This question centers on one particular type of argument used by pro gun people and legalization people.
Conservatives: "people and criminals will always be able to get guns, no matter what laws we pass."
Liberals: "people will always be able to find drugs, and will always want them no matter what laws we pass and how many fields we burn."
Same argument or no?
Personally, I feel regulation is smarter in both cases....
2007-04-18 03:01:34 · 7 answers · asked by b s 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It depends on the drugs and it depends on the guns.
Anybody who'd want to legalize heroin use I'll consider insane.
Anybody who advocates the unrestricted sale of Uzis or AK 47's I consider equally insane.
Regulated selling of Marijuana is worth arguing over.
Regulated selling of Hunting rifles is worth arguing over.
I am Dutch, our perspectives and our society differ considerably,on these issues.
Drugs in A'dam are illegal but personal use of Marijuana
is tolerated.
Certain guns are absolutely legal in Holland but the rules
are very strict.
Step out on the Street in Holland openly carrying a handgun and
you'll spend quite some time in jail.
2007-04-18 03:23:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Laws are for honest people.
Creating restrictions will only create more criminals. Take a look at the drug war for a perfect example.
Gun regulations also create killing zones within the country. Think about it, if you wanted to shoot a place up and you had a choice between a place that had more gun restrictions (i.e. a school where weapons are prohibited) or a place that had less restrictions where would you go?
A place with restrictions offers more of a guarantee that you won't be shot back at because, more than likely, it's going to be filled with law-abiding citizens.
You're right, though. Legal gun and drug arguments all siphon into the same pool of logic.
2007-04-18 03:11:04 · answer #2 · answered by ouranticipation 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Regulation is smart. However, forbidding the sale and use of drugs creates a black market and mostly victimless crime. Forbidding the ownership of a gun will force a law abiding citizen to choose between breaking the law or become a victim.
2007-04-18 03:07:15 · answer #3 · answered by nom de paix 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Mostly yes they are the same argument.
The weight of one is different from the other because there is no contitutional amendment protecting the right to take narcotics...
But a very good observation nonetheless!
2007-04-18 03:05:09 · answer #4 · answered by Paul McDonald 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
A firearm is simply a device. It can be used for productive purposes (protection of the innocent) or it can be used for ill
(the destruction of the inncoent) they are controlled to prevent misuse. Narcotics that can be used for medicinal purposes are legal but controled to prevent abuse.
Other narcotics are completely illegal because they have no productive purpose and cause only destruction. They are destructive to the person using them, they are destructive to society. If crack or heroin were legal to manufacture and distribute, how would addicts pay for it? Eventually, they would no longer be able to work and then what? Should the drugs be given to them for free? There are no free drugs. Someone has to pay for them. Who, the non-users?
You are not thinking rationally about this.
2007-04-18 03:18:16 · answer #5 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The point is if the guns were harder to get we would catch more people before they were able to do something like what happened in Virginia Tech.
2007-04-18 03:05:03 · answer #6 · answered by truthspeaker10 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes, same thing!
2007-04-18 03:04:45 · answer #7 · answered by BamBam 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