The Gun debate sandbox

The Community College Philosophy Professor should protest a little less. Madbolter, I almost thought you were reasonable until you trolled out old Sam Colt and his six shooter being what makes people equal.

The DOJ just go through with its investigation into the original Ferguson shooting and found ZERO evidence to convict the officer of anything, that after two other separate investigations. But the ones that LIED in court and to police a bout that incident walk free. They were probably the same ones to shoot two Ferguson police officers last night.

They only poke small holes.

Yer welcome. ;-)

Yahhh but at 5.00 a shot YEEEESH!

Show me your "data" where a crime was committed via a private sale of a gun from a legal law-abiding gun owner

Fixing the demand-side of the equation is the only way to make progress. But that's hard.... Easier to pass more laws nobody will follow either.

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.

That's why we need to work on the supply side. Stop manufacturing firearms.

Ahh... another proponent of the government starting up a new "war on" something. Like the "war on drugs," the "war on illiteracy," the "war on 'xyz,'" you name it.

"Show me ONE supply-side "war on" anything the government has waged that: 1) has been successful in stopping or even significantly reducing the amount of xyz in circulation; and 2) did not produce a vast black market of xyz, coupled with the violent cartels that spring up to manage the flow of xyz at huge profit."

Polio and Measles vaccines -- You're saying the government waged a war on the product that the vaccines? Uhh... no. You're saying the government waged a war on the products Polio and Measles? Try to hold the point in your head here.... In what way is Polio and Measles like guns? Is there a "market" for Polio or Measles? Does anybody purchase or consume Polio or Measles?

Illiteracy -- Uhh... no win in sight on this one, and the above point holds. Illiteracy is no product with a market.

DDT -- Ahh... a possible contender. No real "war on." Instead, the government simply made it illegal, and chemicals companies filled the void with things that work as well without the (same) side-effects. So, if you want a true parallel, you'd have to have a "war on" pesticides. Didn't happen. Won't happen. And if the government declared "war on" guns, and some company could make a better alternative that was legal, that company would own the market. Otherwise, the black market will own the market.

The Clean Air Act -- Just dumb. Is pollution a product with a market? Is there a demand for pollution that the government has rendered illegal on the demand side?

The Japanese Empire -- Same points as above.

Asbestos -- Finally, another contender. Again, the government didn't make insulation illegal. It rendered a particular form of insulation illegal in certain contexts (asbestos is NOT illegal in all contexts). There has been nothing resembling a "war on" asbestos, and chemical companies have provided viable alternatives in the few contexts in which it is illegal. Again, whenever the government makes even certain forms of guns illegal, manufacturers will simply produce others that serve the same purpose but that skirt the regulation(s).

Lead Paint -- Same as above, only even more so.

You guys aren't even trying to argue charitably!

I'm obviously not saying that the government is utterly, entirely ineffectual in all respects. What I am saying is that the government has yet to successfully wage a "war on" any in-demand product, either by punishing people demanding the product or by shutting down the supply side of that product.

Pick any vice you wish (and for anti-gunners, guns are a "vice" of the "gun-nuts"), and the government has not successfully shut that vice down. THAT sort of "war on" is what the government cannot successful wage