Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Comparing Gun Control to Prohibition is Silly

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.


47 comments:

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

    Maybe not you, and maybe not right now, however, that has been the long term goal of the Brady Campaign and CSGV and nothing that the anti-rights groups have done suggest otherwise.

    The Brady Act was a compromise between the gun rights and the anti-rights groups, but they still push for MORE laws. The private sale exemption on background checks was part of the Brady Act, everyone knew it, but still, they press to change that. The AWB sunset was part of the Brady Act, everyone knew it, but still, they press to change that. The AWB had no measurable affect on violent crime, so why push for another ban?

    "No, what we propose are sensible ways to focus on the major sources of guns used in crime and by the mentally ill."

    Let's look at YOUR four ways:
    1. Straw Buyer
    2. Theft
    3. Private Sales
    4. Lawful owners gone bad

    Straw buyers are not a significant source of crime guns. The last estimate was 8% and in order to slow that, you'd need registration of firearms and licensing of gun owners. Registration is against the law and has been for 30 years. The ban on registration is not some loophole, but Congressional intent.

    Theft is a major contributor to crime guns, but there is nothing that can be done about that. People steal ATMs, that are concrete filled and attached to the floor and they'd still be able to steal gun safes.

    Private sales also contribute to the gun availability for criminals, but What Would Compel A Criminal Seller To Conduct A NICS On His Criminal Buyer? Nothing, and to suggest that if the private sale exemption were removed would also remove guns from the black market is silly. The last study (and I wish they'd do another one) shows that criminals get their guns from friends, family and illegal sources, now law would prevent this.

    Lawful gun owners gone bad. WOW! We don't have a pre-crimes department yet, so that can't be addressed with a law.

    "I believe these bumbling attempts at denying the obvious are evidence that the gun-rights folks are losing the argument."

    I'm not sure what alternate reality you're living in, but we're not losing anything. According your your own sources, gun control laws have been rolled back over the past years so much so, that Mother Jones had to write an article crying about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MikeB,

    You have to explain why government has legitimate authority to meddle in the lives of citizens who have not harmed anyone and who have no intention of harming anyone. Specifically, why does a citizen need the government's permission to own and possess small objects such as a backpack, belt, or handgun?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And now to shatter MikeB's assertions that gun control would ever prevent criminals from using guns to attack citizens, please check out this short video clip where a man shows just how easy it is to make a single shot shotgun:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Va87gB_4AI

    Keep in mind that a person could use similar techniques to make guns that are even more concealable and in calibers with less recoil.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mikeb, Okay, I'm game, what should we compare it to?

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bill Baldwin addressed your claims about sources, Mikeb. I'll say the following:

    1. We don't believe your claim that you don't want to take away all privately held guns. You've never drawn a line beyond which you won't go. You've made it clear that you don't see owning and carrying guns as a right. Privileges can be taken away. You've lost the fight for credibility.

    2. Prohibition did not completely ban alcohol. There was an exemption for religious purposes. Wealthy people could board ships that steamed across the twelve-mile limit and opened the bar. Private stocks from before Prohibition were still legal.

    3. But Prohibition and the War on Drugs are apt examples. Both have tried to restrict a product that people want, but our long borders leave us open to contraband. Whether you want to ban guns outright is irrelevant. You do want to restrict guns. You fail to recognize that the demand won't go away. That demand will be filled. Perhaps at a slightly lower rate, but not enough of a difference to justify the harm that you'll have done to legal gun owners.

    Mikeb, you can continue tossing out silly insults. That's all you have.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Once more, I'll sagely note that Prohibition didn't fail.

    A policy that is unpopular or poorly enforced doesn't mean the same thing as 'failure.'

    The fact is that Prohibition caused alcohol consumption to drop in the US; in fact, alcohol consumption didn't rise again to pre-Prohibition levels until the mid-1970s. So, Prohibition--whose goal was to lower alcohol consumption---actually succeeded for almost 40 years.

    And consider this--the Prohibition law was very poorly written and enforced. For example, drinking alcohol wasn't prohibited--only the manufacturing of alcohol for sale was. In fact, you could make and consume your own alcohol so long as you weren't selling it.

    Additionally, certain jurisdictions simply didn't enforce Prohibition--or looked the other way. And there weren't enough Govt law officers to seriously enfore Prohibition.


