German army for a month, until as you correctly pointed out, the German army overwhelmed them.
The point here isn't that it did not succeed. The point here is that you asked how an improvised weapon was supposed to be used to procure a better weapon. I pointed out a relevant and obvious historic example. Thus endeth the lesson.
Mikey W: Sorry, but unless you believe the German Army consisted of fewer than 3000 troops--it's hardly accurate to pretend the Warsaw Ghetto uprisers took on the German Army. The uprising is important in its symbolism but by no means does it represent any sort of tactical victory.
ReplyDelete"The uprising is important in its symbolism but by no means does it represent any sort of tactical victory."
ReplyDeleteReading comprehension continues to elude the "Sage one."
Where in my (still not Mike W) post did I say that it represented a tactical victory?
And where did I say that they took on the ENTIRE German army?
Are you denying that the troops they did take on were in fact members of the German army?
As usual, you either can't read or cannot comprehend what you read.
Go back to your crayons, guy. The adults having a conversation.
Mikey W: You claimed the insurgents held off the German Army for a month. I'm sorry if you can't be more clear but to say "German Army" strongly implies the German Army.
ReplyDeleteHope this helps.
Jürgen Stroop was an SS officer which means it was highly likely that any troops commanded by him were also SS. Given that the SS was in charge of Operation Reinhard, it is more likely than not that this would have been the case.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between the Wehrmacht and SS. The SS was a Nazi party organisation.
Calling a WWII era German a Nazi would be akin to calling a current US citizen a Democrat.
Verstehst?
Laci
"Calling a WWII era German a Nazi would be akin to calling a current US citizen a Democrat."
ReplyDeleteFINALLY! A comparison we can all agree on.
Laci, that is true. I was dumbing it down a bit, so that Guy could follow along and not get hopelessly lost. As it turns out, that was already a predetermined outcome, mostly because Jade's a fucking idiot.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how Guy tries to derail the conversation by delving into whether "the German army" means "the German army," I trust that you understood the entire reason I brought up the Warsaw ghetto uprising was to point out how starting with a mere few improvised weapons, the Jews in the ghetto were able to kill SS/German soldiers and others who were armed with newer, better, and more advanced weapons. Then, with those weapons, they could engage in combat.
The outcome of that event was irrelevant.
Which particular group of Germans that they were fighting against was irrevelant.
The relevant portion was that acquired their arms through the exact means that AztecRed proposed.
"Hope this helps."
ReplyDeleteIt helps tremendously, Guy. You've shown that you truly can read, but simply cannot comprehend.
And the weapons in question were pretty much useless:
ReplyDelete"Some weapons were hand-made by resistance: sometimes such weapons worked, other times they jammed repeatedly."
To be quite honest, Stroop's SS suffered few casualties while the Jews were pretty much eliminated: either on the spot or at Treblinka.
The Bielski Otriad and other partisan groups were much more successful; however, unlike their Hollywood image, these groups hid in the forest away from the Germans. The true story of the Bielski Otriad would be like watching paint dry.
"This is a really bizarre comment to me since I want to know how zipgun guy is going to "procure a better gun"????"
ReplyDeleteYou use the zip gun against the guy with the better gun, ideally some government stooge dumb or brave enough to stray away from his herd.
And in the US, every police car is essentially a poorly secured armory on wheels. Just smash and grab. You can get a shotgun, rifle, and maybe even a pistol.
"And the weapons in question were pretty much useless..."
ReplyDeleteTo some extent, that would expected. However, the point was and remains that the Jewish resistance used these improvised weapons to get more weapons, better weapons.
That was the entire point.
How they fared in the battle, although interesting, was of no consequence to this discussion.
The Warsaw Ghetto story is one that supports the mental illness called grandiose victimism.
ReplyDeleteGun owners seem to love this particular fantasy, the underdog corageously fighting to the death for a noble cause.
It's adolescent nonsense that affects many male gun owners.
Jadefool's Biggest Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteGun owners seem to love this particular fantasy . . .
Um . . . this "fantasy" actually happened.
Speaking of mental illness . . .
> It's adolescent nonsense that affects many male gun owners.
ReplyDeleteActually, it's a normal psychological phenomenon that applies to all of humanity.
Well, all of humanity except the jaded hoplophobists. That's the intellectual-sounding nonsense term I just made up to represent you and Guy Cabot.
Again, I'm fairly certain I've mentioned this before....
ReplyDeleteHow they fared in the battle, although interesting, was of no consequence to this discussion.
The point was and remains that the Jewish resistance used these improvised weapons to get more weapons, better weapons.
This was never a discussion about whether such an action was a noble cause, or whether such an action was a great example of armed resistance against a superior force. No one made those claims, except Guy, in an effort to derail the conversation--which ultimately, he seems to have done, since we are still discussing it.
The only reason the Warsaw ghetto uprising was brought up was that it was a perfect example of using "zipguns" to procure better weapons. Something that Laci claimed he couldn't figure out. So I offered this historical event as evidence of that.