The gun and drug arguments are inconsistent

[TNHarley]

Exhibit A : legalizing drugs wont work. The more access, the more drug users.
Exhibit B : Banning guns wont work. The more access to them, the less crimes committed.

Exhibit C : Keeping drugs illegal is helping a thriving black market.
Exhibit D : Banning guns will work. The black market will deplete.

WTF? You partisans are fucking retarded.
Obviously the arguments are paraphrased and i am sure everyone, but pogo, will understand.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear TNHarley
What is consistent in both cases:
if people have a criminal illness or addiction issue,
then they can abuse both drugs and guns to cause danger harm or death.

So in both cases, if you diagnose and treat the criminal illness
or mental disorder as the cause, then when a person is fully healed
they don't abuse either drugs or guns as a result. Problem solved!

 

[OldLady]

Exhibit A : legalizing drugs wont work. The more access, the more drug users.
Exhibit B : Banning guns wont work. The more access, the less crimes committed.

Exhibit C : Keeping drugs illegal is helping a thriving black market.
Exhibit D : Banning guns will work. The black market will deplete.

WTF? You partisans are fucking retarded.
Obviously the arguments are paraphrased and i am sure everyone, but pogo, will understand.

Banning guns wont work. The more access, the less crimes committed.
That doesn't make sense.

 

[TNHarley]

Exhibit A : legalizing drugs wont work. The more access, the more drug users.
Exhibit B : Banning guns wont work. The more access, the less crimes committed.

Exhibit C : Keeping drugs illegal is helping a thriving black market.
Exhibit D : Banning guns will work. The black market will deplete.

WTF? You partisans are fucking retarded.
Obviously the arguments are paraphrased and i am sure everyone, but pogo, will understand.

Banning guns wont work. The more access, the less crimes committed.
That doesn't make sense.

"more guns = less crime"

 

[Pop23]

Exhibit A : legalizing drugs wont work. The more access, the more drug users.
Exhibit B : Banning guns wont work. The more access, the less crimes committed.

Exhibit C : Keeping drugs illegal is helping a thriving black market.
Exhibit D : Banning guns will work. The black market will deplete.

WTF? You partisans are fucking retarded.
Obviously the arguments are paraphrased and i am sure everyone, but pogo, will understand.

Banning guns wont work. The more access, the less crimes committed.
That doesn't make sense.

No, it does. If only criminals have guns, then criminals will have greater access to their victims.

Not trying to be argumentative, but that is the argument

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Black markets exist when there is a large percentage of the population that is dissatisfied with the Authoritarian ban on goods or services.

In other words, some people are shitting on the rights of others because they want to control them.

The war on drugs is a huge failure, just like prohibition. ALL freedom lovers should hate the war on drugs.

 

[Confounding]

A very common sense argument, OP. Prepare to be disappointed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The concept that banning an item will prevent one from obtaining said item is naive at best. That is the general point.

 

[Pop23]

Exhibit A : legalizing drugs wont work. The more access, the more drug users.
Exhibit B : Banning guns wont work. The more access to them, the less crimes committed.

Exhibit C : Keeping drugs illegal is helping a thriving black market.
Exhibit D : Banning guns will work. The black market will deplete.

WTF? You partisans are fucking retarded.
Obviously the arguments are paraphrased and i am sure everyone, but pogo, will understand.

Exhibit "D" relies on Criminals obeying the law. There is no evidence of any black market ever depleting. The perfect example is Prohibition. We are not a small country, our borders are not secure. With the economic incentive that gangs and other criminals would have to illegally import, I could see a thriving black market for as far as you and I can see into the future. And, without law obeying citizens being armed, the type of gun a criminal would need would be relatively simple for an machinist to create.

 

[harmonica]

banning works in UK, France, Germany that reduces murders by many times the rate
drugs are for addicts/human ''consumption''/physiological--guns not

 

[Pop23]

Ummmm, if only it were so:

U.S. vs U.K. - Crime/Murder - iGeek

Here’s a simple plot of the murder rates over time, for the U.S. (using the FBI’s UCR / Universal Crime Report) and U.K. (using their ONS / Office of National Statistics). And I overlay when they each enacted or removed gun controls. What you notice is:

