A suggested read for those who seek a prohibition of guns:

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Rise-Fall-Prohibition/dp/074327704X

[baldguy]

1. So, by your lights, there's no such thing as a "law abiding gun owner"?

All the more reason to get rid of the damn things.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. I don't recall saying such a thing. Perhaps you've got a link?

[baldguy]

13. You're implying a ban on guns would be like the ban on alcohol.

And as such it would be widely ignored.

I can see it now: People who brag today about being "law abiding gun owners" can, when the gun ban goes into effect, camp out at the underground "shoot-easys" where they can mow down innocent children with impunity. They won't have to pretend to be sickened & appalled at the mass murders they secretly dreamed of committing themselves.

Because SHOOTIN' GUNZ IS FUN!

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. I've never found it fun enough to actually become a gun owner again.

What mistakes of alcohol Prohibition do you think a proposed 'gun Prohibition' should avoid?

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. I guess there wasn't any such link to be found...

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Would 'gun Prohibition' work any better than alcohol Prohibition did?

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. Can we try it for 14 years?

What the heck? It can always be repealed.

[HooptieWagon]

41. Maybe the "war on guns" will be as successful as the "war on drugs".

There's only 10 times as many gun owners as drug users. And we're so good at stopping drugs from coming over the border...and the cartels can branch out to gun-running and be even more powerful. Yep, that's going to end real well...

[Chan790]

43. Likely yes actually.

A gun ban in the US would, for the gnashing of teeth, probably be as successful as Japan's 1971 ban over a similar period of time.

They're not as easy to produce as drugs or alcohol...if they were, there would already be a bootleg gun-smithing black-market in the US for obvious reasons. The absence of one proves the capacity of the government and difficulty of the premise in this respect. Just about nobody has the means or skill to produce a gun of moderate quality in their backyard from raw-material off the radar...the best-case scenario therein is something akin to the pipe-musket assembled from parts available in a hardware store: single-shot, wildly-inaccurate past 60', non-standard caliber, no magazine, slow to load, low muzzle-velocity due to lack of rifling. Severe criminalization of possession, transfer or sale would reduce guns in circulation rapidly...history and observation bears that out.

The issue raised above about smuggling of guns into the US ignores that Mexico already has a failed gun-ban (most of the guns in Mexico are smuggled in from the US) which would be substantially-increased in effectiveness by a US ban...and the difficulty of smuggling guns in any great quantity in the first place.

[onehandle]

2. Ignore. nt

[villager]

3. I suggest you read some of the tributes to the slain kids. And perhaps look at their pictures.

That is, if you can tear yourself away from your guns for just a wee bit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. I've read numerous tributes,seen the pictures- also, I do not own any guns.

Care to discuss Okrent's book?

[villager]

16. Good. Then you can quit apologizing for them.

And no, Okrent's book has no bearing on whether to keep allowing military grade weapons into our streets.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. I have nothing to apologize for. And why would 'gun Prohibition' be different from the alcohol one?

[villager]

20. Nothing to do with the other. Safety regulations versus absolute prohibition.

And yes, in light of recent events, and role of people like you in making sure guns are easily available -- very much to apologize for.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Sorry, I only take guilt trips I book myself.

[villager]

28. No, one wouldn't expect you squander any unnecessary emotion on those kids.

you have too many beside-the-point posts to tend to!

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. You don't have the moral authority to determine if my response is fitting or not.

You don't know me, and your assumption of moral superiority over me is just that-
your assumption. You also don't get to decide what is or isn't a relevant post.

On the contrary, you've gone to some lengths to derail discussion of a subject that wasn't
even directed at you- it was directed at those DUers that have expressed a desire to
ban all guns. Aside from an attitude that's more or less 'we shall prevail, for our hearts
are pure and our strength is as the strength of ten', they seem strangely unconcerned about the nuts and bolts of such a thing.

FYI, I've gone over the Sandy Hook incident plenty with friends, co-workers and loved ones.

[villager]

35. I'm not the one advocating for the murder weapons of those kids to stay available, unchecked

You are.

What was that about morals?

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. "Not agreeing with your proposals" =/= "unchecked".

Treating those that disagree with you like blow-ins from "Sovereign Citizen Underground"
might get you points with those who already agree with your viewpoint- but it will persuade
few to change their minds....

[villager]

46. Then what are your proposals for restricting access to weapons that plow 7 bullets a second

...into the body of a child?

What, specifically, are your proposals for getting those weapons off the street?

Rather than all the snarking and posturing, we'd love to hear.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. The need for an assault weapons ban is not axiomatic, whatever you may claim.

The rifle used at Sandy Hook was not legal in Connecticut, so it was obviously brought there
illegally by someone.

