Ban or Legalise?

[Audley Strange]

I had a discussion the other day with a friend who was talking about the outrage in Norway and was railing against guns and suggesting more measures be taken to ban them in Europe and the U.S. I've got to say straight away that I'm no gun enthusiast, however as he was waffling on I realised that his arguments for banning guns were essentially the same arguments people use for keeping drugs illegal and he's a keen supporter on the legalisation of recreational drugs.

When I pointed this out he paused for a minute and said "well there is a massive difference" as if I should just accept that as correct, but I don't think it is, it seems to boil down drugs and guns are potentially dangerous especially if guns or drugs fall into the wrong hands, to prevent guns and drugs from falling into the wrong hands they must be banned.

That got me thinking.

Who would support a ban on the public owning guns but not the public using recreational drugs.

Who would support a gun owning public but keep drugs illegal.

Who would make both or neither legal.


Personally I remain unconvinced by any stance. All the same arguments come up with such sickening regularity that I'm uncertain as to why anyone would be convinced. So I thought I'd prefer to approach it this way.

So you are given the choice to make the law to ban or legalise either or both guns and drugs. What would be the ramifications of your choice being enacted. Do the potential benefits of continuing or going forward with your choice outweigh the potential to harm? Factor in the social with the economic the personal with the political.

I'd like to hear your own thoughts on this though, before you start bickering with someone else's view.

[Animavore]

Both should be legal. I haven't come across a logical argument for keeping either illegal.

[Eriku]

The European take on gun laws seems to be working better than that overseas, but I'm still kind of undecided on the whole issue. My gut tells me that guns should be very much restricted... They're outwardly directed when used, even if not aimed at another person. Drugs are about people and their rights over their own bodies. Irresponsible use may spill over into other's lives, but it's such a fundamental principle that I can't say any reason to deny, coupled with the experimenting with such laws in other countries leads to the conclusion that it lowers crime and usage, and promotes better health (mortality rates, diseases) and more functional, productive lives. So I unequivocally reckon drugs should be legal and controlled.

[Robert_S]

Drugs: legalize and regulate.

I think the best approach to guns would have to do with how much they are already proliferated in the society in question and how much crime there is.

[irretating]

Drugs: legalize and regulate.

I think the best approach to guns would have to do with how much they are already proliferated in the society in question and how much crime there is.

Agreed. Imagine how fantastic it would be to see drug cartels just collapse and go out of business!

[Robert_S]

Drugs: legalize and regulate.

I think the best approach to guns would have to do with how much they are already proliferated in the society in question and how much crime there is.

Agreed. Imagine how fantastic it would be to see drug cartels just collapse and go out of business!

We should criminalize Bibles and Korans for a while, so they have time to adjust to the new circumstances.

[Loki]

Guns are heavily regulated here and have been for some time.

You can own some types subject to regulation and restrictions on how and when they can be stored, transported and used. Concealed weapons licenses are heavily restricted to those who can justify them for their employment (i.e. very few).

The upside of this is that while people will always be able to get their hands on them if they really want too most people don't, and most people don't spend time talking about them, and I can walk down the street without wondering what ordinance other pedestrians have shoved down their knickers and whether they might suddenly decide to wave them about.

The lack of readily available firepower does not appear to have had any detrimental effects on society. Arguably the opposite.

[Robert_S]

Guns are heavily regulated here and have been for some time.

You can own some types subject to regulation and restrictions on how and when they can be stored, transported and used. Concealed weapons licenses are heavily restricted to those who can justify them for their employment (i.e. very few).

The upside of this is that while people will always be able to get their hands on them if they really want too most people don't, and most people don't spend time talking about them, and I can walk down the street without wondering what ordinance other pedestrians have shoved down their knickers and whether they might suddenly decide to wave them about.

The lack of readily available firepower does not appear to have had any detrimental effects on society. Arguably the opposite.

If there were a lot of firearms about and your society decided it was a bad idea and they needed to be banned, how do you think it would go?

[Loki]

Guns are heavily regulated here and have been for some time.

You can own some types subject to regulation and restrictions on how and when they can be stored, transported and used. Concealed weapons licenses are heavily restricted to those who can justify them for their employment (i.e. very few).

The upside of this is that while people will always be able to get their hands on them if they really want too most people don't, and most people don't spend time talking about them, and I can walk down the street without wondering what ordinance other pedestrians have shoved down their knickers and whether they might suddenly decide to wave them about.

The lack of readily available firepower does not appear to have had any detrimental effects on society. Arguably the opposite.

If there were a lot of firearms about and your society decided it was a bad idea and they needed to be banned, how do you think it would go?

There was and they did and it's gone fine.

