Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage

[Agamemnon]

So your claim is that there is not a black market for drugs, violent crime occurring to resolve disputes in that black market, or overflowing jails? Because that is news to me.

I've never made that claim. You're creating a straw man to try to ridicule me.

It's exactly the same situation you mentioned with regards to banning guns.

No. You and Str82Hell are not understanding the concepts here and I'm getting tired of repeating them.

The consequences of an all-encompassing ban on guns would be far more significant than the ban on some drugs.

A black market springs up for the illegal item, violence and jailings ensue. The government is also losing revenue they could gain from selling these items legally, and jobs selling and creating this item disappear. What exactly is the difference between the two situations, other than scale?

BINGO! Its' all about scale. Scale is the primary difference and it is a massive difference that can't be ignored.

Making some drugs illegal and keeping others legal doesn't have near the economic impact that a full-on gun ban would have. Not even close. It is like the difference in the explosive power between a hand grenade and an atomic bomb-- you are trying to convince me they are the same, I'm saying they are not.

The economic impact of a comprehensive gun ban would be devastating. The economic impact of making cocaine or heroin illegal goes unnoticed by the vast majority.

And there are people making noise about drugs. Less effective post-ban than pre-ban, perhaps, but it's still happening. Mostly with respect to marijuana (which appears to be working in some states).

This doesn't affect my point at all.

You must think our politicians are all total idiots

Not all of them, but some sure are. There's certainly no lack of government stupidity in the world.

OK. So you admit that we have SOME politicians that are capable of grasping the enormity of the economic consequences. Do you think the rest are so stupid that they STILL CAN'T understand the enormity of the economic consequences when they are TOLD by those "smarter" politicians?? I don't buy that at all.

If the dumb ones put forward comprehensive gun ban legislation, the smart ones are going to say "Hey, wait a minute guys... We're going to kill a buttload of jobs with this and that's going to be real bad for us next election..."

I'm reasonably confident that even the dumb ones are going to reject it when the smart ones point out the dire consequences to their election prospects.

You are just grasping at straws to keep your "boy who cried wolf" fantasy alive for some reason.

Could you tell me what this fantasy is?

The fantasy that a gun ban is possible and likely to happen.

The scenario you mentioned post-ban with respect to guns sounded similar to the situation with the War on Drugs. I pointed this out.

Sure, it does bear some similarities, I've never said it doesn't. It is the differences between them that ought to be making a little light go on in your head right about now. I've pointed out the differences, but you continue to act like your lopsided comparisons have validity. They don't.

[koberulz]

BINGO! Its' all about scale. Scale is the primary difference and it is a massive difference that can't be ignored.

Right. So the point you're arguing against is one I'm not making. Glad we cleared that up.

I would, however, like some numbers on the jobs and tax revenue lost due to drugs being illegal.

The economic impact of making cocaine or heroin illegal goes unnoticed by the vast majority.

Prove this.

This doesn't affect my point at all.

Unless your argument is solely about scale, and not even what it's a scale of, of course it does.

OK. So you admit that we have SOME politicians that are capable of grasping the enormity of the economic consequences. Do you think the rest are so stupid that they STILL CAN'T understand the enormity of the economic consequences when they are TOLD by those "smarter" politicians?? I don't buy that at all.

If the dumb ones put forward comprehensive gun ban legislation, the smart ones are going to say "Hey, wait a minute guys... We're going to kill a buttload of jobs with this and that's going to be real bad for us next election..."

I'm reasonably confident that even the dumb ones are going to reject it when the smart ones point out the dire consequences to their election prospects.

Because the US government always considers all the effects of its actions, not just the immediate ones.

The fantasy that a gun ban is possible and likely to happen.

Oh. So a fantasy I don't have then. You are using a straw man to ridicule me. Hey, this is fun.

Sure, it does bear some similarities, I've never said it doesn't. It is the differences between them that ought to be making a little light go on in your head right about now. I've pointed out the differences, but you continue to act like your lopsided comparisons have validity. They don't.

Of course they have validity. If the difference between two things is of scale only, and that scale is immeasurable (and probably even nonexistent with all but the economic issues), a comparison has validity.

[Agamemnon]

BINGO! Its' all about scale. Scale is the primary difference and it is a massive difference that can't be ignored.