My proposals are interconnected:

*Make use of the NICS (instant background check system) mandatory for ALL firearms
transfers.

*Open it to private sellers, otherwise it's corporate welfare for licensed firearms dealers.

*A carrot and stick approach to encourage its use:
1) Immunity from civil and criminal liability for those sellers who properly use it.
The other side of that coin would be-
2) In addition to whatever penalties entail for illegal transfer, make a seller who doesn't
use the NICS an accessory before the fact for whatever crime might be committed with
said firearm.

Who says we're opposed to common-sense gun control?

[villager]

55. Those are good starting points. But the guns were legally purchased:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/headlines/20121218-connecticut-school-shootings-may-cast-shadow-when-texas-legislature-meets-in-austin.ece


The state application for a concealed handgun license covers the same ground and, likewise, does not inquire into the mental condition of others in the applicant’s household.
The question is relevant.

The mother of the Connecticut shooter had legally purchased the firearms that her son used to slaughter innocents. She was among his victims, shot in her home, apparently before he drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School and killed 26 more people.

Legal experts say both the federal application to purchase a firearm and the state application for a concealed handgun permit could be expanded to include mental health information about family members or others in an applicant’s household.

And an applicant who admits that someone in his household suffers from mental illness could be required to take a training course in how to secure firearms — using a locked safe, trigger locks or other mechanisms.

Nonetheless, glad to see the beginnings of a dialogue.

Cheers!

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. There *are* calls for 'absolute prohibition' of guns here at DU.

That is what I am addressing.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Ken Burns does wonderful work, don't you think?

Thanks for posting.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. The series was kind of meh. The book was better.

Especially since it delved further into the history of the temperance movement.

[samsingh]

6. intellectually dishonest - controls are not prohibition

nothing to see here

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. There have been several calls for complete gun prohibition here at DU.

This was directed at the people who made such calls.

(Added on edit: Notably, by the poster of #10- in his prior incarnation as sharesunited)

[ThatPoetGuy]

14. I'm not for prohibiting handguns,

but there's no real parallel between a handgun ban and Prohibition, outside the minds of people grasping for straws.

[Kaleva]

15. There's just a few of those.

As there are a few who want to open the registry on automatic weapons or repeal the NFA all together.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. True, but there are more of them now. I wonder how many of them are aware of...

...the history of the various Prohibitions this country has/had.

[Loudly]

10. Alcohol enters your body voluntarily. Bullets enter your body against your will.

It's an important distinction from which different public policy must result.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. But will different "results" result?

[Loudly]

30. Do we ask that about child pornography? No.

We deem it to be something harmful in and of itself, and we stamp it out wherever it is found.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. And what value of 'we' are you using, shares?

Those that agree with you?

Still the same old sharesunited...

[DanTex]

18. Of course, because alcohol and firearms are identical.

Prohibition of alcohol failed, therefore everything should be legal. Is that the argument?

Do you really think that this kind of stupidity is going to appeal to anyone outside the NRA bubble?

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. I'd like if just *one* 'gun Prohibitionist' could explain why it would be different.

What would be different from the alcohol and methamphetamine prohibitions?

[DanTex]

27. Umm, for starters, because alcohol is easier to manufacture, and to transport...

Both the supply-side and the demand-side of the markets for alcohol and firearms are completely different. Many countries have successfully banned firearms, or at least certain kinds of firearms. In fact, the US is one of them, considering that there is basically no black market at all for machine guns.

So, the real question is, why would any intelligent person think that alcohol and guns are remotely similar to one another, in terms of the potential for legal restrictions.

[thucythucy]

34. DanTex that was one excellent post!

Clear, concise, and absolutely to the point.



Bravo!

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. There wasn't much of a black market for alcohol before Prohibition, either.

[DanTex]

45. That's it? That's the whole argument?

Like I pointed out, the supply-side and demand-side of the market for guns versus drugs/alcohol are completely different. I wonder if you weren't able to figure this out on your own, or if you are intentionally playing dumb for ideological reasons.

You are also ignore many successful gun prohibitions, for example in the UK or Japan. Or even in the US, with machine guns. You don't see many black market machine gun manufacturers.

The examples where gun prohibition fails are places like Mexico, but that is because parts of that country are essentially lawless and the drug gangs have more power than the police. Not to mention the fact that they border the US which has a huge and very lightly regulated gun market.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Japan and the UK didn't have a gun culture, nor did they have many guns.

I would also point out that the narcotraficantes not only have enough money to
get actual military (as opposed to US-legal lookalikes) weaponry, they are in fact using said
weaponry.