    But despite these obvious handicaps, Prohibition largely accomplished its goals by reducing consumption.

    --JadeGold

    No question that Prohibition wasn't popular. But let's not pretend unfettered access to guns is. In fact, those who believe gun laws should be more lax are in single digits, percenrtage-wise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing Prohibition certainly did was ruin America's local beer producers. It's taken us decades to get back to interesting suds. But if you think that the Volstead Act was poorly written, look at gun control laws.

      You should look at the gun ownership numbers these days. About half the country has a gun, and more are buying every day.

      Delete
    2. If the U.S. government was capable of effectively enforcing constitutional rights (such as the right to sobriety) the Volstead Act would have never been repealed, and the Twenty First Amendment would have never been conceived.

      Alcohol, like (civilian) firearms, serves only to cause disorder within society and enables persons subject to the rule of law to escape the social control implemented by the State. The proliferation of intoxicating substances serves no social function, medically accepted purpose, and in no way contributes to collective industry. Therefore it is the responsibility of the State to prohibit or (strictly) regulate it.


      Greg must agree with me, as he resides in a predominantly "dry" State.

      Delete
    3. Whoa there, now you’re messing with Jadegold’s easy access to Dogfish Head beers. Prepare to get smacked down by some sage logic.

      Delete
    4. E.N., what drug are you on? Please tell us so we can avoid it. It's doing bad things to you.

      I live in a dry county, but there's a ballot measure to overturn that, and I don't support our dry status. The county just to the south is wet, and it's legal to brew my own where I live.

      But what exactly does a right mean to you? We have a right to sobriety? Well, if that's your choice, fine, but there's no right to have the government force us to choose your preference. You argue for a right to be controlled. That's a perversion of the concept of rights.

      Delete
  7. Wow, Billy has big trouble with the truth.

    He claims that Straw Purchasers aren't a significant problem. Actually, most guns used in crimes are the result of straw purchases and corrupt FFLs. Only about 10% of crime guns are stolen.

    Billy also asserts that we can't do anything about stolen guns. This, of course, is nonsense.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If most guns used in crime come from straw buying, why isn't the government prosecuting the straw buyers? According to this report, weapons prosecutions are down 28.8% from 2007 - 2011.

      According to Mayors against illegal guns, there are about 400,000 guns stolen annually, certainly you're not suggesting that the stolen guns are being hoarded by the criminals, who use a straw buyer to get a new crime gun, are you?

      According to ATF Trace Data, the average time to crime for firearms is 11.20 years. Just over a 1/4 of crime guns have a time to crime of less than three years, so it appears that you've got your numbers backwards.

      I must say, though, I do enjoy slapping you around with the truth. Next time you come out to play with the big boys maybe you'll actually do some fact checking.

      Delete
  8. Mike, you are saying Prohibition can’t be compared to your ideas because your Prohibition was more restrictive than your ideas. How does that make sense? So are you saying a little bit of restrictions work well, but if you keep going the product will start becoming more available? Let’s compare it to a currently prohibited product like heroin. Say we made heroin legal, but included a list of prohibited people who are known abusers of the product and then designed laws aimed at preventing the transfer of heroin from legal buyers to addicts. You are saying that it would be harder for addicts to get their hands on heroin under this law than it is today. Is that your stance?

    This comparison gets made because if completely prohibiting an item doesn’t keep it out of the wrong hands, then how could lighter laws hope to accomplish anything? Besides, pretty much everyone on your side does want prohibition of certain guns, or certain gun related items. So how does this jive with “assault weapons” or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?

    The War on Drugs is a dismal failure, so would your attempts to eliminate “high capacity” magazines be.

    Does this line now make sense to you?

    To now address Jadegold. When we talk about the failures of Prohibition, the focus element is the associated crime. I have no doubt that people who didn’t want to get in trouble scaled back or stopped consuming alcohol. I have no doubt that the same level of prohibition for guns would have the same effect of reducing nationwide gun ownership. What it won’t do is lower crime rates, as prohibition of just about anything has been proven to increase crime rates. You are talking like the desired outcome of gun control is to reduce the amount of people like me who recreationally shoot, while admitting that the criminal element will continue to get guns just as freely if not more so that before. You would say gun control “worked” so long as national ammunition consumption was down, even though murder rates and crime rates rose. Correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, TS, this comparison gets made because you guys just repeat what each other say without thinking about it. How often do we hear, "banning guns won't work because, ..." when we weren't even talking about banning them?