Right. So the point you're arguing against is one I'm not making. Glad we cleared that up.

You seem confused to me. You aren't making sense, KR.

I would, however, like some numbers on the jobs and tax revenue lost due to drugs being illegal.

If that is important to you then go for it. It won't have any bearing on my posts, however.

The economic impact of making cocaine or heroin illegal goes unnoticed by the vast majority.

Prove this.

It is self-evident. The vast majority of people are mysteriously NOT clamoring for these drugs to be made legal again because they are suffering economically. Not that I've noticed, anyway. If you think they are then the burden of proof is yours.

This doesn't affect my point at all.

Unless your argument is solely about scale, and not even what it's a scale of, of course it does.

You still don't understand.

Because the US government always considers all the effects of its actions, not just the immediate ones.

I see nothing here that refutes anything I've said.

The fantasy that a gun ban is possible and likely to happen.

Oh. So a fantasy I don't have then. You are using a straw man to ridicule me. Hey, this is fun.

You are the one that's been arguing against my OP that the gun ban is a myth, so I guess that means you buy the fantasy.

Sure, it does bear some similarities, I've never said it doesn't. It is the differences between them that ought to be making a little light go on in your head right about now. I've pointed out the differences, but you continue to act like your lopsided comparisons have validity. They don't.

Of course they have validity. If the difference between two things is of scale only, and that scale is immeasurable (and probably even nonexistent with all but the economic issues), a comparison has validity.

You can't convince me that it has validity with bullshit.

[nogodsforme]

Again, I am intrigued by the perspective that everyone should be free to have a firearm but everyone does not need access to adequate health care.....not even people accidentally shot by those freely available firearms. Seems like some people envison a Bladerunner or Mad Max type of society, where only the strong, ruthless, devious, violent, and/or wealthy can have decent lives. There are countries like that already (Congo/Zaire, Haiti, Afghanistan, North Korea) but they aren't exactly models of nice places to live.

[koberulz]

BINGO! Its' all about scale. Scale is the primary difference and it is a massive difference that can't be ignored.

Right. So the point you're arguing against is one I'm not making. Glad we cleared that up.

You seem confused to me. You aren't making sense, KR.

You argument is 'the scale is different.' My argument is 'other than scale, they're the same.' Isn't that the same damn thing?

I would, however, like some numbers on the jobs and tax revenue lost due to drugs being illegal.

If that is important to you then go for it. It won't have any bearing on my posts, however.

Uh huh. God forbid you provide prove of your assertions. Every point I make you answer with 'that's irrelevant' or by making up a point and calling me an idiot for inventing a strawman, somehow missing the hypocrisy. What exactly is the point?

It is self-evident. The vast majority of people are mysteriously NOT clamoring for these drugs to be made legal again because they are suffering economically. Not that I've noticed, anyway. If you think they are then the burden of proof is yours.

How exactly does one know whether or not one is better off economically with or without illegal drugs?

You still don't understand.

You're still not explaining, then. Other than scale, you've explained no difference between the two points, instead opting to belligerently deny any connection between them.

I see nothing here that refutes anything I've said.

Really? You missed the part about the government creating a policy that had significant negative effects simply because they didn't realise it would have those effects? Try reading.

You are the one that's been arguing against my OP that the gun ban is a myth, so I guess that means you buy the fantasy.

Uh...no. I'm merely pointing out that the government doesn't always concern itself with economic loss, black markets and prison populations when making laws. Nothing further.

You can't convince me that it has validity with bullshit.

How about you give me a reason it isn't valid, other than 'it isn't valid'?

Again, I am intrigued by the perspective that everyone should be free to have a firearm but everyone does not need access to adequate health care.....not even people accidentally shot by those freely available firearms. Seems like some people envison a Bladerunner or Mad Max type of society, where only the strong, ruthless, devious, violent, and/or wealthy can have decent lives. There are countries like that already (Congo/Zaire, Haiti, Afghanistan, North Korea) but they aren't exactly models of nice places to live.

Some people happen to think the government pointing guns at people and telling them what to do and who to spend their money on is a bad idea. Particularly if those people don't themselves have guns. Not exactly a fair fight.

[Agamemnon]

Uh huh. God forbid you provide prove of your assertions. Every point I make you answer with 'that's irrelevant' or by making up a point and calling me an idiot for inventing a strawman, somehow missing the hypocrisy. What exactly is the point?

