The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Daryl Hunt]

The Supreme Court has avoided that question like the plague for good reason. it's not the Feds job. They leave it up to the lower courts and the lower governments where it belongs.

It is the SCOTUS's job to defend individual rights from infringement by states. The 14th amendment started that up.
But I agree they will try to avoid this.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.

Wrong, us usual. Government doesn't need to guarantee itself the Right to own guns.

That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.....but then it's you, so go figure.

On the first half of the 2nd amendment, that's exactly what it does. It makes sure that the States has the right to an Organized Militia separate from the Federal Government. Due to the 1916 National Guard Act, that name is no longer State Guard, it's now State SDF or State Defense Force.

No, it doesn't. Well regulated is a term that at the time it was written meant "in good working order" or do you claim that there was a law governing the usage of clocks that have that engraved upon them?

If you wish to use the meaning like that then you need to use that same for the rest of the 2nd. You are only authorized Muskets. You can't have it one way and then the other way. Either take it one way or the other way. Let's break it down the other way.

The States have the right to project their SDFs without Federal interference. And, unless it affects national security and interstate, the States determine the laws on just about everything including firearms regulation.

You can't gave it both ways and expect cooperation.

 

[danielpalos]

The Supreme Court has avoided that question like the plague for good reason. it's not the Feds job. They leave it up to the lower courts and the lower governments where it belongs.

It is the SCOTUS's job to defend individual rights from infringement by states. The 14th amendment started that up.
But I agree they will try to avoid this.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

so what. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment which clearly expresses it is about the security of our free States.

right to self-defense predates government

It is "codified" in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

Justifiable force comes to mind.

A legal fiction promulgated by progressive ideology intent on taking Rights away from the PEOPLE.

Oh, I see. Brink back the Ottomans. They knew how to handle things.

Certainly if you are in favor of mass government sponsored murder.

I'm not.

Neither am I. But using their tactics, they did keep the bad actors we are having trouble with today in line. But their method was to wipe out entire families not allowing them to breed. And, yes, sometimes, entire villages.

 

[Rustic]

It is the SCOTUS's job to defend individual rights from infringement by states. The 14th amendment started that up.
But I agree they will try to avoid this.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

so what. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment which clearly expresses it is about the security of our free States.

right to self-defense predates government

It is "codified" in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

so what. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment which clearly expresses it is about the security of our free States.

right to self-defense predates government

It is "codified" in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.

It is in State Constitutions, not implied in right wing fantasy, right wingers.

You forget, State governments are Unitary not federal.

 

[Dick Foster]

Maybe, but it could also be a question the SCOTUS could over rule the states on. Not that that would be likely though.

The Supreme Court has avoided that question like the plague for good reason. it's not the Feds job. They leave it up to the lower courts and the lower governments where it belongs.

It is the SCOTUS's job to defend individual rights from infringement by states. The 14th amendment started that up.
But I agree they will try to avoid this.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.

Wrong, us usual. Government doesn't need to guarantee itself the Right to own guns.

That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.....but then it's you, so go figure.

On the first half of the 2nd amendment, that's exactly what it does. It makes sure that the States has the right to an Organized Militia separate from the Federal Government. Due to the 1916 National Guard Act, that name is no longer State Guard, it's now State SDF or State Defense Force.

The malitia mentioned in the 2nd has absolutely nothing to do with any government body neither federal or state. One has to rember that our founders had Concord, Lexington and the minutemen fresh in their mindsbwhen the constitution was penned. The minute men were in effect a rebel group intent on overthrowing the then legitimate goverment of the British crown.
The militia as mentioned in the 2nd amendment is clearly refering to the right of the people to keep and bear arms and organize themselves into a militia of themselves to act against and overthrow a goverment run amok.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Self defense is a natural right that predates the second amendment

so what. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment which clearly expresses it is about the security of our free States.

right to self-defense predates government

It is "codified" in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.

It is in State Constitutions, not implied in right wing fantasy, right wingers.

You forget, State governments are Unitary not federal.

OH I get it now, you are brain dead and need the government to tell you what you can do.
Those who can think for themselves know they can defend themselves therefore right to self-defense predates any form of government.

 

[danielpalos]

so what. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment which clearly expresses it is about the security of our free States.

right to self-defense predates government

It is "codified" in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.

It is in State Constitutions, not implied in right wing fantasy, right wingers.

You forget, State governments are Unitary not federal.

OH I get it now, you are brain dead and need the government to tell you what you can do.
Those who can think for themselves know they can defend themselves therefore right to self-defense predates any form of government.

You are the one who is brain dead. We have a First Amendment. Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

right to self-defense predates government

It is "codified" in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.

It is in State Constitutions, not implied in right wing fantasy, right wingers.

