In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

1) How, exactly, would a law prohibiting the private possession of
firearms
prevent criminals -- that is, those who don't obey laws anyway -- from
possessing them?

I never said it would. Although since the criminal has to get the gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for the
bad guys to get them too. However I don't consider this a deal breaker.

I come from a country where gun ownership has been largely
prohibited for decades. The bad guys don't seem to find
a problem obtaining firearms. The bad guys are armed and
the good guys are not! This would be the result, as sure
as night follows day. Does that sound like a desirable
state of affairs to you?

2) Consider that there are already a multitude of laws in place
prohibiting
the possession of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and so forth. What
reason is there to believe that a law prohibiting the possession of
firearms
will be any more effective at preventing their possession than are the
current
laws pertaining to those, and other, drugs?

People break speed laws all the time. They drive drunk all the time,
should we eliminate those laws? Should we eliminate the laws against drugs?

Many progressives think we should (eliminate the drug laws).
We did eliminate the prohibition on alcohol and one doesn't
hear too many complaints about that.

However, you're proposing to prohibit legitimate (currently
legal) gun ownership. That's more akin to prohibiting the
legitimate (prescribed) use of drugs simply because that
substance has some POTENTIAL for abuse. That's just great
news for the terminally ill!

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~