That's my question for you. You don't have any points that alter anything about my original assessment.

How exactly does one know whether or not one is better off economically with or without illegal drugs?

Oh, now that's a good question! They probably are affected a little, but it's so hard to tell that it's practically unnoticeable... I don't notice it. I don't care about it. No one I know of is complaining. Compare that to the gun ban and the immediate dismantling of a centuries-old firearms industry, the massive loss of firearms-related jobs and you'll see why your comparison is nonsense. I expect there would be riots in the streets, the jobless rate would soar, exports would see a substantial drop... The stock market would plunge.

I see nothing here that refutes anything I've said.

Really? You missed the part about the government creating a policy that had significant negative effects simply because they didn't realise it would have those effects? Try reading.

I don't do errands. If you are too lazy to just say it then don't expect me to do the work for you.

It is obvious that the government can predict the outcomes I've described. Anyone with an 8th grade education can predict the outcome I've described. It ain't rocket science, man. It is obvious that elected officials would not vote for something that they know would cause economic havoc. It would be political suicide.

Uh...no. I'm merely pointing out that the government doesn't always concern itself with economic loss, black markets and prison populations when making laws. Nothing further.

Then your point is moot, because they can't help but concern themselves with the obvious economic realities in this particular case. It's obvious.

At any rate, I've got my email out to my congressman, so if he writes back I'll let you know if he's the kind of complete fucking idiot that would pass a law banning guns in spite of the economic realities of it that you seem to think they have in the government. He's a university professor and a decent guy, so you are probably going to be disappointed that he's not the stereotypical mindless bureaucrat that you have in mind.

[koberulz]

Oh, now that's a good question! They probably are affected a little, but it's so hard to tell that it's practically unnoticeable... I don't notice it. I don't care about it. No one I know of is complaining.

How big would it have to be to be noticeable, and how would those affected know the cause in order to complain.

Compare that to the gun ban and...the massive loss of firearms-related jobs

There are plenty of jobs creating and selling recreational drugs. I have no idea how many, and no idea how many jobs there currently are in firearms, but to say they're clearly not in the same league is, unless you have statistics proving otherwise, insane.

I don't do errands. If you are too lazy to just say it then don't expect me to do the work for you.

I posted a link. Clicking it really isn't all that much effort. Would you rather I just posted the text I was linking to and have you accuse me of plagiarising?

It is obvious that the government can predict the outcomes I've described. Anyone with an 8th grade education can predict the outcome I've described. It ain't rocket science, man. It is obvious that elected officials would not vote for something that they know would cause economic havoc. It would be political suicide.

But again, they voted to subsidise ethanol despite the fact that it causes environmental damage (alternative fuel sources become artificially expensive, ethanol gives less energy than it takes to make), pushes up food prices (more farmers produce corn, more corn farmers produce ethanol, less actual food, particularly food that's not corn), and several other things. Were those outcomes any harder to see coming?

hen your point is moot, because they can't help but concern themselves with the obvious economic realities in this particular case. It's obvious.

If it were so obvious, why would they ignore it in the case of drugs?

[Agamemnon]

Oh, now that's a good question! They probably are affected a little, but it's so hard to tell that it's practically unnoticeable... I don't notice it. I don't care about it. No one I know of is complaining.

How big would it have to be to be noticeable, and how would those affected know the cause in order to complain.

If it's not noticable then you have no point. We intuitively can say for sure that the firearms industry would be noticed if it were to be gone overnight. I can't imagine why you would want stats for that, since you'd pretty much have to be in deep denial to disagree with that just because you don't have numbers.

I posted a link. Clicking it really isn't all that much effort. Would you rather I just posted the text I was linking to and have you accuse me of plagiarising?

Clicking isn't a lot of work. Reading that web page is. Especially when all you had to do was say what you eventually said in the first place.

If it were so obvious, why would they ignore it in the case of drugs?

It wasn't. Drugs aren't illegal.

[koberulz]

If it's not noticable then you have no point. We intuitively can say for sure that the firearms industry would be noticed if it were to be gone overnight. I can't imagine why you would want stats for that, since you'd pretty much have to be in deep denial to disagree with that just because you don't have numbers.

