[r3trohack3r]

Your first half is somewhat valid (sans DIY culture). A portion of drug consumption is domestically produced. But you’re ignoring the international and inter-state drug trades.

I.E. Columbia accounts for 43%[1] of the global coca supply. Taking your argument at face value, Colombians would consume 43% of the worlds coca supply having no impact on your ability to purchase cocaine in, say, Miami.

Comparing other countries success on one form of prohibition doesn’t give much insight. Compare it to America’s success on current and historical prohibition. American’s don’t honor prohibition.

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/13/colombia-calls-a-draw-i...

[syops]

Comparing across generations is not valid as times and perceptions and social values change. What didn’t work in the past may work in the future.

I’m not ignoring the nature of the drug trade. I’m claiming that the drug trade and drug smuggling are not apt comparisons to illegal gun manufacturing and smuggling. I don’t have any other claims. The argument that making guns illegal can’t work because it didn’t work for drugs is a dumb one.

[r3trohack3r]

I’m asserting they are apt comparisons.

> Comparing across generations is not valid as times and perceptions and social values change.

No need to look across generations. There are plenty of prohibitions to choose from today. Like automatic rifles and opium.

> I’m claiming that the drug trade and drug smuggling are not apt comparisons the illegal gun manufacturing and smuggling.

I’m going to hazard a guess that you don’t come from a gun culture.

Otherwise law abiding citizens smoke weed. Likewise they source fully automatic mods for their rifles and hoard bump stocks.

And these are just hobbyists.

Add in the game theory incentives of organized crime and their already established distribution channels (the same distribution channels they’re using to move drugs). I don’t understand how it isn’t close to apples-apples.

[syops]

So let me try another explanation for why I think the comparison with the drug trade is not valid. We have many examples of European countries where guns are effectively illegal to own in the sense of being hard to legally obtain. These same countries have well developed illegal drug operations. These same countries have much lower use of guns in crime. These countries are counterexamples to the argument:

Making guns illegal won’t be effective because making drugs illegal hasn’t been effective.

As such this argument is not valid. A person who wants to intelligently argue why banning gun ownership in the U.S. won’t work must use a different argument.

All criminal laws have as their aim to make prohibitions of certain behaviors. All fail at 100% efficiency but most do well in terms of regulating acceptable behavior over time. The prohibition on slavery was quite effective in the U.S. If you want to argue that banning guns in the U.S. won’t work go ahead and argue that. Just don’t use the foolish argument that since banning drugs didn’t work in the U.S. then banning guns won’t work. It is sloppy thinking.

I can think of a lot of reasons why banning guns in the U.S. won’t work. You alluded to one of the reasons why I think this. None of my arguments on why this won’t be effective in the U.S. have anything to do with the ineffectiveness of the war on drugs.