We never had a gun culture as ingrained as say America's, but guns were fairly ubiquitous in that a fair proportion and possibly a majority of households had at least one (I imagine a lot like our case where there was an old hunting rifle slowly disintegrating in the back shed) and a license was not required to own or purchase or sell a weapon.

It took a nasty massacree type event (look up Port Arthur and Martin Bryant for some background, was the day before my wedding so I can usually remember our anniversary) for something to happen but happen it did. Automatic weapons were banned outright (and most semi-automatics as well, going on memory here, not something I've ever had a need to know really), lots of weapons were taken off the streets in a government buy-back and licenses brought in for those who just couldn't live without a firearm of some sort. One has to specify what they want a license for and "personal defence" is not a legitimate reason.

I suspect only a small group of shooting sportsman and possibly some primary producers have actually been inconvenienced in any real way, they are required to belong to a shooting club and have up to date licenses and participate in a number of events and training sessions each year and and are restricted in number and type of weapons they can own. There are still crimes committed with weapons and illegal weapons are still coming in but for most people most of the time firearms are unheard and unseen and out of mind.

I imagine European countries might find it more difficult if they decided to go down that route, not having land borders makes traffic easier (though not easy) to manage.

[Gallstones]

Drugs: stop prosecuting and incarcerating people for possessing and using drugs that are less harmful than nicotine and alcohol. Nicotine should be a schedule 1, marijuana should not.

Leave my guns alone too.

Bugger off co-dependent and controlling assholes.

[FBM]

Legalize everything. Let Darwin have the wheel again.

[Thinking Aloud]

There's a significant difference between guns and drugs. Who takes the consequences if you use drugs? You do. Who takes the consequences if you use a gun? Someone else.

Thus I can understand how people would support the legalisation of drugs (as taking drugs is something you consent to doing to yourself) but not the legalisation of guns (as the person you shoot has most likely not consented to you doing that).

[Hermit]

There's a significant difference between guns and drugs. Who takes the consequences if you use drugs? You do. Who takes the consequences if you use a gun? Someone else.

Thus I can understand how people would support the legalisation of drugs (as taking drugs is something you consent to doing to yourself) but not the legalisation of guns (as the person you shoot has most likely not consented to you doing that).

Exactly.

I am not exactly in favour of legalising "hard" drugs, but I do advocate their decriminalisation. That would pull the carpet out from under organised crime and it would lower insurance rates by about 80%. That's approximately the proportion of burglaries, car thefts and robberies due to addicts financing their addiction.

As for guns, I am totally against them. While gun control legislation in Australia has not reduced the homicide rate, nor has it increased the rate of violent crime, so that is not a factor for my opinion. What I do fear about the free availability of firearms is that our local communists and crypto-communists will find it easy to arm themselves, overthrow our democratically elected government and impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Audley Strange]

Thanks folks.

A few points.

@Animavore. That's my instinctive reaction too, but then I think that given legal drugs and guns certain areas of Glasgow and no doubt other cities would have areas that were constantly reminiscent of the last 20 minutes of Killing Zoe.

@Eriku. Legal and controlled, licenced? Who does the controlling, a government enforcement agency or the shopkeeper? Why do they need to be controlled? Seraph points out that gun control legislation has not reduced the homicide rate in Australia. Given that and that by restricting guns you are creating an unregistered and unguarded black market in which only criminals have guns by definition is it not also a matter for people to have their rights when it comes to having the ability or illusion of ability to defend themselves?

@FBM He's always at the wheel, there's just a lot of back seat drivers trying to convince you otherwise.

@Thinking aloud. So when you let that arrow go, you were aiming it at someone? They took the consequences for your actions? Or were you just having fun? Your arguments don't really work. No one really consents being hit by a car, or knifed or kicked to death by a gang of teenagers but be don't ban cars knives and trainers.

@ Seraph. Personally, I think you may hit the nail in the head. The restrictions on guns do seem less about reasoning societal negatives or benefits and more about political expedience.

[Cormac]

Guns and drugs are not categorically the same when it comes to arguments about the damage caused.

Guns, when used in breach of the law have immediate and direct effect, both social and personal. Drugs do not.

They are similar when it comes down to individual rights.

Drugs should be legalised, because:

1. It offers the possibility of immediately shutting down the business opportunity exploited by drug barons.
2. It opens the possibility of better intervention opportunities to help addicts who suffer destructive impacts in their lives, if you are so inclined.
3. It will radically reduce police expenditure on futile "war on drugs" activities and either focus on other criminal activities, or reduce the cost of policing to the taxpayer.
4. It offers the possibility of reducing or removing the need for addicts to commit crimes to feed habits.

I'm a bit ambivalent about gun control. Part of me instinctively likes the concept of an armed citizenry, as a safety mechanism against tyranny, also for shooting dead people who break into your home.

On the other hand, I am wary of the vast number of arseholes that comprise the human race.