Funnily enough, when you made that comment, I responded to it in post #338. However I'm revisiting this particular point re alcohol prohibition from a totally different angle, one I'd be most interested to see opinions on.
You see bozodos; we all know that alcohol can be an addictive drug to many, even though some may not like to acknowledge that fact. Moving on from there; are guns also addictive to many? You see, an addict must get his fix (alcohol), and abruptly confiscating it and prohibiting it, would most certainly create a new wave of criminal activity from the manufacturing, supplying, and purchasing point of view, as does the American history of/between 1920-1933 testify.
So I'm asking again; are guns also addictive? If so, the solution is very much unlike that of alcohol. In NSW, no matter how much a police officer likes; is attached, admires, is fond of his gun, he leaves it at the police station upon the completion of his shift. Others, who also admire their guns and love to shoot with them, can also have access to them in a shooting club etc. My point is this; introducing a law that says you can shoot, but not possess is feasible form an addiction point of view, unlike alcohol addiction, where you need to have it when you need to have it.
Moving on further to another new angle that no one has visited yet, would be the angle I'd like to call motive. The gun owner, Von, bozodos etc., must have a motive that drives them to wanting to own/carry/shoot a gun. That motive is their business and it's not what this point is about. Similarly, the people opposing gun owners like Von and bozodos, likewise they also do have their motive, a motive that is driving them to oppose the other side. For me as an outsider looking in, and one who is doing his best to be impartial to both parties, I see a vast difference between those two very different driving motives of the two parties.
One the one hand, we have the gun owner who is driven by his desire to own for the enjoyment/feeling of protection he receives from owning. He may feel more secure by owning. He gets an adrenaline rush through target shooting etc. On the other hand (and a vastly different motivator), we have an opposition whose motive is death itself... death by a bullet!
A third angle is a government who is in fear of its own citizens rebelling/uprising against it through the power of a gun, as a man with a gun, can potentially control 100 without, and is not easily controllable. The flip side is a society who has mistrust of its own government, seeking to protect itself through the freedom to possess a gun. Are they not both legitimate within their own right? In a perfect world, both government and that governed ought to live in peace and not in fear of one another.
On the one extreme, the gun owner points out to 1938 Germany and its disarming of the Jews, and enacting a law that effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition…resulting in many Jews been killed. On the other hand, the opposition would point out to the very recent EDSA revolution in the Philippine, (aka the people power revolution), where the people through civil resistance, managed to bring down the government in a span of three years, beginning in1983, and culminating in 1986. No guns were needed to get the job done through this non-violent revolution, would be the counter-argument put forth.
