The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[fred41]

You're right: we won't ban guns, we won't ban alcohol, nor will be ban tobacco. For one thing, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these.

I absolutely think tobacco should be banned. It is a stimulant to a degree ...but to no benefit whatsoever. Nicotine is simply a poison. I think it should be banned and I am dead serious.

Though I agree with you on gun regulation, I disagree that serious people don't want a total ban. If by, serious people, you mean US politicians, I'm sure there are plenty that would have no problem with a total ban, just as I'm sure there's a percentage of the population that would have no problem with a total ban.

[Stavros]

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

Why then are you refusing to accept that the US has banned alcohol in the past? And it was not only a failure but created a golden age for the mafia and organized crime who made millions or more from illicit alcohol sales, just as a ban on tobacco would create a lucrative illegal market in addition to the billions being made from illegal narcotics.

[broncofan]

I absolutely think tobacco should be banned. It is a stimulant to a degree ...but to no benefit whatsoever. Nicotine is simply a poison. I think it should be banned and I am dead serious.

Though I agree with you on gun regulation, I disagree that serious people don't want a total ban. If by, serious people, you mean US politicians, I'm sure there are plenty that would have no problem with a total ban, just as I'm sure there's a percentage of the population that would have no problem with a total ban.

I agree that tobacco is a huge health hazard but I don't know what kind of black market there would be if we banned it. We'd be I think the only country or one of a small number to do so.

I also somewhat agree with you and somewhat with Trish about whether serious people want a ban. Some things are untenable and you kind of only want them in the vaguest sense. I agree there is a sort of dualism in the way some people talk about guns. On the one hand, maybe they only want assault weapon bans, but on the other, they may secretly lament that they can't go further. But I don't know if that means they would want a ban or just something more restrictive that is barred by the second amendment, like a handgun ban within certain city limits. It's not politically convenient to talk about wanting to go further than the second amendment allows because it creates paranoia and bars any compromise to regulate as far as we're allowed.

But then what Trish is talking about is that most mature people accept that the path forward is regulation. I mean, secretly I may lament that alcohol can't be banned, but I don't seriously want to ban it...if only because it can't effectively be banned.

[fred41]

Why then are you refusing to accept that the US has banned alcohol in the past? And it was not only a failure but created a golden age for the mafia and organized crime who made millions or more from illicit alcohol sales, just as a ban on tobacco would create a lucrative illegal market in addition to the billions being made from illegal narcotics.

Oh I agree that, much as I would like it, there is no way to ban an item such as cigarettes outright (especially when viewed in the sobering light of the morning sun)...all you can do is try to regulate it to death until it gets to the point where smoking becomes futile...I believe most states now have some type of indoor smoking bans..and some major cities even have bans in parks and some outdoor areas (not to mention the huge increases on product cost by taxation). Death by a thousand cuts.

I think that is the fear that some folks have with guns. That the word 'regulation' will basically be tantamount to a ban.
That once you "open that door..."
I think that's horse shit though. When it comes to firearms, there should be heavy, common sense regulation. I think the winds favor a bill but congress is incapable of any type of reform at this moment anyhow. So this debate will go on and on without any gov't action even remotely on the horizon.

[fred41]

I agree that tobacco is a huge health hazard but I don't know what kind of black market there would be if we banned it. We'd be I think the only country or one of a small number to do so.

I also somewhat agree with you and somewhat with Trish about whether serious people want a ban. Some things are untenable and you kind of only want them in the vaguest sense. I agree there is a sort of dualism in the way some people talk about guns. On the one hand, maybe they only want assault weapon bans, but on the other, they may secretly lament that they can't go further. But I don't know if that means they would want a ban or just something more restrictive that is barred by the second amendment, like a handgun ban within certain city limits. It's not politically convenient to talk about wanting to go further than the second amendment allows because it creates paranoia and bars any compromise to regulate as far as we're allowed.

But then what Trish is talking about is that most mature people accept that the path forward is regulation. I mean, secretly I may lament that alcohol can't be banned, but I don't seriously want to ban it...if only because it can't effectively be banned.

I believe in common sense regulation. But I think the fear is that the population is fickle and tends to want laws created to "fix" the problem of the moment. Even when reality dictates that some things can't be fixed completely no matter the cost in human life. But fixing something 'somewhat' is still better than 'not at all'.

[yosi]

(Why should one man who is not a dealer be able to buy 33 firearms in a single year without raising a single alarm? - which was the case for the Vegas shooter), .

It's all about the money , money , money.........

[yosi]

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.3574102

Have you ever heard of somebody shooting alcohol at people during a concert ?

[fred41]

Have you ever heard of somebody shooting alcohol at people during a concert ?

Exactly.
I think quite often when people speak of the dangers of alcohol, the easiest thing to think of is the amount of people killed from drunk driving. But drinking and driving is already illegal, all we can do is try to continuously improve on enforcing that law. We have LE checking on drivers and have the ability to regulate some of it in civil court also, but beyond that, who knows, the technology exists to create cars that test blood alcohol levels and won't start if too high, but self driving cars could make something like that obsolete before it really ever hits the ground.I'm drifting a bit, but the point is constant regulations won't stop all fatalities, but they certainly help to limit them to an extent.
The same would go to gun regulations.

[Ts RedVeX]

Yes.. you should never drink and drive for you might spill too much.

Oh. Drunken gunmen have less chance of hitting so banning alcohol is a bad idea.

[trish]

There are a LOT of people wanting a total ban on guns.....Meanwhile, the thing that kills more than guns (alcohol) continues to wreck havoc..
Yes, you are hypocrite if you don't want alcohol banned in the same swipe with guns....

In relation to guns, tobacco and alcohol, I stand corrected. There are some serious people who seriously propose banning at least one of these. Fred, for example is for a complete ban on tobacco. I can’t say I agree, but he makes a good case. Nevertheless, my larger argument stands. All three are highly regulated and arguably alcohol more so than guns. Most people are of the opinion that all three should be regulated at least to some extent. Charges of hypocrisy against them would therefore be spurious.

Calls for better enforcement of the regulations against alcohol (higher fines for drunk driving, better policing of environments wherein it’s likely to occur etc.) are not generally opposed by those of us who would also like to see stronger firearm regulation and better enforcement. I, for example, would like to see no carry in National Parks, and by ‘no carry’ I mean no alcoholic beverages, and no firearms in National Parks. If you want to throw in no tobacco too (it’s a fire-hazard after all), I’m okay with that too.