Subject:
|
Re: Drugs and guns
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:50:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
329 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > > 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? :-)
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 suspect the economic tragedy would rock the world, not just the US.
> Or, from another point of view, the utter failure to enforce those bans...
But only because it's impossible. For us to succeed in fighting our war on
drugs, we would have to clamp down a fascist military government and spend
every scrap of GDP on the fight. It might even require a colonial war against
the major producers of the problem substances so that we could wipe out the
crops. It would be wildly more logical to lift all the bans on drugs and deal
with the relatively inexpensive health problem.
> > 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.
Successful restriction is a phantom. What I'm railing against is the only
possible outcome.
> > > 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...
His point was that the police getting involved would cause him trouble. For
instance, it is possible in the US, that if your child uses drugs on your
property, your property can be seized by the local law enforcement agency, sold
to the highest bidder, and used to fund their operation. This could
potentially happen if a stranger happened upon your land and did the same. If
the same laws existed regarding gun posession, then you would never call the
police on an armed invader because they'd steal your home.
> What you're both getting at is that law enforcement fails.
Law enforcement in all places and all times has failed and will continue to
fail when the laws are unjust and the people aren't backing them. The people
of the US are largely disenfranchised with the legal system. And in some ways
we like it that way. That is, from a particular perspective, the point of our
rampant emphasis on individuality. Law enforcement will continue to fail; more
and more as the legal fist tightens.
> 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.
Except that the cost of enforcing such a law (whether it's a ban on narcotics
or firearms) is higher than the cost of letting it be. That's for us. I
acknowledge that your system is doing what you want it to do. Fine. I
wouldn't want to be 150% as likely to be victimized as I am now. But if you're
happy with that, then go for it. But I'd rather have guns, drugs, and freedom.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| (...) While the health problems may be relatively inexpensive (though I don't believe it to be so), the heath costs are, I think, considerably smaller than the longterm impact upon productivity. Opponents might point to tobacco, caffeine, and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| (...) Very concise! Y'all can talk about these issues until everyone is blue in the face (or at least blue in the typing fingers...) but in the United States we have de facto guns and drugs in the hands of anyone wanting them. Yes, we have laws and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Drugs and guns
|
| (...) 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. (...) Ah - a smiley. Hmm. Why am I (...) (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
|
|
|
|