Of course. But it's easy to see the difference between having and not having something when you have it. It takes a far larger issue to make it noticeable that you'd be better off with something you don't have.

Drugs aren't illegal.

Are you fucking serious?

[Azdgari]

Koberulz, there are these things called "drug stores".  In them, you can buy things called drugs.  This is perfectly legal.

[koberulz]

No shit. Recreational drugs are, though. Why does this make such a massive difference, exactly?

[Seppuku]

Koberulz, I've called you on a couple of dodges before and you seem to be trying to work away from addressing my main basic points involving your arguments, I've not actually had any straight answers and my previous post has no response. I'm getting the feeling you're stonewalling, which is leading me to assume that I'm right about the logic you're using.

I'm sure you don't want me to start thinking this, so I'll repost:

Not really, because 'reasonable' would involve the banning of guns not being an infringement on our freedoms, which can never be the case.

Same as the reasons to control guns. They're dangerous weapons. Moreso than guns, because they have very limited applications for self-defense.

You can go on about evidence and whatnot all you like, but it's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of freedom. If you're of the position that what people might do with an item should affect its legal status, then you can look at your stats and propose bans on all sorts of things up to and including tea cosies (which killed three people in 2002 or so). But I'm not, so all the gun violence statistics in the world have no impact on my position.

So why is it reasonable to infringe on the rights of owning missiles but not guns? This is not what you have covered. You say missiles are more dangerous and have fewer applications for self-defense - what if guns proved to be as dangerous or more dangerous in a society than missiles? You state all the gun violence statistics in the world would have no impact on your position, so it wouldn't matter to you? So why then are you drawing the line at missiles? In an ideal world you'd say missiles ought to be legal, so what is it that's making you draw the line in this 'less' ideal world?



If quality of life and safety in a society could be worsened by a massive degree by the legalisation of guns you wouldn't give a crap because you're free to keep your gun? Even if evidence and statistics show that other rights have been infringed as a result. I challenge you to live in a warring 3rd would country, you may take your guns and see how you feel about 'gun crime statistics' then, I'd argue that if developing countries weren't armed in the first place then the situation would be a lot better - it'd also make it easier for the likes of the UN to maintain peace. We wouldn't have needed to worry about WMD's and the middle east wouldn't be killing off our soldiers.

I'm beginning to think it's your kind of mentality that has led to the arming of developing countries, offering them more firepower to kill each other and pose threats to countries including our own. We should never have armed developing countries, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan who are now using arms the West supplied against us. Several accounts of attempted genocide have been aided by the supply of guns. These kind of ideals also armed people to stop communism spreading into their countries, but in turn aided further destruction. But none of that matters so long as they're all free to carry guns? I am sure many of these people, particularly victims, would much prefer to live in a much more controlled society where they're safe and I doubt they'll complain that they don't have that sweet smell of freedom when told they can't carry guns. Plenty of people flee to safer countries, including those with strict gun laws, like the UK.

To summarise for ease:
IF rights to ownership of firearms (as part of the right to bare arms) ought to be in play regardless of how many people die or suffer as a result, then why would you place control on missiles? Which falls under the same umbrella of 'bearing arms'.
Note: You claimed because they're more dangerous, but it seems that doesn't matter if guns could kill 800 people per 1000 (by your claim, any number doesn't matter, so I've made that one up to be hypothetical) as a result of gun legalisation, so by proxy, the danger of missiles ought not factor into your stance.
If statistics showed other rights to be infringed and it demonstrates a terribly fucked up society as a result of the legalisation of guns, would you still defend ownership? If so, why is gun ownership more important than other civil liberties?
Note: You claimed no statistics in the world would shift your view. In other words, if any number of people dies as a result, you'd still happy rub the barrel of your favourite gun.
Do you agree that arming the world is a good idea? Especially where we've seen many people die as a result.
Note: Theoretically you believe that it's good that developing countries possess firearms regardless of what damage they have aided. Whilst a lot of people are dying, including our soldiers, then it doesn't matter because these people in these developing countries have the means to protect themselves from the situations you've described and hold more 'freedom' than they had before when firearms were unavailable to them.

[Agamemnon]

If it's not noticable then you have no point. We intuitively can say for sure that the firearms industry would be noticed if it were to be gone overnight. I can't imagine why you would want stats for that, since you'd pretty much have to be in deep denial to disagree with that just because you don't have numbers.

