Ban All Semi-Auto Firearms...

[Cow Poke]

No, prohibition was a success insofar as reducing alcohol consumption and drinking to a considerable degree.

At what cost? And how could it be sustained? Obviously, it wasn't.

The problem it wasn't viewed as having done it enough to justify all of the crime problems that resulted.

So, we'd have an ongoing war on alcohol just like we have a war on drugs and poverty?

[Jedidiah]

I lived about a mile from where the Sandy Hook shooting took place (years before the event) and I knew a woman whose son was in a class room near where the the shooting took place - he survived. One of the sad things is that we as a community (including our Tweb community) can not come together and grieve. We all go to our corners ready to fight, accuse and defend. I'm tired... Most of you know that I'm a big defender of gun rights, but for what it is worth, like back in the day when we banned machine guns because of the carnage they caused, I have come to believe that perhaps we should now ban all semi-automatics. Rifles and pistols. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump shot guns will remain fully legal. And perhaps we could grandfather in the semis that are privately owned, but going forward no new sales - privately or commercially.

I'm against that. That is just knuckling to the insane accusations that somehow legal, and law abiding, gun owners are responsible for the evil we see in these school shootings.

[Jedidiah]

No, prohibition was a success insofar as reducing alcohol consumption and drinking to a considerable degree. The problem it wasn't viewed as having done it enough to justify all of the crime problems that resulted.

I've read this before. Since drinking was not legal nor regulated, how do we know what the alcohol consumption was during prohibition.

[Terraceth]

I've read this before. Since drinking was not legal nor regulated, how do we know what the alcohol consumption was during prohibition.

Obviously, we can't know for sure, but there's some other data we can use to get good estimates. For example, this paper uses "the death rate from cirrhosis of the liver, the death rate from alcoholism, the number of patients per capita admitted to hospitals for the first time with alcoholic psychosis, and the rate of drunkenness arrests" to formulate its estimates:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675

[Cow Poke]

...The problem it wasn't viewed as having done it enough to justify all of the crime problems that resulted.

So, you really think banning semi-auto weapons wouldn't have that same result? You don't think crime problems would result?

[Adrift]

Obviously, we can't know for sure, but there's some other data we can use to get good estimates. For example, this paper uses "the death rate from cirrhosis of the liver, the death rate from alcoholism, the number of patients per capita admitted to hospitals for the first time with alcoholic psychosis, and the rate of drunkenness arrests" to formulate its estimates:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675

I've actually brought this up a few times, but it's usually handwaved away. Jack S. Blocker Jr., Professor Emeritus in the Department of History at Huron University College, and founder of the Alcohol & Temperance History Group dispels the myth that Prohibition didn't work in this paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

He also goes into why it was eventually repealed (which didn't really have anything to do with it's ineffectiveness).

[Cow Poke]

I've actually brought this up a few times, but it's usually handwaved away. Jack S. Blocker Jr., Professor Emeritus in the Department of History at Huron University College, and founder of the Alcohol & Temperance History Group dispels the myth that Prohibition didn't work in this paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

He also goes into why it was eventually repealed (which didn't really have anything to do with it's ineffectiveness).

I'm actually looking deeper into this, because I'm fully aware that some things we "know" to be true are often founded in assumptions that are not necessarily true. I was surprised, though, that even PBS pushed an "unintended consequences" attitude toward prohibition.

This is going into my "needs more study" bin.

[Adrift]

I'm actually looking deeper into this, because I'm fully aware that some things we "know" to be true are often founded in assumptions that are not necessarily true. I was surprised, though, that even PBS pushed an "unintended consequences" attitude toward prohibition.

This is going into my "needs more study" bin.

I'm curious, what's surprising about PBS pushing that view? It's not like they shy away from controversial historical views (Guns, Germs and Steel, or some of Ken Burns' other work), or that they're particularly known for their conservative stances, as far as I'm aware.