      Delete
    2. No, you guys are indeed talking about banning “assault weapons”. So explain how that is going to work.

      I am trying to get at the meat of your point. Are you saying that some restrictions here and there will work, but prohibiting an item will backfire? Why? At what point does it start turning? Please address my example about heroin. If we made heroin the same as all the gun laws you want (licensing, registration, back ground checks for transfers) would it actually be harder for an addict to get their hands on it than it is right now?

      Delete
    3. Mikeb, you neglect to take into account the criminal mind. Law abiding citizens will tolerate a legitimate measure of control over their lives, but criminals don't accept even that. They have a demand for guns that will be met.

      There's a spectrum of control measures for guns, ranging from no control at all to no legal firearms in private hands. Criminals will get guns, no matter where the law stands. A few may not be able to, but most will. The only thing that your proposals would do is make it harder for good gun owners to have guns.

      Delete
    4. TS, I didn't say prohibiting something would backfire. I find Jadegold's description of what really happened during Prohibition compelling and convincing. You are the guys who use it as a comparison to what we want to do with gun restrictions, and that's what makes no sense.

      Because I'm not an extremist, I don't want to eradicate guns from the face of the earth. I want reasonable restrictions and for gun owners to be responsible.

      You say, "Criminals will get guns, no matter where the law stands." That's only true if you mean SOME criminals, which would be another way of saying fewer.

      Delete
    5. Mike: “I find Jadegold's description of what really happened during Prohibition compelling and convincing.”

      What “really happened”? What does that mean? What Jadegold said doesn’t contradict the reasons why we say Prohibition is a failure. Prohibition was a failure because of the crime wave it created, and the empowerment it gave to the mob. And the fact that anyone who was willing to break the law to get alcohol could still easily do it. Fewer total people consuming alcohol doesn’t change the unintended consequences that made it worse for the country. And guns are no different. If the 2nd amendment were replaced by a prohibition of guns amendment there is every reason to believe the same thing would happen. Yes, fewer people would own guns and much fewer people would recreationally shoot them. But crime would go up due to the extra black market it created. Would you call that “working” in your mind? To use that argument about Prohibition implies that you would.

      MikeB: “I didn't say prohibiting something would backfire.”

      No you didn’t. That conclusion is logically derived from the main point of this post, and you’ll note that I kept asking this as a question to clarify your point. You say we can’t compare gun control to Prohibition, because you are only after restrictions, not prohibition (though I keep pointing out how you do indeed want prohibition for some things). But prohibition is stricter than “reasonable regulations”. If we show you how prohibition of an item is an utter failure through examples of the past (alcohol) and present (drugs), then it is a valid argument for why your restrictions won’t work. So unless you are trying to tell us that stricter regulations only work to a degree, and then it begins to backfire as it approaches prohibition- then the comparison of gun control to Prohibition is most definitely not silly.

      Delete
    6. MikeB: “You are the guys who use it as a comparison to what we want to do with gun restrictions, and that's what makes no sense.”

      No, I am saying since stricter policies haven’t worked what makes you think yours will?

      Delete
  9. "One thing Prohibition certainly did was ruin America's local beer producers. It's taken us decades to get back to interesting suds. But if you think that the Volstead Act was poorly written, look at gun control laws."

    No, Greggy, you are wrong once again. Prior to Prohibition there was little incentive to make anything but commercially boring beers. In point of fact, Probition kicked off craft brewing as individuals were compelled to use local products and actually improvise.

    Another fact--home brewing for profit was actaully legalized during Jimmy Carter's tenure---that's when craft and microbrewing really took off.

    "You should look at the gun ownership numbers these days. About half the country has a gun, and more are buying every day."

    The numbers show household gun ownership is declining and has been for some time.

    You also offer the false premise that every gun owner believes in unfettered gun access as you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goldilocks, do you ever bother to look at facts?

      Delete
    2. I agree with Greg, gun ownership rates are increasing in the U.S. It is for this reason that the government (Federal) must take action and enforce the people's right to civilian disarmament.