Of course. But it's easy to see the difference between having and not having something when you have it. It takes a far larger issue to make it noticeable that you'd be better off with something you don't have.

Drugs aren't illegal.

Are you fucking serious?

Some drugs are illegal, some are not. Some guns are illegal, some are not.

Saying that our politicians can't anticipate the negative consequences of making all guns illegal is as ludicrous as saying that they can't anticipate the negative consequences of making all drugs illegal.

[koberulz]

IF rights to ownership of firearms (as part of the right to bare arms) ought to be in play regardless of how many people die or suffer as a result, then why would you place control on missiles? Which falls under the same umbrella of 'bearing arms'.
Note: You claimed because they're more dangerous, but it seems that doesn't matter if guns could kill 800 people per 1000 (by your claim, any number doesn't matter, so I've made that one up to be hypothetical) as a result of gun legalisation, so by proxy, the danger of missiles ought not factor into your stance.

The single firing of a missile is inherently more dangerous than doing the same with a gun. Collateral damage is pretty much guaranteed, depending on what the hell you're doing firing a missile in the first place.

However, I've never said I'd place controls on missiles. I've really never thought about it enough to have an opinion on the matter.

If statistics showed other rights to be infringed and it demonstrates a terribly fucked up society as a result of the legalisation of guns, would you still defend ownership? If so, why is gun ownership more important than other civil liberties?
Note: You claimed no statistics in the world would shift your view. In other words, if any number of people dies as a result, you'd still happy rub the barrel of your favourite gun.

Guns being legal doesn't infringe anyone's civil liberties, so your argument is irrelevant. You cannot ban a tool because it has uses that may infringe upon civil liberties. As has been mentioned in another thread, rich people can pay off juries. Does that mean it's a good idea to ban money? No.

Do you agree that arming the world is a good idea? Especially where we've seen many people die as a result.
Note: Theoretically you believe that it's good that developing countries possess firearms regardless of what damage they have aided. Whilst a lot of people are dying, including our soldiers, then it doesn't matter because these people in these developing countries have the means to protect themselves from the situations you've described and hold more 'freedom' than they had before when firearms were unavailable to them.

Who's arming 'the world'? I assume the US, because they seem to do a lot of that. With respect to that, I'd say the US needs to worry about its own damn self and keep its nose out of everyone else's business. Same goes for any other country that may feel the need to pick up the slack.

Some drugs are illegal, some are not.

And those drugs being illegal has caused the exact consequences you mentioned. Yet somehow, it's apparently not relevant.

Recreational drugs and medical drugs are pretty much two entirely different categories of product, anyway. They don't exactly appeal to the same market.

[Gimpy]

Recreational drugs and medical drugs are pretty much two entirely different categories of product, anyway. They don't exactly appeal to the same market.

Not true. A vast number of medical drugs are also recreational drugs.

[Agamemnon]

Some drugs are illegal, some are not.

And those drugs being illegal has caused the exact consequences you mentioned. Yet somehow, it's apparently not relevant.

It isn't because the claim that the consequences would be the same is false.

There is as much likelyhood that the government will ban all drugs as there is for them banning all guns. This is why your point fails to convince me. If they had banned all drugs I would be worried that they might ban all guns. They have not.

They tried that sort of thing in the 1930s and it was a disaster. They aren't stupid enough to try it again.

[koberulz]

I'm not arguing that they might. I'm just pointing out that the consequences are the same, something you refuse to acknowledge.

[Agamemnon]

You haven't established that the consequences would be the same. Why should I be convinced?

[koberulz]

Two seconds of research will prove the existence of a black market for drugs and a lot of people in jail for drug-related crime. Two seconds of logic will lead to the conclusion that were these drugs legal, jobs would be created and taxes could be placed on them.

[Agamemnon]

That's not same.

What I find acceptible and realistic is that the consequences of banning all drugs is the same as or similar to the consequences of banning all guns.

[Agamemnon]

Two seconds of research will prove the existence of a black market for drugs and a lot of people in jail for drug-related crime. Two seconds of logic will lead to the conclusion that were these drugs legal, jobs would be created and taxes could be placed on them.

This would be similar to a ban on fully automatic weapons only or a ban on military grade weaponry.

