[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38881196]Except he was arguing that prohibition didn't stop people from getting what they wanted.
Alcohol consumption halved.[/QUOTE]
And an assault weapons ban would do what it's sought out to do: Stop people from [I][U][B]legally[/B][/U][/I] buying "assault" weapons.
But it'll do diddly squat to curb actual crime.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38881152]So you're willing to look past the problems it causes because of the effects it achieved? Trade one problem for another, then?
I can see why prohibition was repealed.[/QUOTE]
Actually, [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html?src=pm"]prohibition did not increase crime or consumption.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38881212]And an assault weapons ban would do what it's sought out to do: Stop people from [I][U][B]legally[/B][/U][/I] buying "assault" weapons.
But it'll do diddly squat to curb actual crime.[/QUOTE]
[del]Kind of like how organized crime increased during the prohibition.[/del] :v:
I guess this is supposed to be "incorrect" or some such thing.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38881203]It obviously didn't stop half the people then you fucking dolt[/QUOTE]
If a gun ban had the same results as the prohibition, objective wise, then that is an insanely high chance of cutting armed robbery and shootings in two. That's a solid victory in my eyes, from that point you can find ways to cut out the rest.
[QUOTE=slamex;38881179]It's not a risk though, you don't live in a war torn or third world country where getting fresh water can be a difficult task in itself. You live in a first world country with governing bodies, enforced laws and a health system.
What you are is paranoid. You believe that just because you don't live in a gated community, you're at risk of being mugged or killed everyday. You're also likely to be hit by a car or infected with a disease or any other possible occurrences that kill thousands of people. But you're not worried about that are you?
The want argument is more to do with how the media portrays guns as being these heroic tools that can save lives and makes you more likely to carry a gun on you like it's part of your skin.[/QUOTE]
Your interpretation of me is hilariously wrong, I live in the country and if I call the police im looking at forty five minutes so if I want my own pistol excuse me. Not to mention the fact there are a few million Americans that live in the mountains, ever heard of a cougar, they can fuck you up, pretty badly.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38881211]And? That's still saying that there's 50 percent of the people still drinking.[/QUOTE]
Yes except it isn't a false dilemma, the amendment had a considerably noticeable effect.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38881226]Kind of like how organized crime increased during the prohibition. :v:[/QUOTE]
That's irrelevant though, that has nothing to do with drinking.
now if you said how illegal drinking rose up a lot then, that'd be relevant
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;38881077]They're the precursor to firearms. A ranged weapon designed to kill. This is the same logic you applied to guns, so I guess a local populace doesn't need them and it would be justified to ban bows and arrows?[/QUOTE]
I know what a bow and arrow is, but you can't honestly tell me you think a bow and arrow is in league with assault weapon. The amount of skill it takes to even fire the thing in the direction you want it to, and the time it takes to fire another shot is NOTHING like firing an assault weapon. And I've fired both, so I'm not saying this closed minded.
Plus a bow and arrow are weapons as much as a sword is if we're going with the precursor to firearms but I bet you have neither in your house.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38881212]And an assault weapons ban would do what it's sought out to do: Stop people from [I][U][B]legally[/B][/U][/I] buying "assault" weapons.
But it'll do diddly squat to curb actual crime.[/QUOTE]
Except I was arguing against his point, and not about guns.
Consumption (even illegal consumption, considering all consumption was now illegal) declined by half.
If you brought in a ban on guns with similar conditions, you would probably see the number of gun owners drop by a large amount.
I'm glad that Obama instated legislation so that future school shooters will have to use slightly different looking rifles
As long as the rifles look less scary we're all safe
[QUOTE=slamex;38881249]I know what a bow and arrow is, but you can't honestly tell me you think a bow and arrow is in league with assault weapon. The amount of skill it takes to even fire the thing in the direction you want it to, and the time it takes to fire another shot is NOTHING like firing an assault weapon. And I've fired both, so I'm not saying this closed minded.
Plus a bow and arrow are weapons as much as a sword is if we're going with the precursor to firearms but I bet you have neither in your house.[/QUOTE]
A sword is a debatable classification. A kitchen knife can be considered a sword.
Bows don't need training if were talking about crossbows. And bows only would take a week to learn how to properly use them, save for something with a heavy pull like a longbow.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;38881247]That's irrelevant though, that has nothing to do with drinking.
now if you said how illegal drinking rose up a lot then, that'd be relevant[/QUOTE]
Moonshine. [url]http://www.blueridgeinstitute.org/moonshine/building_the_moonshiner_industry.html[/url]
[QUOTE=slamex;38881249]I know what a bow and arrow is, but you can't honestly tell me you think a bow and arrow is in league with assault weapon. The amount of skill it takes to even fire the thing in the direction you want it to, and the time it takes to fire another shot is NOTHING like firing an assault weapon. And I've fired both, so I'm not saying this closed minded.
Plus a bow and arrow are weapons as much as a sword is if we're going with the precursor to firearms but I bet you have neither in your house.[/QUOTE]
I own a bow and arrow, and I'm not defending it at all. It's a weapon designed to kill, either in hunting or war, exactly like a gun. Just because you believe bows are harder to use (not necessarily true, hell i can shoot an arrow substantially better than a gun) it does NOT validate your argument.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38881265]Except I was arguing against his point, and not about guns.
Consumption (even illegal consumption, considering all consumption was now illegal) declined by half.
