Should both drugs and guns be legal?
- Thread starter DeLamar.J
- Start date
Cruentus
Grandmaster
lvwhitebir said:
Sure... :iws: :bs1: :bs1: Bullstuff, Bullstuff, oh...and more bullstuff.
If drugs were legal tomorrow, you wouldn't have anymore addicts a year from now, or 5 years from now, then you we do today. People who are going to do drugs are going to do them regardless of the laws, and people who don't do them aren't going to start just because it is legal. These "crazy" people who would do anything to get their next fix are going to be the same whether it is legal or not. People who are going to use drugs to "prey" on others will do so regardless of the laws. You can throw people in jail for stealing or hurting someone to get drugs. You can throw people in jail if they use drugs to prey on someone else. You seperate the victimless crime drug users and experimentors from the real criminals by making drugs legal.
Also, you can regulate crimes where there are actualy victims involved. You can regulate neglegence if someone is endangering someone else (like driving under the influence). We should not be regulating what someone puts into their own bodies.
If Drugs were legal, then there wouldn't be a black market out there selling bad s**t that kills people. Manufacterers would be required to disclose what is in their product, and the damages it could cause. Plus if it was legal today, no more people would be "users" then if it stayed illegal, so to say that half the population will wake up in 10 years with brain damage is pure BUUUULLLLLLSHHHHHSSSTUUUUFFFFF!
I think that making it illegal for violent criminals to own firearms is a fine thing. However, I agree that the rest of the population should be able to own what they want. :ultracool
Flatlander
Grandmaster
From page 94 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
From page 97:
KenpoTex
Senior Master
No we can't...that is, unless we take the bad guys off the street permanently (harsher penalties anyone?)lvwhitebir said:
Why should you be required to wait "a week or two?" Waiting periods have never been linked to any measurable decrease in crime. I can even say with confidence that they have been responsible for the deaths of innocent people because a person had to wait for "a week or two" before getting a weapon with which to protect themselves (There have been documented cases but I don't feel like digging right now). And don't try to say "just call the cops," meaning no disrespect whatsoever to any member of a LE agency, they ain't gonna be there 24/7 (and they're not required to protect you anyway but that's another discussion)lvwhitebir said:
??? since when do veteran criminals have any right to own firearms? It is illegal for convicted felons, and people dishonorably discharged from the military etc. to even attempt to obtain a weapon.lvwhitebir said:
Like Seig said, Australia just banned swords (you have to have a license and keep it/them locked in a safe). England is even worse, if you are caught with anything that could be used as a weapon you're in trouble, and forget actually defending yourself.Kane said:
I think its pretty funny that as a "law abiding citizen" I had to wait 3 days to purchase a handgun, but had I chosen to do so, I could have purchased one illegally in my neighborhood for about half what I paid for mine, and gotten it in 20 minutes.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced waiting periods deter criminals in the least.
And When I purchased my shotgun, it was a 24 hour wait for a shotgun, or a 3 day wait for a pistol grip shotgun. But I could buy the shotgun and a pistol grip together, as separate items, and pick it up in 24 hours, and screw the pistol grip on in about 10 minutes. (probably less, but I had trouble finding a screwdriver) So why the 3 day wait for a pistol grip shotgun? Stupid stupid laws.
Our gun control laws are stupid paranoia at best... ANYONE with an IQ over 50 should know you CANNOT stop criminals from obtaining guns by making them difficult to obtain legaly. By the very definition of "CRIMINAL" it should be obvious that they don't CARE if the law says they can or cannot have one.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced waiting periods deter criminals in the least.
And When I purchased my shotgun, it was a 24 hour wait for a shotgun, or a 3 day wait for a pistol grip shotgun. But I could buy the shotgun and a pistol grip together, as separate items, and pick it up in 24 hours, and screw the pistol grip on in about 10 minutes. (probably less, but I had trouble finding a screwdriver) So why the 3 day wait for a pistol grip shotgun? Stupid stupid laws.
Our gun control laws are stupid paranoia at best... ANYONE with an IQ over 50 should know you CANNOT stop criminals from obtaining guns by making them difficult to obtain legaly. By the very definition of "CRIMINAL" it should be obvious that they don't CARE if the law says they can or cannot have one.
lvwhitebir said:
Well, that's already been accomplished in the Brady Bill. For a criminal to even attempt to purchase a gun causes them to serve a mandatory sentence in a federal pound-me-in-@55-prison of no less than 2 years. Sad thing is, gun crime is greater than it was when we didn't have government control. When my dad was a kid back in the 50s, he bought handguns through the mail. No background checks. No waiting period. No government control. Funny, isn't it?
