Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chilek9
In the District of Columbia, the gun ban was proven to be a failure, did they rush to restore the rights that they took? No. Unless the courts strike down the San Francisco law, which I believe they will, they will never give back the rights that they have taken. With the exception of Prohibition, the government has never given back rights that they have taken. Even when the intended purpose for the taking of those rights has not been achieved.
Nothing is worth a try when it has already been a proven failure everywhere it has been tried.
|
Thanks for making that point for me. I was going to follow up with the same statement, but I didn't feel like carrying on the discussion. It was enough for me to get the other fella to concede that a ban might not work at all - and may even be irreversably harmful.
Chilek9 you've given me a "second wind."
I'll make an analogy with car seatbelts in Hondas. If I were to argue that seatbelts don't save lives - one would point to the statistics (just as we have done with examples like D.C., Florida and other places). It'd be easy for me to say those cases aren't relevant to Honda drivers because they're completely different cars (e.g. SF Bay Area is a different city).
Can I say that we can "test it out" by MANDATING Hondas to be sold without seatbelts? What if you're wrong and lives are lost? Can you give those lives back? In the face of evidence of seatbelts with other "vehicles" is that a chance you can take?
To a person who never wore a seatbelt or has never been in an accident it really doesn't make a difference - just as the ban makes no discernable difference to a non-gun owner.
But if you happen to believe in the need for seatbelts you'd be very afraid of such a law - just as gun owners are worried about a ban.