Subject:
|
Re: Drugs and guns
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:16:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
334 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > Hmm...I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic directly with me or if you
> > were merely adding more humor...
>
> I don't think it was humor. I think he was being snotty.
I was replying in kind. Take it as you please, but I wasn't the first. My
point was that it's a bad analogy because even with narcotic/alcohol
prohibition, the first thing the criminals do is arm themselves.
> > Making guns illegal will only make things worse.
>
> Only if you consider a national bloodbath and endless guerilla war "bad." :-)
Ah - a smiley. Hmm. Why am I still not completely sure of your stance on
this issue? :-)
> > Narcotics were only an habitual problem involving a few accidental deaths
> > until they were banned...now we've got a multi-billion dollar-a-year crime
> > problem...
>
> Ayup! And you know why we won't end the war on drugs? Because the police
> support it. You know why? Because it is the most profitable thing to happen
> to law enforcement in the history of the world. I read a thing about a year
> ago suggesting that the police were actively protecting the drug trade
> (producers and dealers) so that they could snatch the property of rich users
> and fund their departments and graft.
I see a pattern emerging here...
> > When alcholhol was banned, a similiar problem arose...
>
> Ayup! And the alchol problems largely went away. Unfortunately, a bunch of
> bad people got rich during prohibition and their social progeny are still
> carrying on their legacy of organized crime. But of course it's better than
> it would have been if we hadn't repealed that dreadful mistake.
>
> > Do you really think it wise to ban guns knowing the repurcussions of past
> > attempts to ban potentialy lethal luxuries?
Or, from another point of view, the utter failure to enforce those bans...
> That seems to be their (The Brits) general stance. They think they know so
> much about our horrific gun culture. They only see the bad and don't
> recognize the good as existing. And for all their hype about our gun
> culture, they don't seem to understand what the result of successful
> restriction would be.
The result of successful restriction would be quite favourable. What you're
railing against is the result of unsuccessful restriction.
> > Give me a break, the last thing I need is for my life to be turned upside
> > down because of some yahoo shooting his illegal gun somewhere on my forty
> > acre property...(an opinionated reference to some outrageous narcotics laws).
So, call the police...
What you're both getting at is that law enforcement fails. When you ban
something, you assume (a resonable assumption, I'll admit) that there will
be some amount of criminal flouting of that ban. But, also, that that
amount will be unacceptably high. I put it to you that this is down to poor
enforcement, not a flaw in the principle.
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| (...) :-) (...) The smiley was meant (though obviously unsuccessfully) to point to my silly irony and indicate that such a result would _not_ be the best possible outcome. But I do think that it would be the outcome of a gun ban in the US. And I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| (...) I don't think it was humor. I think he was being snotty. (...) Only if you consider a national bloodbath and endless guerilla war "bad." :-) (...) Ayup! And you know why we won't end the war on drugs? Because the police support it. You know (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