The main reason for gun violence is culture. If you really study the numbers, the majority of gun crimes happen in inner cities. These tend to be the poorest policed, and the most dangerous places to live. It's where you'll see a lot of crack babies, teen pregnancies, drug use, and crime. The answer to gun violence is not by removing a tool, it's by instituting social reform. But no, it's too politically incorrect to say what needs to be done, so nobody says it.
As for drugs, well, I would say if tobacco is legal, then marijauna should be legal. Nothing harder than that, though. Marijauna is relatively harmless. It's when people start using ecstasy, lsd, heroin, crack, etc that they really screw themselves over. Legalizing harder drugs would seem to be voting more people dead, in my view.
It is funny (strange, not ha ha), but it's not a causal relationship. As you go on to say, it's about the culture. The 1950's were a different time.
I would agree that social reform is necessary, I'm wondering why that's politically incorrect - unless you are referring to some sort of novel eugenics movement, in which case I'd shoot that right down (ha ha, oh the puns). I don't think crack babies cause people to use guns in violent crime, nor do teen pregnancies (which have dropped dramatically in the last several decades in the USA - I believe there were more teen pregnancies in the 50's and 60's, although I will have to check my stats). We *do* need social reform, but I'm not sure what kind you are referring to.
If people can get guns illegally if they want, they can get illegal drugs if they want too - sometimes "cut" with substances worse than the drug. If that's the argument for widening gun ownership, I think the same holds true for drug use. Drugs can do terrible things to people who take them. Guns can do terrible things to anyone targeted.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Kane said:
That's the point. Prisons should be for people who commit crimes against the person or against property. Going to jail for a bag of pot and then getting gang raped and turned into a prison "bi**h" for your time in certainly could be classified as cruel and unusual. It just doesn't make sense.
Where have we come in a society where we'd put a man in jail for 25 years for selling a bag of pot, and his cell mate is doing eight years for offing some guy with a gun?
Regards,
Steve
deadhand31 said:
The Brady Bill is crap. All it does is limit legal citizens from getting weapons they have the constitutional right to own. The bill limits felons from buying guns legally, which most would never do anyway, considering they can get guns cheaper and easier on the street. All felons have already been to "pound-me-in-@55-prison" and come out stronger, more violent and with less of an issue returning. Consequently, most state prisons are tougher than federal ones, due to looser regulations. The Brady Bill is a "warm hug" law signed in to make housewives and suburbanites sleep better. It has little or no effect on criminals with the exception of limiting the amount of available "assault weapons".
OK, so if the Brady Bill is "crap", how DO we limit criminals from getting guns? I'd like to hear any possible solution other than "there's no way".
Feisty Mouse said:
You can't limit the availability of guns, there are just too many and there is just too much availability. Currently we are focusing on the method, not the motivation. If you take away a method, they will find a new one; take away their guns and they will use knives; take away their ability to legally buy guns, they will buy them illegally. It even reflects in the over-litigous court systems of today, in how we punish legal enablers more than criminals. It's sad that many think it is okay to sue a legal manufacturer and not the person who took the criminal action; the gun manufacturer, not the criminal (because the criminal has no money to win [because he was poor enough or addicted enough to rob for it]).
The solution lies, as stated before by yourself and HHJH, in changing the culture of fear and predation in America. I know that I'm opening up a heated discussion, but here comes the storm, I first would suggest allowing full ownership and carrying rights to everyone, but felons. This levels the playing field and discourages violent crime. I would secondly suggest social programs in high crime/extremely low income areas that focus on replacing the motivations of violent crime, like gangs, poverty and addiction. This not only reduces crime, but cures other social ills also. Thirdly I would crack down even harder on how prisons are run and what goes on in them. Too many people go in there light and come out hardcore. If it's not a gladiator school then we won't get cons coming out like they just graduated a criminal finishing school. As with most complicated problems there is no one solution, but many combinations of many solutions.
Sounds good to me - you have my vote.
I like your third point, which isn't often discussed, I think - the way prisons are run, the assumption that you will get seriously messed with (raped, etc) in prison - how is that creating people we want released back into society?Good points.
Feisty Mouse said:Sounds good to me - you have my vote.
Good points.
I always thought about running for office, but I got so many skeletons in my closet that they should call it a graveyard, and I'm only 26, plus I don't even want to think about what a spin doctor could do with my internet tracks.