You are making a category mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error

[Str82Hell]

I think you're making a petty argument Agamemnon. You know that there's a black market for drugs, hard drugs and soft drugs, and that users of those drugs are put in jail like they were criminals. These drugs are not regulated, they are illegal. You know that the argument is about that and you keep saying: "but you can get marihuana on prescription if you're in pain". We all know that, but it's not about the few people who get it on prescriptions because they're in pain.

Hell, in most languages this discussion wouldn't even exist, because one category would be called medicins and the other, including marihuana et al, would be called drugs. If I would be having this discussion with you in Dutch I would say "we're not talking about medicins, we're talking about drugs", and you would keep repeating you whole argument ad nauseam and in the end I would just walk away. You would accuse me of stonewalling, but you're the one who is stonewalling.

While they may be in the same category, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs are two different categories and when koberulz mentions 'drugs' I have not seen one instance so far where it was impossible to deduce from context whether he means pharmaceutical or recreational drugs. And cut the "some recreational drugs might be used as pharmaceutical drugs" crap, because that's completely besides the point as long as Americans can't get their daily amount of marihuana at the pharmacist, prescription free, while there's still a flourishing underground market.

[Agamemnon]

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.

[Operator_011]

This thread is slowly drifting onto the topic of drugs, and could do with pulling back to its original focus (Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage) before it's fully derailed.


Eleven.

[Seppuku]

The single firing of a missile is inherently more dangerous than doing the same with a gun. Collateral damage is pretty much guaranteed, depending on what the hell you're doing firing a missile in the first place.

However, I've never said I'd place controls on missiles. I've really never thought about it enough to have an opinion on the matter.

Surely you don't need to give much thought about it, assuming I've got your gun legalisation defense correct. It's not about the results it's about liberty.

Guns being legal doesn't infringe anyone's civil liberties, so your argument is irrelevant. You cannot ban a tool because it has uses that may infringe upon civil liberties. As has been mentioned in another thread, rich people can pay off juries. Does that mean it's a good idea to ban money? No.

This doesn't really answer the point. You said all the statistics in world would make you budge on the issue - so what IF those statistics show that ownership of guns DOES (and not 'may') lead to infringement of other civil liberties, would you budge then? If it could be shown that society would really benefit from a lack of guns, then does the libertarian point of view really stand? 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.

Who's arming 'the world'? I assume the US, because they seem to do a lot of that. With respect to that, I'd say the US needs to worry about its own damn self and keep its nose out of everyone else's business. Same goes for any other country that may feel the need to pick up the slack.

Yes, the US is a part of it. But, if surely you'd think that having the rest of the world ought to be armed (even if you disagree with other countries interfering with their affairs)? I mean you're arguing that the UK ought to arm its citizens backed by your argument that it's a basic freedom, as you feel they're useful to protect yourself and your family. I draw the line at where guns have a negative effect in society, would you at least accept that? I mean, we can see negative effects where we've(US, UK and other countries) armed other countries and we can see they're not better off. I think we've been responsible for making situations in other countries worse, not better. I think this all factors into my, "not all countries are the same" argument. Not every kind of 'freedom' is beneficial or relevant to every kind of society. Despite cultural similarities, the US and the UK are still very different countries, hence why I'd want to studies to see if gun legalisation in the UK would be a better rather than blindly nod my head because the US benefit or because it's a civil liberty over there. To me, that's not at all unreasonable (think of it parallel to you needing more thought on missiles before having an opinion, except with research and not 'thought').

[koberulz]

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.

[Azdgari]

Are all recreational drugs banned?

[Agamemnon]

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.

Recreational drugs are a subset of the drug industry as a whole. Handguns are a subset of the firearms industry as a whole.

Banning SOME drugs would be like banning SOME guns.

Banning SOME drugs would be UNLIKE banning ALL guns.
 
Banning SOME guns would be UNLIKE banning ALL drugs.

Your error is that you are saying that banning SOME drugs is like banning ALL guns. That is patently false and the error is significant.

I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.

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.

I don't see how.

[koberulz]

They have the same stuff in them. The only similarities between the two drug industries are that they both involve drugs, but only to the degree that the firearms and auto industries both involve metal.

This also has nothing to do with the existence of a black market and overpopulation of jails, which exists as much as you might like to claim otherwise.