• If you look at the (the blue line): Each time the UK enacted or stiffened their gun control laws, they saw an increase in murder rates. Each new law, had no positive (and some negative) impact or an increase in murder rates. (Crime trends are even worse). (In the 1950’s they outlawed conceal and carry, in the 80’s it was shotguns, and in the late 90’s it was all pistols). So regardless of whether the UK has fewer murders than the US for cultural reasons, we know that gun control didn’t help the UK’s murder rate.
• Next if you look at the (the red line): I overlaid (and adjusted) the U.S. murder rates with major gun control events. After JFK was shot, states and eventually the Fed (1968) passed all sorts of gun control laws — and what happened to our murder rates? They doubled from around 5 to 10 per 100K over the next decade, and they hovered there, despite all sorts of state and federal revisions, or more laws (30,000 different state/local/federal gun control laws were passed in total). There was no significant positive effects, and some observable negative ones in the U.S. due to our gun control laws.
• Then in the late 80’s Florida passed “Must Issue” conceal and carry and castle doctrine laws were passed, and their crime/murder rates started falling noticeably. Many other states (in the South and Midwest) followed suit, with the same effects in their state murder rates, and eventually enough of those added up to start impacting the federal murder rates noticeably. Then the federal assault weapon ban expired — and if gun control worked, you’d expect an upward spike in murders, but murders trended down. Adding gun control had no positive effects, and removing them had no significant negative effects, in the U.S.!. So if you have the choice of tyranny or liberty, and there's no benefit to tyranny: opt for liberty.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And, without law obeying citizens being armed, the type of gun a criminal would need would be relatively simple for an machinist to create.

It really is fairly simple to create a functioning firearm with relatively inexpensive tools and materials that are used in many other industries.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's sort of like the whole argument that says -

'We need guns to fight a tyrannical government"

but these same people also say -

"The most important thing we need to fund is our military" (ie. the people we need to arm ourselves against)

Still trying to figure out that one.

 

[Pop23]

It's sort of like the whole argument that says -

'We need guns to fight a tyrannical government"

but these same people also say -

"The most important thing we need to fund is our military" (ie. the people we need to arm ourselves against)

Still trying to figure out that one.

You assume that the entire Military would align itself against the militia, which, in all likelihood, would not. The point is, a strong military is needed to fight the foe from without, not within.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's sort of like the whole argument that says -

'We need guns to fight a tyrannical government"

but these same people also say -

"The most important thing we need to fund is our military" (ie. the people we need to arm ourselves against)

Still trying to figure out that one.

So true. They vote to build the very military that may eventually result in their own demise.

I have no problem having a strong military at all. I would like the people to have somewhat comparable arms. Note that half the shit our military buys is used to play World Police.

 

[OldLady]

Exhibit A : legalizing drugs wont work. The more access, the more drug users.
Exhibit B : Banning guns wont work. The more access to them, the less crimes committed.

Exhibit C : Keeping drugs illegal is helping a thriving black market.
Exhibit D : Banning guns will work. The black market will deplete.

WTF? You partisans are fucking retarded.
Obviously the arguments are paraphrased and i am sure everyone, but pogo, will understand.

Exhibit "D" relies on Criminals obeying the law. There is no evidence of any black market ever depleting. The perfect example is Prohibition. We are not a small country, our borders are not secure. With the economic incentive that gangs and other criminals would have to illegally import, I could see a thriving black market for as far as you and I can see into the future. And, without law obeying citizens being armed, the type of gun a criminal would need would be relatively simple for an machinist to create.

Opium dens didn't exactly work.

 

[Confounding]

It's sort of like the whole argument that says -

'We need guns to fight a tyrannical government"

but these same people also say -

"The most important thing we need to fund is our military" (ie. the people we need to arm ourselves against)

Still trying to figure out that one.

The amount of money we spend on our military is obscene. We have bases all over the world and get involved in conflicts we shouldn't. I've never heard a sane justification for it.

 

[Pop23]

Exhibit A : legalizing drugs wont work. The more access, the more drug users.
Exhibit B : Banning guns wont work. The more access to them, the less crimes committed.

Exhibit C : Keeping drugs illegal is helping a thriving black market.
Exhibit D : Banning guns will work. The black market will deplete.

WTF? You partisans are fucking retarded.
Obviously the arguments are paraphrased and i am sure everyone, but pogo, will understand.

Exhibit "D" relies on Criminals obeying the law. There is no evidence of any black market ever depleting. The perfect example is Prohibition. We are not a small country, our borders are not secure. With the economic incentive that gangs and other criminals would have to illegally import, I could see a thriving black market for as far as you and I can see into the future. And, without law obeying citizens being armed, the type of gun a criminal would need would be relatively simple for an machinist to create.

Opium dens didn't exactly work.

Who needs em when you can just get them from Old Doctor Feelgood?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The amount of money we spend on our military is obscene. We have bases all over the world and get involved in conflicts we shouldn't. I've never heard a sane justification for it.

But, but, but.....we need to.....spread our brand of government throughout the world and keep the peace.


The World Police

 

[RDD_1210]

It's sort of like the whole argument that says -

'We need guns to fight a tyrannical government"

but these same people also say -

"The most important thing we need to fund is our military" (ie. the people we need to arm ourselves against)

Still trying to figure out that one.

The amount of money we spend on our military is obscene. We have bases all over the world and get involved in conflicts we shouldn't. I've never heard a sane justification for it.

Of course there is no justification for it.

But the reason we spend that money.....backroom deals and contracts to billion dollar corporations.