Well, not exactly. The reasoning wasn't "we can ban this, so we will", it was justified in terms of the harms those substances caused (and the hemp paper thing is a myth/conspiracy theory). And Prohibition did have positive outcomes, it decreased alcohol consumption and alcohol related deaths and some alcohol driven crimes such as domestic violence (and created entirely new crimes in other areas, yes, but on a much smaller scale).
"Restricting rights" isn't bad. Public decency laws constrain people's right to dress how they choose, perhaps you'll be campaigning against them next?
The issue at play here is if a proposed regulation causes harm, and if so, to what degree in comparison to the good it does. Prohibition is a good example of this. Rught now, something like a hundred thousand people die because of alcohol consumption a year (meaning liver issues, DUI related deaths, etc), and an unknown but very, very high number of violent crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol, and in exchange we get.....what exactly? I feel like the cost/benifit is tilted pretty far in the "Carrie Nation Was Right" direction on that one.
Circling back to armor, I've suggested that some age related restrictions on level III and IV armor might have merit. Will it save hundred of lives? No, probably not, but it also won't carry a substantial cost either, given how niche an issue this is, and quite possibly i lt comes at no cost if there's a route left often for people that would other be blocked from buying armor to get an exemption.
I certainly could be wrong, but "it's immoral to restrict anything for any reason, you're just like those 1920s ladies that thought a hundred gangsters killing each other was better than a thousand drunkards killing themselves" is not really a compelling counterarguement.
I'm not sure about that, since each additional crime they commit prior to excuting thier plan makes it more likely they'll be caught and stopped before they can pull it off.
You're importing anti gun control arguements into a field where they don't apply. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is accurate because America has far too many guns floating about for any ban on them to have any hope of cutting criminals off from access to firearms, and because the utility of firearms for criminal purposes is strong to create a market for them. Those same factors do not apply to body armor.
