(07-05-2016, 05:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(07-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I do not propose prohibition. You use that word, but it does not compute.
We have agreed on some control measures.
Most gun control advocates want weapons of certain types out of circulation. The same problems encountered in the war on drugs and in 1930s alcohol prohibition exist with the current and proposed gun prohibitions. You don't like the word as it reminds everyone about how difficult the practical problems of prohibiting stuff is. The one sure thing prohibitions do is provide opportunity for profits for criminals. Actually keeping stuff out of circulation is hard. There are very real trade offs involving the cost of attempting to enforce a prohibition, increased criminal profit and violence resulting from attempts to bypass the prohibition, and the very limited impact such laws actually have on availability.
I don't care if you like the word or not. Do you want possession of certain things prohibited by the government? If so, the word applies and the problems with the government attempting to enforce prohibitions should be remembered. You can spend as much time as you like describing how intense you feel about the issue, but some care about how difficult it is to actually implement your ideas. Is it practical? Does it work?
There it is. I knew you get around to the false equivalency of banning military weapons platforms to illegal drugs. I guess comparing such a ban to say ownership of bazookas, chemical warfare shells, tanks and ICBMs is just too far afield, ey?
Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab? Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes? pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually. As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP. Whooo-hoo!