If you brought in a ban on guns with similar conditions, you would probably see the number of gun owners drop by a large amount.[/QUOTE]
Except of course for the gunowners who already have guns. So no, the number of gun owners probably would not drop, especially since they are considering adding in a sort of "grandfather" thing where guns purchased pre-ban will not be affected.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38881197]I don't know where you live, but America is this massive country with a lot of social and economic diversity. Having a gun doesn't make you a nut if you intend to use it for self defense.[/QUOTE]
I live in an aryan utopia where everyone is equal and we have a population of 10.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38881265]Except I was arguing against his point, and not about guns.
Consumption (even illegal consumption, considering all consumption was now illegal) declined by half.
If you brought in a ban on guns with similar conditions, you would probably see the number of gun owners drop by a large amount.[/QUOTE]
Sobotnik baby, it doesn't work like that. The gun owners would remain at the same level and if anything, would increase because of a forbidden pleasure aspect to it. Guns aren't like alcohol, they're not just gone when you put a glass up and spill it down on the ground.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;38881289]Moonshine. [url]http://www.blueridgeinstitute.org/moonshine/building_the_moonshiner_industry.html[/url][/QUOTE]
see NOW we're back on the relevant train of conversation.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;38881247]That's irrelevant though, that has nothing to do with drinking.
now if you said how illegal drinking rose up a lot then, that'd be relevant[/QUOTE]
It's not irreverent though because it has to do with drinking. Entire industries sprung up literally overnight to provide illegal liquor. Those people didn't just deal with booze either.
[QUOTE=slamex;38881299]I live in an aryan utopia where everyone is equal and we have a population of 10.[/QUOTE]
Iceland?
[QUOTE=slamex;38881249]I know what a bow and arrow is, but you can't honestly tell me you think a bow and arrow is in league with assault weapon. The amount of skill it takes to even fire the thing in the direction you want it to, and the time it takes to fire another shot is NOTHING like firing an assault weapon. And I've fired both, so I'm not saying this closed minded.
Plus a bow and arrow are weapons as much as a sword is if we're going with the precursor to firearms [b]but I bet you have neither in your house.[/b][/QUOTE]
Actually, I have both. :v:
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;38881295]I own a bow and arrow, and I'm not defending it at all. It's a weapon designed to kill, either in hunting or war, exactly like a gun. Just because you believe bows are harder to use (not necessarily true, hell i can shoot an arrow substantially better than a gun) it does NOT validate your argument.[/QUOTE]
I'm not using it to validate my arguement. My arguement was putting assualt weapons in the same context as cars and kitchen knives is idiotic. You're the one who started talking about the bow and arrow.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38881298]Except of course for the gunowners who already have guns. So no, the number of gun owners probably would not drop, especially since they are considering adding in a sort of "grandfather" thing where guns purchased pre-ban will not be affected.[/QUOTE]
Well sure if a grandfather thing was added.
That's not to discount the strong possibility that despite all other flaws, if you banned guns, there would be less of them around (just like how alcohol was banned, and consumption dropped).
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38881316]It's not irreverent though because it has to do with drinking. Entire industries sprung up literally overnight to provide illegal liquor. Those people didn't just deal with booze either.[/QUOTE]
It did stop the legal mass purchasing of liquor though, did it not?
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38881317]Iceland?[/QUOTE]
Please sir, we prefer it as whiteland.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38881265]Except I was arguing against his point, and not about guns.
Consumption (even illegal consumption, considering all consumption was now illegal) declined by half.
If you brought in a ban on guns with similar conditions, you would probably see the number of gun owners drop by a large amount.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you can directly compare these figures at all.
Alcohol is consumed. Guns are not. Sure they wear out eventually, but they are largely defined as durable goods.
[QUOTE=slamex;38881325]I'm not using it to validate my arguement. My arguement was putting assualt weapons in the same context as cars and kitchen knives is idiotic. You're the one who started talking about the bow and arrow.[/QUOTE]
Because you said that guns weren't needed by local communities due to them being weapons designed only for killing. I raised the fact that bows were made for the same thing. You then completely dodged it by saying how bows take more skill.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38881327]Well sure if a grandfather thing was added.
That's not to discount the strong possibility that despite all other flaws, if you banned guns, there would be less of them around (just like how alcohol was banned, and consumption dropped).[/QUOTE]
Yes because prohibition worked out great and didn't at all create a nationwide criminal empire.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38881265]you would probably see the number of gun owners drop by a large amount.[/QUOTE]
Legal ones, likely. But then you'd be stuck with the same number of armed criminals as before, plus a fuckton of people who want guns and can't legally get them.
It's a great recipe for disaster.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38881303]Sobotnik baby, it doesn't work like that. The gun owners would remain at the same level and if anything, would increase because of a forbidden pleasure aspect to it. Guns aren't like alcohol, they're not just gone when you put a glass up and spill it down on the ground.[/QUOTE]
New guns and bullets must come from domestic producers however.
Distilleries shut down, and I think firearms factories would too.
Guns are complicated pieces of machinery. If you shut down a lot of factories producing them and their spare parts, a lot of gun owners would start to face difficulties with maintaining existing guns or buying new ones.
[editline]18th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;38881353]Yes because prohibition worked out great and didn't at all create a nationwide criminal empire.[/QUOTE]
I'm not discounting that however.
Consumption actually did drop.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;38881332]It did stop the legal mass purchasing of liquor though, did it not?[/QUOTE]
Do I really need to explain why this is a loaded question, and is therefor a terrible one?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.