Nope. You are making the exact same category error. You are conflating the banning of a subset of an industry with the banning of an entire industry. There are important differences that change the political dynamic and those differences guarantee that the entire industry is politically safe.
Neither of you have any kind of argument that comes close to showing that the industry is under any kind of political threat. I don't find it convincing, anyway.
And I would make the same point as Str82Hell. The recreational drug industry and the medicinal drug industry are two entirely separate things. That they both deal in things that are, in the English language, referred to as 'drugs' isn't relevant. Effectively, you could ban all guns by your logic since cars are still produced, and given that they both use metal, they're obviously the same.
what IF those statistics show that ownership of guns DOES (and not 'may') lead to infringement of other civil liberties, would you budge then?
Lead to? No. Cause? Yes. As mentioned in my "Let's Ban Cameras" blog, there is a statistically proven link between cameras and child sexual abuse imagery. By your logic, there is a point at which the proliferation of child pornography would be so great you would allow the banning of cameras.
If it could be shown that society would really benefit from a lack of guns, then does the libertarian point of view really stand?
Of course. Society could benefit from a lot of things. Compulsory exercise programs. Fingerprint ID everywhere. Strip searches for all those who enter a public building. The banning of cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and conceivably even such things as guns, knives, spray paint, hammers, saws, and LeBron James. This doesn't make it okay to bring in such laws.
If you could prove that there are a statistically significant number of accidental/collateral damage deaths caused by legal gun owners (not intentional and illegal murders), I'd look at what training is mandatory for the ownership of a gun. I wouldn't ban them though.
You insist it's a civil liberty that we ought to be entitled and it appears it's of your view that consequences don't matter, which to me is a foolish standpoint because consequences always matter - though your lack of opinion surrounding missiles suggests that maybe consequences do factor somewhat, I'm just confused as to why you're so sternly pro-guns irregardless of consequence, when it appears that the standard may or may not apply for other arms.
Also, do not use the word irregardless, because it isn't one, even if Firefox's spell checker is convinced otherwise. The word you're looking for is 'irrespective' or 'regardless', not a combination of the two..
Not every kind of 'freedom' is beneficial or relevant to every kind of society.
Hey, if you want to live in a Police State go right ahead.