You forget, State governments are Unitary not federal.

OH I get it now, you are brain dead and need the government to tell you what you can do.
Those who can think for themselves know they can defend themselves therefore right to self-defense predates any form of government.

You are the one who is brain dead. We have a First Amendment. Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States.

iSo you're saying no one has a right to fight for their lives?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our 2nd Amendment's operation is to protect a pre-existing right of the people.

Nothing has substantially changed since the 2nd's ratification that makes it invalid.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

iSo you're saying no one has a right to fight for their lives?

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[rjs330]

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights are not part of the Constitution? In other words slavery can still be legal? Or that we have no right to freedom of speech? Or that we have no constitutional right against unlawful search and siezure or right to an attorney or against self incrimination?

OR are you trying to say we shouldn't refer to the amendments as the bill of Rights and should just refer to them as "the Constitution"?

Cause the courts all over the place including SCOTUS has used the amendments as constitutional authority to determine whether or not something like a search and seizure is constitutional.

They don't refer to the Bill of Rights in rulings. They refer to the Constitution. There is no legal standing from the Bill of Rights since it's actually a copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. You can try and twist this all you want but I have NEVER heard of any court ruling that something was "UnBillofrightable".

You still not answering my question. Is the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution or not? When SCOTUS rules on something as unconstitutional such as search and seizure they use the Bill of Rights and say whether or not the search was unconstitutional or not. They could not do that if the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution. When they refer to something that is constitutional or not they QUOTE the amendment. This establishing that it IS part of the Constitution.

So if you are saying the Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution then I agree with you. If your saying it is not part of the Constitution then I disagree and so does the supreme Court.

You are still on this? The Bill of Rights has Zero Legal weight in a court of law. The Supreme Court rules on the Constitution not the Bill of Rights. The only reason the bill of rights was done was a political one in the first place to make 2 representatives feel good so they would ratify the constitution and join the nation. When the Supreme court states ruling that something is "UnBillofrightable" then I will be wrong. But until then, the Bill of Rights has zero legal weight.

So the bill of Rights IS the Constitution. Thank you. I thought that's what you were saying.

 

[rjs330]

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

Shall not be infringed is pretty self explanatory.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

The fact that gun laws do infringe on our Rights is immaterial to their violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The question was of the Bill of Rights not of the US Constitution. And I answer with, "I have never heard any court say that something was Unbillofrightable. ".

That's because the bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. Therefore anything that violates the bill of Rights is unconstitutional.

 

[U2Edge]

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

Wrong.
Individual rights are not up for popular vote.
The courts have already established that firearms ARE an individual right, in McDonald vs Chicago, to you can never implement any more gun control, like an assault weapons ban.
It would never hold up in court.
But you are also wrong about how many support gun rights.
It is NOT just 31%.
Many house holds that do not have firearms do so because they live in associations that do not allow it, they can't afford it yet, they are moving too much, etc.
The fact they do not all own firearms does not mean the majority do not support private firearm ownership.
Self defense is an individual right that no one can challenge.

No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter. You can still defend yourself with a shotgun or Air Rifle provided you pass the tests and background checks. There are ways you can defend yourself without a gun too.

The number supporting gun rights may be larger than 31%, but its clear a lot lower than it was in 1977 when 50% of households had a gun in the house. Gun ownership is on the decline when looking at households. Once it drops to 20%, gun control advocates will have strong clear majorities in order to implement the laws they want on guns. The same think happened with smoking in public.

The Founding fathers created the constitution, but also created a mechanism in which the constitution could be changed if you had enough votes. Anything in the constitution can be changed with enough votes. Everything can be redefined. That's why slavery was once the law of the land, it was legal, but for the past 150+ years its been illegal. Nothing is set In stone. Anything can be changed, removed or redefined if you have enough votes, or vote in Justices that interpret the law the way you want them to.

 

[Siete]

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

Shall not be infringed is pretty self explanatory.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

The fact that gun laws do infringe on our Rights is immaterial to their violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The question was of the Bill of Rights not of the US Constitution. And I answer with, "I have never heard any court say that something was Unbillofrightable. ".

That's because the bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. Therefore anything that violates the bill of Rights is unconstitutional.

our constitution allows congress to bass bills, and the potus to sign those bills into law -

so if congress passes a gun control bill and Trump signs it there will be no argument about it being unconstitutional ...

good to know, thanks.

 

[U2Edge]

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

You, the pollsters, and the government hasn't a clue how many households has firearms. So stop with your 31% BS...because that's all it is.
Remember this......393 MILLION firearms in America. Remember that when you go knocking on a door asking for their weapons because they
couldn't get a 95% proficiency in your shooting requirement.

