I oppose Gun “Control” for the same reason I oppose Drug “Control.”
The War on Drugs and the War on Guns have both led to increases in violent crime rates, because both create a black market. (Yes, I have statistics proving this.)
Gun “Control” did not stop Columbine, just as Prohibition does not stop drug use or alcohol use. Gun “Control” disarms innocent civilians, but does nothing to stop criminals (who don’t obey the law anyway) from acquiring guns on the black market. The laws against drugs artificially drive up their price, thus encouraging inner-city youth to drop out of school and join gangs, wherein they can make a huge profit. But gangs have turf-wars, and shoot-outs. You never see Budweiser having shoot-outs with Jack Daniels.
A truly free-market solution is to decriminalize all guns and drugs, thus taking them out of the black market. Violent crime rates will then drop.
So, I ask you, are you a hypocrite who opposes one yet supports the other? If so, why?
2006-08-26 16:37:06 · 16 answers · asked by Alexander S. Peak 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I oppose both as well, but I don't think people who are on different sides on of these issues are necessarily hypocrites. For one thing, gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, whereas drug usage is not (although I don't know how the court reconciles the difference between a "right to privacy" with respect to abortion but not drugs).
The argument against drugs has more to do with the general societal degradations associated with drug use, rather than protecting an individual from themselves - whereas gun ownership is not just a right, but can be argued for as a means of self defense. In any case, it is certainly possible to draw the lines differently in these two issues. You have to make different arguments to oppose gun control vs opposing drug control.
2006-08-26 16:58:30 · answer #1 · answered by Will 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well thats easy. If criminals with violent pasts could just waltz into a gun shop and buy what they wanted then 100% would do just that.
If they have to hunt for them on the black market the rate is less than 100% and crime goes down a bit.
Decriminalizing drugs just means that the guy at your house
doing the wiring might be stoned, and the next day your house
might burn down with your wife and children inside.
Yeah just call me a hypocrite!
2006-08-26 16:42:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, no hypocricy here. I dont think that strict controlls on either really protect the public. I do however see one aspect that makes the two strikingly different. Guns often kill innocent people at the wrong end of the weapon. Most of the time, when drugs kill people its self inflicted. I see how the two relate as well. Guns and big money drug trafficking go hand in hand. Its all f-ed up, and we owe that to to meddling interests of our oh so incompetent leadership(s) over the years.
2006-08-26 16:49:55 · answer #3 · answered by prancingmonkey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can see decriminalizing pot, but when it comes to stuff like crack, I get rather uneasy. Stoners aren't normally violent; I believe that marijuana could be regulated more or less the same way alcohol is. However, legalizing some of the harder drugs could cause problems; I'd be much more concerned about letting my family out knowing there were coke fiends and crackheads and such wandering the neighborhood.
2006-08-26 16:46:36 · answer #4 · answered by Chris S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The laws that are in place simply need to be better enforced, which would mean more money into law enforcement but this day and age we can't even properly fund our schools with all the wasteful spending so regardless of your intelligent idea, it WILL not get any better until we have a better leadership in office.
2006-08-26 16:42:36 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
first, how does that make you a hypocrite? I am for drug control, but seeing as I dont' purchase drugs illegally I am not a hypocrite. Those are 2 entirely different issues.
However I do think we should maintain the right to bear arms, I think we should have tougher penalties for gun carelessness.
Comparing the 2 is like saying I like cake and pie?
2006-08-26 17:02:15 · answer #6 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Simple. It's a basic Constitutional issue. The Second Ammendment guarantees the Right To Bear Arms. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the right to buy crack.
2006-08-26 16:56:55 · answer #7 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Im against laws for either one. Criminals will not let the law stop them from anything, so whats the point?
2006-08-30 11:24:32 · answer #8 · answered by chuckdiesel99 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My only concern about gun control is that you can not come up with a compelling reason to own a Mac-10.
Bambi does not wear body armor.
The war on drugs failed. period
2006-08-26 16:59:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Legalize regulate and tax is the key to victory.
2006-08-26 17:42:02 · answer #10 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