People say we should ban guns because they are not necessary and they kill people. You can counter that cars kill a lot of people but the liberals will say cars are necessary in our society and guns are not..... OK, lets accept that, and lets stipulate that there is actually some workable means to ban all guns (legal and practical). But alcohol dwarfs guns in societal cost (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm), and is definitely not necessary for society. So why are the liberals not after banning alcohol??? Well for one thing liberals are notorious drinkers (they have to be), but lets leave that aside to......oh Ya !! It was tried wasn't it, in 1920. What happened.....criminals took over distributing the product, organized crime ran riot and controlled the cities, etc....... They banned alcohol so only the criminals had alcohol...... Learn from history anyone?????
The argument as to why prohibiting the ownership of firearms will succeed where prohibiting alcoholic beverages failed, as that functioning firearms cannot be easily manufactured at home. This is despite the claim has been proven inaccurate numerous times, what with new technological developments concerning third dimensional printers, and firearm blueprints being readily available to anyone and everyone with an internet connection.
You're entirely correct. Additionally, it has become "normal" in industry to produce separate parts in many different locations, which are then assembled in one place to produce the finished thing. We've been doing this with guns as well, for a very long time. Not just in factories, but at home. It's pretty normal to buy components from many different sources, and put them together on the kitchen table. With that in mind, it wouldn't take a lot of organization for Joes' brake shop to make a batch of trigger sears once in awhile, while Freds' machine shop runs a few frames, and so forth. This is how a black market functions, and it would flourish. You can get a pretty good idea of how this would go by looking at who ended up making our guns and other war stuff during WWII. Washing machine factories were contracted to build M-1 Carbines, and so forth. The big problem with metal fabrication equipment is that it can be used to fabricate anything.
I would tweak your analogy a bit. It's best to think of alcohol as one of many different psychoactive substances - not as a category on its own. The left would surely respond to your analogy by saying that alcohol/drugs are addictive and hence there will always be a market for them, while guns are merely enjoyed by individuals - there is no addictive compulsion to continue use, nor withdrawals on cessation of use. To this I would respond that human action is not so clear cut as they would pretend. Addiction is just one strong motive people use to make cost-benefit decisions over which laws to violate. For instance, only a small amount of drug users (even hard drug users) are compulsive addicts. Most use drugs like you use alcohol - in moderation. Yet even though these people aren't coerced into seeking out their drugs in violation of law, they still do. Why? Because they bloody enjoy them. Why do criminals continue to supply this demand? Because they want $$$. None of these things change when guns are subjected to this argument. We still have the exact same black markets for weapons in Australia which we had prior to the 97' gun control agreements. Clearly they still have these black markets in Europe, where the Bataclan shooters were able to get AK range rifles (which are straight up prohibited in Belgium) for a few hundred dollars. [hr][/hr] I would also point out that complete prohibition is rather rare in the US, and that it's regulation which amounts to prohibition which you have to be on the lookout for. We've had a large dose of the same here in Australia - bolt action long arms are generally available to anyone following a 28 day wait, but the process is riddled with onerous regulations designed to force you to give up the effort. SCOTUS has made it very clear than neither Heller nor McDonald prohibit reasonable regulation of weapons. You guys need to get on this ASAP and issue lawsuits to push the limits of the new orthodoxy. Only really radical places like NY, CA, and DC attempt full prohibition - but what about all the rest? 10 round magazine limits, AWBs, etc? Whether citizens are protected from that sort of thing under the new precedents set by SCOTUS is unclear.