[Nye Bevan]

24. Handgun prohibition seems to have been working pretty well in the UK,

since its enaction following the 1996 Dunblane school massacre. Perhaps banning guns has more public support than banning alcohol. After all, nobody ever committed mass murder with a six pack of Budweiser.

[villager]

29. +1

n/t

[farminator3000]

31. there are types of cars you can't own, that doesn't mean cars are prohibited

anybody who wants to prohibit guns is nuts, there are 300,000,000 million in this country, what are we gonna do, melt them all down.

[beevul]

42. Which ones are those?

"there are types of cars you can't own"

Which cars can't a person own?

[farminator3000]

44. as far as the general public goes...

the average person can't really own:

an F-1 or nascar type car. i guess maybe you could buy one, but you wouldn't be able to take it out of your garage, so it would be basically pointless. you could take it to a race track i suppose (on a trailer). that's also kinda expensive and involves licensing and insurance, training, etc.

vehicles over a certain weight you need a CDL- like a limo i believe- a commercial drivers license

actually any commercial plated vehicle has to be owned by a company- that probably varies by state

also these:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/04/cars-uncle-sam-says-you-cant-have/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Reader&pid=801&viewall=true

[treestar]

48. So the average person can't have a machine gun

That is just as enforceable. Along with minors, felons and the mentally ill.

[Fumesucker]

36. Nuclear weapon prohibition hasn't worked

My neighbor has a thermonuclear device and two fission devices, all of them illegal.

He's scared the crap out of me and I'm looking for a gram or two of antimatter on Craigslist.

[XRubicon]

37. I'd like to suggest a movie to you

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Yuks aside, I did post upthread that I do not own a gun-haven't for years.

So what point are you trying to make?

[treestar]

47. Entirely different

And liquor is licensed and restricted still.

Cars and driving are licensed and restricted.

Some substances are still banned.

The machine guns more appropriate to war zones can be banned and the rest licensed and restricted from certain people. They already are. There is no difficulty here.

Also objects used only for hunting animals or killing or sport are not the same as beverages. They are more permanent. Alcohol does not kill - or if it does, it is through years of abuse, not just one drink. One gunshot can kill someone.

[Zoeisright]

49. A suggested read for those with no logical reasoning skills:

And that means YOU:

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2012/12/18/death-to-all-guns/

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Better get started on amending the Constitution, then.

Because that's what it will take as a start

[Hoyt]

51. Hug and enjoy your guns. The rest of us want a change, not more NRA BS.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking- see post #40...

[Hoyt]

57. You've been a gun promoter for some time, that's what I know. And Prohibition

on alcohol is not the same as restricting guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. Because gun Prohibition will *surely* work better than alcohol Prohibition?

Better than heroin Prohibition?
Better than cannabis Prohibition?
Better than methamphetamine Prohibition?

Prohibitions do seem to work well for those that get paid to enforce them, and those that get
paid to evade them.

[atreides1]

59. That's Hoyt

He hates all things gun related...at least gun ownership by citizens. I guess you could say he's the anti-gun version of Ted Nugent...but with the ability to articulate...

[Hoyt]

62. Better than being a Ted Nugent gum cultist.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. "gum cultist"? How does the Nuge swing-Beemans, Juicy Fruit, or Doublemint?

[librechik]

56. false equivalence.

Besides, restrictions on ownership isn't prohibition.

Aussies banned guns after a crazy guy killed 35 people at one location. That law did abs9lutely nothing except make sure there was never another mass murder in Australia.(since 1996.)

They bought back 600,000 guns. It would be more expensive to buy back 300 million guns, but if the government can eradicate polio (it did) it can do this.

[MNBrewer]

60. Alcohol is more strongly regulated than guns in this country

How about we establish regulations at LEAST as strong as those for liquor?

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Make use of the 'instant background check' mandatory, as outlined here :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117295035

Make use of the NICS system mandatory, but open it to private gun sellers.

Use the carrot and stick approach to encourage use:

1) Civil and criminal immunity for those transferors who properly use it.

2)In addition to whatever penalties entail from not using it, make the illegal transferor
accessory before the fact for whatever crimes may be committed with the gun(s).

[jmg257]

61. Yep - I can see it now...gun range Speakeasies loaded with men and women

just hankering to - quietly - squeeze off a few rounds.

Have to wonder just how big the underground demand for illegal arms will be. I would also wonder just how much it would take to pay off cops to look the other way when the contraband are illegal guns they very well may be up against (vs alcohol pretty much considered a harmless vice by so many).

Make the penalties severe enough to make the payoff unworth the risks, and most people won't bother - supplying or demanding.

[FSogol]

63. Good book, but idiotic comparison.