:angel:
Flatlander
Grandmaster
Some other things that need to be adressed are:
a) education - I think that by allowing all non-criminals to carry, it needs to be balanced with the assurance that those who have guns aren't making it easy for those that don't to steal them. These things need to be secure.
b) stricter border controls - if illegal guns aren't coming in, they can't be bought.
c) stricter control of legal distribution - there need be more checks in place to be certain the vendors of weapons are following the rules.
d) extreme punishment - now, this applies more to Canada than the US. In Canada, the sentences being handed down to violent criminals are farcical. They are neither an opportunity for rehabilitation nor a deterrent. However, if you were staring down a possibility of life in prison w/o parole, that may give you cause to pause and think.
a) education - I think that by allowing all non-criminals to carry, it needs to be balanced with the assurance that those who have guns aren't making it easy for those that don't to steal them. These things need to be secure.
b) stricter border controls - if illegal guns aren't coming in, they can't be bought.
c) stricter control of legal distribution - there need be more checks in place to be certain the vendors of weapons are following the rules.
d) extreme punishment - now, this applies more to Canada than the US. In Canada, the sentences being handed down to violent criminals are farcical. They are neither an opportunity for rehabilitation nor a deterrent. However, if you were staring down a possibility of life in prison w/o parole, that may give you cause to pause and think.
KenpoTex
Senior Master
The last several posters (flatlander, fiesty, OULobo) have all made some good points. a couple of thoughts...
1) The original brady-bill was a worthless piece of legislation that served to do nothing other than restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. it was so bad that an Arizona Sheriff by the name of Richard Mack successfully sued the U.S. Government becuase it would have been unconstitutional to require him to enforce it. He won. In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled that the waiting periods were illegal. This is when we got the NICS system (for more on this check out the thread in the firearms room)
2) The "Assault Weapons" Ban was a worthless piece of legislation because it not only targeted a class of weapons that are rarely used in violent crime (less than 4%), it has had no measureable effect on crime. Even the gun-grabbers admitt this yet they're still trying to get it made permanent.
3) Guns don't cause crime!!! When guns are banned and the rights of the law-abiding citizens restricted, crime increases. Take a look at England.
Okay, I'm done ranting about the gun thing.
I personally think that the biggest thing we (the country) could do to reduce crime would be to implement reforms in the correctional system. What I mean by this is not allowing rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals to walk free after serving only a few years of their sentances (in other words, we need harsher penalties and we need to use them!). Since most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, not letting them back out to repeat their crimes sounds like a good start. I don't believe in rehabilitation for these types of criminals because it doesn't work. If we're going to spend time rehabilitating anyone it needs to be done the first time some juvenile delinquent gets busted for shoplifting, not 5 years later when he has progressed to armed robbery and/or murder.
1) The original brady-bill was a worthless piece of legislation that served to do nothing other than restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. it was so bad that an Arizona Sheriff by the name of Richard Mack successfully sued the U.S. Government becuase it would have been unconstitutional to require him to enforce it. He won. In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled that the waiting periods were illegal. This is when we got the NICS system (for more on this check out the thread in the firearms room)
2) The "Assault Weapons" Ban was a worthless piece of legislation because it not only targeted a class of weapons that are rarely used in violent crime (less than 4%), it has had no measureable effect on crime. Even the gun-grabbers admitt this yet they're still trying to get it made permanent.
3) Guns don't cause crime!!! When guns are banned and the rights of the law-abiding citizens restricted, crime increases. Take a look at England.
Well Said!OULobo said:
Okay, I'm done ranting about the gun thing.
I personally think that the biggest thing we (the country) could do to reduce crime would be to implement reforms in the correctional system. What I mean by this is not allowing rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals to walk free after serving only a few years of their sentances (in other words, we need harsher penalties and we need to use them!). Since most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, not letting them back out to repeat their crimes sounds like a good start. I don't believe in rehabilitation for these types of criminals because it doesn't work. If we're going to spend time rehabilitating anyone it needs to be done the first time some juvenile delinquent gets busted for shoplifting, not 5 years later when he has progressed to armed robbery and/or murder.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
kenpotex said:
Its interesting to note that there was some liberal discontent with the AW ban. Mike Wallace took Diane Feinstein to task for what liberals perceived to be an emasculated bill. Feinstein kept saying..."I'll have to get back to you on that." Makes one wonder if she read the bill. She clearly didn't know anything about guns.
The ban outlawed cosmetic appearances...things like bayonet lugs (to stop those mass bayonettings on school grounds) and did't really accomplish its intent.
As far as recividism...I'm not sure some of the hard cases can't be rehabilitated. Until we find a way that is effective, I agree that violent criminals need to be put away for a long time.
Regards,
Steve