They do, because they have done accurate scientific polling. There are also background checks, gun sales, and other things that are checked. Its why we know there are over 300 million guns out there.

Motorcycle ownership is also dropping.

Smoking is also dropping.

Culture is changing as it always does.

The generation born after 2000 will probably be the most anti-gun generation in history. Why? Because they had to through these damn mass shooter drills when they were children. Its scared them, in put most of them on the side of gun control instead of the pro gun NRA. They are the future and will change the laws of this country once they get into elected office and other positions of power.

 

[U2Edge]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

So, you're fine with the rich and famous being able to own guns, but the peons you think should be forced to be targets and victims.... Good to know.

I did not say there were exemptions for the rich and famous.

The rich and famous can circumvent every requirement you have put forth. So yes, in effect you are saying the rich and famous can have guns, but the poor and middle class may not. Why do you hate the poor and the middle class so much?

Well, with that logic, we should not have any laws because supposedly the rich and famous can just circumvent them and that is not fair to the poor. Sorry, the country, society, needs laws regardless of what you think the rich are capable of.

If you are going to whine like a 6 year old i suggest you leave this Board. You're not developed enough for it.

A society has to have laws regardless of what you think the wealthy class can do to circumvent those laws.

 

[U2Edge]

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

Irrelevant, because clearly the murder rate was lowest around 1902, when the number of guns per person were over twice what they are now.

We have always known what the cause of crime have been, and access to weapons has NEVER increased crime.

01. It increases the homicide rate because it easier to kill someone with a firearm than other methods available to civilians.

02. There are less accurate statistics available for earlier periods.

03. The country was much more rural in terms of where the population lived and self-sufficient. Your starting get back to the time when most people lived on farms. They were responsible for their own food, water, clothing, and many other things. Lifestyle and where the population lived back then makes exact comparisons with the modern day inaccurate.

 

[Meister]

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

You, the pollsters, and the government hasn't a clue how many households has firearms. So stop with your 31% BS...because that's all it is.
Remember this......393 MILLION firearms in America. Remember that when you go knocking on a door asking for their weapons because they
couldn't get a 95% proficiency in your shooting requirement.

They do, because they have done accurate scientific polling. There are also background checks, gun sales, and other things that are checked. Its why we know there are over 300 million guns out there.

Motorcycle ownership is also dropping.

Smoking is also dropping.

Culture is changing as it always does.

The generation born after 2000 will probably be the most anti-gun generation in history. Why? Because they had to through these damn mass shooter drills when they were children. Its scared them, in put most of them on the side of gun control instead of the pro gun NRA. They are the future and will change the laws of this country once they get into elected office and other positions of power.

I hate to say it, but you are so full of BS. If a pollster calls me....scientifically and asks if I own guns, and I say no.....it doesn't make that poll accurate.
There are more and more Americans not giving out information. I know this as fact. So please don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[U2Edge]

States with stricter gun control regulations have fewer mass shootings

Since there's no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate.... so?

Actually there is a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun homicide, but it is that where there are the most guns per household, like in rural America, there are less homicides.

And conversely, where there are the strictest gun control regulations, like Chicago, DC, etc., there are by far the MOST shootings.

That's because people in the cities can easily obtain weapons in the suburbs or countryside. You need state law or federal law to ban certain weapons or enact successful gun control.

Another factor is that cities are where most people live, so that is where the most violence takes place that could get someone killed.

Rural areas death rates are lower because fewer people live there.

No, you can not easily obtain weapons in the suburbs or countryside any more than the cities.
In fact, almost all dealers, gun shows, etc. are in the cities.
You do NOT at all need any federal or even state gun laws, because they can never work at all.
Have any federal or state laws stopped illegal drugs or alcohol during prohibition?
Of course not.
In fact, the more restrictive laws that people do not like, the more they will spend in order to deliberately thumb their nose at the obviously evil government.

It is true that cities are where most people live so there should be more murders, but cities with the most gun laws have a much higher murder rate per capita as well.
These are murder RATES, so are per capita. And clearly the red cities are much higher than the average that included the rural.

Any Cities individual gun control laws can be easily circumvented by going outside city limits to obtain the weapons. So its not accurate to say gun control laws don't work, because an individual cities laws don't work. Gun control laws have be made and enforced throughout the country in order for them to work.


Alcohol consumption went down during prohibition despite all the speak easies and other secret places that opened up and the smuggling. Violence went up, related to the smuggling and the crime. That's why prohibition was ended. People felt it was not worth the increased violence and crime rate.

Its always easier for the average joe to consume alcohol when you can go down to the local pub, rather than having to make it himself or find a secret establishment making it.

If you outlawed McDonalds or similar fast food establishments, consumption of McDonalds food would go way down.