      Delete
    3. There is no right to civilian disarmament. You're claiming that we have a right to have our choices taken away from us. That's a perversion of the concept of rights.

      Delete
    4. Civilian disarmament is necessary to "ensure domestic tranquility", "promote the general welfare", "provide for the common defense" and to provide for "the security of a free State". The State bears the responsibility to ensure the right to civilian disarmament in order to guarantee these rights expressed by the constitution.

      Delete
    5. Necessary? Not at all. We can manage all of those things without disarming citizens. Besides, the preamble to the Constitution isn't the statement of our enumerated rights. It describes the purpose (and thus the boundaries of the powers) of the government. Governments don't have rights.

      Delete
  10. "When we talk about the failures of Prohibition, the focus element is the associated crime. "

    Nonsense. The common misconception is that Al Capone and the gansters of that era came about because of Prohibition. But the fact is organized crime had been around since the Civil War era.

    As for lowering crime rates--you couldn't be more wrong. We have scads of international data to prove you wrong. I realize gunloons believe the UK is some kind Mad Max Thunderdome of crime but the simple truth is that violent crime is a fraction of ours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jade, of course organized crime was around before Prohibition. Prohibition gave them a huge market to tap and gave them much more power and money. Are you denying this?

      Jadegold: “…but the simple truth is that violent crime is a fraction of ours.”

      Sure- so long as that “fraction” is 26/5 ths. 2011 violent crime rate in the USA according to the FBI UCR is 386.3 while the UK is over 2000.

      Wait for it…

      Jadegold will now come back and say our rates can’t be compared to the UK because of different recording methods. But… but… you just compared our rates- half an hour ago.

      I have no doubt there are different reporting standards that would create a large margin of error when comparing two numbers. But how are you going to make some 90% of their violent crimes go away in order to back up your claim that they have a “fraction of ours”? What sources are you using? They also keep total crime statistics that are about five times more than their violent crime rates. That ratio is less than ours, but it is not the orders of magnitude needed to make up the difference. This isn’t as simple as how crimes get classified.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

      Delete
    2. Al Capone wasn't selling pretzels. He sold a product that people wanted And it was an accountant who took him down.

      Delete
  11. How come none of the gun grabbers ever respond to posts that make it clear how easy it is to make a simple gun?

    I cannot even get a clear definition of what gun grabbers hope to achieve. Is their goal unarmed criminals? Then the reality of exceedingly cheap, simple, home made guns requiring not much more than a couple pieces of pipe, a nail, a hacksaw, and 15 minutes of effort means criminals will never be unarmed.

    So then what? I can only conclude that the goal of gun grabbers is to disarm citizens. And this is a dishonorable goal since armed citizens are not the people running around attacking others. Criminal behavior should be the focus of laws, NOT what property citizens desire to own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The control freaks don't respond because they can't. Facts and logic are against them.

      Delete
    2. We have talked about that before, I've even posted about it. But to suggest that making zip guns in the basement could make up for the practically unhindered flow of guns into the criminal world now, is ludicrous. So I usually ignore such nonsense.

      Delete
    3. MikeB stated, "But to suggest that making zip guns in the basement could make up for the practically unhindered flow of guns into the criminal world now, is ludicrous."

      Why is it ludicrous? What is your evidence to support your opinion? Surely you don't dispute the simple FACT that a person can make a single shot shotgun with a few dollars in parts (available at any hardware store) and 15 minutes of effort. So why wouldn't criminals use such a simple, effective, readily available firearm if more sophisticated firearms were not readily available?

      Criminals are notorious for using bricks, sticks, bats, tire irons, steak knives, etc. to attack people. And even more motivated criminals acquire firearms for attacking people. Why wouldn't such a motivated criminal simply make or purchase a zip gun if traditional firearms were not available?

      Delete
  12. "Please address my example about heroin. If we made heroin the same as all the gun laws you want (licensing, registration, back ground checks for transfers) would it actually be harder for an addict to get their hands on it than it is right now?"


    Wuhhh? Are you saying gunloonery is an addiction?

    Let's take meth as an example. Most anyone with IQ over 80 can make meth--so most addicts wouldn't bother with a Govt middleman. The fact is very few people can manufacture guns which means they are far more easily regulated in the market.