But anyhow, Block interacts a bit with Lerner (the historian in your link) in a paper here,

Source: A Hatchet, a Hole, and a Heel: Signposts for the Next Cohort of Alcohol and Drug Historians

National Prohibition is the black hole of alcohol and temperance history. Historians approach the topic intent on telling the whole story, but their good intentions vanish into the hole, and they end up presenting a simple, one-sided, and compelling—but often contradictory—narrative of failure against impossible odds. The reason behind National Prohibition’s unique, destructive historiographical capacity seems to lie in the relative dramatic value of the two opposed stories that could be told. On one side, some people stopped drinking. How boring. On the other, some people continued to drink, and others began to imbibe. Human ingenuity created new ways to produce, transmit, store, and consume liquor. Prohibition agents were corrupted. Courts were jammed. Cars chased each other down streets and highways. People were shot. Young women wore newly revealing clothing. People danced a lot. The music was cool. As a result, we have a continuing series of “histories” of National Prohibition that all tell the same dramatic story, but no history that tries to weigh and balance the competing narratives. Unfortunately, the black hole continues to suck in well-intentioned historians. The latest example is Michael Lerner’s Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City, which makes no effort to estimate even indirectly changes in consumption or shifts in the size or composition of the drinking population or to distinguish the effects of Prohibition from those of other social changes.

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

I'm curious, what's surprising about PBS pushing that view?

I was probably thinking NPR.

It's not like they shy away from controversial historical views (Guns, Germs and Steel, or some of Ken Burns' other work), or that they're particularly known for their conservative stances, as far as I'm aware.

But anyhow, Block interacts a bit with Lerner (the historian in your link) in a paper here,

Source: A Hatchet, a Hole, and a Heel: Signposts for the Next Cohort of Alcohol and Drug Historians

National Prohibition is the black hole of alcohol and temperance history. Historians approach the topic intent on telling the whole story, but their good intentions vanish into the hole, and they end up presenting a simple, one-sided, and compelling—but often contradictory—narrative of failure against impossible odds. The reason behind National Prohibition’s unique, destructive historiographical capacity seems to lie in the relative dramatic value of the two opposed stories that could be told. On one side, some people stopped drinking. How boring. On the other, some people continued to drink, and others began to imbibe. Human ingenuity created new ways to produce, transmit, store, and consume liquor. Prohibition agents were corrupted. Courts were jammed. Cars chased each other down streets and highways. People were shot. Young women wore newly revealing clothing. People danced a lot. The music was cool. As a result, we have a continuing series of “histories” of National Prohibition that all tell the same dramatic story, but no history that tries to weigh and balance the competing narratives. Unfortunately, the black hole continues to suck in well-intentioned historians. The latest example is Michael Lerner’s Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City, which makes no effort to estimate even indirectly changes in consumption or shifts in the size or composition of the drinking population or to distinguish the effects of Prohibition from those of other social changes.

© Copyright Original Source

Thanks

Still reading on this, and you can often tell from the "reporting" in each article which "spin" they're putting on it. Some of the "reporting" seems more anecdotal or folklore-ish than statistical.

[Cow Poke]

Back on topic for a second....

...I have come to believe that perhaps we should now ban all semi-automatics. Rifles and pistols.

I just want to be clear that Seer is specifically proposing banning semi-auto handguns, not just "assault rifles*".

This means that all but one of my handguns would be illegal ("going forward") and my only shotgun is semi-auto.



*note that "assault rifle" is often misused, because it describes a fully automatic weapon, which the AR-15 (most often misidentified as one) is not

[demi-conservative]

One of the sad things is that we as a community (including our Tweb community) can not come together and grieve. We all go to our corners ready to fight, accuse and defend. I'm tired...

Some people gave in, give gays civil unions. Some time later, 'bake cake or else!!!'.

What do you think giving in to progs does? They'll be happy, also stop trying to crush you, also grandchildren of yours?

[seer]

your generation having destroyed what was left of western civilization, you now want to disarm future generations to make sure they can never resist the disasters you've enabled. thanks again, pops.

Hey it wasn't me, you know how I feel about those cultural issues. And I do not want to disarm anyone, just change the arms - a bit.

[seer]

What do you think giving in to progs does? They'll be happy, also stop trying to crush you, also grandchildren of yours?

You are correct... That is a real downside, it is never enough for the leftists.

[seer]

Back on topic for a second....

I just want to be clear that Seer is specifically proposing banning semi-auto handguns, not just "assault rifles*".

This means that all but one of my handguns would be illegal ("going forward") and my only shotgun is semi-auto.

*note that "assault rifle" is often misused, because it describes a fully automatic weapon, which the AR-15 (most often misidentified as one) is not

Well no, what you now own will be grandfathered in, you keep them legally, but they can no longer be sold - going forward.

[seer]

I'm against that. That is just knuckling to the insane accusations that somehow legal, and law abiding, gun owners are responsible for the evil we see in these school shootings.

Well this recent shooter and the Las Vegas shooter were both legal gun owners as far as I know.