    But the fact is we could virtually eliminate the illegal manufacture of meth---if the pharmaceutical industry would cooperate. For example, we don't hear much about quaaludes any more--why is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jade, whom are you trying to keep the restricted product away from? “gunloons” or criminals? In my example the addict is the prohibited person. Mike’s idea is that you can simply make laws that allow general population access while preventing a prohibited person from using it. And he is arguing that it is not right to compare how well prohibiting an item from everyone’s use works. Ok, but how would lighter restrictions work better?

      Delete
    2. Goldilocks, it doesn't surprise me that you can't follow an analogy. To you, guns are sui generis. But the facts are against you:

      1. Machine shops could make firearms.

      2. Firearms could cross the southern border along with drugs and illegal immigrants.

      3. The 300,000,000+ firearms in this country would increase in street value.

      4. Military and police arsenals would become robbery targets.

      Delete
    3. No, TS, what I'm saying is almost all the guns in criminal hands right now started out the lawful property of some gun owner. Since you guys are enjoying such laxity with the way you secure your property, you need to be constrained to do it better - by the government.

      Delete
    4. You guys just can’t seem to address my point about heroin. Your question dodging skills are, shall we say near “presidential” levels?

      Heroin almost always starts of illegal. How well is that working at keeping it away from people who shouldn’t have it? How well do you think it would work to make it legal, and then try to constrain the people to secure their property through lots and lots of regulations? Would it work better than the way it is now? That is why we keep pointing out the failures of prohibition and how these levels of access is the very best you can hope for (i.e. it’s hopeless). Many people are calling for the end of the drug war to save money and to save lives. This is why these comparisons are valid.

      Delete
    5. TS: "Heroin almost always starts of illegal. "

      That's the point exactly. Because guns start the legal property of people, they can be regulated in such a way that their flow into the criminal world is seriously diminished.

      Delete
    6. More so than if guns were illegal to begin with? Again you are treading around this idea that regulations would work better than prohibitions. Are you saying guns are easier to control than heroin because guns are legal?

      Delete
  13. "How come none of the gun grabbers ever respond to posts that make it clear how easy it is to make a simple gun?"

    The answer, of course, it isn't that easy.

    I know gunloons will regale us with stories of zip guns and the like but the fact is the average gunloon can't do it. And those who can aren't going to be able to produce an accurate firearm that reliably works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What if an above average gunloon made a whole bunch and then distributed them to the average?

      It doesn’t matter though. That would only come into play if existing guns got super scarce- but nobody is talking about banning and confiscating guns, right?

      Delete
    2. Many firearms designs are public domain. Anyone with a machine shop could make a revolver, and a basic semiautomatic handgun wouldn't challenge many. A shotgun would be even easier.

      Delete
    3. I wonder if the instructions on the manufacture of small arms can be declared to constitute "obscenity" under the "Miller Test" (due to it's deadly purpose) and therefore be prohibited in accordance with the current interpretation of the Constitution.

      Therefore non-State actors would not possess the knowledge necessary for the manufacture of deadly arms.

      Delete
    4. E.N., you're commenting on the Internet while wondering if knowledge can be banned. But speaking of obscenity, ever noticed how much porn comes up in a spam folder every day? You control freaks dream of denying content to the masses, but people get what they want anyway. Besides, basic firearm designs aren't conceptually difficult.

      Delete
  14. Speaking of backfiring...Cook County, Illinois is going to institute a $25 gun tax for every firearm purchased in the county. Gun shops in surrounding counties will see a sudden uptick in gun sales while shops in Cook county will lose business. Lawful gun buyers are hurt, but not the criminal element because they don't buy their guns from gun shops...imagine that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. By current laws in Connecticut, the man who shot up sandy hook could not legally carry a gun due to reason of insanity. His mother taught him how to shoot, despite his mental background.
    This is PROOF that your background checks for the insane do not work. It doesn't matter what the laws are, someone is going to find a way to obtain a gun

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It doesn't matter what the laws are, someone is going to find a way to obtain a gun."

      Yes, "someone" will. Even many will. But not AS MANY. Strict gun control laws will not prevent ALL the crime but they will prevent some.

      Does that make sense to you?

      Delete